Mairia Cahill vindicated

marieholmfan

Anyone who allows the Sunday Independent to shape his opinions may be safely dismissed.

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ruth-dudley-edwards/ruth-dudley-edwards-mairia-cahill-mary-lou-mcdonald-and-michelle-oneill-not-much-sisterhood-37344857.html

I have followed this case from the start but there are some bits in here that I hadn't heard before:

"This is a harking back to a much circulated libel that the under-age Mairia was having an affair with Morris. "

If Jude Collins is referring to this in his column, he could do with some education about statutory rape. No under-age girl is capable of having an affair with an older man - that is the law.

Siobhan O'Hanlon has received some praise in these parts, but I find this stunning:

"Faced in 1998 with a weeping 16-year-old cousin telling her of repeated rapes and various revolting assaults by an uncle in whose house she was staying at his and her aunt's invitation, she said: "Drink a couple of Rumple Minze and go tell him to stop doing it.""

I know some like Collins keep referring thanks penned by Mairia Cahill and options she pursued as a vulnerable teenager, but it beggars belief that they rely on that to defend the rapist and the kangaroo court.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again with the scurrilous insinuation that there are those 'defending' a rapist.

And again with the head in the sand that there are many versions from a range of people about what happened after the alleged assaults.

And again completely ignore that some of those versions completely contradict what the Indo is so happy to keep printing and never question.
Ruth Dudley Edwards, who has a track record in wanting to attack SF and republicans has unquestioningly taken on board one side of this story as if she was there in the room with the 16 year old. Quelle suprise.

There may well be another side to the story, but I haven't seen any evidence produced for it, other than the rantings of Jude Collins.

Mairia's story is compelling, it has a ring of truth to it, and the stumblings of Sinn Fein politicians in defending their position gives it more credibility - the quotes in the article from Michelle O'Neill just the latest. No 16-year old, brought up indoctrinated in the Republican tradition, would have been able to consider going to the PSNI, and instead turned to Adams' people for help. She was badly let down by them.

Another aspect of that article that I found interesting was the reference to Morris' involvement with the administration of IRA justice.

"Mr Morris was an enthusiastic wielder of the baseball bat as an enforcer of what was euphemistically known as "community restorative justice": in Provoland these schemes were dominated by the IRA and involved torturing and mutilating those whom they felt had crossed the line. The Sinn Fein house journal, An Phoblacht, published a profile outlining Morris's role in CRJ and encouraging victims of assaults and domestic violence to go to his office."

Ruth Dudley Edwards has certainly gone on the record in this article, and I wonder if Morris or anyone else involved will sue her for these words.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

There may well be another side to the story, but I haven't seen any evidence produced for it, .

Yes there is another side and 5 people turned up at court willing to tell it and had 'actual' evidence to back up their side of the that story of what happened after the alleged assault.

It is fairly typical of you that you ignore the fact that Cahill has put no energy at all into getting her alleged abuser into a court but wonder if an alleged abuser will sue a fairly seasoned ranter about all things republican writing in a fairly seasoned anti republican 'newspaper' - Ruth D Edwards. :rolleyes:

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes there is another side and 5 people turned up at court willing to tell it and had 'actual' evidence to back up their side of the that story of what happened after the alleged assault.

http://www.judecollins.com/2018/09/irish-times-champions-mairia/

Jude Collins said more or less the same thing.

"But it is also a fact that a considerable number of people in West Belfast, when the subject is raised, tell a different Mairia story."

But, other than leaving the snide allegation hanging that Mairia is lying, that is all that they say. How can they expect to be believed when they produce nothing to back that up?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is fairly typical of you that you ignore the fact that Cahill has put no energy at all into getting her alleged abuser into a court

I find this statement completely incredible in light of the Ombudsman's Report.

https://www.irishnews.com/opinion/leadingarticle/2018/09/14/news/mairia-cahill-vindicated-by-police-ombudsman-report-1432803/

You are effectively blaming Mairia for the collapse of the court case, when it has been made clear by a number of independent reports that she was failed repeatedly by the PSNI and the CPS.

"In 2015, Keir Starmer, former Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales, published an independent review which was highly critical of the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland, listing a series of failings and describing how the three women had been 'let down.'

