Are these Kerrymen for real?

Chinafoot

And lets not forget that Mr. Foley had 18 months to build his case.

ToniTuddle

Chinafoot wrote: »

And lets not forget that Mr. Foley had 18 months to build his case.

And all these "stories" would have been doing the rounds from the moment it became public knowledge.
So the rumours and just that...plain old rumours.

Diogenes

seaniemammy wrote: »

I repeat Chinafoot, all I was saying was that we should wait and see. There are all sorts of stories flying about, we should, as I said, wait and see if any of them are true. That's what I hope happens at the appeal, if there is one. Nowhere did I say I knew anything about this girl. I will repeat, ad nauseum, I don't even know her name.

So you don't know her name, yet you see happy to imply that there are "stories" going about?

What type of stories? No one likes the kind of snide insinuations, and insidious whispering campaign you're engaging in here.

Dan Foley had 18 months to build a case in his defense, and still managed to lie on the stand.

Now we've got his friends on facebook making all sorts of name calling and implied accusations about the victim, and here's you saying that there's all sorts of stuff, and "lets see".

Shut up and stop gossipmongering like a fishwife, and stop trying to come up with extenuating circumstances for Foley.

In fact just sod off all together.

seaniemammy

Diogenes, save your breath. You obviously have anger issues. Go and try to bully some other new person, you don't merit a reply from me.

440Hz

Right, that is enough on this topic. I have been watching this thread and debating whether or not to lock it or not but this slate-fest has gone on long enough. The man has been convicted, it is not up to us to debate the facts of the case. All we can do is discuss the facts as presented in the case, and the verdict given. All that has been said already, I think this thread has had it's day.

440Hz

I have been asked why I didn't issue any warning before locking this thread. Here is my reason: any of you who have read the Listowel thread, or the forum charter will have noted this forum's stance on abuse of other posters - it will not be tolerated.

The short version, I had just received about 5/6 reports for the thread so it needed to be addressed quickly, and the best temporary solution was to lock it and prevent further argument. I did not/am not locking it to stop the discussion, I just wanted to break it up in an effort to calm the arguments.

The stance on this topic, as previously mentioned, has been stick to the facts, and the conviction given by the court of law, and posters were asked not to deviate from this risking libel, or personal abuse.

This thread has clearly gotten out of hand, and the slating and arguing is far too much. Tensions are very high about this topic, and as I have asked other posters to stick to the facts and not take sides, and given that I do not know all of the facts, I will not take any stance on this topic. Consequently, I can only moderate the interaction between posters in this thread and I feel that everyone in here could do with a break. Therefore, I made the decision to close the thread. It may remain closed, but most likely I will open it again shortly when everyone has calmed down in relation to this topic. This thread is supposed to be for discussion, not arguments.

Thanks.

440Hz

Ok... back in business!

Careful though, next time I have to come back to this thread it won't get re-opened!

Happy chatting

Liam79

Any local upadates? Is this girl still being shunned by the local community? Is DF still being treated like a jailed patriot?

Amande

Hey Liam,
No from what i have heard on the ground is that she is not being shunned and has infact enjoyed her Christmas and new year, partying in the town on several nights. Her and her family have been barred from one pub which was down to them boasting to the bar owner that the were going to clean the foleys out!!! what ever that means.The Bar owner I think is a friend of the foleys.
As regard Danny Foley all I heard was that his family had a very tough Christmas and that their hopes are now pinned on the appeal.

Raiser

Amande wrote: »

Hey Liam,
No from what i have heard on the ground is that she is not being shunned and has infact enjoyed her Christmas and new year, partying in the town on several nights. Her and her family have been barred from one pub which was down to them boasting to the bar owner that the were going to clean the foleys out!!! what ever that means.The Bar owner I think is a friend of the foleys.
As regard Danny Foley all I heard was that his family had a very tough Christmas and that their hopes are now pinned on the appeal.

What do you mean? I take from what you have said that reportedly the Victim had a nice Christmas and enjoyed festive drinks in the company of friends while the convicted Sex Offender had a shíte Christmas?

- Is that not a good thing?

