Rory Gallagher - A dismissed case that was dealt with and brought to attention? Mod Note in OP

timmyntc

Mod Edit

Warning issued.

kaymin

Why is he detestable?

Rosita

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120585932#Comment_120585932

Yeah, had to laugh at those "I'd deny everything" comments. Anyone adopting that strategy would be very quickly reminded that "when you're explaining you're losing". Why on earth people expect him to respond to internet and newspaper stuff is weird.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587552#Comment_120587552

The football career

bucketybuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587083#Comment_120587083

I have a family member who had an ex wife who accused him of many nasty things, all of which were pure lies.

He was strongly advised never to entertain her accusations, not to give them credence, respond to them directly or give her any words of his to twist. To deny is to acknowledge.

The public nature of this case means he had to respond to the media in some fashion, hence the carefully worded statement that was undoubtedly drafted by legal counsel. But there is nothing strange whatsoever about the fact that he did not explicitly deny her claims, any man with first hand experience would say the same.

martingriff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120585642#Comment_120585642

Do you really believe if he said I did not do these allegations I am innocent suddenly everyone would believe him innocent.

bucketybuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587552#Comment_120587552

You couldn't like him if you breast fed him, a very arrogant individual.

Doesn't mean he is automatically guilty though.

celt262

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587552#Comment_120587552

There are so many stories doing the rounds about him over the years that if any of them were true its fair to say that is a fair comment.

NattyO

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587590#Comment_120587590

I've seen that posted several times on this thread, It still doesn't make sense to me.

Even if it did, it doesn't apply in this case - he did entertain her accusations, he publicly responded to the accusations, he just didn't deny them.

It's laughable to claim that he, for some unspecified reason, couldn't have said "at no time during our relationship or since, did I use violence against Nicola" - it doesn't matter if some people wouldn't believe him or not, it would be him publicly defending his name.

Like I said, no man I know would fail to deny these allegations if they were untrue. I certainly wouldn't.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587321#Comment_120587321

If he directly denied the accusations he would effectively be calling his ex a liar.

Without acheiving the near impossible task of proving a negative he would be leaving himself open to an action for defamation.

It's not inexplicable in the slightest, it's sensible.

I'm not in any position to judge the merit or demerit of the accusations but avoiding a subjective response and sticking to independent objective facts is the most sensible response.

NattyO

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587634#Comment_120587634

Like I said, I know no man that would not defend his name against these allegations, if they were untrue.

His wife has effectively said he is the absolute scum of the earth, and his response is "well I haven't been convicted of anything"

If she is lying, why would he not call her a liar? I'd rather be accused of calling my wife a liar, than be accused of being a cowardly, scumbag wife beater.

Again, where do you get the idea he has to prove a negative? He doesn't have to prove anything, just clearly state he didn't assault his wife. It makes no difference if he is believed or not, has he no pride? It's really simple, there's nothing complicated about it, I don't know why people are tying themselves in knots to come up with reasons why he would say those four simple words - I didn't do it.

bucketybuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587627#Comment_120587627

Think about it. If somebody denies a claim it opens the door for cross examination. For example, he says he never hit his wife, next thing there is a video of him throwing a wine bottle in her general direction, now he is having to explain further why that isn't what he meant. And when you are explaining you are losing, people don't look at the details, they just see the headline that the guy is backpedalling and immediately shout that he is guilty. Not guilty of throwing a wine bottle, guilty of beating his wife.

So you neither confirm nor deny. If you don't specifically deny then your words can't be used against you. That is why his statement only contains factual information that can't be twisted.

bucketybuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587682#Comment_120587682

Because your post is just internet willy waving. If you were ever actually in his shoes your solicitor would be strongly advising you to stuff your damn pride and say not a damn thing.

NattyO

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587689#Comment_120587689

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587707#Comment_120587707

😂

Jaysus lad, there's a lot to unpack there.

The gist of your first post seems to be "he can't deny he beat her in case she has a video of him roughing her up a bit" - well, yeah, either he is a wife beater or he isn't, he can't be a little bit wifebeatery.

That post and your "denying you beat your wife is just internet willy waving" (whatever the hell that means) post kind of sums up your attitude.

Some of us would consider being accused of being a wife beater to be just about the worst thing we could be accused of, short of being a rapist or paedophile. I take it you wouldn't, and would just ignore or laugh off the accusation. That's fine, but I, and many other people, would see you as lower than a snakes belly if you were publicly accused of it by your wife, and you didn't deny it, because we would naturally assume it to be true.

I would take my name as more valuable to me than a solicitors advice (under what possible circumstances would a solicitor tell you not to deny something that's not true?!) but different strokes for different folks I suppose.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587682#Comment_120587682

If his wife is struggling with alcoholism and other issues and IF the allegations are false, I could see how you might not want to twist the knife and start going full on against her calling her a liar or suing for libel etc.

At the end of the day she is the mother of his children, even if the mother was lying you wouldnt want to have it out with them in public for the sake of the children.

Poor children also have to suffer this social media trial too remember

bucketybuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587757#Comment_120587757

Roughing her up a bit?

The wine bottle example is from the Johnny Depp trial, he had to sit through a very public court experience because of how such things get mis-represented. Because lads like you change the details from innocuous and never touched her, to "roughed her up a bit".

