Philip Cairns' Murder finally confirmed?

wokingvoter

Fleawuss wrote: »

For you yes. But if your view fits in a nutshell it belongs there.

No, I've tried to summarise what you have reiterated over and over ( to quote yourself) in this thread.
Do you agree with this summary or not and if not can you correct it for me?

Samaris

Fleawuss wrote: »

Talk of monsters is emotive and of no benefit dealing with any human situation. The distinction I made and repeat again and again is that victims are never blamed for being victims: but the responsibility to protect others from the same fate isn't ended by being a victim.

The legal competence of children and the legal consequences of duress are topics that I would have thought went without saying but maybe not.

You're being pretty darned emotive yourself, with your words that blame victims for the actions of their abusers on other people. Rather than, y'know, blaming the ABUSER.

And you can repeat that until you are blue in the face, but you are -still blaming the victims-. Yes, not for being victims (although I assume that taking your comments to the logical conclusion, they are to blame for being victims if it happens more than once. Well, they should have spoken about it the first time, shouldn't they? It would have prevented them from being a victim again!)

And no, give the rest of the stuff you're saying so far, nothing "goes without saying". Pray tell, what is the legal concequences of duress? Psychological duress seems to cut no butter with you, given you dismiss it so easily. Threats to family, threats of being made culpable too, those don't count either. And given most of Savile's victims were children too, and you want them punished, nope, I guess the children's culpability also doesn't count. So, no, you don't get to just imply that the rest of us are dumb for not reading your mind when everything you say goes against it.

Means Of Escape

wokingvoter wrote: »

Is Cooke not a monster then?

He was a deranged paedophile .

Monsters like Santa Claus don't exist .

Fleawuss

wokingvoter wrote: »

Is Cooke not a monster then?

There are no monsters. He was a pedophile and a deeply mentally ill human being. He may have been more than that but that is what I know of him.

Fleawuss

wokingvoter wrote: »

No, I've tried to summarise what you have reiterated over and over ( to quote yourself) in this thread.
Do you agree with this summary or not and if not can you correct it for me?

It has been corrected innumerable times. For you policy can only be determined by those who have personal experience of something. That is impractical and unworkable.

strandroad

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Those who you are naming as people who are victim blaming are simply lamenting the lost opportunity to bring this guy to justice , to have ended the Cairns suffering years ago and possibly preventing other who were abused by Cooke and others in the intervening years by the victims late revelations.
Furthermore the now almost impossible chance of the lads body ever being found and with it closure .

She was not the first to name him in this context. Garda was well aware of him. Dalkey victims named their rapists and murderers and nothing came out of it either.
To focus on what a traumatised person could have done better to fight all of this is vile.

Howjoe1

Cooke sounds like our version of Jimmy Saville.

How diid he get away with so much?

Samaris

Holy crap (let me say that my use of the word "holy" is not meant to imply a religious connection), some of you will really jump to anything to nitpick.

"Monster" was the term that the children used for him. "Monster" does not imply that he was eight feet tall with purple legs. "Monster" is a colourful term used to imply that someone is completely out of the ordinary in the cruelty of his actions to other people, that they are so out of reach of normal human ways of thinking that they seem to be something else entirely.

It does not imply that he's connected to Santa Claus.

Jesus.

Please note that my invokation of Jesus does not imply the existence of same, or that Jesus is involved in this particular case. It is an exclamation of being hardly able to believe some of the nitpicking crap being spouted.

Allyall

fryup wrote: »

so did Cooke make a bedside confession or not??

It sems that he didn't http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/dark-secrets-predator-cooke-took-to-the-grave-34792994.html

Gardai turned to Cooke. Detectives visited him two to three times. He was by then dying of cancer in a hospice and weak. He spoke with difficulty.
Detectives asked him a list of questions about Philip Cairns. According to informed sources, he confirmed to them that he knew Philip Cairns, and confirmed to them that he was in his car. He also confirmed that he knew the woman. But they got little further information out of him.
Detectives made one final attempt before Cooke died, urging him to unburden himself before he passed away. He refused.

