Rallying around a rapist

Zebra3

Seriously wtf is wrong with people in this country?

A child rapist getting support from his sports club and employer in court?

I'm at an absolute loss for words.

What do they say?

"Ah yeah, he may have been abusing that young child but sure we'd a great laugh with him in the pub"?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/local-football-club-and-employers-rally-around-man-convicted-of-raping-a-child-court-hears-31411016.html

AudreyHepburn

Disgusting....those people are just as guilty and dangerous as him tbh.

If they support him like this then they must not see any wrong in what he did and that to my mind makes them dangerous to children too.

Cookie_Dough

It's says more about the stupidity and naivety of the people that signed the petition supporting him imo. I guarantee if it was their sister /daughter that he was convicted of raping they wouldn't be so quick to support him.

I'm baffled as to how people could support him especially the ex girlfriends.

Menas

I suppose the petition was signed before the conviction by those who believed that he is innocent? A very strange thing to do though.

The community has since rallied to support him with 43 signatures submitted to the court extending their support to him. The local football club, his former employers and girlfriend also submitted testimonies.

PopePalpatine

I can't help but think of the time Mickey Harte defended a borderline rapist: http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/mickey-harte-under-fire-over-reference-for-sex-attacker-who-assaulted-woman-29079197.html

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

That clown writing a letter saying there's no justice?? She's right, there is no justice when a paedophile gets his life back after 9 years, when he's destroyed two lives forever.

VisibleGorilla

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Disgusting....those people are just as guilty and dangerous as him tbh.

If they support him like this then they must not see any wrong in what he did and that to my mind makes them dangerous to children too.

Your post is stupid beyond belief.

Guilty by association, eh?

Tommy Kelly

I think to some people or this lot that just because this lad was able to kick a football around a field on a Sunday morning and was able to do a bit of work says he couldn't possibly be a rapist. ''Cause he's just like us a proper jack the lad, tis' not possible your honor. Free him and free him now''

Terrible too.

seamus

Yeah, those recommendations would have all been gathered before the trial. If you think about it; someone you know and think very highly of has been accused of this kind of thing, you think there's no way it can be true, he's a decent guy, etc etc, so you happily sign the letter of support.

This is kind of the point of character witnesses too though I suppose - to gather peoples' honest feelings about the person before it's tainted by a guilty verdict.

ceadaoin.

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

Your post is stupid beyond belief.

Guilty by association, eh?

They aren't just associated with him though, they are actively supporting him despite him being a convicted child rapist. They obviously think his crimes aren't that bad and he should be treated more leniently than others. Even his girlfriend who has an 8 year old child ffs. Is it a coincidence he ended up with another woman with a young child? Highly doubtful. That woman needs to evaluate her priorities, how stupid can you be.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

Your post is stupid beyond belief.

Guilty by association, eh?

Well when people don't see anything wrong with sexually assaulting a child, and full on raping another younger child, you'd wonder why that is. Attacking and abusing anyone in a vulnerable position is clearly wrong and anyone capable of such a thing is a danger to society. So, when 50 or so clowns petition the court to free th rapist, and wail about there being no justice in the world, clearly think that it's justified to rape a child

Cee-Jay-Cee

Playing devils advocate, I suspect many of those people will have since changed their minds once evidence of his crimes became known. They, naively, signed the petition before the case started on the basis that he proclaimed his innocence and probably did do the good things mentioned. If they were all contacted now and asked if they still hold the same belief, I'd say most if not them all would have changed their minds.

Menas

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Playing devils advocate, I suspect many of those people will have since changed their minds once evidence of his crimes became known. They, naively, signed the petition before the case started on the basis that he proclaimed his innocence and probably did do the good things mentioned. If they were all contacted now and asked if they still hold the same belief, I'd say most if not them all would have changed their minds.

I reckon you are right.
The 'When' is the important part of this.

But at the same time, if someone asked me to sign a petition for the local community star who, according to the person with the petition, was completely innocent and wrongly accused of child rape....I would tell them to jog on.
And it is not like that case a few years ago where they locals lined up to shake the hand of a man just after he was convicted of rape 'to show our support'.

