Ann Lovett case - 30 years

Buford T. Justice XIX

baldbear wrote: »

Did the church encourage women to leave their violent husbands? The family must stick together at all costs. Wasn't that their mantra?

Mod note: There is no hint of either father being in any way violent with their families or anyone else for that matter. Leave those insinuations out of this conversation, please?

Buford T. Justice

juno10353

This online article refers to and quotes letter left on Ann's grave. I am unsure what to make of it


https://rexyreports.wordpress.com/2016/09/02/anne-lovett-still-asked-to-keep-somebodys-secret/

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Deleted User wrote: »

It wasn’t unusual for girls as young as Ann to be frogmarched to the altar to be married when they become pregnant. It didn’t matter if the unfortunate groom was the father or not. Their sin had to be covered up no matter what.

It was certainly unusual by the 1980s.

baldbear

splinter65 wrote: »

baldbear wrote: »

Did the church encourage women to leave their violent husbands? The family must stick together at all costs. Wasn't that their mantra?

What’s that got to do with this case? Do you think that it was appropriate for the Lovett’s to let Ann move in with her boyfriend aged 14 or not?
Do you think it was appropriate for them to subsequently allow her under age teen age sister to go to a disco then with Anns boyfriend and leave it to the PP to collect them?
Or do you think it was the churches responsibilty to parent these kids?
These questions only require yes or no answers . Its just amazing the level of deflection.

I can't spell it out without getting a ban.

baldbear

splinter65 wrote: »

baldbear wrote: »

Did the church encourage women to leave their violent husbands? The family must stick together at all costs. Wasn't that their mantra?

What’s that got to do with this case? Do you think that it was appropriate for the Lovett’s to let Ann move in with her boyfriend aged 14 or not?
Do you think it was appropriate for them to subsequently allow her under age teen age sister to go to a disco then with Anns boyfriend and leave it to the PP to collect them?
Or do you think it was the churches responsibilty to parent these kids?
These questions only require yes or no answers . Its just amazing the level of deflection.

I can't spell it out without getting a ban.
No to all your questions but I'm asking you why? Why were the kids out till all hours? Who were they getting away from?

Why went they staying at home?

Camilla Savory Tango

Camilla Savory Tango wrote: »

It was certainly unusual by the 1980s.

Unusual, but not unknown. I’ve put my thinking cap on and between 1980 and 1983, two girls aged 15 & 16 that I worked with were married with indecent haste. It transpired years later that the groom of the younger girl wasn’t the child’s father.

Glass fused light

baldbear wrote: »

I can't spell it out without getting a ban.
No to all your questions but I'm asking you why? Why were the kids out till all hours? Who were they getting away from?

Why went they staying at home?

McDonnell had run away from home, why did he do that?
Why was he out till all hours?
Who was he getting away from?
Why was he not staying at home in England?

Edit we can all drop hints and hope for a champion conclusion jumper. Was it neglected children or headstrong children

juno10353

juno10353 wrote: »

This online article refers to and quotes letter left on Ann's grave. I am unsure what to make of it


/

One conspiracy theory after another is what I make of it. That person should really stay off the keyboard. They're adding two and two and getting 4,783.7325456

splinter65

Camilla Savory Tango wrote: »

It was certainly unusual by the 1980s.

Unheard of. 1880s maybe. This rewriting of recent history has to stop. Some of us were actually here and remember very well.

Ak84

That clerical whispers article.
Interesting comments.

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

Unheard of. 1880s maybe. This rewriting of recent history has to stop. Some of us were actually here and remember very well.

Indeed. I also know of two more recent marriages of very young couples, but they were members of our ethnic minority.

Thankfully, an unplanned pregnancy is no longer frowned upon and such rushed marriages a thing of the past.

Camilla Savory Tango

Camilla Savory Tango wrote: »

It was certainly unusual by the 1980s.

It wasn't. I was born in 1982. My mam had many a story of pregnant women in the eighties who were either forced in to marriage or sent off to a different county to give birth and the child then given up for adoption. Ireland really was a very different place then and the church were the law.

ceadaoin.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It wasn't. I was born in 1982. My mam had many a story of pregnant women in the eighties who were either forced in to marriage or sent off to a different county to give birth and the child then given up for adoption. Ireland really was a very different place then and the church were the law.

I was also born in 1982, my mother was given the option of going to a mother and baby home to have me or being put out of her home to fend for herself. She chose the latter.