This week the Police Ombudsman found that the victims in this case were 'failed' by a disjointed PSNI investigation and recommended that four officers be disciplined."

The last line of that Irish News report, a nationalist newspaper, it probably the most telling of all:

"What this disturbing case underlines is the importance of all the organisations involved facing up to their responsibilities and providing the victims with the answers they deserve."

The PSNI and the CPS have laid bare their failings in this case, over to Sinn Fein.

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes there is another side and 5 people turned up at court willing to tell it and had 'actual' evidence to back up their side of the that story of what happened after the alleged assault.

It is fairly typical of you that you ignore the fact that Cahill has put no energy at all into getting her alleged abuser into a court but wonder if an alleged abuser will sue a fairly seasoned ranter about all things republican writing in a fairly seasoned anti republican 'newspaper' - Ruth D Edwards. :rolleyes:

Disgusting. It's not the job of the victim to put "energy" into getting an accused into court.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

http://www.judecollins.com/2018/09/irish-times-champions-mairia/

Jude Collins said more or less the same thing.

"But it is also a fact that a considerable number of people in West Belfast, when the subject is raised, tell a different Mairia story."

But, other than leaving the snide allegation hanging that Mairia is lying, that is all that they say. How can they expect to be believed when they produce nothing to back that up?







I find this statement completely incredible in light of the Ombudsman's Report.

https://www.irishnews.com/opinion/leadingarticle/2018/09/14/news/mairia-cahill-vindicated-by-police-ombudsman-report-1432803/

You are effectively blaming Mairia for the collapse of the court case, when it has been made clear by a number of independent reports that she was failed repeatedly by the PSNI and the CPS.

"In 2015, Keir Starmer, former Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales, published an independent review which was highly critical of the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland, listing a series of failings and describing how the three women had been 'let down.'

This week the Police Ombudsman found that the victims in this case were 'failed' by a disjointed PSNI investigation and recommended that four officers be disciplined."

The last line of that Irish News report, a nationalist newspaper, it probably the most telling of all:

"What this disturbing case underlines is the importance of all the organisations involved facing up to their responsibilities and providing the victims with the answers they deserve."

The PSNI and the CPS have laid bare their failings in this case, over to Sinn Fein.

No, I am not blaming her for the collapse of the court case.

I am questioning her noticeable zeal in chasing the minor crimes (in comparison) of SF and it's members while not doing anything to get her alleged abuser off the street.

That is odd in the extreme to me as I would have thought that would be the primary concern of an abused victim. There are avenues open to her to do this but she has never looked to take one of them. Why is that?
It should also be the primary concern of those doing photo shoots out of concern for a victim.

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Disgusting. It's not the job of the victim to put "energy" into getting an accused into court.

If you are not going to see to it that your abuser is off the streets, why would you be concerned about anybody else's part in your abuse. I am saying it is extremely odd that it isn't her primary motive with what happened with SF being secondary to that.

blanch152

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/alison-oconnor/alison-o39connor-mary-lou-wants-to-be-a-modern-leader-but-is-hobbled-by-the-past-473277.html?&session=j0dkLMqAbwSGy+3XaxBGf9kFLxBRwNhxO8kHb4Vbaso=


This columnist from the Irish Examiner (and not the Irish Independent, quelle surprise!) is calling it as it is:


"In her initial response to the ombudsman’s report, last week, Mary Lou kicked off with a statement, saying she ”deeply regretted” that procedures covering the mandatory reporting of abuse “were not in place at the time of Máiría Cahill’s disclosures.

For this, I unreservedly apologise”. Ah, that old trick of appearing to apologise, but not actually doing so at all."


All that is needed is for the truth to be told. What did Sinn Fein know, when did they know it, and what did they do about it. If Mary Lou is so certain that the proper procedures were not in place, she must also know what procedures were in place and what happened. Just tell us.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

There may well be another side to the story, but I haven't seen any evidence produced for it, other than the rantings of Jude Collins.

Mairia's story is compelling, it has a ring of truth to it, and the stumblings of Sinn Fein politicians in defending their position gives it more credibility - the quotes in the article from Michelle O'Neill just the latest. No 16-year old, brought up indoctrinated in the Republican tradition, would have been able to consider going to the PSNI, and instead turned to Adams' people for help. She was badly let down by them.

