Mairia Cahill vindicated

blanch152

https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2018/0912/993382-mairia-cahill/

"A report by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland has found that alleged sex abuse victim Máiría Cahill was failed by a disjointed police investigation into her case."

"Mr Hamilton said: "At the heart of this report are three victims abused as children, who were then failed by their police service."


It is hard to believe that there were numerous posters on here who questioned whether Mairia Cahill was ever abused (hard to believe at one level, disgusting at another). The PSNI handled this disgracefully, but they were not alone.

Ms. Cahill was abused by a member of the IRA who was protected by Sinn Fein in the North. Rather than go after him for the sexual abuse, the PSNI tried to get him on terrorist offences as well. That was a serious mistake by the PSNI, and they are rightly criticised in today's report.

She was let down by the PSNI, and the report today vindicates her. However, she was also let down by Gerry Adams and the then Sinn Fein and IRA leadership. This is not an isolated case. Aine Adams and Paudie McGahon have been similarly let down by the Sinn Fein and IRA leadership.

Following this report which outlines how badly Cahill was let down by the PSNI, is it now time that the full extent of involvement and knowledge of key members of Sinn Fein was laid bare and made public?

Havockk

PONI report very damning to PSNI. Yet I've now read about 3 articles and this post who want to focus on SF. Blatant politicking. The real story of course being just how badly the PSNI let a victim down.

Rhineshark

Tbh and as someone getting more interested in Sinn Fein with the new generation of politicians, it seems perfectly reasonable and part of the story to discuss, unless there is something actually incorrect about the first post.

It's a bit like, from the thread so far, indicating that it's unreasonable to comment on clerical sex abuse if a report cones out condemning Gardai policy regarding allegations at the time. It's pretty relevent.

Havockk

Rhineshark wrote: »

Tbh and as someone getting more interested in Sinn Fein with the new generation of politicians, it seems perfectly reasonable and part of the story to discuss, unless there is something actually incorrect about the first post.

It's a bit like, from the thread so far, indicating that it's unreasonable to comment on clerical sex abuse if a report cones out condemning Gardai policy regarding allegations at the time. It's pretty relevent.

I think if a report that condemned the guards was released, then the onus on us should be to discuss the filings of the guards.

McMurphy

I wonder if our new - highly esteemed commisoniers fingerprints are over this flawed PSNI investigation?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2018/0912/993382-mairia-cahill/

"A report by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland has found that alleged sex abuse victim Máiría Cahill was failed by a disjointed police investigation into her case."

"Mr Hamilton said: "At the heart of this report are three victims abused as children, who were then failed by their police service."


It is hard to believe that there were numerous posters on here who questioned whether Mairia Cahill was ever abused (hard to believe at one level, disgusting at another). The PSNI handled this disgracefully, but they were not alone.

Ms. Cahill was abused by a member of the IRA who was protected by Sinn Fein in the North. Rather than go after him for the sexual abuse, the PSNI tried to get him on terrorist offences as well. That was a serious mistake by the PSNI, and they are rightly criticised in today's report.

She was let down by the PSNI, and the report today vindicates her. However, she was also let down by Gerry Adams and the then Sinn Fein and IRA leadership. This is not an isolated case. Aine Adams and Paudie McGahon have been similarly let down by the Sinn Fein and IRA leadership.

Following this report which outlines how badly Cahill was let down by the PSNI, is it now time that the full extent of involvement and knowledge of key members of Sinn Fein was laid bare and made public?

Can you link to where the defendants where found guilty after the presentation of evidence in two these cases.
What more is required of SF in the Aine Adams case? Has the defendant herself not stated that it is closed in her opinion.

Is it not the case that you are leaving out a very important word here, in respect of two of these case. The victims of 'alleged' abuse have been let down by the RUC and PSNI.

FreudianSlippers

Yeah "alleged" because the trial collapsed due to the botched investigation.

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Yeah "alleged" because the trial collapsed due to the botched investigation.

Well you either believe in due process or you don't I suppose.
The alleged abuser of Mairia Cahill turned up at court to defend himself willingly and still protests his innocence of the charge.

I know of very few cases were guilt is assumed before a trial and funnily enough, on this site (and with regard to the OP) those who have been found guilty by reason of allegation alone are republican people.

Timberrrrrrrr

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you link to where the defendants where found guilty after the presentation of evidence in two these cases.
What more is required of SF in the Aine Adams case? Has the defendant herself not stated that it is closed in her opinion.

Is it not the case that you are leaving out a very important word here, in respect of two of these case. The victims of 'alleged' abuse have been let down by the RUC and PSNI.