I certainly hope you never find out how easy it is for somebody to ruin your life with false accusations. All your internet "my name is my name" willy waving won't mean dick if that ever happens.

cms88

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120586472#Comment_120586472

No

flasher0030

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587757#Comment_120587757

You sound very naïve. You may want to be all guns blazing, and lay into these allegations with a big verbal lashing. Your solicitor will obviously be calmer and will know the legal implications involved. I'm sure you are aware the legal world can be very technical and judgements can swing one way or the other by the mere interpretation of words that are specified in legislation. The solicitor will know all this, and whatever response was issued by RG was considered very carefully by his legal representatives - each word would be considered to make sure it cannot have any ambiguity. I'm sure an outright denial would have been on the table, but they choose against this, presumably for specific legal reasons.

Or alternatively, maybe there is something in the records (when he was being investigated) which confirm some physicality between himself and the ex-wife - that maybe they were both at it, and there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute on the basis that it wasn't instigated by him, that he retaliated. And therefore he couldn't deny some physicality now.

I don't know. I'm going off on a bit of a tangent. But just to caveat - the above is pure speculation. Just an opinion on what may or may not have happened. But for those who things that RG should issue a strong statement denying whatever the wife said, maybe ask your own solicitor why he wouldn't have gone that route next time you are in with them. Might provide some enlightenment.

NattyO

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587798#Comment_120587798

Sorry, you lost me in all that waffle, are you still saying that you wouldn't deny an accusation of beating your wife because it is "willy waving"?

You're a strange lad.

MacDanger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587936#Comment_120587936

I guess that's the point - him not being able to outright deny it implies that there was "some physicality" which may not meet the bar for a prosecution but for me anyway would almost certainly make him an unsuitable candidate for managing my county team. I think the Derry CB need to speak with Gallagher, get his side of the story and then decide whether to back him or not

NattyO

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587790#Comment_120587790

He doesn't have to call her a liar, sue her, prove anything or listen to any imaginary lawyer.

"At no time during our relationship or since, have I used violence against Nicola"

Very simple, no legal dangers, no accusing anyone of anything, no proof needed. A simple one sentence statement.

There is only one reason someone wouldn't say that, and we all know it.

NattyO

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587936#Comment_120587936

"All guns blazing"?

"Big verbal lashing"?

What are you on about?

"At no time during our relationship or since, have I used violence against Nicola"

If the above statement is true, then there is absolutely no reason why he couldn't say it.

If it isn't true, then he can't say it, and he is exactly what he has been accused of being.

Simples.

BaywatchHQ

It was easier than expected to obtain a ticket for the game, maybe it was because of some female fans cancelling their ticket bookings. I personally hope Rory will be on the sideline for the drama of it.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587757#Comment_120587757

I would take my name as more valuable to me than a solicitors advice (under what possible circumstances would a solicitor tell you not to deny something that's not true?!) but different strokes for different folks I suppose.

Different approaches would be appropriate 'in camera' in a court and in public (social media or otherwise).

It would be unwise to say something potentially defamatory in public that you cannot prove with certainty. Proving you never did something is an impossible task.

Can you prove you never broke a red light in your life?

Whether you did or didn't do something there will always be those who think there's no smoke without a fire. The damage is done by the accusation whether it is true or not.

Sticking to the facts that accusations were made, investigated and the public prosecution service determined they did not merit prosecution is the most sensible public response.

Equating this with 'at least I wasn't convicted' is a false equivalence. There are several very significant steps between the two.

NattyO

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120588014#Comment_120588014

If someone publicly accused me of breaking multiple red lights on named occasions then I would have no problem, legal, ethical, or moral with denying it.

If I hadn't done it.

This claim by multiple posters that he can't deny having beaten his wife for legal reasons is hilarious.

The only legal reason you wouldn't deny having beaten your wife is if you did.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120588028#Comment_120588028

You've conveniently avoided the crux of the question, can you prove you never did?

Rosita

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120588028#Comment_120588028

Re. the red light example, you answered a question the poster did not ask. The question the poster asked which was not "would you deny it?", it was "could you prove it?". Very different question.

bucketybuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587985#Comment_120587985

I don't know why I'm bothering since you clearly have no interest in actually understanding these things, but others reading can consider this example.

A man has abused his wife for decades. Beaten her, raped her, tormented her mentally, for decades.

On one occasion ten years ago, she frustratedly lashed out and scratched his face.

That woman would fail the NattyO test. That woman would not be able to truthfully make the statement "At no time during our relationship did I use violence against my husband".

If she did say it her husbands lawyers would rip her apart, they would produce the doctors note that showed evidence that she hit her husband and say it was proof that she was the aggressor in the relationship. All her claims would become suspect, decades of abuse but because she lost her temper just once she cannot use the definitive statement "I never hit him".

And then, some dumbass on the internet says that because she didn't deny it, then she must have been the aggressor.

BaywatchHQ

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120586731#Comment_120586731

The only thing I know it for is that it makes crystal. The average person never goes to Fermanagh, it is a forgotten county

overshoot

In terms of her being alcoholic (which she accepts), the kids are automatically deemed 'at risk' so she was going to lose custody. Whatever claims against him, theyre not proven, so couldn't be held against him in a custody sense. So in terms of reading into custody for disproving this case it doesn't serve much.

Files aren't forwarded to the DPP unless there is some evidence there and the police think there is something to pursue. For domestic abuse they unfortunately just have to build and build over time and as said before the DPP will have a high threshold (higher than the police) before seeking to move forward with something. (I'm not sure which authority/s are referred to, 2 incidents are ROI but wasn't sure if it was clear if they were the ones pursued.

I'd imagine being alcoholic she's isolated from many. It's possible people may be more amenable to being a witness if she has cleaned up. Most domestic abuse is behind closed doors anyway... He said, she said doesn't stand up in court.

On him saying nothing... I guess Trump has got done on the civil side of not the criminal side for calling her a liar... But he certainly handles things... Differently...