NachoBusiness

Hhmmm.

In fairness, this is not something we see all the time. I know there has been the odd time that some despicable person has had the support of their community and been given glowing character references which they in no way deserved etc but this does seem to be at a level of support I don't think I have ever seen the like of before. It certainly appears, rightly or wrongly (it appears wrongly) that these people in no way felt that the man could possibly be guilty of what he was accused of and that in fact, the accusations leveled at him were lies. Any rapist (particularly, child rapist) I have ever heard of in Dublin has almost immediately been shunned by their local community, to say the very least, long before going on trial. What gave these people such confidence he was innocent. Well, whatever it was, hopefully they were wrong about it and the court was right.

El_Duderino 09

AudreyHepburn wrote:

Disgusting....those people are just as guilty and dangerous as him tbh.

Of course, this is complete rubbish.

AudreyHepburn wrote:

If they support him like this then they must not see any wrong in what he did and that to my mind makes them dangerous to children too.

Isn't it just character references to say that he was a hard worker and a good team player on the football pitch? If those things are true then they should be part of the process.

If the guy is a danger to children, then children should be protected from him. If he's a danger to adults, then adults should be protected from him. It looks as if he's a danger to children and not to adults which provides more information on how to spend resources to protect those at risk.

Just because he was a hard worker doesn't mean he should be found innocent but if it's true then why complain about people saying it?

AudreyHepburn

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

Your post is stupid beyond belief.

Guilty by association, eh?

In this case yes, they are sympathising with him and rallying around him.

They clearly either care nothing for the poor child and/or see nothing wrong in what he did.

AudreyHepburn

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Of course, this is complete rubbish.



Isn't it just character references to say that he was a hard worker and a good team player on the football pitch? If those things are true then they should be part of the process.

If the guy is a danger to children, then children should be protected from him. If he's a danger to adults, then adults should be protected from him. It looks as if he's a danger to children and not to adults which provides more information on how to spend resources to protect those at risk.

Just because he was a hard worker doesn't mean he should be found innocent but if it's true then why complain about people saying it?

I'm not complaining about that, they can say what they like about him, it won't change what he is.

I'm complaining about seemingly rational right thinking people sympathising with and supporting a child molester.

VisibleGorilla

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

In this case yes, they are sympathising with him and rallying around him.

They clearly either care nothing for the poor child and/or see nothing wrong in what he did.

So if my friend commits a crime and I choose to remain friends with him, I have committed the same crime? I should be hauled in front of the courts too?

Complete lunacy. You're working of emotion instead of logic due to the crime committed.

AudreyHepburn

Quattrocani wrote: »

About as stupid as a anyone who thinks supporters of a rapist are as guilty as a rapist.

What else can be said about people who sympathise with such a person?

AudreyHepburn

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

So if my friend commits a crime and I choose to remain friends with him, I have committed the same crime? I should be hauled in front of the courts too?

Complete lunacy. You're working of emotion instead of logic due to the crime committed.

No but I would see it as you agreeing with what he did. And to me that makes you just as bad ....but that's my own personal opinion.

Vomit

What I find slightly more disturbing than this is the lynch mob mentality you see here on boards when cases like this pop up. People instinctively defending a friend is much less scary than a group of faceless people saying, "String him up by his balls and torture him to death!"

NachoBusiness

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

They clearly either care nothing for the poor child and/or see nothing wrong in what he did.

Do you really believe that the basis of a group of people supporting a man to this degree could possibly be because they either a) don't give a monkies about the two girls or b) see nothing wrong with raping children in general? You genuinely believe that's probable? Come on. Child rape is (rightly) seen as one of those abhorrent crimes there is today. I have no doubt in my mind that these people felt that the man was innocent of these crimes. Appears they were wrong, fair enough, but lets not pretend that Irish society in this day and age (even a small section of it) could be blasé about the rape of two little girls.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

What else can be said about people who sympathise with such a person?