Another aspect of that article that I found interesting was the reference to Morris' involvement with the administration of IRA justice.

"Mr Morris was an enthusiastic wielder of the baseball bat as an enforcer of what was euphemistically known as "community restorative justice": in Provoland these schemes were dominated by the IRA and involved torturing and mutilating those whom they felt had crossed the line. The Sinn Fein house journal, An Phoblacht, published a profile outlining Morris's role in CRJ and encouraging victims of assaults and domestic violence to go to his office."

Ruth Dudley Edwards has certainly gone on the record in this article, and I wonder if Morris or anyone else involved will sue her for these words.

Tee hee, Ruth Dudley Edwards, objectivity and SF. You must be joking. I notice she gets a cowardly dig in at Siobhan O' Hanlon (deceased) in the very first sentence. In a previous article I noticed she commented that the Saville enquiry was a sop to SF as well as quoting the price tag of it. Neo-unionist hacks like herself would have been satisfied with Widgery as the only verdict on Bloody Sunday as it would have gone along more smoothly with their version of 'history'.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/alison-oconnor/alison-o39connor-mary-lou-wants-to-be-a-modern-leader-but-is-hobbled-by-the-past-473277.html?&session=j0dkLMqAbwSGy+3XaxBGf9kFLxBRwNhxO8kHb4Vbaso=


This columnist from the Irish Examiner (and not the Irish Independent, quelle surprise!) is calling it as it is:


"In her initial response to the ombudsman’s report, last week, Mary Lou kicked off with a statement, saying she ”deeply regretted” that procedures covering the mandatory reporting of abuse “were not in place at the time of Máiría Cahill’s disclosures.

For this, I unreservedly apologise”. Ah, that old trick of appearing to apologise, but not actually doing so at all."


All that is needed is for the truth to be told. What did Sinn Fein know, when did they know it, and what did they do about it. If Mary Lou is so certain that the proper procedures were not in place, she must also know what procedures were in place and what happened. Just tell us.

Fully agree that the whole truth needs to be told, in the interests of the rights that all involved still have, despite those who seem to unquestioningly accept only one version.

Rhineshark

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you are not going to see to it that your abuser is off the streets, why would you be concerned about anybody else's part in your abuse. I am saying it is extremely odd that it isn't her primary motive with what happened with SF being secondary to that.

Yes, you have pointed out how exceedingly odd it is in multiple posts with no regard for how likely it is that she CAN do something about it.

It is very unlikely that a conviction will be reached after all this time. I speak from some experience here. Unless more people come forward with their stories, it is not likely that the man in question will ever have a case to answer. That does leave a question mark hanging over him which, if he is innocent, is a hard thing to live with and I feel for him.

However, a second important point is the institutional wrongs that made the case untenable. The idea of local kangaroo courts able to make pronouncements on justice in the local community and who are putting themselves up as legal arbritrars. That situation is still on going in NI in some communities and this case is also important for that. It is also something that is more likely to be investigatable. Insofar as SF was involved in that, along with any other "community leaders" (and the PSNI) there are questions there that need answering.

Oh, and it is hardly uncommon to blame those that knew about or allowed your abuse to go on. Or advised you to do something that made things worse. Maybe that's unfair, but that's how people are.

James Brown

Rhineshark wrote: »

Yes, you have pointed out how exceedingly odd it is in multiple posts with no regard for how likely it is that she CAN do something about it.

It is very unlikely that a conviction will be reached after all this time. I speak from some experience here. Unless more people come forward with their stories, it is not likely that the man in question will ever have a case to answer. That does leave a question mark hanging over him which, if he is innocent, is a hard thing to live with and I feel for him.

However, a second important point is the institutional wrongs that made the case untenable. The idea of local kangaroo courts able to make pronouncements on justice in the local community and who are putting themselves up as legal arbritrars. That situation is still on going in NI in some communities and this case is also important for that. It is also something that is more likely to be investigatable. Insofar as SF was involved in that, along with any other "community leaders" (and the PSNI) there are questions there that need answering.

Oh, and it is hardly uncommon to blame those that knew about or allowed your abuse to go on. Or advised you to do something that made things worse. Maybe that's unfair, but that's how people are.