As for the Victim being compensated, well she has been wrongly shamed, violated, assaulted, wronged, plagued and demeaned - Surely she should also be compensated?

P.S. Sorry if yourself Seaniemammy and the rest of the cast of extras from Darby O'Gill and the Little People are still up in arms that he didn't get away with it......

BaZmO*

Amande wrote: »

As regard Danny Foley all I heard was that his family had a very tough Christmas and that their hopes are now pinned on the appeal.

Why do his supporters keep going on about his Appeal? He can only appeal his sentence, and even if he does get a reduced sentence he will still be a convicted sex offender.

seaniemammy

Amande I wouldn't waste my breath any more trying to have a conversation here. Some are normal and reasonable, but adult debate is spoiled by those who are only interested in abuse and namecalling. If you don't applaud the "popular" opinion, they just don't want to know

seaniemammy

Court of Criminal Appeal

The Court of Criminal Appeal consists of a Judge of the Supreme Court and two Judges of the High Court. It hears appeals from people convicted on indictment in the Circuit or Central Criminal Court where they (the appellant) obtain a certificate from the trial judge that the case is a fit one for appeal. Also, where this certificate is refused, the Court of Criminal Appeal itself, on appeal from this refusal, may grant leave to appeal. An appeal may be made to the Court of Criminal Appeal against sentence only, conviction only or against both sentence and conviction. The DPP may also appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal on grounds of alleged undue leniency of sentence under the Criminal Justice Act 1993, Section 2. In the case of an alleged miscarriage of justice, an appeal may be lodged under Section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993.
Where does it say one cannot appeal a conviction anyway?

iguana

seaniemammy wrote: »

Where does it say one cannot appeal a conviction anyway?

A conviction can only be appealed if new evidence has been uncovered or there is clear evidence of a miscarriage of justice during the trial. That is not likely to be the case here. Foley lodged his appeal 3 weeks after his trial and there was 18 months between the assault and the trial. The odds of new evidence appearing in those three weeks is minuscule. And there has never been any implication that the trial was unfair in any way which would justify an appeal.

Anyone thinking that he has grounds to appeal the conviction has been watching too many badly researched legal shows.

ToniTuddle

He will no doubt go for an appeal of his sentence.

Don't know how long these things take but I doubt it will happen anytime soon?
Either way if he keeps his nose clean inside and is a "model" prisoner...those things go in the criminals favour most of the time.

But I doubt that he will get the sentence reduced.

Micheal1

He submitted a full appeal on the day after he was sentenced, as an appeal cannot be lodged prior to sentencing.

Micheal1

Chinafoot wrote: »

You're seriously missing the point here. This isn't the same as your drunken antics. This is a girl who had drag marks on her body and marks on her wrists consistant with being pinned. She said no. He persisted. God knows what would have happened had the guard not been around. The fact that she had kissed him earlier is irrelevant. Once she says no, thats it. Game over.

I really, really hope you're trolling otherwise you have a very messed up idea of what assault is and isn't.