That they didn't believe the accusations for whatever reason? Do you really think that a group of people in Dublin would support a man who has raped two little girls knowing him to be guilty and not caring about that? Or even doing so but yet suspecting that he might be guilty? Cause I don't. Not that many people anyway. We do not know why they found the accusations so hard to believe. Maybe he's very charismatic guy and it seemed beyond him, or maybe there are other reasons for that support, that we know nothing of, but either way, that's the long and short of it and as someone has pointed out, perhaps those people now regret supporting him and are hanging their heads in shame. Perhaps.

Barely There

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

What else can be said about people who sympathise with such a person?

I see the facts of the issue can be conveniently forgotten in the haste to become outraged.

There's a presumption of innocence in this country until actually convicted of a crime.
None of these people rallied around a rapist - they rallied around a still innocent man charged with an offense.

Doubt there's too much rallying around him now - but why let the facts get in the way of a good old rant?

tigerboon

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

So if my friend commits a crime and I choose to remain friends with him, I have committed the same crime? I should be hauled in front of the courts too?

Complete lunacy. You're working of emotion instead of logic due to the crime committed.

Why would anyone chose to remain friends with a child rapist? We're not talking about just any crime here.

Wibbs

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No but I would see it as you agreeing with what he did. And to me that makes you just as bad ....but that's my own personal opinion.

And this folks is why we really don't need uninformed mob rule in a society. Feelz matter more than thought. Ironically it's as bad as those supporting him. If not worse actually as it seems the support came before the guilt was established. That's a natural human response to an accusation of someone that's well regarded within a group. I'll bet the farm that the majority if not all would retract their support now he's been found to be a child molesting scumbag. Yet some like above think they agree that child rape is OK. Jesus.

foggy_lad

Vomit wrote: »

What I find slightly more disturbing than this is the lynch mob mentality you see here on boards when cases like this pop up. People instinctively defending a friend is much less scary than a group of faceless people saying, "String him up by his balls and torture him to death!"

If I was asked to defend or speak up for someone even accused of such crimes I would no longer consider them my friend!

As soon as I found out they were suspected of such a crime the friendship would end!

Wibbs

foggy_lad wrote: »

If I was asked to defend or speak up for someone even accused of such crimes I would no longer consider them my friend!

As soon as I found out they were suspected of such a crime the friendship would end!

Jesus. Part Deux. Are you serious? Have you never heard of wrongful accusation? Mistaken identity, miscarriages of justice? So in your mind being charged with a crime is enough? Or is it only the emotive stuff that overrides your logic?

Barely There

foggy_lad wrote: »

If I was asked to defend or speak up for someone even accused of such crimes I would no longer consider them my friend!

As soon as I found out they were suspected of such a crime the friendship would end!

And if they were later cleared of all charges?

The very definition of a fair-weather friend - i.e. no friend at all.

VisibleGorilla

foggy_lad wrote: »

If I was asked to defend or speak up for someone even accused of such crimes I would no longer consider them my friend!

As soon as I found out they were suspected of such a crime the friendship would end!

Are you serious?!

Wow!

These days it really is guilty until you can prove your innocence.

FactCheck

Barely There wrote: »

I see the facts of the issue can be conveniently forgotten in the haste to become outraged.

There's a presumption of innocence in this country until actually convicted of a crime.
None of these people rallied around a rapist - they rallied around a still innocent man charged with an offense.

Doubt there's too much rallying around him now - but why let the facts get in the way of a good old rant?

Wibbs wrote: »

And this folks is why we really don't need uninformed mob rule in a society. Feelz matter more than thought. Ironically it's as bad as those supporting him. If not worse actually as it seems the support came before the guilt was established. That's a natural human response to an accusation of someone that's well regarded within a group. I'll bet the farm that the majority if not all would retract their support now he's been found to be a child molesting scumbag. Yet some like above think they agree that child rape is OK. Jesus.

It's very kind of you both to give the benefit of the doubt to the mob in court, but I'm afraid you're both quite wrong. Character references are taken by the court after conviction (what would be the point of doing so before? What a waste of time). The article also makes clear that the "petition" was gathered since the conviction which occurred earlier this month.

