Are these Kerrymen for real?

Chinafoot

seaniemammy wrote: »

No matter how may times people are told there is more to the story, which I really hope will come out in the appeal, they have their own views about a town they know nothing about. People cannot discuss the story in full until and unless the facts are proven in court.

Hang on a second. Surely if there was "more to the story" it would have come out during his trial. Why on earth would any defence worth their salt wait until he was appealing a conviction to produce these facts you seem to know so much about?

ToniTuddle

Some people will always be blind even though the evidence is there.
Not much can be done in regards to that matter.

I do believe I have said all that I can say on this matter. Right now it seems like it(this thread) is going round in circles.

Not going to repeat myself again. My views on it are here.

I just hope this case will give other victims the courage to come forward.
That is all.

djqt3000

totally sick, all those men should be locked up to as its obvious they have no respect for women either

porte

This dirty sick fuking monster is lower than a slugs bollox. I hope, and I say this with passion, that he gets raped to a point where his guts are ripped out. It is beyond belief that a "court of law" and the security that "protects" it, allowed 50+ closet paedos to intimidate the VICTIM of this disgusting animals crime. As for the, and I say this very loosely, priest who had the fuking cheek to stand in front of the judge and talk complete cock dribble, he should be sharing the same cell for perjury. Why was the last 2 years suspended, more to the point, who the fuk gave the judge the right to categorize this crime as medium to high. In my book, a rape is a rape and anyone convicted should be hung at fuking midnight and feed to the other scum sex offenders that OUR over paid tax is wasted on keeping these kunts locked up.

ejmaztec

porte wrote: »

This dirty sick fuking monster is lower than a slugs bollox. I hope, and I say this with passion, that he gets raped to a point where his guts are ripped out. It is beyond belief that a "court of law" and the security that "protects" it, allowed 50+ closet pedos to intimidate the VICTIM of this disgusting animals crime. As for the, and I say this very loosely, priest who had the fuking cheek to stand in front of the judge and talk complete cock dribble, he should be sharing the same cell for perjury. Why was the last 2 years suspended, more to the point, who the fuk gave the judge the right to categorize this crime as medium to high. In my book, a rape is a rape and anyone convicted should be hung at fuking midnight and feed to the other scum sex offenders that OUR over paid tax is wasted on keeping these kunts locked up.

How can you accuse the 50+ of being "closet pedos"? (I'm assuming that you mean paedos). That's ridiculous, and the description has no bearing on the case.

It wasn't a rape, it was sexual assault.

Nothing like getting carried away with the wrong "facts".

TargetWidow

seaniemammy wrote: »

By the way, the man's current fiancee was not his girlfriend at the time of the incident

Thats true. Classy guy that he is he proposed to her the week before he went to trial. Nothing like a little bit of pressure to make a girl agree to anything.. but sure we already know that about this guy anyway!

porte

ejmaztec wrote: »

How can you accuse the 50+ of being "closet pedos"? (I'm assuming that you mean paedos). That's ridiculous, and the description has no bearing on the case.

It wasn't a rape, it was sexual assault.

Nothing like getting carried away with the wrong "facts".

Rape

What is rape?

Rape is any form of forced sexual activity that you don't agree to, ranging from touching to penetration. Rape is a crime. It's a crime even if you already know the person who attacked you, including a spouse, another family member, a friend or someone you work with. It's a crime even if you didn't fight back. It's a crime even if you were drinking, taking drugs, given drugs or were unconscious. Anyone can be raped, including men, women, children and elderly people.

TargetWidow

With all due respect Porte where did you get that definition? Did you make it up yourself. Did you tell the judge that this was the definition he was to use and to disregard the stupid auld LAW?

Rape requires that there be an element of penetration.

And I am not defending the guy in case you think I am. I am simply calling for people not to let their imaginations run wild. Although I have no doubt in my mind that if the Gardai had not walked up to this guy when they did it would probably have turned into a rape. But the case was what it was. The girl was unconscious when the Gardai found her. And naked from the waist down. The priest called him "a gentleman". Whatever else he is. A gentleman he certainly is not. When will men get it into their head that a girl when passed out is not game for any kind of antics, sexual or otherwise. It is just not on. I think the girl was couragous to carry on with her case. Despite all the despicable rumours the Foley supporters have spread about her previous history and true motives for the case. Everyone seems to be coming out with this "ah you don't know the full story there at all" defense for him. I know enough. He was caught out in his lies. He was seen on CCTV carrying her over his shoulder because she was too drunk to walk. He was bending over her semi naked unconscious body when the guards found him. GUILTY. Nothing they can spread about her takes any of that away.

ejmaztec

porte wrote: »

Rape

What is rape?