Hannibal_Smith

dense wrote: »

I've noticed that too. Everyone else is to blame for the feral behaviour of their children, but primarily the church.

That's handy and, to a point, entertaining. But it ignores the parents role in all of this.

It's not ignoring the roles of the parents. That's unfair. Given the reputation of the Catholic church, it is only natural that there would be some questions asked.

It was the McDonnell interview that set me wondering, with talk of burning letters and kissing rings.

It's a very strange story. First McDonnell living alone, second Anne Lovett more or less living with him. Suggestions she was raped. Suggestions of suicide and infanticide. A sister who in her teenage years was out till 2.45am (I think) , a priest driving herself and McDonnell home ( was that normal in rural towns in the 80s?). A mother woken at 3am to be told her daughter was crying and was bruised and who was pronounced dead 2 hours later?

Or have I read it all wrong? If I'm not wrong and there was something more sinister going on, then surely it's worth finding the truth behind what happened to the two girls?

Glass fused light

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

It's not ignoring the roles of the parents.  That's unfair.  Given the reputation of the Catholic church, it is only natural that there would be some questions asked.

It was the McDonnell interview that set me wondering, with talk of burning letters

She was 15, the previously discussed plan was that she would go to Dublin, and she was pregnant, and believes he was the father. 
The unaddressed letter said she was going to kill herself. The other,  his letter we are only given the gist of, her still loving him, asking his forgiveness and that someone was questioning who the dad was.
This is a 17 who was going to 'stand by' her. In the 80's if you got 'caught' you got 'married', standing by was usually followed by doing a bunk when the reality of having a girlfriend and baby sunk in.
She was 15 and when he heard she could be pregnant he was not turning up with an engagement ring and a wedding date, or even 2 bus tickets to Dublin, we are all heroes in our own stories perhaps the gist left out a little?

and kissing rings.  

thats the etiquette of a bishops ring.

It's a very strange story. 
First McDonnell living alone, 

 his decision he had runaway from his mother's care

second Anne Lovett more or less living with him.

she could have been but if known that was her parents responsibility to sort out.

Suggestions she was raped

she was 14 and having sex, she could not consent was raped by McDonnelly every time they had sex.
From what McDonnell says she was beaten and maybe raped around the time of conception. He apparently only disclosed this after she was dead.
If he had taken the stand at her inquest he would have been charged and without doubt convicted. Even if she had been attacked by someone and blood tests proved he was not the father, and he would have ended up in jail.

Suggestions of suicide and infanticide. 

possible suicide letter found after her death and the question of why she did what she did and did not seek adult help. On the day she died there is nothing to to suggest that she was deliberately trying to harm either herself or her baby.

A sister who in her teenage years was out till 2.45am (I think) ,

 
that was her parents responsibility to sort out, but would not be unknown for friends to pile into a car and not to come home 

a priest driving herself and McDonnell home
 

 read post 191 

 
was that normal in rural towns in the 80s? 
 

very few people had second cars may not even have a car at all. You piled into any car that was going. A lot of the car accidents at night resulted in multiple teen injury and death because unless you were the (sometimes drunk) driver it was 2 or more per seat.

A mother woken at 3am to be told her daughter was crying 

 ever heard  "wait untill your father gets home" the mothers role was that of a care giver.
Second it was after 3am as both parents were in bed.

 

and was bruised 

A  post death examination result, no evidence was included in the interview as to when or how the injury occurred.

and who was pronounced dead 2 hours later? 

By a doctor who was called to the house by the parents

Or have I read it all wrong?  If I'm not wrong and there was something more sinister going on, then surely it's worth finding the truth behind what happened to the two girls?

It could have been that there was rumours of someone else being the father but she apparently did not name this person and he apparently did not know either.
Someone made a decision not to involve him in the inquest and it was to his benefit. he was never publicly named as the boyfriend and he can't remember the content of the letter nor the context of the discussion with the bishop.

dense

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

It's not ignoring the roles of the parents. That's unfair. Given the reputation of the Catholic church, it is only natural that there would be some questions asked.

It was the McDonnell interview that set me wondering, with talk of burning letters and kissing rings.

It's a very strange story. First McDonnell living alone, second Anne Lovett more or less living with him. Suggestions she was raped. Suggestions of suicide and infanticide. A sister who in her teenage years was out till 2.45am (I think) , a priest driving herself and McDonnell home ( was that normal in rural towns in the 80s?). A mother woken at 3am to be told her daughter was crying and was bruised and who was pronounced dead 2 hours later?

