Mairia Cahill vindicated

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Letters exist and were due to be shown in evidence in the aborted trial that showed that Mairia Cahill was extremely grateful to members of SF for how they helped her.
She threatened to sue when one of the defendants talked to the media about them.
They back the consistent claim from others in SF that they tried to help her.
Mary Lou, like Gerry Adams before her have said that maybe they didn't do enough and regretted that mandatory reporting was not a feature.
The only one I can see attempting to cover up the details of this case is the person threatening to sue and supress the opportunity for you, me and media from examining ALL the evidence surrounding what SF did and didn't do.

Remember too when considering who was talking out of the side of their mouths with regards to abuse victims that Enda and his government and Michael and his party before him were fighting an abuse victim (Louise O'Keefe) all the way to the highest court in Europe.

Don't believe all you are told or see (concerned TD's in photo ops) with regard to this. There are many agendas.

The agendas of the other political parties doesn't change the fact that Gerry lied about whether the kangaroo court took place, that they offered to shoot the guy etc.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

He may have tried to make the narrative more positive for both himself and his party. That's possibly telling lies.

And you constantly criticise Leo and Eoghan for spin and you defend this?????

I am incredulous.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

The agendas of the other political parties doesn't change the fact that Gerry lied about whether the kangaroo court took place, that they offered to shoot the guy etc.

Adams fully accepts that the IRA investigated cases and cases of abuse and that it was wrong that they did this.
He also said that if the IRA investigated Cahill's case then that too was totally wrong.
Cahill requested the IRA get involved in her case rather than go to the RUC, thus as somebody else her said, she was complicit in her own covering up of the case.

And you simply cannot ignore (If you are at all interested in justice) the fact that people who have written evidence of thanks from Cahill found themselves in court over this. Do they not deserve better?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Adams fully accepts that the IRA investigated cases and cases of abuse and that it was wrong that they did this.
He also said that if the IRA investigated Cahill's case then that too was totally wrong.
Cahill requested the IRA get involved in her case rather than go to the RUC, thus as somebody else her said, she was complicit in her own covering up of the case.

And you simply cannot ignore (If you are at all interested in justice) the fact that people who have written evidence of thanks from Cahill found themselves in court over this. Do they not deserve better?

I havn't read the letters released by Breige Wright but believe that they support the claim that the IRA investigated the rape. So why did Gerry say that this investigation didn't take place?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I havn't read the letters released by Breige Wright but believe that they support the claim that the IRA investigated the rape. So why did Gerry say that this investigation didn't take place?

Gerry Adams in 2014:

“However, if there was an IRA investigation, as Mairia has alleged, then that was totally wrong.'

When did he deny it took place?

BTW The IRA were never going to go the RUC with claims of abuse. Just like Mairia Cahill, they neither recognised nor trusted them, for good reason as we have seen.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Gerry Adams in 2014:

“However, if there was an IRA investigation, as Mairia has alleged, then that was totally wrong.'

When did he deny it took place?

BTW The IRA were never going to go the RUC with claims of abuse. Just like Mairia Cahill, they neither recognised nor trusted them, for good reason as we have seen.

According to the BBC 12 Nov 14, Gerry denied the kangaroo court took place.

tayto lover

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Adams fully accepts that the IRA investigated cases and cases of abuse and that it was wrong that they did this.
He also said that if the IRA investigated Cahill's case then that too was totally wrong.
Cahill requested the IRA get involved in her case rather than go to the RUC, thus as somebody else her said, she was complicit in her own covering up of the case.

And you simply cannot ignore (If you are at all interested in justice) the fact that people who have written evidence of thanks from Cahill found themselves in court over this. Do they not deserve better?

When did Maria Cahill report her abuse to the RUC?

jh79

This is the timeline of events according to the BBC

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-29786451

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

According to the BBC 12 Nov 14, Gerry denied the kangaroo court took place.