Rape is any form of forced sexual activity that you don't agree to, ranging from touching to penetration. Rape is a crime. It's a crime even if you already know the person who attacked you, including a spouse, another family member, a friend or someone you work with. It's a crime even if you didn't fight back. It's a crime even if you were drinking, taking drugs, given drugs or were unconscious. Anyone can be raped, including men, women, children and elderly people.

He wasn't convicted of rape, so the worldwide legal system must have a different definition to your personal take on the situation.

The chap is an absolute and utter fcuking animal, so too the cnuts who supported him in court. They should have all been fcuked out for disrupting the process anyway given the fact they were muttering away during the proceedings.

porte

ejmaztec wrote: »

He wasn't convicted of rape, so the worldwide legal system must have a different definition to your personal take on the situation.

I dont really care what the legal system want to call this disgusting act. In my book he is a filthy fuking rapist, pig, and a disgrace to our county. I hope the dirty dieing kunt rots. And why do people keep bringing up sh!te about not knowing facts, the facts are plain and fuking simple, thats why the twat is in jail and not at home with his family, like me. So call it what you like, to me and many others, he is still a sick, vile wanker and deserves to be called a RAPIST

ejmaztec

porte wrote: »

I dont really care what the legal system want to call this disgusting act. In my book he is a filthy fuking rapist, pig, and a disgrace to our county. I hope the dirty dieing kunt rots. And why do people keep bringing up sh!te about not knowing facts, the facts are plain and fuking simple, thats why the twat is in jail and not at home with his family, like me. So call it what you like, to me and many others, he is still a sick, vile wanker and deserves to be called a RAPIST

I see that you spend a lot of time on the Ranting and Raving forum.

You can't call someone a rapist when they haven't been convicted of the offence, not unless you want a defamation case in your lap.

A good old rant is meaningless when the wrong facts are used.

x in the city

lads lads lads

relax a bit, I know this 'monster', havent met him for a good few years but the last thing you would think he is would be a sex monster.

for him to be put on the sex offenders list for life is ridiculous tbh.


now, this freak carpenter dude in the midlands, murphy? he is a different kettle of fish and for foley and him to be on the same front is quite absurd.

anyway, the results of her test showed that she did not have intercourse at all.

anyway, im just saying that obviously everyone here is reading this stuff and saying he is a total sicko blah blah. but you most likely never even met him so relax a bit.

ToniTuddle

x in the city wrote: »

relax a bit, I know this 'monster', havent met him for a good few years but the last thing you would think he is would be a sex monster.

for him to be put on the sex offenders list for life is ridiculous tbh.

I know I said I wouldn't reply to this thread again but some things have to be said.

What exactly does a sex monster look like or act like?

He didn't have sex with her, but he did do other things which resulted in her being naked from the waist down etc

If he did that to your Mother or sister..... would you still think it ridiculous? I doubt it.

There are nice people on this earth who do good all the time and yet they can have a darker side to them that not many people see.

If someone nice and sound that I knew was convicted with as much evidence as this man has against him.....yes it would be hard to accept, but it would be accepted.

ejmaztec

x in the city wrote: »

lads lads lads

relax a bit, I know this 'monster', havent met him for a good few years but the last thing you would think he is would be a sex monster.

for him to be put on the sex offenders list for life is ridiculous tbh.


now, this freak carpenter dude in the midlands, murphy? he is a different kettle of fish and for foley and him to be on the same front is quite absurd.

anyway, the results of her test showed that she did not have intercourse at all.

anyway, im just saying that obviously everyone here is reading this stuff and saying he is a total sicko blah blah. but you most likely never even met him so relax a bit.

It's not ridiculous for a person convicted of a sex offence to have their name added to the register for life. Naturally, if a conviction is overturned after an appeal, the name should be removed.

...and we all hear that phrase "He seemed like a nice chap" after every conviction of anyone reported in the media, so the reference makes no difference.