_Whimsical_

What's on the radio is just unreal!

Apparently this man used to meet children in shopping centres and tell them to stand in shops with no cctv and where they wouldn't be seen with him on cctv so he was very clever about going undetected. Guards regularly had to go to his home and forcefully remove children from there.

At the same time apparently Cooke had a garda radio in his car and a police siren blue light for his car. He would radio in to the police and report crimes and would put his blue light on the car and pursue vehicles he believed were involved in crimes. It was so frequent the guards gave him his own radio name, he was called Alpha 7 and they would hear coming over the radio from HQ "stolen car on x road, alpha 7 in pursuit ",they would take his reports seriously and he was one of the lads!

This is unbelievable!

Imagine going to the guards to say you were being abused by their best buddy! That would create a climate where it would be impossible.

Means Of Escape

wokingvoter wrote: »

Your giving examples of people who DID feel strong enough to come forward.
In your opinion, an individuals personal circumstances don't matter.
The Colgans were able to stand as a family.
This woman appears to be on her own.
Makes no difference to you.
This woman has missed the bar, off with her head.
I'd like to think that if Philip Cairns were my child I'd be able to reach out to another victim of his murderer, but then that's just me.

You wouldn't know the other victims to reach out to unless they came out and told heir stories: Jerry Sandusky case in the US for example .
There are state agencies specifically in place for abuse victims so one is never on their own

strandroad

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

What's on the radio is just unreal!

Apparently this man used to meet children in shopping centres and tell them to stand in shops with no cctv and where they wouldn't be seen with him on cctv so he was very clever about going undetected. Police regularly had to go to his home and forcefully remove children from there.

At the same time apparently Cooke had a police radio in his car and a police siren blue light for his car. He would radio in to the police and report crimes and would put his blue light on the car and persue vehicles he believed were involved in crimes. It was so frequent the guards gave him his own radio name, he was called Alpha 7 and they would hear coming over the radio "stolen car on x road, alpha 7 in pursuit ".

This is unbelievable!

Imagine going to the guards to say you were being abused by their best buddy! That would create a climate where it would be impossible.

Anyone still believes that it was about what one particular victim said or didn't say?

wokingvoter

Fleawuss wrote: »

It has been corrected innumerable times. For you policy can only be determined by those who have personal experience of something. That is impractical and unworkable.

No no I've not said that at all. Of course policy can be determined by non involved administrators and in a lot of cases , should.
No you are being very very specific and are stating that in your opinion every victim irregardless of the extent of their trauma and irregardless of their personal circumstances should be prosecuted through the courts for withholding information if they fail to come forward to report their abuser.
Is that your opinion or not? Yes or no?

wokingvoter

Means Of Escape wrote: »

You wouldn't know the other victims to reach out to unless they came out and told heir stories: Jerry Sandusky case in the US for example .
There are state agencies specifically in place for abuse victims so one is never on their own

And Irish abuse victims can have perfect faith and trust in the state agencies put in place by the state to protect them?

Fleawuss

Samaris wrote: »

You're being pretty darned emotive yourself, with your words that blame victims for the actions of their abusers on other people. Rather than, y'know, blaming the ABUSER.

And you can repeat that until you are blue in the face, but you are -still blaming the victims-. Yes, not for being victims (although I assume that taking your comments to the logical conclusion, they are to blame for being victims if it happens more than once. Well, they should have spoken about it the first time, shouldn't they? It would have prevented them from being a victim again!)

And no, give the rest of the stuff you're saying so far, nothing "goes without saying". Pray tell, what is the legal concequences of duress? Psychological duress seems to cut no butter with you, given you dismiss it so easily. Threats to family, threats of being made culpable too, those don't count either. And given most of Savile's victims were children too, and you want them punished, nope, I guess the children's culpability also doesn't count. So, no, you don't get to just imply that the rest of us are dumb for not reading your mind when everything you say goes against it.

