Philip Cairns' Murder finally confirmed?

Samaris · 11-06-2016 9:25pm

All sides appear to be able to get together on that this is indeed Ireland.

At least we can agree on the basics!

Fleawuss · 11-06-2016 9:27pm

Samaris wrote: »

Yep, it's the automatic assumption of malicious intent that's bugging me about this. Not to mention the attempt to move the blame from the man that did it to a witness. The full and absolute blame lies with the man who raped children, who molested children and who may well have murdered a young boy.

Just because he's dead and nothing more can be done to him does not change that. It never changes that. Sometimes there isn't a living person to blame, and no justice that can be meted out and that is tragic but that is how it goes. To seek another person to punish in his stead is blind and foolish.

Maybe this woman has something to be ashamed of. Maybe there was absolutely no reason she didn't come forward until 2011 and then 2016 (and possibly sometime in the 90s). Maybe she did just wake up one morning and think "hm, eggs, milk, report seeing the murder of a kid thirty years ago", but frankly, I think it highly unlikely.

Strawman argument. Excellent example.

Pretzill · 11-06-2016 9:28pm

Fleawuss wrote: »

You see, there it is. One person failed to do the right thing and who knows how many more lives could have been protected from abuse or worse if one person told the truth. There it is.

I said it. And it simplifies things. But my comment wasn't about this bastards victims. It was about the cover ups by his peers. Those who more than likely suspected or knew he was a sicko but called him eccentric. It was the darkness of squinting windows and turning a blind eye. It could have even been the old adage 'street angel house devil'. But no one thought it right to report him officially and no one would believe a child.

This woman may have come forward before. She may have been dismissed. She may have lived her life with this dark secret looming over her - but the truth is if proven true it is the old bastard rotting that is culpable.

Fleawuss · 11-06-2016 9:32pm

Pretzill wrote: »

I said it. And it simplifies things. But my comment wasn't about this bastards victims. It was about the cover ups by his peers. Those who more than likely suspected or knew he was a sicko but called him eccentric. It was the darkness of squinting windows and turning a blind eye. It could have even been the old adage 'street angel house devil'. But no one thought it right to report him officially and no one would believe a child.

This woman may have come forward before. She may have been dismissed. She may have lived her life with this dark secret looming over her - but the truth is if proven true it is the old bastard rotting that is culpable.

The sad truth will be that there are many people culpable to a greater or lesser degree. The abuse cases from the church to Savile all have the same pattern: people kept their mouths shut and silence enabled continuation.

Samaris · 11-06-2016 9:33pm

Fleawuss wrote: »

Strawman argument. Excellent example.

Want to define your issue with my latest, or just chuck out a convenient label?

I assume you're talking about the last bit. Again, it was mildly sardonic rather than utterly serious. My point is that you are seing things in an incredibly black and white, and, sorry, but rather naive fashion. The children that Saville attacked should be punished for not coming forward sooner and saving others. Never mind that some did and weren't believed. Never mind that that was -just how things were-*, that the man was practically unassailable as a beloved icon. Never mind that even when it did start, slowly, being taken more seriously, fingers were pointed at those now-adults suggesting that they were liars and only out for what they could get. And these were people that at least didn't have physical retribution to fear.

You and I do not know why this woman didn't come forward until she did (and acknowledging that she appears to have come forward before as well). Maybe we'll never know, or maybe we will. The difference is that you want punishment without knowing. I want to hold off on fire until and unless there is a concrete reason to do so.

*Yes, that attitude is awful in hindsight, but that is -not the fault- of the victims facing the terrible decision to risk being called a liar or worse by even those closest to them, and certainly by the media.

anewme · 11-06-2016 9:34pm

Fleawuss wrote: »

What I believe is that there is no excuse for 30 years of silence. You have all sorts of hypothetical excuses to hand: let her face a criminal investigation into 30 years of silence. Put all these excuses to the test. And you're assuming that Im assuming malice: I'm saying there is no excuse for her inaction. I have no interest in her motivation: the outcome of her inaction was 30 years of torment for the family. Excuses seem to be all that matters to some here. But then as you say, this is Ireland

It's not a hypothetical excuse. It's a very real possibility very common in cases like this.