Right on cue :rolleyes:

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well you either believe in due process or you don't I suppose.

I don't think you understand due process. There was no due process to the "alleged" victim due to failures of the State.

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't think you understand due process. There was no due process to the "alleged" victim due to failures of the State.

Is the defendant entitled to due process before guilt is assumed or not?

I fully accept that the PSNI and RUC botched cases and let down alleged victims in pursuit of other higher politically placed people.

Timberrrrrrrr

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is the defendant entitled to due process before guilt is assumed or not?

I fully accept that the PSNI and RUC botched cases and let down alleged victims in pursuit of other higher politically placed people.

You mean.like SF/IRA due process?

In 2010, Ms Cahill told police she was sexually abused by an alleged IRA member Martin Morris and was subjected to an IRA investigation into her allegations.

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is the defendant entitled to due process before guilt is assumed or not?

That depends on your definition of "due process" - a concept of law in the United States which does not apply to Northern Ireland last time I checked (and I'm on the roll of solicitors in N.I. btw)

The UK Human Rights Act 1998 adequately covers right to hearings.

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That depends on your definition of "due process" - a concept of law in the United States which does not apply to Northern Ireland last time I checked (and I'm on the roll of solicitors in N.I. btw)

The UK Human Rights Act 1998 adequately covers right to hearings.

:rolleyes:

Is a defendant entitled to defend their name in a court before being assumed to be guilty of a crime?

Timberrrrrrrr

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Is a defendant entitled to defend their name in a court before being assumed to be guilty of a crime?

Should a victim be subjected to an "investigation' ny her abusers colleagues/friends/comrades?

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Is a defendant entitled to defend their name in a court before being assumed to be guilty of a crime?

It's irrelevant. The abuse is not "alleged" and this report finds that the abuse occurred - the guilt of this individual in relation to the actual abuse is irrelevant to the findings in this report. The guilt or innocence of a specific individual in relation to the abuse is irrelevant.

FreudianSlippers

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Should a victim be subjected to an "investigation' ny her abusers colleagues/friends/comrades?

Nope.

Timberrrrrrrr

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Nope.

I agree


But SF/IRA think she should.

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's irrelevant. The abuse is not "alleged" and this report finds that the abuse occurred - the guilt of this individual in relation to the actual abuse is irrelevant to the findings in this report. The guilt or innocence of a specific individual in relation to the abuse is irrelevant.

The report is into the PSNI and RUC's failings.

Quote from the article which is careful (more than some anti democrats here) to use the word 'alleged' from the first paragraph.

A report by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland has found that alleged sex abuse victim Máiría Cahill was failed by a disjointed police investigation into her case.

Is a defendant in any case you come across in your professional life entitled to their good name or not, before a trial examining the evidence takes place?

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The report is into the PSNI and RUC's failings.

Quote from the article which is careful (more than some anti democrats here) to use the word 'alleged' from the first paragraph.

PSNI Chief Constable George Hamilton last night apologised as he accepted the report and its recommendations.

“At the heart of this report are three victims abused as children, who were then failed by their police service”

The guilt of specific individuals in relation to this abuse is irrelevant and only being made an issue by yourself for some bizarre reason known only to yourself.

Is a defendant in any case you come across in your professional life entitled to their good name or not, before a trial examining the evidence takes place?

Yes, there are plenty of reverse-onus matters in civil law. I don't practice criminal law and, as I've now said on multiple occasions, the guilt of the accused in this case is irrelevant to the finding of abuse.

The abuse is not "alleged" - the guilt of the accused is not proven; they are not the same thing despite your desperate attempt to (seemingly) disagree with the findings of the report that (a) the abuse occurred (b) the state failed the victims on the basis that nobody was found guilty of the abuse due to (b).

I don't understand your desire to disagree with this report and discredit victim(s) of abuse and incompetence.

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The guilt of specific individuals in relation to this abuse is irrelevant and only being made an issue by yourself for some bizarre reason known only to yourself.


Yes, there are plenty of reverse-onus matters in civil law. I don't practice criminal law and, as I've now said on multiple occasions, the guilt of the accused in this case is irrelevant to the finding of abuse.

The abuse is not "alleged" - the guilt of the accused is not proven; they are not the same thing despite your desperate attempt to (seemingly) disagree with the findings of the report that (a) the abuse occurred (b) the state failed the victims on the basis that nobody was found guilty of the abuse due to (b).

I don't understand your desire to disagree with this report and discredit victim(s) of abuse and incompetence.

So if the defendant is found not guilty, the abuse happened anyway. Is that what you are saying?
A court case is therefore pointless?