I have avoided emotive language and personal abuse here. So, again, in turn:
You have ignored or not read where I laid blame for abuse. Re read it.
You have finally seen the point I made about what victim blaming is and isn't.
So what about the legal position of children: again if you read the thread back you will see that the point has been made that people aren't children for ever. Children aren't legally competent and that is a given. Far from reading my mind any discussion of abuse is actually based on that reality. But maybe it should be spelled out clearly. Everything I say is about making silence no longer an option. I also pointed to the legal implications of duress: To me, as you ask, it counts but it's not the last word. Legally, if duress is proven then as I understand it, culpability is lessened or voided. But I will repeat it again: silence must be ended.

Allyall

Some of the comments on this thread are unreal.

The World over, there are victims of abuse, hundreds of thousands at a guess.
How much time has to pass without them saying anything to anyone, before they become as bad as the abuser and should be jailed for their sins?

Is there a time scale? A week, or a year?

stoplooklisten

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

What's on the radio is just unreal!

Apparently this man used to meet children in shopping centres and tell them to stand in shops with no cctv and where they wouldn't be seen with him on cctv so he was very clever about going undetected. Guards regularly had to go to his home and forcefully remove children from there.

At the same time apparently Cooke had a garda radio in his car and a police siren blue light for his car. He would radio in to the police and report crimes and would put his blue light on the car and pursue vehicles he believed were involved in crimes. It was so frequent the guards gave him his own radio name, he was called Alpha 7 and they would hear coming over the radio from HQ "stolen car on x road, alpha 7 in pursuit ",they would take his reports seriously and he was one of the lads!

This is unbelievable!

Imagine going to the guards to say you were being abused by their best buddy! That would create a climate where it would be impossible.

Well no wonder he didn't come up on their radar during the investigation, this kind of stuff is astonishing

Fleawuss

Samaris wrote: »

Holy crap (let me say that my use of the word "holy" is not meant to imply a religious connection), some of you will really jump to anything to nitpick.

"Monster" was the term that the children used for him. "Monster" does not imply that he was eight feet tall with purple legs. "Monster" is a colourful term used to imply that someone is completely out of the ordinary in the cruelty of his actions to other people, that they are so out of reach of normal human ways of thinking that they seem to be something else entirely.

It does not imply that he's connected to Santa Claus.

Jesus.

Please note that my invokation of Jesus does not imply the existence of same, or that Jesus is involved in this particular case. It is an exclamation of being hardly able to believe some of the nitpicking crap being spouted.

Far from being nit picking it sets aside emotion from the issue and forces clear thinking in the issue. If you want to start dealing with pedophilia then you have to set aside the simplistic labeling.

Fleawuss

mhge wrote: »

Anyone still believes that it was about what one particular victim said or didn't say?

Did anyone ever believe that?

strandroad

Fleawuss wrote: »

I have avoided emotive language and personal abuse here. So, again, in turn:
You have ignored or not read where I laid blame for abuse. Re read it.
You have finally seen the point I made about what victim blaming is and isn't.
So what about the legal position of children: again if you read the thread back you will see that the point has been made that people aren't children for ever. Children aren't legally competent and that is a given. Far from reading my mind any discussion of abuse is actually based on that reality. But maybe it should be spelled out clearly. Everything I say is about making silence no longer an option. I also pointed to the legal implications of duress: To me, as you ask, it counts but it's not the last word. Legally, if duress is proven then as I understand it, culpability is lessened or voided. But I will repeat it again: silence must be ended.

Fiona Doyle only tried to report her abusers years after, she had been severely traumatised. The guards went and had a chat with her parents and the matter was dropped. It took her 20 years to make another attempt, and she saw her father get a fully suspended sentence for her trouble, and other abusers untouched.

On your terms she should have been prosecuted.