Raiser

x in the city wrote: »

lads lads lads

relax a bit, I know this 'monster', havent met him for a good few years but the last thing you would think he is would be a sex monster.

for him to be put on the sex offenders list for life is ridiculous tbh.


now, this freak carpenter dude in the midlands, murphy? he is a different kettle of fish and for foley and him to be on the same front is quite absurd.

anyway, the results of her test showed that she did not have intercourse at all.

anyway, im just saying that obviously everyone here is reading this stuff and saying he is a total sicko blah blah. but you most likely never even met him so relax a bit.

He is on the Sex Offenders register so that he will never move County and get a job where he might have opportunity to abuse trust and sexually assault the vulnerable within his reach - such as Nursing Homes or Schools etc.

I am glad that convicted sex Fiends remain listed for life in a directory of sex Fiends.

Aren't you?


To all the jolly analytical sexual assault Supporters on here - He had his fcuking Penis in his hand when those two Gardai interrupted his ongoing plans.....

Was he was going to try and penetrate:

A - The Skip?
B - Potholes in the Car Park Tarmac?
C - The Girl he bought drinks for, carried into a dark corner of an empty car park and stripped, scratched, bruised and violated in every sense that is removed from decency?

In my opinion she could have wound up in a shallow grave somewhere that night had his 2 hours of wholesome car park sex with a comatose Girl not been interrupted.

Its clear from reading this thread that as a Bouncer he knew everybody and so he called Cabs for drunk folks 7 nights a week and helped Auntie Mary find the keys of her Mondeo when she was too drunk to see straight, and put Paddy in a cab home that night when he had shat his pants.......

Glad to see the anger coming out here - prefer to see angry and justified ranting and raving to Sick People justifying what happened that girl cause of what appears to be a tainted reputation and because the Lad always had a friendly nod for them.

Don't know what ye have accused her of - But I do know that She is better than ye Pious wittering Morons on every level........

Shame.

TargetWidow

I am hearing alot of this idea that it is rediculous for this guy to be on the sex offenders list from members I am guessing are mainly male.

OK then you guys who think its a bit rediculous.
You know this guy, he's a bouncer. You are out in a club and it's his birthday. You are socializing near his group and end up at the bar together to order. He comes onto you. You tell him where to go and that you are definitely not interested. The night progresses. He buys you a pint by way of apology for earlier. You are already pissed but you can't say no to a free pint right? Several pints later, you are too drunk to make your way home on your own. He (being a doorman you have often had cabs called by offers to get you home. You are now stonking drunk and can hardly walk. He throws you over his shoulder and carries you to some nearby skips. You get scraped bruised and are stripped from the waist down with yourman with his langer in his hand when a guard wakes you up from your stupor.

You wonder what might have happenned if the Gardai hadn't walked over when they did? You have no idea what has happenned but you know what he wanted to do to you from his come-on at the bar. You still think he's a sound guy? You'd want him on the bloody sex offenders list now I bet, or was he just having a bit of fun with you behind the skips and whats all the bloody fuss about?

It always amazes me that SOME (I do know there are decent men out there) men like to think that an unconscious woman is capable of consenting to sexual activities. But put the shoe on the other foot and ask them that if he had been a gay sexual predator rather than a straight one and suddenly, well. Thats a different story. Unfortunately with these guys you are wasting your time asking them to think about what if it had been their mother/sister/daughter/girlfriend. They have no respect for or time for women really.

Amande

Raiser wrote: »

He is on the Sex Offenders register so that he will never move County and get a job where he might have opportunity to abuse trust and sexually assault the vulnerable within his reach - such as Nursing Homes or Schools etc.

I am glad that convicted sex Fiends remain listed for life in a directory of sex Fiends.

Aren't you?


To all the jolly analytical sexual assault Supporters on here - He had his fcuking Penis in his hand when those two Gardai interrupted his ongoing plans.....

Was he was going to try and penetrate:

A - The Skip?
B - Potholes in the Car Park Tarmac?
C - The Girl he bought drinks for, carried into a dark corner of an empty car park and stripped, scratched, bruised and violated in every sense that is removed from decency?

In my opinion she could have wound up in a shallow grave somewhere that night had his 2 hours of wholesome car park sex with a comatose Girl not been interrupted.

Its clear from reading this thread that as a Bouncer he knew everybody and so he called Cabs for drunk folks 7 nights a week and helped Auntie Mary find the keys of her Mondeo when she was too drunk to see straight, and put Paddy in a cab home that night when he had shat his pants.......

