He had a certain fan base here and some weren't gone on him.
He disappeared very fast last year and now he's about to sue Twitter.
Truth on the back of an anonymous posting? Do you believe everything that is posted anonymously on the internet? 😕
Your opinion is driven by the fact you don't like the individual, hardly a solid basis for truth finding is it?
The only fact that has been established in regards to her age, is she lied about it, confirmed by her solicitor.
What you are doing is trying to bundle a bunch of your own assumptions together and masquerade them as facts. At a bare minimum it's disingenuous and quite malicious.
Quote from the letter:
“For the record, our client accepts, without reservation, that she was above the age of consent at all times that she and Mr McDermott met or engaged in a physical relationship, contrary to her original claim. She acknowledges the severity of this false claim and retracts it unequivocally.”
She certainly did retract the allegation that they met/had a physical relationship whilst she was under the age of consent.
Gusser, at this stage I too would like to know why you think she was only 17, can you link to confirmation of her age?
Do you no think the wording of the letter leaves some aspects wide open Dav? This would have been easily cleared up if all allegations were denied and retracted. Thats why I believe there is truth in her being barely above the age of consent and a school child. I cant for the life of me understand why his top legal people didnt push for a more unequivocal retrsction and denial. There is only really one explanation for that imo.
Well, he has deleted his Twitter account over the last few days.
Being barely above the age of consent means she was above the age of consent. Doesn t matter if she was 17 & 5 days or 17 & 6 months. You're obsessed with her being a schoolgirl. What does it matter?
Certainly it leaves some things unsaid, but when both are faced with stark choices, leave the allegations in place and allow the serious reputational damage to continue, but face a defamation action where it would be proven the allegations were false, the better part of valour would be for both to accept a compromise. Unfortunately the consequence of both being satisfied with the outcome, was to make people such as yourself unhappy.
I’m going to ask again, why are you sure she was only 17? As far as I can tell she confirmed she was above the age of consent, do you know for a fact she wasn’t older than 17 when they met?
Of age to consent when they "met or engaged in a physical relationship", the wording of that would make me believe there was contact pre-17. Otherwise it would unequivocally state above the age of consent at all time they made contact. I know if it were me i'd like that clarified 100%.
Who does he think he is Hugh Hefner
Maybe McDermott has dirty washing that he doesn't want aired in public? It's a possibility. Regarding her lying, see my answer below.
I wouldn't necessarily think she's a liar either. She is either lying or could have been mistaken about certain details - very important details mind you. I do think some elements of her story are true, and I think that's why McDermott is happy not to have details of the relationship aired in open court.
The whole letter is extremely hazy on details and wrapped in nebulous legalese that raises more questions than it answers. If he wanted to completely exonerate himself, and leave no ambiguity, he'd have done what @Gusser09 suggested and bullet point the key accusations:
This last point is not even mentioned in the legal letter he shared and is one of the stand-out accusations that this woman has made.
Someone here stated it earlier. This letter really is not the "win" McDermott thinks it is.
Its not you though, and unless you can show otherwise, you don’t know if she was 18 or 19, do you know?
See the quote from the letter, she confirmed she was over the age of consent when they met. Is that not unequivocal enough for you? You just want to believe there is more to this that she confirmed.
Perhaps that's why he should have mentioned her age in the legal letter. It's so shorn of details, it raises questions it really shouldn't.
She was above the age of consent. That has been confirmed by her solicitor. There is no value or need to pinpoint her exact age. If you are above the legal age of consent, it doesn't matter. The obsession with "barely legal" or whether she was attending school has no bearing on the fact her solicitor confirmed that she was OVER the age of consent when they met.
Why would he need to categorically deny that any sexual act was non-consensual? There has been no credible allegation to suggest otherwise. Nobody should need to defend themselves against spurious and unproven allegations, regardless of how much they are disliked.
Just a small point. All allegations are unproven until they are decided upon in court.
If McDermott did this girl wrong, then she should have gone to the Gardai with it. I'm not a fan of people airing this stuff on social media. Maybe I'm wrong, but I am usually genuinely suspicious of those who go to the media/social media first before going to the authorities.
Perhaps that's why he should have mentioned her age in the legal letter.
The letter is from her solicitors.
What age was she Mike?
You're 110% right. The reporting it to AGS isnt that straight forward though as we know.
For me if untrue accusations were made of this nature id want everything clearly listed and retracted. That didnt happen so people will speculate.
I acknowledge there could be a myriad of reasons for not going to the Gardai at the time of the incident/shortly afterwards etc. Still, if he did her wrong, she could have gone to the Gardai at any stage before she posted the allegations online.
I'm not a fan of trial by social media even though I've engaged in speculation myself. It's very unfair to make allegations online where people can't really defend themselves.
It's all well and good saying you can take a case for defamation but they are very costly, very difficult to win, and there's no guarantee of ever getting paid. It costs an awful lot of money to clear one's name in court.
Issued after negotiations/discussions with his solicitors.
So he and his solicitors should have demanded her actual age be included.
@Dav010 I don't know what age she is. The girl said she was 16 in her accusation online, the letter said she was above the age of consent when they entered a physical relationship. That could be 17 and barely legal, it could be 18+. Who knows.
I'm not a fan of social media either BattleCorp. I think it's appalling what happened here and nobody should have faced it.
I don't think he will have any success against Twitter.
I assume the letter which was release was done in agreement with his legal people.
He shouldn't have been subjected to a false allegation re underage sex.
Riding a groupie is not a crime.
Riding a seventeen year old is not a crime.
From what has been made public, McDermott is guilty of no crime.
We may find it weird but no crime has been committed.
And I agree with this.
All I'm saying is that with the Woke Metto agenda this guy pushed if he wants to make a comeback there will be questions for him to answer however uncomfortable they might. Those questions could have been cleared up in her solicitors letter which you would bet was agreed on by Eoghan and his legal team.
He might head off and do something else realizing his time is up. Who knows. His PR people are undoubtedly keep an eye on social media and threads like this to gauge what the public feeling is toward him.
Well, he has shut down his Twitter account anyway. It will be interesting to see if he goes back onto that platform at all in the future.
Probably not if he is going to sue Twitter.
I'd say the other EMD on twitter is delighted
Why? The pertinent lie was admitted to.
Also you or me have no idea what demands were placed on anyone.
There was plenty of pertinent allegations some of a criminal nature which weren't retracted or contested.
Let's be clear about this Boggles.
How do you know they weren't contested?
Really, could you point out where exactly in the letter any of that was "agreed"?
One of the pertinent accusations was admitted to be a lie. Her age at the time.
There was no retraction of the equally serious Oral Rape allegation that she made.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d38dadd4e9049f636f3a15f844846484.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a605da6df673e065ac5a7e976411f425.svg)
