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.
His solicitors had no control over what allegations were admitted to being fabricated or not.
You do understand that right? that letter is from her solicitors.
You are wasting your time.
I am aware of that, Boggles. No need to keep mentioning it.
But this is one of the key accusations made in the public domain that if I were McDermott, I would be demanding was retracted as a falsehood. Along with the age piece, which was retracted. Particularly if I was not guilty of it.
Else I would sue for defamation to fully clear my name.
This is what @Gusser09 and others are discussing here and others on Reddit and Twitter have mentioned.
He's managed to partly clear his name, but the assault claim still hangs over him like a cloud.
I don't think anything was addmitted to be a lie. Admitted to be inaccurate maybe. They aren't the same thing.
People shouldnt have to contest or clarify baseless accusations.
I get it, you don't like EMD. Like me, you think he is a hypocritical prick who used his own brand of "woke" to further his career.
That still doesn't mean that he needs to prove he didn't rape anyone.
If an allegation is made, and proof is given, and an investigation takes place which can prove his guilt, then I'm right with you.
But to expect him to clarify and prove his innocence against spurious anonymous internet claims, one of which has already been proven to be spectacularly false, just to satisfy your curiosity into the sex life of two people above the age of consent is frankly a little odd.
The emotive language of "barely legal" can be shortened to simply "legal". The fact that she was a schoolgirl is of no consequence once she met the threshold of legality. If they are your issues, then that's a separate issue regarding your dislike of the legal age of consent.
Your desire for clarification is misplaced. It is up to the woman to clarify her statements which are dubious at best. Not him.
Else I would sue for defamation to fully clear my name
How?
Think about it.
Saying you were 16 when you met or had sex with someone (which makes them a criminal) is not inaccurate. It is a lie.
Some of the lies were subsequent to the initial posting and fully admitted to.
A man who cleaned the house where 17 year old Keane Mulready-Woods was killed was jailed today. RTE in their reporting of this called Keane a child. Keane is the same age as the girl that EMD was dating, so as she is still a child, you have to be creeped out at a 27 year old dating a 17 year. You also have to be more creeped out because he was a teacher.
But he wasn't a teacher. You are now guilty of spreading lies in social media
You are comparing an actual fact to an anonymous allegation posted online.
Please don't tell me I need to point out the difference in those 2 things? 😕
According to an interview that he gave to the Indo he was.
Link please, while you are at it, provide a link to support she was 17.
Every time I jump back into this thread it's the same stuff being posted over and over. Can everyone move on?
He did a bit of sub teaching when he was 24.
He was not a teacher when he was involved with this girl.
It's been clarified here already.
Your post about him being a teacher is typical of how misinformation can easily be spread.
So it's the age of consent you have an issue with.
Do you think it should be illegal for a 17 year old to have sex?
When did you lose your virginity (if you have)?
So are you saying Eoghan McDermott was lying during an interview when he said he had worked as a teacher in the past?
We've done this bit already. Practice what you preach.
Most likely a lie, but you can't 100% rule it to be a lie. It could have been an error.
Im saying the poster is lying by saying he was a teacher when having this relationship. He wasnt.
3 Allegations were retracted.
There was a relationship. Do we at all at least agree that is true?
Her being a school child and 16 when Eoghan reached out to her wasn't retracted nor denied.
Her being a school child when they had sexual encounters was not retracted nor denied.
If it were me I would have wanted to the following to be highlighted. Especially if my woke image and career depended on it.
The woman was xx years of age when we had consensual sexual relations.
I did not contact her when she was a 16yo school child.
The word falsehood was used as was the word inaccuracies. Falsehood can have two meanings: something that is inaccurate or something that is a lie, so we can't 100% be sure that the letter is an admission of lying. I'm like everyone else, I suspect it is a lie, but I can't be sure.
The only verifiable fact in this whole debacle that COULD be proven 100% was her age when they met.
Everything else is speculation based on anonymous internet postings. Yet this particular fact is pushed as it may have been misremembered or unintentional.
Yet EMD, as odious as I find him, has been expected to clarify every last detail of ANOTHER PERSON'S accusations?
It wasn't you though.
You have no idea what he has been advised by his legal team.
Do you think he has done anything illegal? I get you don't like that he was "woke" and "metoo" but that's got **** all to do with anything.
Why are you obsessed with the "school child" aspect?
HIs persona and woke image he portrayed has everything to do with it. Her account of the relationship says she was a school child when he made contact and when they had sexual relations. He didn't deny this and it wasn't retracted in any way shape or form.
He hasn't been found guilty of anything illegal.
In the eyes of the law a 17 year old is deemed mentally capable as being able to consent. I am not sure what I like with the implications of this post
"serious falsehoods"
"our client made false allegations"
"false information"
"she falsely claimed"
I don't think you need to "suspect" lies.
They are lies.
If she was a school child, why, considering that she was definitely over the age of consent, would that matter?
His persona has nothing to do with the accusations or his requirement to satiate the curiosity of people not involved.
You admit you have no grounds to believe anything illegal happened (outside of non-verifiable anonymous claims on the internet) so why do you expect or want clarification?
I don't. I'm saying if the guy wants to make a comeback then he will have clarifications to make.
I'm stating she was a school child. I believe it to be disgusting, morally wrong and indeed my view is it's predatory to message a school child of 16 when you are 27yo. That's my opinion.
McDermotts legal team or PR team haven't done him any favors at all.
He is the one who released the letter for everyone to see so we are perfectly entitled to question it.
Oh we’re back to the school child angle. You got to wonder about some people’s obsessions here and what’s in their search history…
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e68aa2b0e039b12ade8384a2f42841c6.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d38dadd4e9049f636f3a15f844846484.svg)
