Sil Fox cleared (Very clear video evidence of lies of accuser)

Rodin

suicide_circus wrote: »

Perhaps Sil can take a civil case against her as I imagine there will be no appetite from the state to go after her.

There should be. She misled the state (DPP)

There needs to be an example made lf liars who ruin innocent people's lives with malicious fabrications.
We're supposed to be supporting health... we firstly should not damage mental health by making accusations about someone that are wilfully unfounded. That is not a victimless crime.

A crime has been committed here and there is a DUTY to prosecute in the public interest.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jprender wrote: »

Ah hang on....

The problem wasn’t that the defendant was named,

The problem was that the accuser was an out and out liar, who thought nothing of trying to destroy the life of an innocent man.

Let’s not lose sight of this fact.

Neither of them should have been named. The State had to take it seriously once they sent it forward to trial (which, based on the evidence available, they shouldn't have).

suicide_circus wrote: »

Perhaps Sil can take a civil case against her as I imagine there will be no appetite from the state to go after her.

Rodin wrote: »

There should be. She misled the state (DPP)

There needs to be an example made lf liars who ruin innocent people's lives with malicious fabrications.
We're supposed to be supporting health... we firstly should not damage mental health by making accusations about someone that are wilfully unfounded. That is not a victimless crime.

A crime has been committed here and there is a DUTY to prosecute in the public interest.

She can be prosecuted, but again, opinions should be left until a case concludes.

I'm just considering other possibilities: someone else groped her and she got the wrong person, for example. Although evidence suggests not, CCTV should be able to clarify.

But if she's convicted of lying and perverting the course of justice, then absoltuely - she should be named and sentenced. She's not doing genuine rape victims and favours here either.

Rodin

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Neither of them should have been named. The State had to take it seriously once they sent it forward to trial (which, based on the evidence available, they shouldn't have).





She can be prosecuted, but again, opinions should be left until a case concludes.

I'm just considering other possibilities: someone else groped her and she got the wrong person, for example. Although evidence suggests not, CCTV should be able to clarify.

But if she's convicted of lying and perverting the course of justice, then absoltuely - she should be named and sentenced. She's not doing genuine rape victims and favours here either.

Should be named before sentence. Like he was.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Rodin wrote: »

Should be named before sentence. Like he was.

He wasn't convicted. If there's no conviction, he should still ahve the right to anonymity.

In other words, we shouldn't even be having this discussion.

Spon Farmer

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

He wasn't convicted. If there's no conviction, he should still ahve the right to anonymity.

In other words, we shouldn't even be having this discussion.

but if he had not been named then we would not know that it happened at all

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Spon Farmer wrote: »

but if he had not been named then we would not know that it happened at all

My point entirely. Or we'd have heard about it without the names.

Spon Farmer

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

My point entirely. Or we'd have heard about it without the names.

what I mean is that the man would still suffer and no one would know it happened

we need to know or else there is no chance of changing things

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Spon Farmer wrote: »

what I mean is that the man would still suffer and no one would know it happened

we need to know or else there is no chance of changing things

Well, the facts are still covered by the reporting. Names aren;t needed to change things. Fox still can still waive his right to privacy should he wish to do so.

Higgins5473

Here’s the full story from him and his family. Sounds like he’s been through hell and is still there somewhat

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/stage/sil-fox-my-phone-went-silent-nobody-rang-1.4287491

Darc19

A clear case of malicious prosecution.

Most likely led by an inexperienced garda who handily left out pertinent information when presenting details to the dpp.

Higgins5473

Darc19 wrote: »

A clear case of malicious prosecution.

Most likely led by an inexperienced garda who handily left out pertinent information when presenting details to the dpp.

He specifically mentions the dpp had the footage yet still went ahead.

He’s a better man than me for not making any comment about his accuser, although I’m assuming this is under advice.

Anyone here have any knowledge on if he is compensated what kind of money he would be looking at?

Darc19

Higgins5473 wrote: »

He specifically mentions the dpp had the footage yet still went ahead.

He’s a better man than me for not making any comment about his accuser, although I’m assuming this is under advice.

Anyone here have any knowledge on if he is compensated what kind of money he would be looking at?

You'll find that the dpp takes the word of a garda rather than go through evidence on what are considered minor acts.

You can be sure that the gardai involved were less than truthful with their investigation and made an assumption of guilt.

Happens far too often.

