Paedophiles are all around us!

The Corinthian · 19-02-2012 02:23PM

drkpower wrote: »

Taking formal prosecutions in the absence of evidence is an utter waste of time for all concerned. It very very rarely happens.

But it does happen.

And to use the present case as the motivation for this thread is bizarre, given that it appears to have been a reasonably taken prosecution.

How so?

Kinski · 19-02-2012 02:28PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So you posted without first doing any checking? Totally ignoring the facts and going off an a mad rant?

I concede that I did neglect to check, and to read the thread properly...but I didn't go on any rant. That's the difference - I just pointed out that the OP's version of events didn't sound very likely. And I was right.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But the consequence might have been a media storm about the failure to prosecute somebody for a paedophile act. So even if the DPP had thought the prosecution likely to fail, there might have been some pressure to bring it anyway.

A "media storm" over this? Somehow I doubt it.

drkpower · 19-02-2012 02:31PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

But it does happen.

And paedophiles happen; but I think you would agree that we should not exaggerate our response to that reality, yes?

The Corinthian wrote: »

How so?

There was apparently clear independent corroborative evidence that the man was masturbating under his towel.

Would you suggest that crimes which have a clear independent corroborative witness should not ordinarily be prosecuted?

Fuinseog · 19-02-2012 02:35PM

drkpower wrote: »

There WAS an allegation that he did something inappropriate which justified prosecuting him, a fact that many posters are ignorant of or chose not to reference. While clearly the jury did not consider it sufficient to convict, it is very relevant to the appropriateness of the decision to prosecute.

if I recall the article correctly the boy was not used to seeing adults naked and that was the main reason for his discomfort. the parent more than likely jumped to conclusions. i cannot imagine the two them were alone in the changing rooms.

drkpower · 19-02-2012 02:36PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It seems to me that the DPP might have been faced with a difficult problem. If the official dealing with the case had formed the view that the complaint was unreasonable, reflective of the paedophile paranoia that exists today, then the appropriate action would have been to decide not to prosecute. But the consequence might have been a media storm about the failure to prosecute somebody for a paedophile act. So even if the DPP had thought the prosecution likely to fail, there might have been some pressure to bring it anyway.

That is just speculation based on little.

The DPP had an independent corroborative witness in a he said/she said case. Aside from CCTV evidence, that is the best evidence one could expect to have in a case of this nature. Unless he had critical doubts as to the evidence of the independent witness, he was obliged to bring the case forward.

Looking at the known facts, the latter explanation is more likely correct

actuallylike · 19-02-2012 02:37PM

drkpower wrote: »

I dont know if paedophiles are all around us, but I know what is all around us; people who go off on rants without doing some basic research.

Kinski wrote: »

Oh, I missed the posts about the allegation that he was masturbating (the link in #10 is dead). So there was more to it - suddenly the positions of several posters on this thread appear rather ironic. People are so paranoid about paedophilia, they just totally ignore the facts and go off on mad rants, like.

Don't worry everyone, I'VE GOT THE FACTS

I especially like this bit...

The boy now aged 16 also gave similar evidence but in his closing speech to the jury defence counsel Mark Nicholas suggested that Mr Treacy had transferred his concerns about what he thought was happening to the boy who he said would have had little or no knowledge or experience in these things.

I also like how the jury found him not guilty with all the facts but the people in this thread with limited information love to still point the finger.

http://www.live95fm.ie/news/news-item/limerick-man-found-not-guilty-of-lewd-act-in-public-swimming-pool/6c7ae523-4fd7-4bc1-83a3-ceb089408394

Kinski · 19-02-2012 02:42PM

Fuinseog wrote: »

if I recall the article correctly the boy was not used to seeing adults naked and that was the main reason for his discomfort. the parent more than likely jumped to conclusions. i cannot imagine the two them were alone in the changing rooms.

Apparently they weren't - an independent witness reported that the man was moving his hand under his towel, in the area of his genitals, while eyeing up the boy. It could have been completely innocent, and a jury has decided that there was insufficient evidence for a guilty verdict, but assuming what this witness said was true, that behaviour is still pretty weird.

Personally, I dislike common changing areas in swimming pools, and these days I won't use one. My local pool has private booths located in separate male and female areas - imo a good idea. In my experience of common ones, it is not unusual for individuals of both sexes to inadvertently enter the wrong changing room. And anyway, I prefer to have privacy while I'm undressed. But if a person is using a common one, I recommend that they keep their eyes to themselves.

actuallylike · 19-02-2012 02:46PM

Jesus Christ, the man has a family. He was drying his mickey and was looking in a particular direction, probably in a day dream. Would he really risk everything he has, wife, kids, job, life to have a **** in front of everyone?