I think the BBC are wrong here.
Here is the transcript of what was said in the Dail that day.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2014-11-12/30/

It is only my opinion, but I can't see where he denies it took place.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think the BBC are wrong here.
Here is the transcript of what was said in the Dail that day.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2014-11-12/30/

It is only my opinion, but I can't see where he denies it took place.

"The other elements include an allegation that the IRA investigated the allegation of rape. This has now morphed into accusations of a cover-up by Sinn Féin and from that into a charge that we facilitate sex abusers. I reject these charges: they are not true"

So did an investigation by the IRA take place or not?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

"The other elements include an allegation that the IRA investigated the allegation of rape. This has now morphed into accusations of a cover-up by Sinn Féin and from that into a charge that we facilitate sex abusers. I reject these charges: they are not true"

So did an investigation by the IRA take place or not?

That is not a denial that it did. Can't see how you are reading that into it.

And organisation (the IRA) who were never going to go to the RUC and who were never going to reveal any information to the RUC (which Cahill agreed with at that time and for some time after) can hardly be accused of a 'cover-up'.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is not a denial that it did. Can't see how you are reading that into it.

And organisation (the IRA) who were never going to go to the RUC and who were never going to reveal any information to the RUC (which Cahill agreed with at that time and for some time after) can hardly be accused of a 'cover-up'.

The BBC took it as a denial of an IRA investigation.

He rejects "these charges (plural), they are not true" (again plural). That the IRA investigated, covered up and facilitated abuse. Are you saying he was only referring to the latter 2 claims?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

The BBC took it as a denial of an IRA investigation.

He rejects "these charges (plural), they are not true" (again plural). That the IRA investigated, covered up and facilitated abuse. Are you saying he was only referring to the latter 2 claims?

He first outlines that the allegations against an organisation (the IRA) which was never going to go to the RUC had morphed into allegations that SF had covered up.

That is, he says, and all the other SF members involved, say, is untrue.
And according to their lawyer there is written evidence in the form of letters to prove that. Letters thanking some of the people who ended up in the dock and letters she (Mairia Cahill) wrote to the IRA.

This was all available to the Spotlight programme but not revealed. Be careful what you believe.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He first outlines that the allegations against an organisation (the IRA) which was never going to go to the RUC had morphed into allegations that SF had covered up.

That is, he says, and all the other SF members involved, say, is untrue.
And according to their lawyer there is written evidence in the form of letters to prove that. Letters thanking some of the people who ended up in the dock and letters she (Mairia Cahill) wrote to the IRA.

This was all available to the Spotlight programme but not revealed. Be careful what you believe.

He said he rejected all of the charges. The charges included one that the IRA investigated the rape.

I am surprised that people are prepared to release letters admitting their involvement in an illegal investigation into a criminal act.

James Brown

So possibly denying what level of investigation may have taken place is a cover up of Ms. Cahill's claims?

Still no talk on the PSNI/RUC's role and them the supposed legal authority.
How folk can put SF in such low regard and then hold them to higher standards than they do the RUC or FG/Lab is very telling.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So possibly denying what level of investigation may have taken place is a cover up of Ms. Cahill's claims?

Still no talk on the PSNI/RUC's role and them the supposed legal authority.
How folk can put SF in such low regard and then hold them to higher standards than they do the RUC or FG/Lab is very telling.

This is quite baffling.

The PSNI have admitted to making serious mistakes in how they handled the case of Mairia Cahill.

The PSNI have apologised in full to Mairia Cahill for their actions.

A full independent investigation of the actions of the PSNI has taken place and the findings given to Mairia Cahill.

Members of the PSNI have been disciplined for their role in how Ms. Cahill's case was handled.

Recommendations put in place to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Not a single person on this thread or anywhere else has defended the PSNI in respect of how they handled the case, in fact they have been universally condemned.

Contrast that to Sinn Fein. No admittance of serious mistakes, no proper apology to Mairia Cahill, repeated denials that there was anything wrong, claims of missing documents, hints on here that there are other documents available defending Sinn Fein but not published. People on here night and day defending Sinn Fein and some even blaming the victim. Continued frustrating of the truth. Sinn Fein are being condemned for their refusal to come clean, to apologise and to reveal the truth.