IF you have any experience of childhood abuse you will know that these memories can be repressed.

You are assuming it was inaction. How do you know it was not a repressed memory?

I'm speaking of someone who watched a family member go through a similar situation and the repressed memories were activated after 60 years.

Why do you think the Gardai referred to incredible courage?

Stop projecting the blame here.

anewme · 11-06-2016 9:38pm

Fleawuss wrote: »

In my opinion yes. As should the police who didn't investigate. As should the bishops and priests who covered up abuse.

And what about the children who witnessed abuse and did not say anything? Should they be prosecuted too?

What about Cynthia Murphy
kept her secret for 22 years- a baby stabbed 40 times. She withheld information. Should she be prosecuted.?

It's absolutely disgusting you think Saville victims should prosecuted.

Samaris · 11-06-2016 9:39pm

anewme wrote: »

It's not a hypothetical excuse. It's a very real possibility very common in cases like this.

IF you have any experience of childhood abuse you will know that these memories can be repressed.

You are assuming it was inaction. How do you know it was not a repressed memory?

Unfortunately, that does sound like an excuse that many won't believe. I know it can happen. I have personal experience of something bad as a child suddenly becoming "unrepressed" for want of a better word after a decade, in my late teens. But I can understand if people think it's a cowardly lie to get out of "responsibility". It's not, but it's a very, very difficult thing to explain and have understood.

anewme · 11-06-2016 9:42pm

Fleawuss wrote: »

The sad truth will be that there are many people culpable to a greater or lesser degree. The abuse cases from the church to Savile all have the same pattern: people kept their mouths shut and silence enabled continuation.

If you want to be black and white about it, there's probably two reasons.

In some cases it's called Power.
in others, it's called fear.

It's a pity you can't differentiate between them.

Fleawuss · 11-06-2016 9:53pm

anewme wrote: »

It's not a hypothetical excuse. It's a very real possibility very common in cases like this.

IF you have any experience of childhood abuse you will know that these memories can be repressed.

You are assuming it was inaction. How do you know it was not a repressed memory?

I'm speaking of someone who watched a family member go through a similar situation and the repressed memories were activated after 60 years.

Why do you think the Gardai referred to incredible courage?

Stop projecting the blame here.

Of course it's hypothetical: you don't know anymore than I do. I'll repeat: I'm not accepting excuses for this woman. You might find that harsh or whatever. Fair enough. What I do know is that silence always enables abuse. And tolerating silence has to be ended. I want all claims and excuses challenged and examined and no more of the soft excuses for saying nothing.

Fleawuss · 11-06-2016 9:56pm

anewme wrote: »

If you want to be black and white about it, there's probably two reasons.

In some cases it's called Power.
in others, it's called fear.

It's a pity you can't differentiate between them.

That actually means nothing. People who do the bravest things are always full of fear. What motivates the ones I know of is a sense of right and wrong or black and white to you and a sense of care toward others.

anewme · 11-06-2016 10:05pm

Fleawuss wrote: »

Of course it's hypothetical: you don't know anymore than I do. I'll repeat: I'm not accepting excuses for this woman. You might find that harsh or whatever. Fair enough. What I do know is that silence always enables abuse. And tolerating silence has to be ended. I want all claims and excuses challenged and examined and no more of the soft excuses for saying nothing.

I don't know any more than you.

I agree we don't know the full facts.

There is one fundamental difference

I am assuming innocence until I hear otherwise. If it turns out to be someone who sat on their hands for 30 years I will have the same opinion as you.

You are assuming this woman has done something malicious to be prosecuted for.

You've already said Saville victims should be prosecuted for saying nothing. That's victim blaming. And absolutely disgusting.

If someone is raped and they say nothing and then someone else is raped, should they be prosecuted too? I note you've not answered on Cynthia Murphy or the children who also witnessed abuse of other children and kept stum?

If the Gardai felt this woman was an accessory or guilty there is no way they would use the words incredible courage. You seek to be glossing over this part of it.

Your reasoning is flawed.

Samaris · 11-06-2016 10:05pm

Fleawuss wrote: »

That actually means nothing. People who do the bravest things are always full of fear. What motivates the ones I know of is a sense of right and wrong or black and white to you and a sense of care toward others.