Kinski · 19-02-2012 02:51PM

actuallylike wrote: »

Jesus Christ, the man has a family. He was drying his mickey and was looking in a particular direction, probably in a day dream. Would he really risk everything he has, wife, kids, job, life to have a **** in front of everyone?

That's pure speculation. Anyhow, he's been cleard by a jury. But the basis for a criminal investigation does not seem as wafer-thin as some here are suggesting.

Fuinseog · 19-02-2012 02:52PM

a culture of fear has developed out of this, which cannot be healthy.
when I was in the scouts the young leaders would engage in horseplay with the boys. You would call them by their nickname and they would chase after you. it was all a bit of craic. now they would not dare lest they be accused of something.

there are new child abuse guidelines for teachers and those working with young people. Apparently, it is considered inappropriate to masturbate in front of kids and that is written down in the new guidelines. i find it odd and disturbing that something like that needs to be stressed.

Kinski · 19-02-2012 02:57PM

Fuinseog wrote: »

when I was in the scouts the young leaders would engage in horseplay with the boys. You would call them by their nickname and they would chase after you. it was all a bit of craic. now they would not dare lest they be accused of something.

I agree that some of the changes we've seen in recent times are a shame, and yes, there is some paranoia around the whole paedophile thing.

But you have to weigh that up against the fact that abuse of children by adults in positions of authority was a problem in this country - a problem which was hidden from view, and many abusers got away with it for a long time.

marienbad · 19-02-2012 03:00PM

Kinski wrote: »

That's pure speculation. Anyhow, he's been cleard by a jury. But the basis for a criminal investigation does not seem as wafer-thin as some here are suggesting.

But the whole thread on this particular issue is speculation and you have speculated along with the best of them. The salient fact is that he was cleared by the jury but you seem determined to retry him.

Fuinseog · 19-02-2012 03:12PM

Kinski wrote: »

I agree that some of the changes we've seen in recent times are a shame, and yes, there is some paranoia around the whole paedophile thing.

But you have to weigh that up against the fact that abuse of children by adults in positions of authority was a problem in this country - a problem which was hidden from view, and many abusers got away with it for a long time.

it was a problem everywhere. the media led us to believe that only that catholic church was guilty of abuse, then we find out protestants had homes for fallen women where they were abused and kids were also abused in secular institutions.
vigilance is good but you can go too far.

Kinski · 19-02-2012 03:14PM

marienbad wrote: »

But the whole thread on this particular issue is speculation and you have speculated along with the best of them. The salient fact is that he was cleared by the jury but you seem determined to retry him.

Ok, this is starting to get annoying.

I'm not speculating. We've gone from the OP's claim ("we have lost the run of ourselves regarding paedophilia and child abuse...A man in his sixties was hauled before the court having exposed himself to an eleven year old boy. It happened in the changing rooms of the local swimming pool and the man was walking naked and the boy took fright at the sight of a naked body and told his parents who brought a case.") to finding out that a witness alleged that the man was masturbating while looking at the boy - a much more serious allegation.

The guy has been found not guilty; he's not a sex offender.

But I reject the OP's assertion that the DPP's decision to bring this case before the courts is evidence that "we have lost the run of ourselves regarding paedophilia", particularly given that the poster's account of the case left out several key aspects.

P. Breathnach · 19-02-2012 03:31PM

Kinski wrote: »

Ok, this is starting to get annoying....

Starting?

marienbad · 19-02-2012 03:34PM

Kinski wrote: »

Ok, this is starting to get annoying.

I'm not speculating. We've gone from the OP's claim ("we have lost the run of ourselves regarding paedophilia and child abuse...A man in his sixties was hauled before the court having exposed himself to an eleven year old boy. It happened in the changing rooms of the local swimming pool and the man was walking naked and the boy took fright at the sight of a naked body and told his parents who brought a case.") to finding out that a witness alleged that the man was masturbating while looking at the boy - a much more serious allegation.

The guy has been found not guilty; he's not a sex offender.

But I reject the OP's assertion that the DPP's decision to bring this case before the courts is evidence that "we have lost the run of ourselves regarding paedophilia", particularly given that the poster's account of the case left out several key aspects.

The original witness was the boy I believe, and by his mothers own admission had little sexual knowledge so this is a stretch at best.

I for one am certain that the current climate had everything to do with this case being brought to court.

This reminds me of the case in the US a few years back when a nude man was getting a drink of water at his kitchen sink and was seen through the window by a women ( can't recall if a child was with her or not) and he was tried for indecent exposure.

P. Breathnach · 19-02-2012 03:43PM

drkpower wrote: »

That is just speculation based on little.

Which is why I introduced it with the words "It seems to me that the DPP might have been faced with a difficult problem. If the official dealing with the case...". [Emphasis added.]