Ms. Cahill chose the route of IRA over RUC.
Also, how does any of the above pertain to a cover up? Badly handled and accepted as such.
Did you hear about the RUC in all of this? Pretty damning.

FrancieBrady

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Ms. Cahill chose the route of IRA over RUC.
Also, how does any of the above pertain to a cover up? Badly handled and accepted as such.
Did you hear about the RUC in all of this? Pretty damning.

Some people are only looking one way Matt. And it's the usual people who only ever look one way and they only see one thing - their boogeymen and women.

Plenty of flaws in what Mairia Cahill has claimed happened after the alleged abuse but let's not question her or her motives either. This being a woman who, as you say, chose the IRA route to get her justice and who on falling out with SF over their acceptance of policing reforms hooked up with an anti RUC, anti GFA, dissident organisation.

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Some people are only looking one way Matt. And it's the usual people who only ever look one way and they only see one thing - their boogeymen and women.

Plenty of flaws in what Mairia Cahill has claimed happened after the alleged abuse but let's not question her or her motives either. This being a woman who, as you say, chose the IRA route to get her justice and who on falling out with SF over their acceptance of policing reforms hooked up with an anti RUC, anti GFA, dissident organisation.

As I've said before I've strong reservations about putting support behind SF, but that's mainly based on the SF people I know. However I don't like to see blatant low grade politicising of such serious allegations to score points.
The RUC get ner a mention and we've had pages of fudged claims of cover up.
On the one hand we're to hold the IRA and affiliation to SF to higher standards than we do the RUC, (based on the lack of any real criticism on this thread).
It's the height of hypocrisy.

blanch152

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/sf-refuses-to-reveal-if-mcdonald-believes-abuse-claim-37355323.html


It now looks we are going backwards on this.

"Sinn Féin has refused to say whether or not party leader Mary Lou McDonald believes Máiría Cahill was abused by an IRA member.

The party stonewalled when asked where Ms McDonald stood on the matter in the wake of controversial comments made by Michelle O'Neill, Sinn Féin's leader in the North.

In recent days, Ms O'Neill was asked by the BBC if she believes Ms Cahill's account of the abuse she said she suffered in the 1990s by an IRA member. Ms O'Neill said: "It's not for me to say that I believe her. I believe that she has been a victim, and I believe that she has been hurt.""

Previously, the likes of Mary Lou have been very clear that they believed Cahill, at least in respect of the abuse, even if not in what happened afterwards. Now, there seems to have been a rowback on this.

The question now is whether the party are still trying to protect the abuser?

Once again, the refusal to tell the full story of what Sinn Fein knows is costing them. Like the Catholic Church, when the full truth emerges, it will be the cover-ups that will cause the greatest damage.

maccored

im snoring over here - but besides that, how can she say for certain it was an IRA member considering it never went to court? To say it was would be guesswork. unless of course you dont believe in the legal system? or maybe you and the indo only believe in a legal system when it suits?

Are the indo paying you btw for reposting their anti SF tripe?

FrancieBrady

maccored wrote: »

im snoring over here - but besides that, how can she say for certain it was an IRA member considering it never went to court? To say it was would be guesswork. unless of course you dont believe in the legal system? or maybe you and the indo only believe in a legal system when it suits?

Are the indo paying you btw for reposting their anti SF tripe?

Indo in meltdown trying to keep the 'story' alive.

'We only want our version of the truth'. :rolleyes:

blanch152

maccored wrote: »

im snoring over here - but besides that, how can she say for certain it was an IRA member considering it never went to court? To say it was would be guesswork. unless of course you dont believe in the legal system? or maybe you and the indo only believe in a legal system when it suits?

Are the indo paying you btw for reposting their anti SF tripe?

I don't know if you ever frequent Mairia's Facebook page. However, if you do, a post from a few days ago includes a copy of instructions that issued to Sinn Fein members some years ago on how to handle queries about Ms. Cahill. They include the following gems:

"It is probably best not to engage with the Sunday Independent, if at all possible"

"Four people were charged and acquitted in connection with the allegation of an IRA investigation. If the IRA did investigate this it was clearly wrong"

"I do not know/knew Mairia but all those within Sinn Fein who have dealt with Mairia believe that she is a victim of abuse".