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So if the defendant is found not guilty, the abuse happened anyway. Is that what you are saying?
A court case is therefore pointless?

It's clear you're not interested in rational or coherent discussion, so I'm not going to bother entertaining you further.

Not only is that not at all what I said, it's a total deflection from the facts at hand and a misguided and biased attempt to discredit the findings of the report, accepted by the PSNI, by focusing on the accused instead of the victim.

splinter65

If you are a SF supporter then nobody, least of all Mairia Cahill was ever sexually abused by anyone in SF.
It doesn’t matter what she or any report finds. It didn’t happen and she’s a liar. And that’s the end of that.

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's clear you're not interested in rational or coherent discussion, so I'm not going to bother entertaining you further.

Not only is that not at all what I said, it's a total deflection from the facts at hand and a misguided and biased attempt to discredit the findings of the report, accepted by the PSNI, by focusing on the accused instead of the victim.

You are not making any sense.

You have said, correct me if I am wrong, that whither or not this defendant is found guilty or innocent of the charges that he 'abused' Caihill, the abuse happened.

He cannot vindicate himself, in other words. Is that what you are, in effect, saying?

James Brown

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's irrelevant. The abuse is not "alleged" and this report finds that the abuse occurred - the guilt of this individual in relation to the actual abuse is irrelevant to the findings in this report. The guilt or innocence of a specific individual in relation to the abuse is irrelevant.

That's a fudge. The abuse is alleged until proven. The report accepts there were claims and the claims weren't investigated. That's what trials are for. Do you know anything about the law?

The story here is the alleged victim did not get afforded the investigation and legal process her claim deserved.

Zubeneschamali

If an accused murderer is found not guilty, does the murdered person come back to life?

blackwhite

I see Mary Lou has “unreservedly apologied” on behalf of SF for how Cahill was treated.

Pity their cheerleaders on here don’t have the same basic decency

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's a fudge. The abuse is alleged until proven.

That's incorrect. The guilt of an individual in relation to abuse must be found beyond reasonable doubt by a jury; the fact that a victim was abused by someone is a matter of fact.

The report accepts there were claims and the claims weren't investigated.

You have not seen the report. I have not seen the report.
PSNI Chief Constable George Hamilton has seen the report and has said:
“At the heart of this report are three victims abused as children, who were then failed by their police service”

I take it you disagree with his statement.

That's what trials are for.

Trials are actually for assessing the guilt or innocence of an accused, not necessarily for ascertaining whether a crime has been committed.

Are you asserting that a victim of rape has not been raped merely for the fact that nobody has been found guilty of the crime?

Do you know anything about the law?

I have three law degrees, have practised law for over a decade and hold practising certificates in three jurisdictions including N. Ireland.

Yourself?

The story here is the alleged victim did not get afforded the investigation and legal process her claim deserved.

The story here seems to be in reality that thee actual victims did not get justice, nor did anyone get brought to justice, as a result of systemic failures relating to the investigation and gathering of evidence in relation to a crime that does not appear to be "alleged" at all.

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's incorrect. The guilt of an individual in relation to abuse must be found beyond reasonable doubt by a jury; the fact that a victim was abused by someone is a matter of fact.


You have not seen the report. I have not seen the report.
PSNI Chief Constable George Hamilton has seen the report and has said:
“At the heart of this report are three victims abused as children, who were then failed by their police service”

I take it you disagree with his statement.


Trials are actually for assessing the guilt or innocence of an accused, not necessarily for ascertaining whether a crime has been committed.

Are you asserting that a victim of rape has not been raped merely for the fact that nobody has been found guilty of the crime?


I have three law degrees, have practised law for over a decade and hold practising certificates in three jurisdictions including N. Ireland.

Yourself?


The story here seems to be in reality that thee actual victims did not get justice, nor did anyone get brought to justice, as a result of systemic failures relating to the investigation and gathering of evidence in relation to a crime that does not appear to be "alleged" at all.

A victim of alleged rape may have been making it up.

Has that happened in your professional experience?

Did the 'rape' still happen regardless?

In this particular case there is a man, willing to defend his name and innocence. Nobody has the right to assume his guilt. Which is routinely done on this site.


Re; Mairia Cahill's treatment by SF and the IRA. Nobody has denied that it was right that the IRA should have been dealing with abuse claims. The IRA have accepted this and apologised before for this.
The reasons why nationalists (including Mairia Cahill) did not trust the RUC and did not use them are well well publicised and vindicated by this report in many ways.

blanch152

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/mary-lou-mcdonald-unreservedly-apologises-to-mira-cahill-for-ordeal-after-alleged-rape-37313061.html


"Mary Lou McDonald has “unreservedly apologised” to Mairia Cahill"

Now that is a start.