These people have chosen to rally around a convicted child rapist. Now, I have no doubt they firmly believe his testimony that he woke up to find the child in question having sex with him. Much like Danny Foley's supporters in Listowel decided that the CCTV evidence and the eyewitness testimony from two Gardai was outweighed by his insistence that his unconscious victim was coming on to him.

Those people all believed that, and they were all very deeply stupid people. I can see where posters are coming from in believing that there's a point at which that deep stupidity crosses into actual wickedness. I don't personally have an opinion on where that is, I can't see into their hearts. I only know that what they've chosen to do is contrary to all evidence, good sense, and decency.

The sad thing is that in this country we have a well-established cultural tradition of overlooking abuse if committed by someone we like and respect. We like to tell ourselves we're past all that, but you don't put such a deep societal sickness to bed so quickly or so easily.

AudreyHepburn

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

Are you serious?!

Wow!

These days it really is guilty until you can prove your innocence.

Barely There wrote: »

I see the facts of the issue can be conveniently forgotten in the haste to become outraged.

There's a presumption of innocence in this country until actually convicted of a crime.
None of these people rallied around a rapist - they rallied around a still innocent man charged with an offense.

Doubt there's too much rallying around him now - but why let the facts get in the way of a good old rant?

But he is guilty....he's been convicted. That's where the problem lies.

NachoBusiness

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

These days it really is guilty until you can prove your innocence.

With certain crimes, it sure appears that way.

Personally I think that it's more about self preservation for such people, rather than any sense of repulsion and belief of guilt. It's really about fear of what their friends and colleagues will think of them if they continue to associate with a person accused of such crimes.

FactCheck

NachoBusiness wrote: »

With certain crimes, it sure appears that way.

Personally I think that it's more about self preservation for such people, rather than any sense of repulsion and belief of guilt. It's really about fear of what their friends and colleagues will think of them if they continue to associate with a person accused of such crimes.

Right, but how is any of that relevant here, where the mob has risen up in protest after he was convicted?

Neyite

Wibbs wrote: »

Jesus. Part Deux. Are you serious? Have you never heard of wrongful accusation? Mistaken identity, miscarriages of justice? So in your mind being charged with a crime is enough? Or is it only the emotive stuff that overrides your logic?

To be honest, I'd distance myself from someone brought up on charges of child sex abuse until I knew the outcome of the trial. After all, I wouldn't be privvy to the evidence. I'd want to believe that a friend is that innocent, but I've seen too many people affected by abuse and their abusers all grand upstanding members of society and local community who couldn't possibly have done those heinous things to little kids. Except they did.

In the UK, social services can and do threaten to take your kids off you if you refuse to leave an abusive partner or a partner who is facing trial for child sex offences. So ensuring that SS dont need to intervene in my family would be more of a priority than sticking up for a friend who presumably the DPP have enough evidence on to bring to trial.

For me, its not about being over emotive, just practical.

QuinDixie

FactCheck wrote: »

It's very kind of you both to give the benefit of the doubt to the mob in court, but I'm afraid you're both quite wrong. Character references are taken by the court after conviction (what would be the point of doing so before? What a waste of time). The article also makes clear that the "petition" was gathered since the conviction which occurred earlier this month.

These people have chosen to rally around a convicted child rapist. Now, I have no doubt they firmly believe his testimony that he woke up to find the child in question having sex with him. Much like Danny Foley's supporters in Listowel decided that the CCTV evidence and the eyewitness testimony from two Gardai was outweighed by his insistence that his unconscious victim was coming on to him.

Those people all believed that, and they were all very deeply stupid people. I can see where posters are coming from in believing that there's a point at which that deep stupidity crosses into actual wickedness. I don't personally have an opinion on where that is, I can't see into their hearts. I only know that what they've chosen to do is contrary to all evidence, good sense, and decency.

