Stardust manager Eamon Butterly has told an inquest jury that management at the club was not “up to dealing with fire” and agreed it was "not fit for purpose”.
He agreed with lawyers that the only preparation for the possibility of a blaze at the nightclub was that he would “ring the fire brigade”.
Mr Butterly also confirmed that management had responded to “relatively trivial” issues by locking the doors while patrons were on the premises and that this was an “extreme reaction”.
Management
Asked by Bernard Condon SC, for ten of the families of the deceased if management at the club were up to dealing with problems that arose, Mr Butterly said: “They weren’t up to dealing with fire, that’s for sure.”
“That’s the truest word you’ve ever said,” Mr Condon replied. “They weren’t up to it.”
Mr Butterly was givng evidence to the inquest at Dublin District Coroner’s Court after eight days in the witness box.
Under cross-examination, he told Mr Condon: “I’ve said all along we didn’t know how to give the instructions, I wasn’t qualified.”
This is extraordinary that you would sit there and say that without acknowledging what an extraordinary failure that was,” the barrister said.
“It was terrible,” the witness replied.
“Why didn’t you get someone else who was an expert ,” the barrister asked. “Why wouldn’t you get someone else who did know what they were talking about. I want to ask you that question. Why didn’t you get someone else to do it?”
At the time I didn’t, if it was now I would,” said Mr Butterly. “I didn’t. That’s all I can say. If Dublin Fire Brigade or an inspector told us what to do about that it would have been done.”
“It’s always someone else isn’t it Mr Butterly, it was always someone else,” counsel said.
He asked Mr Butterly if, considering there were up to 1,000 people on the premises, the only thought he gave to the possibility of how he would deal with a fire was to ring the fire brigade.
“Is that it?” “Yeah,” Mr Butterly replied.
Something fell through cracks
Mr Condon put it to the former nightclub manager, on his last day in the witness box, that this was his opportunity to say :“Something fell through the cracks” and the doors were “not opened” on the night of the fire.
“Because you know that to be so, and you know that Tom Kennan never told you that he unlocked the doors, because he didn’t.”
Counsel suggested that any attempt to “try and dress that up” as being the truth was “an affront to decency” and an affront “to the families of those who have suffered”.
“So can you please tell us now the truth,” the barrister said.
In response, Mr Butterly said: “At 11.30pm in the Silver Swan Tom Kennan told me that 'all the doors are open'.”
“Even in that answer Mr Butterly you expose yourself as a liar because yesterday you agreed with Mr Fahy that it could have been 12am,” Mr Condon said.
He put it to the former manager that once again he went back to “a mantra”.
“Has that just made you be able to continue to face what has happened? That you believe this yourself? Have you convinced yourself of this?” Mr Condon asked.
“I do believe it, I haven’t convinced myself,” Mr Butterly replied.
Mr Condon put it to Mr Butterly that welding the windows of the toilets shut to “stop a few bottles of vodka getting in the window” was “extreme”.
Mr Butterly responded that these windows weren’t fire escapes.
“When people are desperate, they will attempt to get out any way they can and one must allow for that possibility,” said Mr Condon, adding that some of the most harrowing evidence given in the inquest was witnesses who heard people “screaming for their very lives” behind “welded walls”.
“It could be an access to some air which could have been a great assistance to these people,” said counsel.
He said this was an “extreme reaction” consistent with another “extreme reaction” to relatively trivial matters which was to lock the doors while patrons were on the premises.
“Isn’t that so Mr Butterly?” “Yes,” the witness replied.
“And the management of a company which was doing that is not a management fit for purpose is it?” asked counsel.
“If you say so,” Mr Butterly replied.
The lawyer suggested to Mr Butterly that one of the most “egregious” and “offensive” things he had said was the assertion that the locking of the doors was “forced” on him by the fact that a large number of people were getting in free due to the actions of their friends.
Mr Butterly agreed that he had “plenty of other options” including putting “a man on each door”.
“So it wasn’t forced on you. It was a choice you made,” counsel said.
Security
Mr Condon said the disco on the night of the fire was an over 21’s event, yet 83 per cent of the people there that night were under 21 and there were 65 people there who were aged 14, 15 and 16.
Mr Butterly said it was the job of the doormen who monitor who was let in.
“You were there too,” Mr Condon said. “You were there overseeing it. Your eagle eye was stuck everywhere I suggest to you.”
Mr Butterly said he was there “for a while”.
Counsel put it to the witness that he was like McCavity, “McCavity was the cat who was never there when things went wrong,” he said.
He put it to the witness that the doormen weren’t really interested in what age people were, only in getting the money off people coming in and that Mr Butterly “didn’t care really what age they were”.
“83 per cent of the people in there, Mr Butterly, were under the age of 21. How does that happen?”
“Because the doormen must have thought that they were over 21 and there was no such thing then as cards for ages. They didn’t bring their passports or anything like that," said Mr Butterly.
Grainne Larkin BL, appearing for Dublin City Council, put it to Mr Butterly that it was a legitimate expectation of someone that pays to come to an event that they can get into an event and get out of an event.
“Exactly, yeah,” said Mr Butterly. “But they weren’t locked when the fire happened.”
“That’s a matter the jury has to determine. I’m not going to say anything about that,” said Ms Larkin.
Earlier today, the jury heard that the price of carpet tiles used on the walls of the club did "influence” Mr Butterly’s decision to purchase them but wasn’t the “first thought” in his mind.
However, Mr Butterly denied purchasing the tiles from salesman Declan Conway because he could “get them on the cheap”. He said his first thought was to get the walls "looking well".
Mr Butterly was asked by Brenda Campbell KC, representing a number of the families of the deceased, if the price of the tiles had influenced his decision to purchase them.
She outlined evidence given by Company Secretary Graham Whitehead on behalf of Illingworth, the UK company who supplied the carpet tiles which were used on the walls of the Stardust nightclub, to the original 1981 tribunal of inquiry before Mr Justice Ronan Keane.
In his evidence, Mr Whitehead said that this particular tile was coming to the end of its life and the company was selling these tiles off as there was another tile on the market to take its place. He told the tribunal that this was reflected in the price.
Ms Campbell asked Mr Butterly if he was attracted to “sticking these carpet tiles on your wall because they were cheap and they looked the part”.
“No,” he replied.
“Did the price influence the decision to purchase the carpet tiles?” Ms Campbell pressed.
Mr Butterly said: “The price would influence all decisions” but it wasn’t “the first thought in my mind.” He said his first thought was to get the walls “covered nicely” and “looking well”.