Or have I read it all wrong? If I'm not wrong and there was something more sinister going on, then surely it's worth finding the truth behind what happened to the two girls?

No, I don't think you're wrong at all, and it is important to ask the right questions, but without some people jumping to conclusions and excluding relevant parties.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Deleted User wrote: »

It wasn't. I was born in 1982. My mam had many a story of pregnant women in the eighties who were either forced in to marriage or sent off to a different county to give birth and the child then given up for adoption. Ireland really was a very different place then and the church were the law.

In places, yes.

I'm the same age as Ann Lovett and there was a child in my class with an unmarried mother, which was unusual but not unheard of. And treated no differently than the other kids or there would be hell to pay by the other parents.

And two girls in my secondary school had kids while at school, one leaving and emigrating, the other having the child after the leaving cert and going onto third level.

There is a lot of truth to what you're saying but it was by no means a universal experience.

Hannibal_Smith

dense wrote: »

No, I don't think you're wrong at all, and it is important to ask the right questions, but without some people jumping to conclusions and excluding relevant parties.

I agree. Relevant parties shouldn't be excluded. No one is sure. I just wish we could get to the truth for the sake of those two girls.

skearnsot

baldbear wrote: »

Did the church encourage women to leave their violent husbands? The family must stick together at all costs. Wasn't that their mantra?

That and procreate and give the priests money - I remember priests calling out names of parishioners who didn’t put enough money in the collection on a Sunday! Some of them barely able to afford dinner for the week for their family

Hannibal_Smith

Glass fused light wrote: »

She was 15, the previously discussed plan was that she would go to Dublin, and she was pregnant, and believes he was the father. 
The unaddressed letter said she was going to kill herself. The other,  his letter we are only given the gist of, her still loving him, asking his forgiveness and that someone was questioning who the dad was.
This is a 17 who was going to 'stand by' her. In the 80's if you got 'caught' you got 'married', standing by was usually followed by doing a bunk when the reality of having a girlfriend and baby sunk in.
She was 15 and when he heard she could be pregnant he was not turning up with an engagement ring and a wedding date, or even 2 bus tickets to Dublin, we are all heroes in our own stories perhaps the gist left out a little?


thats the etiquette of a bishops ring.


 his decision he had runaway from his mother's care


she could have been but if known that was her parents responsibility to sort out.


she was 14 and having sex, she could not consent was raped by McDonnelly every time they had sex.
From what McDonnell says she was beaten and maybe raped around the time of conception. He apparently only disclosed this after she was dead.
If he had taken the stand at her inquest he would have been charged and without doubt convicted. Even if she had been attacked by someone and blood tests proved he was not the father, and he would have ended up in jail.


possible suicide letter found after her death and the question of why she did what she did and did not seek adult help. On the day she died there is nothing to to suggest that she was deliberately trying to harm either herself or her baby.

 
that was her parents responsibility to sort out, but would not be unknown for friends to pile into a car and not to come home 


 read post 191 


very few people had second cars may not even have a car at all. You piled into any car that was going. A lot of the car accidents at night resulted in multiple teen injury and death because unless you were the (sometimes drunk) driver it was 2 or more per seat.


 ever heard  "wait untill your father gets home" the mothers role was that of a care giver.
Second it was after 3am as both parents were in bed.

 
A  post death examination result, no evidence was included in the interview as to when or how the injury occurred.


By a doctor who was called to the house by the parents




It could have been that there was rumours of someone else being the father but she apparently did not name this person and he apparently did not know either.
Someone made a decision not to involve him in the inquest and it was to his benefit. he was never publicly named as the boyfriend and he can't remember the content of the letter nor the context of the discussion with the bishop.

I really hate when people break up posts :pac:

Previously discussed plan? So the family knew she was pregnant? She was planning on going to Dublin and then some how Ann decided to change the plan? Maybe he did leave out some details, or maybe he genuinely didn't know? With all other interested parties dead and the letter burned there's no way to know. The inquest the baby died during birth and she died of hemmhorage in hospital. No mention of suicide anywhere, despite what the letter suggested.

Bishops etiquette is irrelevant. Why was he getting involved? Was the parish priest not able to deal with it? Wasn't it the parish priest not the one driving them round?