The PSNI acted dreadfully and disgracefully, as I have said before, but they have put their hands up, admitted their failures, corrected their procedures and fully apologised.

Sinn Fein have also acted dreadfully and disgracefully, but haven't made any attempt to redeem themselves.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

He said he rejected all of the charges. The charges included one that the IRA investigated the rape.

I am surprised that people are prepared to release letters admitting their involvement in an illegal investigation into a criminal act.

Because they had morphed from allegations about the IRA into allegations about how SF and it's members handled the case.

And the only physical evidence in this case suggests that SF and it's members tried to help Mairia Cahill and that she thanked them for it.
The letters also include letters she wrote to the IRA specifically.

Why would SF have to apologise, just for the sake of it? :rolleyes:

They didn't handle it perfectly then who did. All organisations in the country struggle with these things.
None of it means there was a 'cover up'. In fact that is a ridiculous assertion given the actual physical evidence we have.

The IRA were always going to 'cover it up' with regard to the RUC, even Mairia knew that when she asked them to get involved.

Timberrrrrrrr

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because they had morphed from allegations about the IRA into allegations about how SF and it's members handled the case.

And the only physical evidence in this case suggests that SF and it's members tried to help Mairia Cahill and that she thanked them for it.
The letters also include letters she wrote to the IRA specifically.

Why would SF have to apologise, just for the sake of it? :rolleyes:

They didn't handle it perfectly then who did. All organisations in the country struggle with these things.
None of it means there was a 'cover up'. In fact that is a ridiculous assertion given the actual physical evidence we have.

The IRA were always going to 'cover it up' with regard to the RUC, even Mairia knew that when she asked them to get involved.

You keep mentioning these "letters" can you post a link to them? Or are we just expected to believe that they exist?

FrancieBrady

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You keep mentioning these "letters" can you post a link to them? Or are we just expected to believe that they exist?

You shouldn't really have any opinion on this case if you are not aware of them.

There are 2 of them linked at the bottom of this statement. Maybe give the statement a read as well.

https://madden-finucane.com/2014/11/04/press-notice-statement-of-breige-wright/

Timberrrrrrrr

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You shouldn't really have any opinion on this case if you are not aware of them.

There are 2 of them linked at the bottom of this statement. Maybe give the statement a read as well.

https://madden-finucane.com/2014/11/04/press-notice-statement-of-breige-wright/

So she wrote to one member of the IRA not the "IRA" as an organisation?

She thanks one person (who maybe genuinely did try to help her) but still does not take away from the fact that she was forced by the IRA to face her accuser in a kangaroo court.

FrancieBrady

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So she wrote to one member of the IRA not the "IRA" as an organisation?

She thanks one person (who maybe genuinely did try to help her) but still does not take away from the fact that she was forced by the IRA to face her accuser in a kangaroo court.

Her 'accuser'????

The point about the letters is that it backs up the consistent story from SF that they tried to help her.
Why would she write to somebody thanking them for all the help who subsequently ends up in court on charges of being on a kangaroo court.

That is for Mairia to answer and we may never know as she doesn't seem to want to verify what she says with evidence.

She demonstrably wasn't 'forced'; she requested the IRA to become involved rather than the RUC.
Her alleged attacker being there may have been an unseen for her.

maccored

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So she wrote to one member of the IRA not the "IRA" as an organisation?

She thanks one person (who maybe genuinely did try to help her) but still does not take away from the fact that she was forced by the IRA to face her accuser in a kangaroo court.

how is she meant to write a letter to the IRA?? - obviously it was going to be sent to an individual member. the IRA HQ address wasnt in the phone book.

The waffle on here is mad

blanch152

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ira-probe-into-abuse-stopped-victims-getting-justice-37339586.html

More details are being revealed of the Report into the PSNI.