The DPP had an independent corroborative witness in a he said/she said case. Aside from CCTV evidence, that is the best evidence one could expect to have in a case of this nature. Unless he had critical doubts as to the evidence of the independent witness, he was obliged to bring the case forward.

It seems that the "independent corroborative witness" was not sufficient to convince the jury. I was looking at the possibility that he might have been equally unable to convince the DPP's staff, yet the DPP might have felt constrained to bring the prosecution anyway.

Looking at the known facts, the latter explanation is more likely correct

It's not the only plausible explanation.

Kinski · 19-02-2012 03:49PM

marienbad wrote: »

The original witness was the boy I believe, and by his mothers own admission had little sexual knowledge so this is a stretch at best.

I for one am certain that the current climate had everything to do with this case being brought to court.

I don't know what you mean by "original witness", but you are ignoring the fact that there was testimony from another, presumably adult witness. Why are you disregarding that in your assessment of the decision to take this to court?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Starting?

Yes.

marienbad · 19-02-2012 04:20PM

Kinski wrote: »

I don't know what you mean by "original witness", but you are ignoring the fact that there was testimony from another, presumably adult witness. Why are you disregarding that in your assessment of the decision to take this to court?

Yes.

I am not disregarding it, I am agreeing with the jury and not giving it the same weight that you and the DPP are giving it.

Kinski · 19-02-2012 04:30PM

marienbad wrote: »

I am not disregarding it, I am agreeing with the jury and not giving it the same weight that you and the DPP are giving it.

You were privy to the jury's deliberations? All I'm trying to argue is that there appears to have been a rationale behind the authorities' decision to bring this case to trial - a solider one than the OP suggests. Do you disagree with that? By taking into account the claims of the boy, and those of this other witness, were the authorities acting incorrectly? Is the fact that this case went to trial evidence that "the hysteria seems to be spreading to ridiculous levels"?

marienbad · 19-02-2012 04:57PM

Kinski wrote: »

You were privy to the jury's deliberations? All I'm trying to argue is that there appears to have been a rationale behind the authorities' decision to bring this case to trial - a solider one than the OP suggests. Do you disagree with that? By taking into account the claims of the boy, and those of this other witness, were the authorities acting incorrectly? Is the fact that this case went to trial evidence that "the hysteria seems to be spreading to ridiculous levels"?

I don't need to be privy to the jury's deliberations, I know the result of those deliberations. Which means as far as they were concerned the DPP did not prove their case . What more do you need to know ?

And yes I do believe it is evidence of the OP's claim and a sign of the times. The DPP is prone to public pressure and sentiment just like any other body and it is easier to bring a weak case and lose and thus be able to say we did all we could rather than be accused of the reverse.

Now given our history of cover ups this is maybe a natural consequence and understandable, but that is a separate issue.

But for now an innocent man has had his life and reputation destroyed.

drkpower · 19-02-2012 05:36PM

Fuinseog wrote: »

if I recall the article correctly the boy was not used to seeing adults naked and that was the main reason for his discomfort. the parent more than likely jumped to conclusions. i cannot imagine the two them were alone in the changing rooms.

You should read the article, maybe. They werent alone in the changing room; there was another man there who gave evidence to the effect that the man was masturbating under his towel.

drkpower · 19-02-2012 05:41PM

actuallylike wrote: »

Don't worry everyone, I'VE GOT THE FACTS

I especially like this bit...

The boy now aged 16 also gave similar evidence but in his closing speech to the jury defence counsel Mark Nicholas suggested that Mr Treacy had transferred his concerns about what he thought was happening to the boy who he said would have had little or no knowledge or experience in these things.

What do you think that quote adds? It simply re-iterates that the boy's evidence was in essence the same as the independent witness. It also states that the Defence Counsel suggested that the independednt witness got it wrong. What else would you expect from the Defence Counsel?!

actuallylike wrote: »

I also like how the jury found him not guilty with all the facts but the people in this thread with limited information love to still point the finger.

Who is pointing the finger? What myself and Kinski are saying, i think, is that the decision to prosecute in this case appears to be perfectly reasonable based on the evidence gathered by AGS and presented to the DPP. I have certainly never suggested that the jury erred in their decisio; nor has Kinski as far as i can see.

drkpower · 19-02-2012 05:47PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It seems that the "independent corroborative witness" was not sufficient to convince the jury. I was looking at the possibility that he might have been equally unable to convince the DPP's staff, yet the DPP might have felt constrained to bring the prosecution anyway.

In every case where a prosecution is unsuccesful and where an independent corroborative witness was not sufficient to convince the jury, do you seriously consider the possibility that the DPP was constrained to bring the prosecution anyway? Or do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up this theory?

drkpower · 19-02-2012 05:55PM

marienbad wrote: »

I am not disregarding it, I am agreeing with the jury and not giving it the same weight that you and the DPP are giving it.