I never said it wasn't her parent's responsibility?

Was it normal for a priest to be giving people a lift home? Would he hang around dances outside waiting for people who needed a lift? What time was the dance over at that she wasn't home until near 3am?

Where did you read the most death examination result?

For the rest of it, I can't remember what parts of my post you're replying to because I can't see it on the reply box unfortunately.

splinter65

dense wrote: »

No, I don't think you're wrong at all, and it is important to ask the right questions, but without some people jumping to conclusions and excluding relevant parties.

....and moving facts and allegations around in order to fit a theory or an agenda.

Hannibal_Smith

splinter65 wrote: »

....and moving facts and allegations around in order to fit a theory or an agenda.

No theory or agenda here. This thread was the first place I heart mention of anything other than a 15 year old and her baby dying tragically in child birth. Hence my questions.

splinter65

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I really hate when people break up posts :pac:

Previously discussed plan? So the family knew she was pregnant? She was planning on going to Dublin and then some how Ann decided to change the plan? Maybe he did leave out some details, or maybe he genuinely didn't know? With all other interested parties dead and the letter burned there's no way to know. The inquest the baby died during birth and she died of hemmhorage in hospital. No mention of suicide anywhere, despite what the letter suggested.

Bishops etiquette is irrelevant. Why was he getting involved? Was the parish priest not able to deal with it? Wasn't it the parish priest not the one driving them round?

I never said it wasn't her parent's responsibility?

Was it normal for a priest to be giving people a lift home? Would he hang around dances outside waiting for people who needed a lift? What time was the dance over at that she wasn't home until near 3am?

Where did you read the most death examination result?

For the rest of it, I can't remember what parts of my post you're replying to because I can't see it on the reply box unfortunately.

According to McDonnell, when they were having unprotected sex he and Ann discussed a plan if she did become pregnant. This plan involved her going to Dublin to be looked after by someone she knew there. Very vague I know but that is what McDonnell says. No mention of any discussion with her parents at all.
When the priest was collecting McDonnell from the dance, McDonnell was living in the priests house as the local authority had taken the house of him as he had no right to stay there.
Despite having an aunt in Granard he says he had no where to live.
So the priest was acting in loco parentis.
That’s why he was collecting him from the disco.
This is all in the Irish Times article.
You need to read it a couple of times in order to pick up the “between the lines” stuff.

Buford T. Justice V

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

In places, yes.

I'm the same age as Ann Lovett and there was a child in my class with an unmarried mother, which was unusual but not unheard of. And treated no differently than the other kids or there would be hell to pay by the other parents.

And two girls in my secondary school had kids while at school, one leaving and emigrating, the other having the child after the leaving cert and going onto third level.

There is a lot of truth to what you're saying but it was by no means a universal experience.

Oh it definitely wasn't universal. Many women were cared for and not shunned or hid away. Thankfully so.The tragedy of Ann Lovett makes me remember whispered conversations between adults and my mam talking about shame and the unfairness of that word. She was a very devout woman but had her issues with the way some members of the clergy had such power over the community.

This country is built on secrets and the Catholic Church ensured that's how things would be. Brush it all under the carpet like a good girl, shhh we don't want to be talking about that now do we. I'm not sure if that mentality has gone away. The Kilkenny incest case occurred about ten years after Ann Lovett's death. It's another horrible part of Irish history that reminds me of how little we know of what goes on.

Glass fused light

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I really hate when people break up posts :pac:

Previously discussed plan? So the family knew she was pregnant? She was planning on going to Dublin and then some how Ann decided to change the plan? Maybe he did leave out some details, or maybe he genuinely didn't know? With all other interested parties dead and the letter burned there's no way to know. The inquest the baby died during birth and she died of hemmhorage in hospital. No mention of suicide anywhere, despite what the letter suggested.

Bishops etiquette is irrelevant. Why was he getting involved? Was the parish priest not able to deal with it? Wasn't it the parish priest not the one driving them round?

I never said it wasn't her parent's responsibility?

Was it normal for a priest to be giving people a lift home? Would he hang around dances outside waiting for people who needed a lift? What time was the dance over at that she wasn't home until near 3am?

Where did you read the most death examination result?

For the rest of it, I can't remember what parts of my post you're replying to because I can't see it on the reply box unfortunately.