Glad to see the anger coming out here - prefer to see angry and justified ranting and raving to Sick People justifying what happened that girl cause of what appears to be a tainted reputation and because the Lad always had a friendly nod for them.

Don't know what ye have accused her of - But I do know that She is better than ye Pious wittering Morons on every level........

Shame.

Sorry but I have to say you are out of your mind and not in touch with this case !!!!!
No where does it say he had his penis in his hand.
please get you facts right

Amande

iguana wrote: »

Seeing as how the woman's version of the story is backed up by Gardaí witnesses, forensic medical evidence and CCTV footage she could have a history of telling as many lies as Pinocchio. Her story is backed up by evidence, his has been proven to be lies.

If fact her story is not backed up by the evidence, She had a blurred memory of what happened, she remembers being carried but not walking out of the night club with her hands around him kissing and cuddling and then shown them smoking ciggerates together.
The medical evidence stated that there was no clinical or physical evidence of sexual assult.
Yes he lied to gardai but went to the station the following day and told them he had been with her and that he lied. He could not remember carrying her but when shown the cctv he said that that was them. It also showed him putting her down and the 2 of them walking to the wall where they were found.
There is a lot more to this story than people think they know.

iguana

Amande you quite clearly haven't the slightest clue about the case. He was caught in the act. He lied, even under oath. There was medical evidence of her being dragged and CCTV footage of him dragging her.

It doesn't matter that she was kissing and cuddling him earlier in the night when she was capable of it. It doesn't matter if she fancied him for years and always dreamed of having sex with him. It doesn't matter if she fully wanted to have sex with him half an hour beforehand. It doesn't matter if she ****ed 3 guys a night every night for the previous 5 years. It doesn't matter if she ****ed him 3 times a night every night for the previous 5 years. At the time of the assault she was not capable of consenting to anything and without her consent he had no right to undress her.

I would also like to point out that once again we have a brand new user who has popped up on boards solely to defend this guy and talking a whole load of crap about the case.

Discodog

Having any sexual contact with someone who is too drunk to give consent is wrong. No means no & being too drunk to know what you are saying also means no.

ejmaztec

Amande wrote: »

If fact her story is not backed up by the evidence, She had a blurred memory of what happened, she remembers being carried but not walking out of the night club with her hands around him kissing and cuddling and then shown them smoking ciggerates together.
The medical evidence stated that there was no clinical or physical evidence of sexual assult.
Yes he lied to gardai but went to the station the following day and told them he had been with her and that he lied. He could not remember carrying her but when shown the cctv he said that that was them. It also showed him putting her down and the 2 of them walking to the wall where they were found.
There is a lot more to this story than people think they know.

Was there really a trial, or did they just throw him inside on a whim?

seaniemammy

I know I am going to enrage some of you, but I was just thinking. When I was younger I got far too drunk sometimes and got myself into some really stupid scrapes. Some nights I don't remember the end. A couple of times I have woken up where I should not have been with people I should not have been with.
The next day I always felt really stupid and ashamed. I vowed never again to get myself into that state. Never once did I blame anyone else for the situation, including men who may or may not have taken advantage of the situation. Sure they were probably pissed too and not in a position to make a decent judgement. It was up to me to stay safe.

Chinafoot

seaniemammy wrote: »

Never once did I blame anyone else for the situation, including men who may or may not have taken advantage of the situation.

Are you having a laugh? So because this girl was drunk its her own fault. That kind of logic is absolutely sickening. Nobody has the right to take advantage of someone who is drunk. Nobody. I dont care how nice a fella you think this guy is, he carried her to a skip, dragged her along the ground, undressed her from the waist down and was caught standing over her by a guard who said the woman was semi-conscious. And its her fault cos she was drunk? Wow.

Your attitude is disgusting to be quite frank. Attitudes like this are why so many men get away with it.

Also, you never answered my question about there being "more to the story" and why it didn't come out in his trial. Let me guess, unsubstantiated rumour and reputation? Yeah, thought so.

seaniemammy

Thought that would get the feminists going all right! Not apportioning blame, but seriously, he's pissed, she's pissed, she leaves the place kissing and hugging him. Do you really not think there's equal responsibilty for the consequences? As I said, when I was youger, it wouldn't have even occurred to me to blame anyone else for the scrapes I got myself into.