"Ms McDonald did not respond to any questions surrounding Sinn Fein’s decision to suspend a member over child abuse concerns or whether the party reported these concerns to the authorities."

There is more to come, this is the first time I have seen this reported. If true, that Sinn Fein dealt with a member, but did not report it to the relevant authorities, they acted in the same way as the Catholic Church, in hiding those they knew as child abusers from justice.

Sinn Fein must release a copy of their internal report in this regard.

I see that the victim-blaming has started up once again on this thread. As usual, that is the lowest form of response.

There are a few posters on here, some of them posting, some of them thanking posts, who owe Mairia Cahill an apology for what they said in previous threads about her. The fact that some of them continue with the same type of disgusting defence of SF actions, even when Mary Lou has started to see the light.

I suspect, that as with the Catholic Church, the truth will have to be dragged out of Sinn Fein, little by little.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's a fudge. The abuse is alleged until proven. The report accepts there were claims and the claims weren't investigated. That's what trials are for. Do you know anything about the law?

The story here is the alleged victim did not get afforded the investigation and legal process her claim deserved.

You are disgustingly wrong.

The report said that three children were abused.

Mary Lou McDonald has admitted they suspended a member for child abuse.

Will you all stop pretending it didn't happen.

blanch152

Havockk wrote: »

I think if a report that condemned the guards was released, then the onus on us should be to discuss the filings of the guards.

Well, actually, there have been a number of reports that condemned the gardai's handling of abuse allegations against Catholic priests.

The focus of the discussion since has mainly been on the actions of the abusers and how they were able to get away with it, mostly through the connivance of their organisation, the Catholic Church.

Shouldn't be anything different here when we criticise SF/IRA.

blanch152

blackwhite wrote: »

I see Mary Lou has “unreservedly apologied” on behalf of SF for how Cahill was treated.

Pity their cheerleaders on here don’t have the same basic decency

Interesting that those that were defending Sinn Fein and referring to the "alleged" abuse have all disappeared since you posted that statement.

splinter65

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So if the defendant is found not guilty, the abuse happened anyway. Is that what you are saying?
A court case is therefore pointless?

Francie the dear Leader has apologized unreservedly for how SF treated Mairia Cahill. Isn’t that great news?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, actually, there have been a number of reports that condemned the gardai's handling of abuse allegations against Catholic priests.

The focus of the discussion since has mainly been on the actions of the abusers and how they were able to get away with it, mostly through the connivance of their organisation, the Catholic Church.

Shouldn't be anything different here when we criticise SF/IRA.

The report was on the 'failings' of the RUC/PSNI.

Mary Lou has reiterated SF's regrets that mandatory reporting was not in place as it wasn't in many many organisations and apologised to Cahill for that.

It has to be remembered that Cahill didn't trust the RUC either. Rightly so, as the report shows.

The way seems clear for Cahill to pursue justice now, which if her allegations are true, needs to be done. The defendants are more than willing to go to court it seems.

FrancieBrady

splinter65 wrote: »

Francie the dear Leader has apologized unreservedly for how SF treated Mairia Cahill. Isn’t that great news?

Gerry Adams did the same.
The fact is, nobody, including Cahill, trusted the police. Why that was, and who was to blame, is a whole other thread in itself.

James Brown

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If an accused murderer is found not guilty, does the murdered person come back to life?

If they never died?

Edgware

blanch152 wrote: »

You are disgustingly wrong.

The report said that three children were abused.

Mary Lou McDonald has admitted they suspended a member for child abuse.

Will you all stop pretending it didn't happen.

Did they suspend him by the ears or by the legs?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The report was on the 'failings' of the RUC/PSNI.

Mary Lou has reiterated SF's regrets that mandatory reporting was not in place as it wasn't in many many organisations and apologised to Cahill for that.

It has to be remembered that Cahill didn't trust the RUC either. Rightly so, as the report shows.

The way seems clear for Cahill to pursue justice now, which if her allegations are true, needs to be done. The defendants are more than willing to go to court it seems.

Yup, Mary Lou has reiterated that they behaved in the exact same way as the Catholic Church.


Why do you continue to post nasty lies such as "the defendants are more than willing to go to court"?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If they never died?

Are you seriously suggesting that Mairia Cahill was not abused?

Please answer this question clearly.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Yup, Mary Lou has reiterated that they behaved in the exact same way as the Catholic Church.


Why do you continue to post nasty lies such as "the defendants are more than willing to go to court"?

They turned up last time and released a statement saying they wanted the chance to clear their names. No lie there.