Post 63 for the link
Post 191

Hannibal_Smith

splinter65 wrote: »

According to McDonnell, when they were having unprotected sex he and Ann discussed a plan if she did become pregnant. This plan involved her going to Dublin to be looked after by someone she knew there. Very vague I know but that is what McDonnell says. No mention of any discussion with her parents at all.
When the priest was collecting McDonnell from the dance, McDonnell was living in the priests house as the local authority had taken the house of him as he had no right to stay there.
Despite having an aunt in Granard he says he had no where to live.
So the priest was acting in loco parentis.
That’s why he was collecting him from the disco.
This is all in the Irish Times article.
You need to read it a couple of times in order to pick up the “between the lines” stuff.

I'll have to go back and read the article. Low battery atm. But I read he was living by himself. Maybe there was something later on to say he was living in the priests house. If so...that makes perfect sense.

Just one more question then....McDonnell and Patricia were out till 3am. Was that normal? Was it a nightclub type thing?

Sile Na Gig

If you take what McDonnall says as fact, it sounds like she was traumatised after the attack and the relationship began to dissolve. From what he says, he asked her repeatedly if she was pregnant and offered to ‘stand by her’ but she refused. Of course there’s always the temptation to paint oneself in a favourable light with hindsight.

But all of this could have been avoided if she had an older trusted person with her best interests at heart rather than worrying about how it would look to others. I don’t think that it’s fair to expect McDonnall to have done much more than he did.

applehunter

skearnsot wrote: »

That and procreate and give the priests money - I remember priests calling out names of parishioners who didn’t put enough money in the collection on a Sunday! Some of them barely able to afford dinner for the week for their family

Bollix

Glass fused light

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I'll have to go back and read the article. Low battery atm. But I read he was living by himself. Maybe there was something later on to say he was living in the priests house. If so...that makes perfect sense.

Just one more question then....McDonnell and Patricia were out till 3am. Was that normal? Was it a nightclub type thing?

Underage drinking and no id or age checks were the part of the 80's and same later on. There would be the easy pub with the band or music. If the pub wasn't taking the mickey closing time was extended too.

splinter65

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I'll have to go back and read the article. Low battery atm. But I read he was living by himself. Maybe there was something later on to say he was living in the priests house. If so...that makes perfect sense.

Just one more question then....McDonnell and Patricia were out till 3am. Was that normal? Was it a nightclub type thing?

In 1981 I was 16 at the nightclub in a medium sized rural town smoking 20 Rothmans and drinking a Bacardi and Coke and slow dancing to Judy Tzuke with farmers in their 20s.
No one ever asked anyone going into the nightclub how old they were.
My poor mother thought I was at an old fashioned dance where they served tea and apple tart half way through the night.
However in this case you would imagine that if they had lost another daughter so recently in such notoriously tragic circumstances that they would have been reluctant to let another one go.

Glass fused light

Sile Na Gig wrote: »

But all of this could have been avoided if she had an older trusted person with her best interests at heart rather than worrying about how it would look to others. I don’t think that it’s fair to expect McDonnall to have done much more than he did.

Ever ask anyone why there was no homes for unmarried fathers:rolleyes:

Mrsmum

Sorry I only quickly skimmed through this thread but how do we know he didn't make up the attack as wasn't it in his best interest to throw doubt of who was the father of the baby after Ann was dead. Creating a fictional father back then allows him to deny having sex with her himself. Otherwise all eyes were on him & he might have been arrested for underage sex even if consentual. This is a question not a statement.

skearnsot

skearnsot wrote: »

That and procreate and give the priests money - I remember priests calling out names of parishioners who didn’t put enough money in the collection on a Sunday! Some of them barely able to afford dinner for the week for their family

Your memory is playing tricks on you. It wasn’t the weekly collection that was read out but what we used call “The Stations”. I don’t know what they were called elsewhere but they were the collections for the priests. I think that they were taken up twice a year.

Ak84

Mrsmum wrote: »

Sorry I only quickly skimmed through this thread but how do we know he didn't make up the attack as wasn't it in his best interest to throw doubt of who was the father of the baby after Ann was dead. Creating a fictional father back then allows him to deny having sex with her himself. Otherwise all eyes were on him & he might have been arrested for underage sex even if consentual. This is a question not a statement.

He clearly states he and Ann were in a sexual relationship.

Neyite

Times really were different then.