Some very careful language there, some of it untrue (they weren't acquitted, the charges were dropped) and some of it eerily reminiscent of posts from around that time.

It also supports the contention that there is a rowback on position as the then instructions to members were to say that you believed Mairia on the abuse claim as opposed to the current position of Ms. O'Neill.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't know if you ever frequent Mairia's Facebook page. However, if you do, a post from a few days ago includes a copy of instructions that issued to Sinn Fein members some years ago on how to handle queries about Ms. Cahill. They include the following gems:

"It is probably best not to engage with the Sunday Independent, if at all possible"

"Four people were charged and acquitted in connection with the allegation of an IRA investigation. If the IRA did investigate this it was clearly wrong"

"I do not know/knew Mairia but all those within Sinn Fein who have dealt with Mairia believe that she is a victim of abuse".

Some very careful language there, some of it untrue (they weren't acquitted, the charges were dropped) and some of it eerily reminiscent of posts from around that time.

It also supports the contention that there is a rowback on position as the then instructions to members were to say that you believed Mairia on the abuse claim as opposed to the current position of Ms. O'Neill.

Political party sends memo briefing members not familiar with case Sindo is pursing like a dog after a non existent bone SHOCKER! :eek:

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't know if you ever frequent Mairia's Facebook page. However, if you do, a post from a few days ago includes a copy of instructions that issued to Sinn Fein members some years ago on how to handle queries about Ms. Cahill. They include the following gems:

"It is probably best not to engage with the Sunday Independent, if at all possible"

"Four people were charged and acquitted in connection with the allegation of an IRA investigation. If the IRA did investigate this it was clearly wrong"

"I do not know/knew Mairia but all those within Sinn Fein who have dealt with Mairia believe that she is a victim of abuse".

Some very careful language there, some of it untrue (they weren't acquitted, the charges were dropped) and some of it eerily reminiscent of posts from around that time.

It also supports the contention that there is a rowback on position as the then instructions to members were to say that you believed Mairia on the abuse claim as opposed to the current position of Ms. O'Neill.

why would i frequent her facebook page when I dont know the woman?? also, all I'll get there is the same stuff she keeps repeating. I accept she was abused but Im at a loss to explain this whole anti sinn fein angle she has, considering what we know actually happened - ie she wouldnt go to the cops and wanted the ira to investigate it - which they did, only for her later to give out about that too.

I say you are being very pedantic. MLMCD says she believes ms cahill was abused. you are saying that now she isnt saying that - because MLMCD (and anyone who believes in the court system - except yourself and the indo by the looks of it) cant say it was a member of the IRA. Stop trying to shoehorn information to fit your accusation.

Ever hear of confirmation bias? you seem to be suffering from it

Padraig1888

Did her trial not collapse because she refused to take the stand? Didn't really do herself any favours.

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

some of it untrue (they weren't acquitted, the charges were dropped)

from your beloved Indo:

She signed a withdrawal statement but in it, she reiterated her claims against Morris of sexual abuse. She also reiterated her claims against the four people accused of subjecting her to an internal IRA interrogation. She also accused both the police and the Public Prosecution Service of failing her.

Morris was acquitted of charges of IRA membership and of charges of rape and sexual abuse. Wilson, Finucane, Wright and McCrory were acquitted of all charges relating to IRA membership.

makes it hard to accept any of your posts to be honest

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/revealed-the-reason-mairias-rape-case-did-not-proceed-30693265.html

"The charge of IRA membership against Padraic Wilson was dismissed by the Court at the first opportunity as there was no evidence to support it. The other charges were to be contested and ultimately Maria Cahill, the main prosecution witness, was to be cross-examined about her version of events which was not accepted by my clients.

"She refused to allow this to take place and would not participate in the normal method of giving evidence at a trial, where the truth of her version of events would be tested by cross-examination. My clients were therefore found not guilty."

ancapailldorcha

maccored wrote: »

im snoring over here - but besides that, how can she say for certain it was an IRA member considering it never went to court? To say it was would be guesswork. unless of course you dont believe in the legal system? or maybe you and the indo only believe in a legal system when it suits?

Are the indo paying you btw for reposting their anti SF tripe?

Banned for 2 days. No more digs at other posters please.

blanch152

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/i-want-admittance-not-an-apology-its-the-very-least-i-deserve-37441869.html


Mairia Cahill gives a different side of the story that she went to the IRA.