Then where's your sense of care to others? Even enough care to ensure that the people you want punished actually deserve it?

darkdubh · 11-06-2016 10:07pm

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Stop me I'm wrong on this one...
So she has been keeping this a secret for donkeys years but only comes out with it when he died. So in other words only now when it would not cause him any hassle.

Then she claims she passed out and awoke in his car?

Well, maybe it's just me but this sounds fishy. Sounds more than a guilty conscience. like she had more to do with this than she is saying and since he is dead she is pinning everything on him. I mean, her fainting sounds like a selective memory.

And of course why tell now?

Yeah,I thought there was something very odd about that too.I think she might have been more involved than shes letting on.

anewme · 11-06-2016 10:07pm

Fleawuss wrote: »

That actually means nothing. People who do the bravest things are always full of fear. What motivates the ones I know of is a sense of right and wrong or black and white to you and a sense of care toward others.

Yes, in an ideal world.

its a pity it's not that simple.

anewme · 11-06-2016 10:11pm

darkdubh wrote: »

Yeah,I thought there was something very odd about that too.I think she might have been more involved than shes letting on.

Agreed. I don't think it's more involved than she's letting on, but rather more involved than the Gardai are disclosing at this point in time.

Fleawuss · 11-06-2016 10:28pm

anewme wrote: »

I don't know any more than you.

I agree we don't know the full facts.

There is one fundamental difference

I am assuming innocence until I hear otherwise. If it turns out to be someone who sat on their hands for 30 years I will have the same opinion as you.

You are assuming this woman has done something malicious to be prosecuted for.

You've already said Saville victims should be prosecuted for saying nothing. That's victim blaming. And absolutely disgusting.

If someone is raped and they say nothing and then someone else is raped, should they be prosecuted too? I note you've not answered on Cynthia Murphy or the children who also witnessed abuse of other children and kept stum?

If the Gardai felt this woman was an accessory or guilty there is no way they would use the words incredible courage. You seek to be glossing over this part of it.

Your reasoning is flawed.

Youre assuming that the excuses offered in this thread are sufficient to avoid prosecution. In my opinion they are not. In my opinion she should be prosecuted. Put repressed memory and the claim she was a victim to a jury: let them decide.

Savile victims who did not speak out should be prosecuted. That is not blaming them for being victims of Savile: it's blaming them for allowing others to become victims of Savile.

On rape: same answer.

I haven't glossed over Gardai comment at all: I've ignored it so far. What do I think of it? At the moment, most Garda statements on operations serve an operational purpose. Now think about what I wrote before you jump in.

My reasoning isn't flaws at all: it's very consistent and by your lights harsh. That's different from being flawed

Fleawuss · 11-06-2016 10:32pm

Samaris wrote: »

Then where's your sense of care to others? Even enough care to ensure that the people you want punished actually deserve it?

It's in the right place. About protecting others by insisting that those who enable abuse through silence are punished. Only that will force action and protect countless others.

anewme · 11-06-2016 10:34pm

Fleawuss wrote: »

Youre assuming that the excuses offered in this thread are sufficient to avoid prosecution. In my opinion they are not. In my opinion she should be prosecuted. Put repressed memory and the claim she was a victim to a jury: let them decide.

Savile victims who did not speak out should be prosecuted. That is not blaming them for being victims of Savile: it's blaming them for allowing others to become victims of Savile.

On rape: same answer.

I haven't glossed over Gardai comment at all: I've ignored it so far. What do I think of it? At the moment, most Garda statements on operations serve an operational purpose. Now think about what I wrote before you jump in.

My reasoning isn't flaws at all: it's very consistent and by your lights harsh. That's different from being flawed

people who don't for whatever reason report they were raped should be prosecuted?

People who were abused by Jimmy Saville but did not report it at the time should be prosecuted?

I don't actually believe someone is saying this. This has taken a bit of an inappropriate turn.

You should be ashamed of yourself! pure victim blaming.

There's nothing more to be said.

I hope the truth will out and I hope the Cairns family find peace.