Chinafoot

seaniemammy wrote: »

Thought that would get the feminists going all right! Not apportioning blame, but seriously, he's pissed, she's pissed, she leaves the place kissing and hugging him. Do you really not think there's equal responsibilty for the consequences? As I said, when I was youger, it wouldn't have even occurred to me to blame anyone else for the scrapes I got myself into.

I can assure you I'm no feminist. Merely appalled that in this day and age attitudes like yours still exist.

Not apportioning blame yet you then state that you wouldn't blame anyone for the scrapes you got yourself into...so you are blaming her. You think she got herself into the situation. You reckon he was so pissed, yet he was fairly quick off the mark in lying to the police and trying to cover his arse. Yeah, the poor love. :rolleyes:

Again you havent answered my question. You seem to think you have the inside story, so why didn't it come out at his trial? Why was he convicted if the evidence doesn't back up her story?

TargetWidow

seaniemammy wrote: »

I know I am going to enrage some of you, but I was just thinking. When I was younger I got far too drunk sometimes and got myself into some really stupid scrapes. Some nights I don't remember the end. A couple of times I have woken up where I should not have been with people I should not have been with.
The next day I always felt really stupid and ashamed. I vowed never again to get myself into that state. Never once did I blame anyone else for the situation, including men who may or may not have taken advantage of the situation. Sure they were probably pissed too and not in a position to make a decent judgement. It was up to me to stay safe.

With the greatest of respect for you Seaniemammie it is a very good thing that only a tiny proportion of the male population are sexual predators. With your logic, if any man who took the notion found himself an unconscoius drunken woman it would be perfectly alright to do whatever he wants to her. You seem to think that the woman is the ONLY one with any responsibility in these situations. What if it wasn't sex. Is it her own fault entirely if she gets murdered? Mutilated? Where do you draw the line with the man being a PREDATOR? Unconscious is unconscious. Men who have sexual activity with unconscious women are predators. Up there with necrophilia in my book but at least with necrophilia the victim is dead and not liable to be injured much more. It frightens me to be raising a daughter in this county.

dolliemix

seaniemammy wrote: »

Thought that would get the feminists going all right! Not apportioning blame, but seriously, he's pissed, she's pissed, she leaves the place kissing and hugging him. Do you really not think there's equal responsibilty for the consequences? As I said, when I was youger, it wouldn't have even occurred to me to blame anyone else for the scrapes I got myself into.

'Feminists?' :eek:

How about people who have basic ideas of how people - men or women- should be treated with some form of human dignity? Its not just women who were shocked about this situation but brothers, sons, fathers, uncles etc

TargetWidow

Ah now calm down dolliemix. All us women who like to stay conscious when we are out are called "feminists". She didn't mean anything by it:rolleyes:

seaniemammy

TargetWidow wrote: »

With the greatest of respect for you Seaniemammie it is a very good thing that only a tiny proportion of the male population are sexual predators. With your logic, if any man who took the notion found himself an unconscoius drunken woman it would be perfectly alright to do whatever he wants to h You seem to think that er.the woman is the ONLY one with any responsibility in these situations. What if it wasn't sex. Is it her own fault entirely if she gets murdered? Mutilated? Where do you draw the line with the man being a PREDATOR? Unconscious is unconscious. Men who have sexual activity with unconscious women are predators. Up there with necrophilia in my book but at least with necrophilia the victim is dead and not liable to be injured much more. It frightens me to be raising a daughter in this county.

With the greatest of respect back to you, she didn't give any signqal that she wanted to be murdered. Neither did he just happen upon an unconcious woman. She kissed and hugged him and willingly left the place kissing and hugging him. I said that I felt they had equal responsibility. I think it's a bit much to be ranting and raving about someone being a sex fiend in these circumstances. Some are even suggesting that he intended to murder her, which is absolutely ridiculous.
I personally think it is a bit much to act irresponsibly yourself and then expect someone else, who is also most probably drunk, to be responsible for you and to make totally rational judgements. As to the scratches and bruises, would they not have happened through sexual activity on tarmac, whether it was consensual or not? As to the bringing her to a secluded place, where do young people normally go if they can't bring someone home? Out in the middle of a main street? If he was genuinely the monster he's made out to be, would he really choose a spot beside the Garda Station? Bound to be caught eventually.