The PSNI failed victims but it was caught up in a horrible dilemma. In order to investigate one crime properly, they had to pretend another didn't occur.

Does anyone know what this bit is referring to:

"Sinn Féin has for two days failed to respond to queries about whether the party believes the IRA carried out an investigation into Ms Cahill's child sex abuse allegations."

I thought that Mary Lou McDonald had accepted that Mairia Cahill was telling the truth.

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ira-probe-into-abuse-stopped-victims-getting-justice-37339586.html

More details are being revealed of the Report into the PSNI.

The PSNI failed victims but it was caught up in a horrible dilemma. In order to investigate one crime properly, they had to pretend another didn't occur.

Does anyone know what this bit is referring to:

"Sinn Féin has for two days failed to respond to queries about whether the party believes the IRA carried out an investigation into Ms Cahill's child sex abuse allegations."

I thought that Mary Lou McDonald had accepted that Mairia Cahill was telling the truth.

Yesterday, Ms Cahill said: "The decision by the IRA to involve themselves in a sex abuse investigation meant they robbed the victims of any hope of justice through the proper criminal justice channels."

Yet the same lady refused to initially go to the RUC and instead went to the IRA. Now she's giving out about the IRA investigating it?

blanch152

maccored wrote: »

Yet the same lady refused to initially go to the RUC and instead went to the IRA. Now she's giving out about the IRA investigating it?

My understanding of what happened is that she went to Gerry Adams for advice, and got directed to the IRA.

Perhaps I have a faulty recollection, but that certainly seems to have been the sequence of events, that Gerry referred it on.

FrancieBrady

We are now entering the realm of the absurd as sensationalist journalistic hacks and commentators try to keep the focus on their bogeymen/women - SF and republicans. No wonder most other decent journalists are no longer that interested in this story apart from quoting the various players.

Mairia Cahill wrote:

''The decision by the IRA to involve themselves in a sex abuse investigation meant they robbed the victims of any hope of justice through the proper criminal justice channels."

Even the RUC admit that they wouldn't have treated her allegations fairly and SHE asked for the IRA to get involved and corresponded with them by letter.

The problem was as Mairia Cahill properly identified, there was no fair and honest police force for the nationalist community to turn to. One of the core problems of the conflict/war.
We have seen the PSNI admit that it still doesn't fully exist and more reform is surely necessary.

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

My understanding of what happened is that she went to Gerry Adams for advice, and got directed to the IRA.

Perhaps I have a faulty recollection, but that certainly seems to have been the sequence of events, that Gerry referred it on.

“Siobhan and I met with Joe Cahill who was Mairia’s uncle. We told Joe of the allegation and asked him to speak to Mairia about reporting this to the RUC. He did so. Mairia did not want to do this at that time,” he said.

Quite the opposite of what you claim

maccored

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The problem was as Mairia Cahill properly identified, there was no fair and honest police force for the nationalist community to turn to. One of the core problems of the conflict/war.
We have seen the PSNI admit that it still doesn't fully exist and more reform is surely necessary.

i think that kind of reality goes way above the heads of our indo reading brethern round these parts.

blackwhite

maccored wrote: »

how is she meant to write a letter to the IRA?? - obviously it was going to be sent to an individual member. the IRA HQ address wasnt in the phone book.

The waffle on here is mad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The letters also include letters she wrote to the IRA specifically.

.

Francie is the one who claimed she wrote "to the IRA specifically"

Seeing as how it was another of the defend-SF-at-all-costs gang on here that made the claim - does that suddenly mean it wasn't "waffle" anymore :rolleyes:

maccored

blackwhite wrote: »

Francie is the one who claimed she wrote "to the IRA specifically"

Seeing as how it was another of the defend-SF-at-all-costs gang on here that made the claim - does that suddenly mean it wasn't "waffle" anymore :rolleyes:

theres a lot more waffle than that in this thread. 'defend-SF-at-all-costs gang' ... get paranoid much?