The sad thing is that in this country we have a well-established cultural tradition of overlooking abuse if committed by someone we like and respect. We like to tell ourselves we're past all that, but you don't put such a deep societal sickness to bed so quickly or so easily.

well said, especially about when character references are taken. Worse for me is the girlfriend giving him a reference and she has a young child.

First sexual assault should see min. of 10 years in prison.
A Second offence should see chemical castration and a min. of 20 years in prison. Prison terms are always halved anyway.

El_Duderino 09

AudreyHepburn wrote:

I'm complaining about seemingly rational right thinking people sympathising with and supporting a child molester.

It doesn't follow though. They have experience of him as a hard worker or a committed team player. That's what they say because it's their experience.

AudreyHepburn wrote:

I'm not complaining about that, they can say what they like about him, it won't change what he is.

That's not what you're doing though. You're saying anyone who gives evidence of their experience of him is guilty by association. You're also saying they are supporting him or dismissing the severity of his crime. You can't have it both ways

Wibbs

FactCheck wrote: »

Right, but how is any of that relevant here, where the mob has risen up in protest after he was convicted?

To be fair I was wrong there mistakenly thinking this was before conviction. Yes they are utter twats. However I would still not think of them as equally guilty as some are suggesting.

El_Duderino 09

AudreyHepburn wrote:

No but I would see it as you agreeing with what he did. And to me that makes you just as bad ....but that's my own personal opinion.

It's your opinion and it's really silly

FactCheck

Wibbs wrote: »

To be fair I was wrong there mistakenly thinking this was before conviction. Yes they are utter twats. However I would still not think of them as equally guilty as some are suggesting.

There's something honestly darkly amusing about seeing people go "check the facts!" and give the benefit of the doubt, and urge against mob rule, when you yourself hadn't read the article properly and jumped to a conclusion. Thanks for correcting it.

steddyeddy

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

Your post is stupid beyond belief.

Guilty by association, eh?

Actually they are guilty. These kids had their lives ruined. They reported it which took major courage considering the guy was seen as a pillar of the community. Then these grown men offer public support to the guy who raped these kids.

Of course they're guilty and they're prolonging the suffering of these children. There's a vast difference between being being associated with a rapist and supporting one after he was convicted of raping kids.

One of the worst things that can happen to rape victims is "I don't believe you" and this is what's happening here from a whole community.

Samaris

foggy_lad wrote: »

If I was asked to defend or speak up for someone even accused of such crimes I would no longer consider them my friend!

As soon as I found out they were suspected of such a crime the friendship would end!

Christ, your friends better hope that they are never falsely accused of anything. They obviously couldn't rely on any faith in them from you.

As for this case, it is a weird and disturbing one, and I would like to know what's going on behind the scenes. It does remind me rather of that awful Lisdowel case. It's like sometimes...people just dig in their heels, normal, otherwise well-adjusted people that would neither harm a child or condone it happening, and they become blind to the facts of the case. It's a nasty event to find out that a mate, someone you trusted as a decent person, could do something so evil.

Fortunately at least, this is why our judges are not usually within the tiny community where the crime took place and should, at least, be impartial to friendships and community bonds, so they can make a judgement on evidence, not emotion.

AudreyHepburn

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's your opinion and it's really silly

Being disgusted with people supporting a convicted child rapist is silly? Seeing such support as them condoning what he did is silly?

Really?

AudreyHepburn

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It doesn't follow though. They have experience of him as a hard worker or a committed team player. That's what they say because it's their experience.



That's not what you're doing though. You're saying anyone who gives evidence of their experience of him is guilty by association. You're also saying they are supporting him or dismissing the severity of his crime. You can't have it both ways

I think there's been some crossed wires here tbh.

I wasn't complaining about them giving their experiences with him as evidence....they were character witnesses by the sounds of it, that's what they were there for.

I was complaining about the fact that they continue to support him now that he has been convicted....that's what I have a problem with.

Sorry if it doesn't come across that way.

AlanG

As mentioned earlier it would be interesting to see what this petition said and when it was gathered, the indo is not a great source if you want the full story and it is not clear even from the article when all the signatures were gathered. A lot of Indo journalism is just copying and pasting tweets.