And the news this morning claimed the defendant was still protesting his innocence.

Good job there isn't mandatory hanging here on the basis of allegations.

FreudianSlippers

blanch152 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that Mairia Cahill was not abused?

Please answer this question clearly.

Can I just add to this question as well that, despite having never seen the report, they also disagree with the statement made by PSNI Chief Constable George Hamilton (who has obviously seen the report) that the abuse did occur against three victims?

James Brown

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's incorrect. The guilt of an individual in relation to abuse must be found beyond reasonable doubt by a jury; the fact that a victim was abused by someone is a matter of fact.

What fact? A claim, unproven and not properly investigated is a fact?

..........

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The story here seems to be in reality that thee actual victims did not get justice, nor did anyone get brought to justice, as a result of systemic failures relating to the investigation and gathering of evidence in relation to a crime that does not appear to be "alleged" at all.

You say 'brought to justice', for what? has anything been proven in a court of law? The claims should have gotten proper investigation. That's why the report is critical of the PSNI. She may or may not have been abused in the eyes of the law. There wasn't a proper investigation. Ms. Cahill did not get the representation she or anyone making such claims deserves. How many degrees did you say?

Zubeneschamali

blanch152 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that Mairia Cahill was not abused?

Please answer this question clearly.

If not, why did Gerry and Mary Lou apologize to her?

James Brown

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If not, why did Gerry and Mary Lou apologize to her?

I believe it was due to the way her claims were treated internally.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They turned up last time and released a statement saying they wanted the chance to clear their names. No lie there.

And the news this morning claimed the defendant was still protesting his innocence.

Good job there isn't mandatory hanging here on the basis of allegations.

It seems the law and order advocates are happy to call for the mob rule/kangaroo court when it's politically suited.

Ms. Cahill deserved better from the PSNI. Using alleged abuse for political point scoring is disgusting IMO.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

How many degrees did you say?

Given you've failed constantly to get a response from me and you've avoided my question about your legal education and experience, you deflect again by trying to personalise the issue.

The answer is three specifically in law (two of which are postgraduate) and one in an economic related field.

James Brown

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Given you've failed constantly to get a response from me and you've avoided my question about your legal education and experience, you deflect again by trying to personalise the issue.

The answer is three specifically in law (two of which are postgraduate) and one in an economic related field.

You'd don't seem to have a grasp of the difference between proven in the eyes of the law and alleged. That's my point.
The main issue here is the PSNI not investigating properly. Twisting it to get a dig in at SF or whomever is another story. But have at it sure.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I believe it was due to the way her claims were treated internally.



It seems the law and order advocates are happy to call for the mob rule/kangaroo court when it's politically suited.

Ms. Cahill deserved better from the PSNI. Using alleged abuse for political point scoring is disgusting IMO.

Again - you seem to be either obtuse to the point being made or attempting to (for some unknown personal reason) avoid what has been reported: nobody is claiming that the accused person is guilty of the abuse, however it would seem that the PSNI and SF are in agreement with the report (which I stress that you have not seen and they have) that Mairia Cahill and two others were abused.

It does not take the "court of law" to ascertain whether abuse occurred.

splinter65

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Gerry Adams did the same.
The fact is, nobody, including Cahill, trusted the police. Why that was, and who was to blame, is a whole other thread in itself.

But why would she or Adams be appogising if they were sure there was nothing to apologize for? I sure as hell wouldn’t be saying sorry if I was confident that no one in my organization had sexually abused anyone...

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You'd don't seem to have a grasp of the difference between proven in the eyes of the law and alleged. That's my point.
The main issue here is the PSNI not investigating properly. Twisting it to get a dig in at SF or whomever is another story. But have at it sure.

I don't think you seem to be an expert yourself in relation to matter of the law and matters of fact. Given you've queried now on two occasions my educational bona fides I'm uncertain as to why you believe yourself to be such an expert on the report and on the legal system of Northern Ireland (or in fact any legal system).

I suggest you go back and re-read my earlier post explaining this matter, if you still don't get it let me know.

EDIT: here I'll make it easy for you:

1) https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108070759&postcount=20

2) https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108071640&postcount=28 (and perhaps you can answer the questions you've avoided in that one)

FreudianSlippers

splinter65 wrote: »

But why would she or Adams be appogising if they were sure there was nothing to apologize for? I sure as hell wouldn’t be saying sorry if I was confident that no one in my organization had sexually abused anyone...

If you extrapolate the logic contained at post 47 in terms of what they allege the report says, SF have apologised for structural incompetence within the PSNI. Which is, admittedly, an odd thing for SF to apologise about.