Fleawuss · 11-06-2016 10:39pm

anewme wrote: »

people who don't for whatever reason report they were raped should be prosecuted?

People who were abused by Jimmy Saville but did not report it at the time should be prosecuted?

I don't actually believe someone is saying this. This has taken a bit of an inappropriate turn.

You should be ashamed of yourself! pure victim blaming.

There's nothing more to be said.

I hope the truth will out and I hope the Cairns family find peace.

You don't listen very well. Victim blaming already dismissed. The Saviles of this world are enabled by silence. End the silence, end the abuse.

anewme · 11-06-2016 10:46pm

Fleawuss wrote: »

You don't listen very well. Victim blaming already dismissed. The Saviles of this world are enabled by silence. End the silence, end the abuse.

prosecuting abuse or rape victims under any guise is victim blaming a warped attitude that has no place in our society. That's all there is to it.

Samaris · 12-06-2016 12:01am

Fleawuss wrote: »

It's in the right place. About protecting others by insisting that those who enable abuse through silence are punished. Only that will force action and protect countless others.

There are some who enable abuse through silence because of society. People like those who ignored the Magdalen women and what happened to those that had no voice. As a whole, yes, they should be ashamed. But there are also those who felt themselves unable to speak out for many reasons. Maybe they tried and were shouted down. Maybe they saw others who tried and what happened to them. There are others who were children who were abused, who were not believed, who didn't know what happened to them was even wrong. There are even those who spoke, who were confused and upset, and who saw authority shrug and say that there was nothing they could do. Or that they were liars. Or that they should just accept it. And there are those who were brought up to fear the threats of those that harmed them or harmed others.

It is so incredibly easy to say "someone should do this", but without knowing why they don't or why they didn't, it shouldn't be so easy to condemn. There is more to defeating the culture of silence than by easily blaming the ones that suffered most from it.

I am speaking in a more general sense than just this one, the other people you have condemned with your easy* words. I don't know the facts of this case, but even if I was to learn that she just couldn't be arsed for thirty years (or fifteen or ten or whatever it was), I will still prefer to not have condemned out of hand and actually -helped- the culture of silence by attacking someone that came forward, however late.

*I don't know you either. Maybe your words aren't easy, maybe you suffered because someone else didn't speak up. If so, I'm sorry, but you are still letting that blind you and condemn other victims. Yes, you are victim-blaming and just saying "No I'm not, they should have spoken and saved others" doesn't change that.

Two Tone · 12-06-2016 12:02am

CaraMay wrote: »

Agreed. All the bleeding hearts on here feeling sorry for her.

Well I am not a bleeding heart at all and I don't think anyone is saying they feel sorry for her - they are just saying they don't know why she didn't come forward and they feel factual statements being made about her here (and what she could have done) are baseless when the information as to why she did not come forward for so long is not known, nor is it known who she is. People are just thinking critically about the possibilities due to the limited information. I would not be one for calling people morons for making their minds up about her (it is obviously an extremely emotive issue, and a case that haunts a lot of people here, myself included) but but it DOES look lynch mob-esque to rush to conclusions about her without knowing why she did not come forward, and the way there is more criticism of her than of the alleged perpetrator of this atrocity (and convicted of others) as well as direct comparisons of her with him. She is not as bad as him unless she also abused children/had a hand in Philip's death. Plus, people are getting very angry when this hardly unfair point is made to them. It's like they just want to be judge, jury and executioner without all the facts, and anyone deviating from that is an inconvenience for them.

I am not saying, of course, that there is anything wrong with wondering why she did not come forward much earlier, but the answer to that may be that she was a victim of the alleged abuser - maybe even his daughter? (I said earlier there is an old thread about him back up on the Radio forum here with a post from 2007 by someone who said they were his daughter). I know I am speculating also, but I do think something like this is more likely than her just deciding not to come forward due to her being a horrible person. It's easy for people to say intimidation, psychological wearing-down, blackmail, manipulation, fear of not being believed/backfiring would not stop them from coming forward, but people cannot possibly know unless in that situation.

And I think the fact the guards said she displayed great courage in coming forward is indicative of circumstances like the above.