If you were asked to sign a petition for a friend who you know quite well and had done a lot of good for you and your family would you refuse this friend based solely on an accusation of someone you don’t know. The petition may simply say that to the best of your knowledge and experience they are a good person. In that case you would be refusing to tell the truth as you know it about a friend because of the nature of the accusation.

If the petition was fully gathered between the conviction and sentencing then it is a totally different story as your knowledge of that friend will have changed. As for the people complaining in court after the sentencing they are a real disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves.

Wibbs

FactCheck wrote: »

There's something honestly darkly amusing about seeing people go "check the facts!" and give the benefit of the doubt, and urge against mob rule, when you yourself hadn't read the article properly and jumped to a conclusion. Thanks for correcting it.

The difference is my "mob rule" assumed innocence not guilt. I know which society I'd rather live in.

lanos

The number of character references a pedophile receives prior to a conviction should be irrelevant.
Pedophiles by their nature are experts at deceiving and manipulating people.
how else can they access victims (deceiving)
and keep the victims from speaking out (manipulating)

and all this public display of disgust is just pointless
The victims identity is protected and we will never know if the
gullible supporters are maintaining their position.

FactCheck

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It doesn't follow though. They have experience of him as a hard worker or a committed team player. That's what they say because it's their experience.

The problem is, though, and this is just me, but if I found out that a good mate that I had been playing sport with or working closely with, and I thought they were generally a good person, and then it turned out the whole time I had known them, they had been repeatedly raping a child, and I had had no idea - see, I would take a look at myself and say "well, clearly I'm a terrible judge of character here. I had no idea. How could I have missed this? What a terrible mistake I've made". I wouldn't be rushing into court to sign a petition, shout at a judge, or write up how great I had thought he was. I would be looking at myself thinking, who the hell cares what I thought, I was clearly a fool.

That's not to say there isn't a place for character references. Somebody criticised Mickey Harte up above, but at least the guy he was a reference for had pled guilty and so there was presumably some remorse there and a reference could have been along the lines of "this is how he's trying to rebuild his life and contribute positively to society".

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're saying anyone who gives evidence of their experience of him is guilty by association. You're also saying they are supporting him or dismissing the severity of his crime. You can't have it both ways

I mean, his defence was that he woke up three times to find the child having sex with him. At point does someone who chooses to believe that, against the decision of the court, cease to be stupid and just become wicked? It's hard to tell. It's not a question I have any interest in (I couldn't care less if they're bad or just stupid), but I can see why Audrey would have an opinion, and it's not outrageous IMO to believe them to be wicked.

NachoBusiness

The "misguided" letter from the "supporter" that said they had “lost faith in justice” was referenced after the man was found guilty, right?

Well 1) who was this letter sent to? and 2) why was the letter referenced at all at that stage?

I mean, I get that letters of support, character references etc are allowed to be submitted and taken into consideration before verdicts are reached, but what relevance has anybody's opinion on matters got to do with anything after that point?

FactCheck

Wibbs wrote: »

The difference is my "mob rule" assumed innocence not guilt. I know which society I'd rather live in.

Yes but probably the best society to live in is one in which people try to inform themselves by reading the whole article before drawing a conclusion?

smash

NachoBusiness wrote: »

So the letter from a "supporter" that said they had “lost faith in justice” was referenced after the man was found guilty?

This person needs a kick up the arse. There were victim impact statements plus elements of admittance from the accused and yet someone still wrote a letter to say they'd lost faith in justice... I wonder how they'd feel if it was their daughters.

QuinDixie

lanos wrote: »

The number of character references a pedophile receives prior to a conviction should be irrelevant.
Pedophiles by their nature are experts at deceiving and manipulating people.
how else can they access victims (deceiving)
and keep the victims from speaking out (manipulating)

and all this public display of disgust is just pointless
The victims identity is protected and we will never know if the
gullible supporters are maintaining their position.

Can we still be disgusted with the lenient prison terms sexual predators receive?
9 years, out in 4 and a half. Is that enough punishment for such a heinous crime.