Irishphotodesk

Higgins5473 wrote: »

Here’s the full story from him and his family. Sounds like he’s been through hell and is still there somewhat

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/stage/sil-fox-my-phone-went-silent-nobody-rang-1.4287491

A lot of question need to asked of the DPPs office, if he sues them, is it likely that the accuser will be a witness? [his action against the DPP may never make it to court]

Higgins5473

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

A lot of question need to asked of the DPPs office, if he sues them, is it likely that the accuser will be a witness? [his action against the DPP may never make it to court]

I don’t know is the answer as I have no legal background but if the DPP took a case they are essentially vouching for the complainant so she’s kind of out of the loop if they f*cked up so I don’t see why she would be called, but as I say I don’t know.

I don’t think it will make it to court either unless Fox and his team really want it to be as public as possible, I’m guessing it will settle for an undisclosed sum and he won’t get his public apology which he also wants.

Irishphotodesk

Higgins5473 wrote: »

He specifically mentions the dpp had the footage yet still went ahead.

He’s a better man than me for not making any comment about his accuser, although I’m assuming this is under advice.

Anyone here have any knowledge on if he is compensated what kind of money he would be looking at?

Taking a guesstimate, between 5 and 10 times whatever he earned annually, he is out of pocket for at least 18-24months of work, so adding some money for “stress” compensation, and loss of earnings going forward.

If my recollection is correct there are two options ahead for a civil action by a judge or jury - but the matter could be withdrawn if an agreement is made between the parties (if compo offer is high enough).

It would be interesting for the media IF the matter were to go before a court, because we (the public) are not given any understanding of what happens in the DPPs office and their decision making process, could this shine a light on many other injustices?

2u2me

silverharp wrote: »

it reminds me of the Mark Pearson case in the UK train station case, the GOT actress is swanning around like nothing happened

When googling him I remembered watching this documentary where he was just one of many stories.

jimwallace197

silver2020 wrote: »

The gardai managing the case have questions to answer.

In too many situations gadai make the assumption of guilt based on one side of the story and are deaf to the other side and fail to do a proper investigation.

If the gardai involved here had the competence and actually checked the video and made the right enquiries, there would not have been a case.

The DPP act on the information that gardai provide and unfortunately do not double check the evidence themselves.

It was clear from very early in the case that this was ineptitude by the gardai involved and clear lies by the person who made the allegations.


Sil Fox will take a case against the state and only if the state defends it or agreement not reached will it actually get to court and the gardai involved asked to answer for their malicious handling of this.

I really hope he refuses all offers of settlement as there are far too many cases of garda stupidity/incompetence out there.

Fully agree with everything above, if it was me, I would be taking a case not just for the money but to show the ineptitude of these garda, downright maliciousness and the incompetence of the current DPP who should all face serious consequences for this.

This case shines a light on the ineptitude of the system here and this is only one case we are hearing about because thankfully there was CCTV evidence to contradict the complainants false claims. What about those cases that we don't hear about because the the crime is a more serious one, the defendant is not famous, etc.

Edgware

Darc19 wrote: »

You'll find that the dpp takes the word of a garda rather than go through evidence on what are considered minor acts.

You can be sure that the gardai involved were less than truthful with their investigation and made an assumption of guilt.

Happens far too often.

Bull****. You havent a clue how the office of the D.P.P. works

jimwallace197

Edgware wrote: »

Bull****. You havent a clue how the office of the D.P.P. works

And you do?? why dont you enlighten us you jumped little p**k. Typical little gaa head talking through your hole



Mod

Banned

Spon Farmer

2u2me wrote: »

When googling him I remembered watching this documentary where he was just one of many stories.

I'm going to watch that later but can you tell who is the first man on screen. He looks very familiar.

Darc19

Edgware wrote: »

Bull****. You havent a clue how the office of the D.P.P. works

Can you please enlighten me on how the dpp deals with relatively minor criminal charges?

Cos I would love to tell an eminent solicitor that deals with criminal cases that they are wrong because someone on boards said so.

Remember, we're talking relatively minor crimes, not serious assault/harm

Darc19

Darc19 wrote: »

Can you please enlighten me on how the dpp deals with relatively minor criminal charges?

Cos I would love to tell an eminent solicitor that deals with criminal cases that they are wrong because someone on boards said so.

Remember, we're talking relatively minor crimes, not serious assault/harm

Minor crimes are what the DPP decided are minor. They issue 'blanket approval' for Gardai to prosecute these cases without the DPP needing to make a direct decision or seeing a file. usually without legal assistance unless the Garda specifically requests the chief state solicitor but that needs a file in itself so not common.