You misunderstand the process. The DPP does not have to believe that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in order to bring a prosecution; the DPP must believe there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction; that is a different test to the one which is before the jury, who must believe that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict.

So the DPP could have given the exact same weight as the jury to the independent witness; that does not mean that the DPP was wrong to bring the case; nor that he was pressurised into so doing.

P. Breathnach · 19-02-2012 07:19PM

drkpower wrote: »

In every case where a prosecution is unsuccesful and where an independent corroborative witness was not sufficient to convince the jury, do you seriously consider the possibility that the DPP was constrained to bring the prosecution anyway? Or do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up this theory?

About the same amount as you have to back up your view that the testimony of the independent corroborative witness was sufficient to justify bringing a prosecution.

marienbad · 19-02-2012 07:42PM

drkpower wrote: »

You misunderstand the process. The DPP does not have to believe that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in order to bring a prosecution; the DPP must believe there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction; that is a different test to the one which is before the jury, who must believe that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict.

So the DPP could have given the exact same weight as the jury to the independent witness; that does not mean that the DPP was wrong to bring the case; nor that he was pressurised into so doing.

Condescend much ? No I don't mis-understand the process . The man was tried and found innocent - they are the only uncontestable facts at this stage , anything else is speculation .

I really don't know what your point is at this stage . The OP speculated if this was a sign of the times , I agreed, you did'nt - what more is there to say ?

drkpower · 19-02-2012 07:43PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

About the same amount as you have to back up your view that the testimony of the independent corroborative witness was sufficient to justify bringing a prosecution.

I still dont think you are getting it.

The DPP has publically available guidelines which outline what must be present for him to bring a prosecution. Evidence of the complainant along with independent corroborative evidence clearly fulfils those criteria unless there are serious questions as to the credibility of either. There is no evidence in the media reportage of the case to suggest that there was any serious questions as to the credibility of the witnesses. In fact, the media reportage indicates that even after cross examination of both, the complainant and the independent witnesses evidence continued to be in substance, the same. Therefore, the evidence tends to heavily support the thesis that a prime facie case was made against the accused and that the DPP was right to conclude, as he must, that the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the offence charged. That is the evidence in support of my contention.

You suggest that the DPP erred in bringing the matter to court on the basis that he was pressurised (by who, you havent reallly clarified) into bringing the matter forward and that the evidence gathered could not have enabled a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the offence charged. You have provided no evidence whatsoever for that/those assertions.

drkpower · 19-02-2012 07:47PM

marienbad wrote: »

Condescend much ? No I don't mis-understand the process . The man was tried and found innocent - they are the only uncontestable facts at this stage , anything else is speculation .

It isnt condescension; it is fact. You dont understand the process. You stated you agreed with the jury by not giving the independent witnesses evidence the same weight that I and the DPP are giving it.

The DPP and the jury may have given the independent witness evidence the precise same weight and even still, the DPP would have been right to prosecute the case, and the jury would have been right to acquit. The job of the DPP (and the standard required for him to bring a prosecution) is different to the jury. That was your fundamental misunderstanding.

marienbad wrote: »

I really don't know what your point is at this stage . The OP speculated if this was a sign of the times , I agreed, you did'nt - what more is there to say ?

The Op speculated that the DPP brought the case because he was pressurised (by whom, it is not known....). However, the facts of the case that are known suggest that the DPP was entirely correct, and followed his offices guidelines precisely, in prosecuting the case. So the DPP did precisely what he should have done; yet you conclude, with no evidence whatsoever, that he did so for ulterior motives.

marienbad · 19-02-2012 08:03PM

drkpower wrote: »

It isnt condescension; it is fact. You dont understand the process. You stated you agreed with the jury by not giving the independent witnesses evidence the same weight that I and the DPP are giving it.

The DPP and the jury may have given the independent witness evidence the precise same weight and even still, the DPP would have been right to prosecute the case, and the jury would have been right to acquit. The job of the DPP (and the standard required for him to bring a prosecution) is different to the jury. That was your fundamental misunderstanding.

The Op speculated that the DPP brought the case because he was pressurised (by whom, it is not known....). However, the facts of the case that are known suggest that the DPP was entirely correct, and followed his offices guidelines precisely, in prosecuting the case. So the DPP did precisely what he should have done; yet you conclude, with no evidence whatsoever, that he did so for ulterior motives.

Condescend double much- I am not concerned with you and I giving or not giving the same weight as the jury or dpp- we really have no way of knowing that .We have no way of knowing if there was more to the dpp bringing the case than usual . Not unless you know something we don't.

The fact that the DPP lost would indicate that the case was not the strongest and it is reasonable to speculate than other factors may have been in play. You don't have to agree with that - but there it is.

Paedophiles are all around us!

Comments