There was no access to contraception unless you were married and also had a very liberal GP to prescribe it for you. Even condoms were behind the counter and many pharmacists refused to sell them either on religious grounds or moral grounds (only selling them to married couple, if at all)

Adverts for any kind of family planning clinics in the UK in a publication that may offer termination as part of their range of services was censored - a big black square of nothing where the advert should be in the back of Just Seventeen.

Condom machines didn't exist. It was the norm for girls in 'trouble' to either be married off or go help a sick Aunt elsewhere for a specific duration.

Rape and consent was very different. Someone like Anne, who was not a virgin, staying out all night, staying with a boy alone - and an English boy at that... if she had tried to tell someone she was raped, not one person in authority would have taken her seriously given she was already sexually active. The prevalent view of the day was that children of that age (and younger!) somehow invited their own sexual assault.

Remember, these were the days when 47 yo Bill Wyman from the Rolling Stones openly conducted a relationship with a 13 year old girlfriend (with her mother's full approval), but girls 'like that' were written off basically -parents, usually the mothers were blamed for them going off the rails. There were a few raised eyebrows at the time when they were portrayed in the papers as a celebrity couple in the tabloids. These days we would recognise that a 13yo simply cannot consent, and that he was the adult, not her therefore the onus is on him. In the early to mid 80's the woman /child almost always got the blame for any sexual activity unless she was a sober, god-fearing virgin and she showed that she visibly tried to fight him off.

A few years after Ann died, I was dodging dirty old bastards on the bus trying to stick their hands up our school skirts to cop a feel. We all did. They had had a grand old day in town and had a few scoops so twanging the knicker elastic of some kids aged 13-17 was just added craic for them to joke about and round off a lively day for them. These days if a pensioner did that to a 13 yo girl I knew, you'd go to the cops. Back then you were told to move quicker so they didnt manage to grab you.

Mena Mitty

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Your memory is playing tricks on you. It wasn’t the weekly collection that was read out but what we used call “The Stations”. I don’t know what they were called elsewhere but they were the collections for the priests. I think that they were taken up twice a year.

'The Station' has a different meaning where I'm from, it's a mass and a feed with a biteen of music in a parishoners home.

If I remember correctly about the money collected for the priests and read out on Sunday there was....

Easter Offerings

November Offerings

Christmas Offerings and Peters Pence among others.

Mission Sunday one was expected to throw another penny or two for the missions.

If the heating in the church or a leak in the church roof occured during the year there was a special collection for whatever purpose.

There was also Black baby money collected every week in the school.

Trocaire boxes during lent.

Funeral Offerings at a funeral and Mass cards at 2 quid a pop.

I think each diocese had their different methods of raising money. Bingo and ticket selling featured prominently.

Appologies everybody for straying off topic.

applehunter

applehunter wrote: »

Bollix

Not bollix at all. While it didn’t happen in the 80s as far as my experience went, it did happen in the 60s and early 70s from friends I know.

I know it’s hard to believe but people’s names along with how much they donated were read out from the pulpit at Sunday mass,

Mrsmum

Ak84 wrote: »

He clearly states he and Ann were in a sexual relationship.

Yes he does now but back then ??

Glass fused light

Glass fused light wrote: »

Underage drinking and no id or age checks were the part of the 80's and same later on. There would be the easy pub with the band or music. If the pub wasn't taking the mickey closing time was extended too.

100%

Some pubs just didn’t tolerate underage drinking so our money went on those that did.
There were any number of pubs in large towns and cities that tolerated it_ and I would imagine that the Gardai at the time were complicit - bankhanders were definitely exchanged with publicans up and down the length and breath of the country.

Mass unemployment, mass emigration, interest rates at an all time high- just ripe for a bit of instsitutionalised corruption

splinter65

Mrsmum wrote: »

Sorry I only quickly skimmed through this thread but how do we know he didn't make up the attack as wasn't it in his best interest to throw doubt of who was the father of the baby after Ann was dead. Creating a fictional father back then allows him to deny having sex with her himself. Otherwise all eyes were on him & he might have been arrested for underage sex even if consentual. This is a question not a statement.

He doesn’t deny having sex with her at all. He’s quite upfront about how much sex they were having.

Neyite

Neyite wrote: »

Times really were different then.



A few years after Ann died, I was dodging dirty old bastards on the bus trying to stick their hands up our school skirts to cop a feel. We all did. They had had a grand old day in town and had a few scoops so twanging the knicker elastic of some kids aged 13-17 was just added craic for them to joke about and round off a lively day for them. These days if a pensioner did that to a 13 yo girl I knew, you'd go to the cops. Back then you were told to move quicker so they didnt manage to grab you.