MonsterCookie

Fleawuss wrote: »

Far from being nit picking it sets aside emotion from the issue and forces clear thinking in the issue. If you want to start dealing with pedophilia then you have to set aside the simplistic labeling.

ok, and I agree clear thinking is needed. one can think clearly while still acknowledging that there could be understandable reasons why it has taken so long for her to come forward. However, while avoiding emotive language you're coming across as being very cold towards the woman...

strandroad

Fleawuss wrote: »

Did anyone ever believe that?

How about you apply your righteous zeal to the guards and not victims then?

Fleawuss

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

What's on the radio is just unreal!

Apparently this man used to meet children in shopping centres and tell them to stand in shops with no cctv and where they wouldn't be seen with him on cctv so he was very clever about going undetected. Guards regularly had to go to his home and forcefully remove children from there.

At the same time apparently Cooke had a garda radio in his car and a police siren blue light for his car. He would radio in to the police and report crimes and would put his blue light on the car and pursue vehicles he believed were involved in crimes. It was so frequent the guards gave him his own radio name, he was called Alpha 7 and they would hear coming over the radio from HQ "stolen car on x road, alpha 7 in pursuit ",they would take his reports seriously and he was one of the lads!

This is unbelievable!

Imagine going to the guards to say you were being abused by their best buddy! That would create a climate where it would be impossible.

But will there be any prosecutions of those in authority who did not act on complaints? Or will it be like it always is: who you know and excuses about we had no policy etc etc

Fleawuss

mhge wrote: »

How about you apply your righteous zeal to the guards and not victims then?

If you took the trouble to read what I wrote I did. And far beyond them.

Fleawuss

mhge wrote: »

Fiona Doyle only tried to report her abusers years after, she had been severely traumatised. The guards went and had a chat with her parents and the matter was dropped. It took her 20 years to make another attempt, and she saw her father get a fully suspended sentence for her trouble, and other abusers untouched.

On your terms she should have been prosecuted.

Untrue. She tried. End of. And I have said that previously in this thread. The guards who had a "chat" need dealing with.

Kamili

I think this will shed some light on why she didn't come forward before now.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/secret-of-philips-lost-bag-revealed-34792983.html

Angela Copley, a Dublin community worker who supports victims of sexual abuse, passed on the information to gardai last month after hearing it from one of Cooke's victims. During the conversation, she came out with this. She told me that a girl threw Philip Cairns's schoolbag in the lane and that Eamon Cooke had given it to her to do it."

Detectives have said that information from a woman who said she saw Cooke hitting Philip in the studio is "credible". It is understood the woman was aged around nine at the time and lived in terror of Cooke, who was known as "Cookie Monster" to his victims. That was why she kept the dark secret for nearly 30 years.

just to highlight this, she was absolutely terrified of Cooke.

The witness, who gave gardai a statement on May 10, was so afraid of Cooke that she once fainted at the mention of his name.

Nobody but her knows the full extent of what he did to her. I for one could not blame her for being so utterly and absolutely terrified of what this man has done to her, and threatened to do to her if she said anything, that she said nothing.

Put yourself in her shoes.. Would you say something?

strandroad

Fleawuss wrote: »

Untrue. She tried. End of. And I have said that previously in this thread. The guards who had a "chat" need dealing with.

She tried as an adult, after she moved away and had children of her own. How many years of delay are you willing to excuse before you prosecute?

strandroad

Fleawuss wrote: »

If you took the trouble to read what I wrote I did. And far beyond them.

Your hallmark here is victim prosecution.
From what comes out now, her testimony was not a game changer at all. He seems to have been a protected species until recently on his deathbed.

Samaris

Fleawuss wrote: »

I have avoided emotive language and personal abuse here. So, again, in turn:

You have made thoroughly emotive statements, victim-blaming - yes, victim blaming.

Fleawuss wrote: »

You have ignored or not read where I laid blame for abuse. Re read it.