Her injuries were consistent with 'being dragged OR on the ground'. This was in the doctor's report from the sexual assault unit in Cork. The same report that concluded there was 'no clinical evidence of a sexual assault'. There was also a doctors report from Kerry General, which she attended prior to being transferred to Cork, on the advice of the accompanying garda, having been informed that she was found partially clothed and semi conscious in a public car park. She had no recollection of the sequence of events which led up to this and had made no allegation of an assault. The doctors report from Kerry made no reference to any bruising and no reference to any injuries to the wrists. This report was not admitted into evidence. Having assaulted a female garda in the ambulance, grabbing her by the throat, the garda evidence stated that she had to be restrained for the duration of the journey for her own safety (by the wrists?) as she continued to lash out throughout. This garda statement was read into evidence, she was not in court to be cross examined by the defence. The victim also remembers being 'fairly sure it was Danny Foley because of the shape and size of the man and him wearing dark jeans'. She also claimed to remember 'fighting him off me the entire time' yet claimed 'my memory is very vague' and that I was 'in and out of consciousness'. She demonstrated how he pinned her down, with one wrist to either side of her shoulder, and was unzipping his jeans at the same time (with his third hand?) She lied about the amount of alcohol and the type of alcohol she had consumed prior to meeting him. The toxicology report indicated that she was clinically intoxicated (as was he), not drugged. She gave three different versions of events in relation to what was happening in one section of cctv footage. She tried to introduce an allegation of attempted rape when giving evidence, but withdrew it again under cross examination. She remembered very little, but suffers from 'recurring nightmares and flashbacks'. Her own three friends gave evidence which supported Danny Foley's version of events ver batum, and contradicted everything she said. The cctv footage did not show anything clearly, the judge himself stated that he could see nothing other than shadows, which he could not be sure was even a man and a woman, let alone identify who they were, as did a detective sergeant giving evidence. As regards your statement that anything could've happened to her had the guard not been around, they had spent almost two hours in that location. The cctv footage showed him walking away from the area three times to relieve himself. She had ample oppertunity to get away at any of these times, as she sat on the ground smoking cigarettes. The garda car passed by them half an hour earlier. Wouldn't they have noticed a woman being 'viciously attacked?' Would he have hung around for this length of time had he assaulted and attempted to rape her AT THE BACK OF THE GARDA STATION? These are not slanderous remarks made to 'denegrate the victim further in the eyes of the jury and public', these are verifiable facts in this case. There was no physical or clinical evidence, there was circumstantial evidence which was open to interpretation, and equally, misinterpretation, by the jury and is ultimately what his conviction was based upon. I have seen no reference to any of the above facts in the media coverage. And yet Danny Foley's evidence was deemed to be 'a web of lies'. The one lie he did tell was on the night of the incident when he denied having been with her. He retracted this statement within days, of his own accord, having no knowledge of the existence of the cctv footage, and with no proceedings having commenced against him. He said that he panicked on the night, realising how things looked. The judge accepted this as a viable explanation and instructed the jury to disregard it as a lie. The definition of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' appears to have been somewhat obscured in this case.

ToniTuddle

Micheal1 wrote: »

Her injuries were consistent with 'being dragged OR on the ground'. This was in the doctor's report from the sexual assault unit in Cork. The same report that concluded there was 'no clinical evidence of a sexual assault'.

Her injuries were from being dragged...OR on the ground? I don't understand what you mean by the on the ground part.
If she was just sitting on the ground she wouldn't have gotten injured?

She had no recollection of the sequence of events which led up to this and had made no allegation of an assault.

She may have been in shock plus seeing as she had alcohol in her system and barely conscious she may have been in no fit state to speak.

The doctors report from Kerry made no reference to any bruising and no reference to any injuries to the wrists. This report was not admitted into evidence.

If it wasn't admitted there would have been a reason for that.

Having assaulted a female garda in the ambulance, grabbing her by the throat, the garda evidence stated that she had to be restrained for the duration of the journey for her own safety (by the wrists?) as she continued to lash out throughout.

Never heard any of this until now.
She would have possibly lashed out due to the fact she was coming around from the alcohol and not knowing what was going on.
So reacts as a result.

These are not slanderous remarks made to 'denegrate the victim further in the eyes of the jury and public', these are verifiable facts in this case. I have seen no reference to any of the above facts in the media coverage.

Deleted out the majority of what you wrote there.

Just wondering if you could provide links to this evidence/court notes/something?
Or tell me where it is possible to get hold of such information.

Cheers.


Edit: To other posters reading this.....remember....Discussion.

Micheal1

If you don't understand the wording in the medical report, possibly the jury didn't either. It is possible, theoretically that these injuries could equally have been sustained by engaging in consentual sexual activity, partially clothed, on the surface of a car park. No doctor was present to support or contradict this theory or to present the medical findings in laymans terms to the jury.

She may have been in shock/been in no fit state to speak.
A reasonable assumption, but an assumption all the same. She undoubtedly was clinically intoxicated, she admitted to the doctor in Tralee that she had been drinking vodka. When giving evidence in court she stated that a friend bought her a vodka and red bull earlier in the evening which she said she didn't drink.

Perhaps there is a reason why the first medical report wasn't admitted into evidence. Perhaps it was a mistake on the part of defence counsel not to admit it.