Eh. It didn’t stop at old drunks. Try sober bus conductors - my little “friend” was called Kevin.

splinter65

Mrsmum wrote: »

Yes he does now but back then ??

She was more or less living with him in the middle of the town in full view of everyone. They were not sneaking around. He says she was 4 or 5 nights a week in his house where he was the sole tenant. It’s safe to say he’d have a problem denying that they were sexually active. He was only a child too.

skearnsot

applehunter wrote: »

Bollix

Yes he was - a big fat dirty bollox!

Neyite

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh. It didn’t stop at old drunks. Try sober bus conductors - my little “friend” was called Kevin.

Oh aye. Your skirt length was probably blamed, or your demeanour or the fact you backcombed your hair á la Madonna and smoked JP black. Or just generally being female and young and in the vicinity of a bloke seemed to do it back then.

Asking for it. Considering we barely knew what 'it' was, we seemed to ask for it a hell of a lot. :rolleyes:

And it was common to be drinking from about 15 or so in pubs or going to nightclubs. We would usually all have our own money because people would be working during summer holidays or weekends for pittance (no min wage then) from the age of about 13 or 14. Pubs rarely ID'd you, and if they did, you all just drank where they were happy to serve you without ID.

skearnsot

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Your memory is playing tricks on you. It wasn’t the weekly collection that was read out but what we used call “The Stations”. I don’t know what they were called elsewhere but they were the collections for the priests. I think that they were taken up twice a year.

No my mind most definitely isn’t playing tricks - every Sunday there was a collection at the bottom of the door of the church! The priests collection gave rise to him giving a sermon the week before it telling people that a £1 note was an insult to any priest - I remember the different collections well!!!
He read the names of the people who were not putting enough money in the envelopes in any given Sunday - anyways I don’t give a monkeys - he was still a greedy money grabbing loathsome lecherous bastard

Electric Sheep

Neyite wrote: »

A few years after Ann died, I was dodging dirty old bastards on the bus trying to stick their hands up our school skirts to cop a feel. We all did. They had had a grand old day in town and had a few scoops so twanging the knicker elastic of some kids aged 13-17 was just added craic for them to joke about and round off a lively day for them. These days if a pensioner did that to a 13 yo girl I knew, you'd go to the cops. Back then you were told to move quicker so they didnt manage to grab you.

And down in the country, every girl knew by the teenage tom toms who were the dirty old men, and the onus was on us to avoid them. Not to mention the husbands of couples we babysat for and knew which ones to refuse a lift home from. It was all so accepted, and you knew you would get the blame if you complained.

Dakota Dan

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

In places, yes.

I'm the same age as Ann Lovett and there was a child in my class with an unmarried mother, which was unusual but not unheard of. And treated no differently than the other kids or there would be hell to pay by the other parents.

And two girls in my secondary school had kids while at school, one leaving and emigrating, the other having the child after the leaving cert and going onto third level.

There is a lot of truth to what you're saying but it was by no means a universal experience.

A lot of people that were t around back then think it was 1934 not 1984. Not every girl that got pregnant was forced to marry or whisked off to a mother and babies home.

Dakota Dan

Dakota Dan wrote: »

A lot of people that were t around back then think it was 1934 not 1984. Not every girl that got pregnant was forced to marry or whisked off to a mother and babies home.

No not every girl but it was definitely a difficult time in Irish society compared to today.

Dakota Dan

splinter65 wrote: »

She was more or less living with him in the middle of the town in full view of everyone. They were not sneaking around. He says she was 4 or 5 nights a week in his house where he was the sole tenant. It’s safe to say he’d have a problem denying that they were sexually active. He was only a child too.

He was 16 she was 14.

While it certainly was a different country then, I had my first child in 1984, rampant poverty, mad priests and a power-mad catholic church was not the norm in 1984. some posters seem to be projecting their own ideas on to the situation.

Underage drinking went on, but it still does only now it harder to get it in a pub, teenage sex went on but it was not the norm the way it is today.
people grew up quicker and were expected to be independent at a much younger age the current normas of how parents support their children were not there. As for dodging the perverts young people are protected more and are more educated today and the casual perverts are possibly wary.

For all the conspiracy theories and the like, it turns out that they were just two young people from a dysfunctional background.