Believe you me, I've read it. Many times. I'm not reading it again, it's too sickening to absorb all the implications. On that note, you have avoided many of my points made back to you. Maybe you didn't read them. Maybe you did and just don't want to answer them, maybe you didn't get them.

Fleawuss wrote: »

You have finally seen the point I made about what victim blaming is and isn't.

Oh, I saw it ages ago. I just didn't agree with it. There's a major difference. You blame victims for not coming forward because others were victimised because of them. Er, no. They were victimised because of an abuser. You furthermore victimise victims for coming forward too late. What is early enough? 30 years is exceptional, you'll get no argument from me there, but yes, it is still understandable. If a child does not report abuse and another child is abused, you still are placing some blame on the first child. Or does the blame only start once they reach the magical age of their 18th birthday? Childhood trauma, as everyone knows, just stops the moment you reach adulthood.

Fleawuss wrote: »

So what about the legal position of children: again if you read the thread back you will see that the point has been made that people aren't children for ever. Children aren't legally competent and that is a given. Far from reading my mind any discussion of abuse is actually based on that reality. But maybe it should be spelled out clearly. Everything I say is about making silence no longer an option. I also pointed to the legal implications of duress: To me, as you ask, it counts but it's not the last word. Legally, if duress is proven then as I understand it, culpability is lessened or voided.

Your version of making "silence no longer an option" is all based on punishment and cruelty to victims. Yes, I did say "cruelty" and I meant it, as emotive as the word might seem. What you advocate is -cruel-. And you are -not- taking into account psychological trauma. Or if you are, you are flatly contradicting the spirit of your own words. You want punishment for those who speak up "too late". As soon as someone reaches adulthood, they are no longer protected by "a child can't always speak up". You speak of ideal worlds as if they exist. You speak simplistically and naively and I honestly do hope that you are never placed into a situation - either you or your children - where you have to come face to face with the arrogance of your own words.

Also, even with more and more evidence that this woman was under duress for a long period, you still blame her. You still blame the victims of Jimmy Savile for not coming out against a man in a practically unassailable position. I do understand "well, he was in prison, what more could he do?", but you are failing to take into account that psychological damage doesn't just -end- because the perpatrator - a violent and manipulative man - is in prison. One victim of Cooke fainted (or vomited, can't quite recall, but it was an extreme physical reaction) at the very mention of his name.

Plenty of people have done you the courtesy of addressing your points as they arose. You have responded sometimes with repeating your basic point, sometimes with bull**** about "hell doesn't exist!" "monsters don't exist!".

But I will repeat it again: silence must be ended.

That is a laudable goal and I agree. But your methods are so horrendously counter-productive. Instead of blaming the abuser, you are BLAMING THE VICTIM. And it doesn't matter how many times you claim you are not blaming them for being victims (and ignoring the taking your points to their logical conclusion), you are making the arguably worse form of blaming them for OTHER PEOPLE BEING VICTIMS.

You are also missing the obvious point that victims are often concurrent or pretty rapidly consecutive, which means that to prevent those victims after one's own abuse would require speaking very soon after. When most of the victims are still children.

You are, right now, with your words, enabling the culture. You are doing your damnedest to ensure that people who speak face another line of bricks on that wall, the condemnation of ordinary people.

Your basic intention is decent, but your methods are counter-productive and wrong.

anewme

Fleawuss wrote: »

Her reasons excuses and rationalizations and those made or implied on her behalf are a heap of steaming Shyte. She has condemned that boy's family to a 30 year sentence of agony. Fcuk her in jail for 30 years and we'll call it quits for that much.

Fleawuss wrote: »

I have avoided emotive language and personal
abuse. .

The first quote is from the first couple of pages of this thread. Her reasons are "a heap of steaming Shyte"

The second quote is current and contradicts that.

Is saying "fcuk her in jail for 30 years and we'll call it quits" without knowing any facts not emotive and abusive? Who is we? You are not the self appointed Judge and Jury.

You are contradicting yourself constantly.