"I did not ask the IRA to involve themselves. A member of Sinn Fein did that - a year after I disclosed to her looking for a shoulder to cry on. Instead of being a responsible adult and reporting it to the authorities, this person, who learned of the abuse while it was still continuing, chose to say nothing - except to republicans, and without my knowledge. The IRA then came to me and it was clear that when they did so, they had known about it for months."

"I want an admittance, not an apology. I think it's the very least I deserve after 20 years of republican nonsense. After the attacks, the smears, the public graffiti, after the online punishment tweeting which continues today."


It is a very powerful account of her suffering, with the ring of sincerity about it. I hope that is the end of the stories that she went to the IRA.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/i-want-admittance-not-an-apology-its-the-very-least-i-deserve-37441869.html


Mairia Cahill gives a different side of the story that she went to the IRA.

"I did not ask the IRA to involve themselves. A member of Sinn Fein did that - a year after I disclosed to her looking for a shoulder to cry on. Instead of being a responsible adult and reporting it to the authorities, this person, who learned of the abuse while it was still continuing, chose to say nothing - except to republicans, and without my knowledge. The IRA then came to me and it was clear that when they did so, they had known about it for months."

"I want an admittance, not an apology. I think it's the very least I deserve after 20 years of republican nonsense. After the attacks, the smears, the public graffiti, after the online punishment tweeting which continues today."


It is a very powerful account of her suffering, with the ring of sincerity about it. I hope that is the end of the stories that she went to the IRA.

Well she's changed her story then in light of what she told Suzanne Breen in 2010:

In 1998, Cahill told a north Belfast PIRA woman. Later, she told a female Sinn Féin Belfast politician whose name is known to the Sunday Tribune.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Well she's changed her story then in light of what she told Suzanne Breen in 2010:

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see those two statements as being mutually exclusive. You can tell people without asking them to do something. In fact she pretty much says that in the indo quote.

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

Well she's changed her story then in light of what she told Suzanne Breen in 2010:

Nowhere in any interview has Mairia Cahill ever said that she asked the IRA to intervene. That has been one of the malicious lies spread by Sinn Fein on social media.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

Nowhere in any interview has Mairia Cahill ever said that she asked the IRA to intervene. That has been one of the malicious lies spread by Sinn Fein on social media.

Here's the Tribune interview from 2010:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100327173030/http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2010/jan/17/grand-niece-of-provo-legend-endured-horrific-sexua/

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

Here's the Tribune interview from 2010:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100327173030/http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2010/jan/17/grand-niece-of-provo-legend-endured-horrific-sexua/

And here is the relevant section:


"In 1998, Cahill told a north Belfast IRA woman. Later, she told a female Sinn Féin Belfast politician whose name is known to the Sunday Tribune.

That woman officially informed the IRA."

Where in any of that did Mairia Cahill go to the IRA and ask them to intervene? She went to some women to tell them what happened to her, and those women took it upon themselves to act. A colossal betrayal of trust and abdication of responsibility by those women.

It is time that people stop repeating the lie that Mairia Cahill went to the IRA and asked them to intervene.

Finally, may I thank you for reposting that article on here. Those who believe that Gerry Adams has nothing to answer for should have a read.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

And here is the relevant section:


"In 1998, Cahill told a north Belfast IRA woman. Later, she told a female Sinn Féin Belfast politician whose name is known to the Sunday Tribune.

That woman officially informed the IRA."

Where in any of that did Mairia Cahill go to the IRA and ask them to intervene? She went to some women to tell them what happened to her, and those women took it upon themselves to act. A colossal betrayal of trust and abdication of responsibility by those women.

It is time that people stop repeating the lie that Mairia Cahill went to the IRA and asked them to intervene.

Finally, may I thank you for reposting that article on here. Those who believe that Gerry Adams has nothing to answer for should have a read.

Why didn't she state that in the Tribune article so?

Mairia Cahill 2018: "Instead of being a responsible adult and reporting it to the authorities"

Mairia Cahill 2010: "I never wanted M killed. I wanted him tied to railings in Ballymurphy with a placard around his neck saying he was a rapist." (from the Tribune interview above).

Mairia not changing her story????