A sexual assault that went to trial will absolutely 100% have needed a file to the DPP and the chief state solicitors prosecuting.

Something went very bad in this case if the CCTV was clear and they still ran with a prosecution but we shouldn't just make assumptions. What did she claim in her original statement compared to her direct evidence for example.

Also, it's only been a few days, charges may well be filed against her but I doubt it unless the judge is accusing her of perjury.

Remember, perjury is not just being wrong on your evidence, that happens in every single case. It's a deliberate attempt to mislead the court.

In regards your slander of Gardai, why would they run with a case that was obviously going to fail? There's no logic in that. I would suggest your friend the defence solicitor tells far more fibs in his clients defence.

jimwallace197

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Fully agree with everything above, if it was me, I would be taking a case not just for the money but to show the ineptitude of these garda, downright maliciousness and the incompetence of the current DPP who should all face serious consequences for this.

This case shines a light on the ineptitude of the system here and this is only one case we are hearing about because thankfully there was CCTV evidence to contradict the complainants false claims. What about those cases that we don't hear about because the the crime is a more serious one, the defendant is not famous, etc.

Just so we are clear, you are calling the system inept because an innocent man was not found guilty? Sounds like a prime example of the system working.

Also, why are you blaming the Gardai? They didn't decide to charge him nor prosecute him. They investigate, collect evidence and it's for the dpp to decide what charges if any then the chief state solicitor actually prosecute. Gardai are only witnesses.

Edgware

Darc19 wrote: »

Can you please enlighten me on how the dpp deals with relatively minor criminal charges?

Cos I would love to tell an eminent solicitor that deals with criminal cases that they are wrong because someone on boards said so.

Remember, we're talking relatively minor crimes, not serious assault/harm

It wasnt a minor charge to the man whose reputation was being destroyed and who was at risk of getting a criminal conviction.
You seem to have a great interest in sex cases. Do they help you get aroused?

Sephiroth_dude

jimwallace197 wrote: »

And you do?? why dont you enlighten us you jumped little p**k. Typical little gaa head talking through your hole

Mod

Do not post in this thread again.

walshb

The persons who brought this to a court and pursued it should be sacked and/or jailed..this was a monumental cock-up...disgusting..

As for the woman. What a despicable thing to do...horror!

Higgins5473

Darc19 wrote: »

Can you please enlighten me on how the dpp deals with relatively minor criminal charges?

Cos I would love to tell an eminent solicitor that deals with criminal cases that they are wrong because someone on boards said so.

Remember, we're talking relatively minor crimes, not serious assault/harm

I’m not doubting you more interested in hearing your insight. I find disturbing and unbelievable that the office responsible for bringing public prosecutions about does not review evidence before hand.

Darc19

Higgins5473 wrote: »

I’m not doubting you more interested in hearing your insight. I find disturbing and unbelievable that the office responsible for bringing public prosecutions about does not review evidence before hand.

They may take a look at some stage, but in far too many so called minor cases which can affect an innocent person greatly, the dpp takes the recommendation of the prosecuting garda.

Possibly at a later stage evidence is reviewed, but the dpp office is greatly understaffed and this allows for inexperienced gardai to proceed and commence criminal proceedings when the evidence is not properly checked.

I'd love to know how many cases are pulled before a hearing due to insufficient evidence.

Truthvader

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

I heard an interview with him a few weeks ago, I think it was Ivan Yates he was on with, anyway as soon as word of this casegot out initially Sil went from a fairly full booking diary to an empty one and it impacted greatly on his health and wellbeing.

However, I would be against the public shaming of his accuser, it does no good for anybody really and it could stop a genuine person reporting for fear of being punished in the same way should the case against the accused not be successful.

If you lie you should be punished

Darc19

Darc19 wrote: »

They may take a look at some stage, but in far too many so called minor cases which can affect an innocent person greatly, the dpp takes the recommendation of the prosecuting garda.

Possibly at a later stage evidence is reviewed, but the dpp office is greatly understaffed and this allows for inexperienced gardai to proceed and commence criminal proceedings when the evidence is not properly checked.

I'd love to know how many cases are pulled before a hearing due to insufficient evidence.

Complete bull****.



If the dpp receive a file, it's reviewed and the file includes a copy of all digital evidence available. Having reviewed the file, they then make a decision.

That file also had to be checked by the supervising Sergeant, then the district officer aka Superintendent before reaching the DPP.

I would much rather hear how many claims are made as a result of "inexperienced" Gardai bringing frivolous charges. Surely you can produce the numbers?