But the above is just speculation - maybe she is just a horrible person who callously kept this to herself and did not give a **** about the suffering for Philip's family and led a contented, normal, easygoing life all these years... however, is that really likely?

Samaris · 12-06-2016 12:05am

I was wondering about the daughter thing myself, although she's not one of the eleven children reported at least - the first of those was born after Philip's disappearance.

Two Tone · 12-06-2016 12:10am

anewme wrote: »

prosecuting abuse or rape victims under any guise is victim blaming a warped attitude that has no place in our society. That's all there is to it.

To blame victims of Savile for his abuse not stopping because they were too afraid to speak out, instead of blaming Savile the abuser himself... pretty horrendous.

Fleawuss · 12-06-2016 12:37am

Samaris wrote: »

Yes, you are victim-blaming and just saying "No I'm not, they should have spoken and saved others" doesn't change that.

Victim blaming is where you blame the victim of the crime as being the cause of the crime eg your skirt was too short so you were raped. That is victim blaming.
It is very obvious that I am saying something different: Saviles victims aren't responsible for being his victims.

But if they did not speak out they are responsible for enabling him to continue. Not as responsible as those who ignored it of those who wouldn't investigate it. And those who did speak out and were ignored at least did what they could. But it's only when everyone accepts that silence is not an option that others can be protected from becoming victims.

Two Tone · 12-06-2016 12:47am

Fleawuss wrote: »

Victim blaming is where you blame the victim of the crime as being the cause of the crime eg your skirt was too short so you were raped. That is victim blaming.
It is very obvious that I am saying something different: Saviles victims aren't responsible for being his victims.

But if they did not speak out they are responsible for enabling him to continue. Not as responsible as those who ignored it of those who wouldn't investigate it.

Or even... the person who did the abusing.

Savile's victims have been put through enough horror physically and psychologically without being blamed for his crimes continuing - such blame is absolutely shameful.

I read now that Cooke was convicted of an arson attack on the home of one of the complainants.

Fleawuss · 12-06-2016 12:54am

Two Tone wrote: »

Or even... the person who did the abusing.

Savile's victims have been put through enough horror physically and psychologically without being blamed for his crimes continuing - such blame is absolutely shameful.

I read now that Cooke was convicted of an arson attack on the home of one of the complainants.

You could turn off the emotive language and actually read what I wrote. If you are implying that the threat or use of force means witnesses are excused then you have an end to the rule of law. You need to think about the reality of conceding to threats to witnesses.

Means Of Escape · 12-06-2016 1:09am

They sent in a solicitor and a priest to get Cooke to give more info rather than using a set of pliers .
Woman needs to be jailed for withholding information.
She saw countless appeals for information and did nothing .
Convenient now to purge her own guilt when Cooke was at deaths door .

Father died without knowing what happened to his son
Unforgivable .

_Whimsical_ · 12-06-2016 1:10am

At first I felt this woman should be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice and that she had to have been more involved than has been said. There just seemed no excuse to let keep this information to herself all those years.

However after listening to Paul William's on the radio this morning I have revised my opinion. He described Cooke as something as bad, if not worse, than Saville. A person who groomed and manipulated everyone around him.

He said that he heard from Cooke while he was on the run before his imprisonment. He received a letter from 11 year old girl,one of his victims, begging him to help Cooke. He said the nature of the letters from her were extremely shocking, very sordid, not the sort of thing a child would know about or be able to write ordinarily.She was so manipulated that she didn't even know she wasn't just speaking her own mind in the letters. The influence he exerted was so great that the guards had to arrange for this 11 year old to leave this country for good as it was the only way to get her out of his psychological grip. When he met Paul Williams he told him this child was begging him to run away with her to london, was convinced his victims fancied and desired him and he was helping them out so to speak by abusing them. He said that pattern of extreme manipulation was seen throughout his catalogue of abuse.

I felt it was heavily insinuated on the radio this morning that this woman was a child and a victim when she witnessed what happened to Philip. If that is true and against a backdrop of intense psychological and sexual abuse it's plausible she was just too scared to tell even in adulthood. Maybe it required her revealing her own abuse in order to do so. There are a lot of reason it might have been awfully difficult for her.

Philip Cairns' Murder finally confirmed?

Comments