Maybe she did act this way due to alcohol, waking up not knowing where she was. No doubt she was disoriented at this point. Can she have no knowledge of what was happening at this point and accurately testify as to what was happening to her some twelve minutes earlier?
A total of ten Gardai gave evidence in some form in this case. Four of them were at the scene before she was removed. Each garda statement reads 'a person who I knew to be "her name",' and not, 'a person who I NOW know to be "her name".' She was familiar to all ten Gardai. She then proceeded to assault a female garda.

I see no need to delete any of what I have said in my post. The court transcript will issue in due course and will verify everything I have stated.
Just felt the need to highlight the FACTS of the case, and the fact that there are many, many valid reasons why people have reservations about the verdict in this case. No 'hate campaign' has been launched against the victim of a heinous crime, these are just a few examples to demonstrate why the verdict is being challenged.

ToniTuddle

Micheal1 wrote: »

If you don't understand the wording in the medical report, possibly the jury didn't either.

It would have been explained to the jury for them if they didn't understand the terms used in the report

She may have been in shock/been in no fit state to speak.
A reasonable assumption, but an assumption all the same. She undoubtedly was clinically intoxicated

You see what you did there......

Maybe she did act this way due to alcohol, waking up not knowing where she was. No doubt she was disoriented at this point.
She then proceeded to assault a female garda.

First two sentences suggest why she may have allegedly lashed out at a female guard.

I see no need to delete any of what I have said in my post.

Sorry, you misunderstood what I said.
I wasn't suggesting you delete it.
I was merely stating I had deleted it out of the quote and was dealing with the bit I wanted to comment on.

The court transcript will issue in due course and will verify everything I have stated.
Just felt the need to highlight the FACTS of the case, and the fact that there are many, many valid reasons why people have reservations about the verdict in this case. No 'hate campaign' has been launched against the victim of a heinous crime, these are just a few examples to demonstrate why the verdict is being challenged.

You can't highlight these FACTS without the court transcript.
That's like telling a jury a whole pile of words and no evidence to back it up.

No matter what. There was plenty of evidence to get Dan Foley convicted.
We have to stick to the facts we have seen reported.

Surely you can see it from the other side too.

Discodog

Whilst I agree that we are hear to discuss relevant points of the case yet again we have a new poster who has appeared out on nowhere with apparently important information.

You cannot have consensual sex with someone who is too drunk/drugged to give consent. No consent equals assault.

cyning

ToniTuddle wrote: »

Edit: To other posters reading this.....remember....Discussion.

Totally agree with this...

Discodog wrote: »

Whilst I agree that we are hear to discuss relevant points of the case yet again we have a new poster who has appeared out on nowhere with apparently important information.

You cannot have consensual sex with someone who is too drunk/drugged to give consent. No consent equals assault.

Also very relevant!!! No consent was given. But sexual assault not rape so there was no sex involved.

Micheal1 wrote: »

This report was not admitted into evidence. Having assaulted a female garda in the ambulance, grabbing her by the throat, the garda evidence stated that she had to be restrained for the duration of the journey for her own safety (by the wrists?) as she continued to lash out throughout. This garda statement was read into evidence, she was not in court to be cross examined by the defence. .

Why wasn't it entered into evidence... if there was that much doubt about how she received her bruises why wasn't it admited into evidence? WHY didn't the defence request her in court?
Also the fact that she was known ny the guards means nothing. I know a lot of gaurds in Listowel and I have never in my life been in trouble. Small town and all that!

Micheal1

ToniTuddle wrote: »

It would have been explained to the jury for them if they didn't understand the terms used in the report



You see what you did there......



First two sentences suggest why she may have allegedly lashed out at a female guard.




Sorry, you misunderstood what I said.
I wasn't suggesting you delete it.
I was merely stating I had deleted it out of the quote and was dealing with the bit I wanted to comment on.



You can't highlight these FACTS without the court transcript.
That's like telling a jury a whole pile of words and no evidence to back it up.

No matter what. There was plenty of evidence to get Dan Foley convicted.
We have to stick to the facts we have seen reported.

Surely you can see it from the other side too.

The jury asked to see a copy of the medical report. The report was read into evidence as the doctor was not in court to testify, therefore they were not permitted to see it, it was reread to them. There was no medical expert present to explain it to them and it was emphasised by the judge that noone should attempt to, who was not acting in the capacity of a medical professional.

While alcohol/confusion may account for her assaulting a female garda, can we say without a reasonable that this was the reason? Had she been prosecuted for assault, there would have been ample evidence to convict. Neither of the two ambulance crew gave evidence in court.

I think to say that there was evidence to convict him 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is making an assumption. I certainly can see that there are two sides to this case, I've really only seen one presented here and in the media. If I were to base my opinion on that alone, I too would believe he was guilty. My point is, none of the evidence is as clear cut as people have been led to believe.

Micheal1

cyning wrote: »

Totally agree with this...


Also very relevant!!! No consent was given. But sexual assault not rape so there was no sex involved.



Why wasn't it entered into evidence... if there was that much doubt about how she received her bruises why wasn't it admited into evidence? WHY didn't the defence request her in court?
Also the fact that she was known ny the guards means nothing. I know a lot of gaurds in Listowel and I have never in my life been in trouble. Small town and all that!

Again, the statement was read into evidence and I agree with you completely that defence counsel should absolutely not have agreed to this. I cannot account for why the garda could not be in court to testify, She was able to escort the victim to and from the court on the day of sentencing and remain with her throughout.

You may be absolutely right that her being known to the gardai is not of any significance, just struck me as odd for 'a quiet girl who doesn't go out much'.

Micheal1

Discodog wrote: »

Whilst I agree that we are hear to discuss relevant points of the case yet again we have a new poster who has appeared out on nowhere with apparently important information.

You cannot have consensual sex with someone who is too drunk/drugged to give consent. No consent equals assault.

Is this privilege reserved exclusively for women? Is the fact that he too was 'clinically intoxicated' of any significance? And again, they did not have sex, because HE was too drunk!

If you refer to my earlier post, there is no question that she WAS NOT drugged. This was clearly stated in the toxicology report, which, incidentally, was not admitted into evidence either.

BaZmO*

Micheal1 wrote: »

I think to say that there was evidence to convict him 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is making an assumption.

It's making the "assumption" that due process was carried out in a court of law and that we as a society have to respect the decision of the court.
What's the point in having a judicial system if every time someone is convicted we say that there's two sides of the story?
There are always going to be miscarriages of justice but there is due process for an appeal should new evidence come to light. And until that happens we have to side with the courts and say that he is guilty as charged.

Amande

I think there has been alot made of evidence that was not dealt with properly during the trial which is correct and one has to question why.

Why was the first medical report from Tralee Hospital not read into evidence?

Why was the female garda not called to give evidence of the victims attack on her in the ambulance where she had to restrain her?

Why was there no doctor there to explain the medical terms used which until I looked them up had no idea what they meant or what part of the body they were talking about?

was this down to a bad defence.....maybe

Micheal1

BaZmO* wrote: »

It's making the "assumption" that due process was carried out in a court of law and that we as a society have to respect the decision of the court.
What's the point in having a judicial system if every time someone is convicted we say that there's two sides of the story?
There are always going to be miscarriages of justice but there is due process for an appeal should new evidence come to light. And until that happens we have to side with the courts and say that he is guilty as charged.

Fair points, admittedly. And absolutely, due process of law will have to be followed. I am not alluding to a 'conspiracy to convict' as was suggested in another post, simply emphasising that there are two sides in this specific case and that a jury convicted solely on the evidence presented to them, as they are required to do. It is the quality of the evidence that they were presented with and the evidence that was omitted that gives cause for grievance.

seaniemammy

Does anyone know, if an appeal were granted, will he have the same defence team or is it possible to change if yiou wish?

Raiser

seaniemammy wrote: »

Does anyone know, if an appeal were granted, will he have the same defence team or is it possible to change if yiou wish?

He should change his defence - If he wants to pull this one off he's going to need to be represented by Matlock, Barry Sinclair and the A-Team......