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

Higgins5473

Darc19 wrote: »

They may take a look at some stage....

The DPP “may take a look at some stage” All credibility lost there. Piss poor.

2u2me

Spon Farmer wrote: »

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

Found it on that youtube channel after a while of searching.
Peter Griffiths

Spon Farmer

2u2me wrote: »

Found it on that youtube channel after a while of searching.
Peter Griffiths

I thought he was a music or movie producer as I was sure I knew him from whatever work he did and not because of this story.

Triangle

The bigger problem is how some in society believe one side of a story without actual evidence.
I was talking to someone and they've boycotted a number of pubs because they've been told a manager is a predator. But this person never has had any charges against them, it's a sort of social media Lynch mob.

enfant terrible

Spon Farmer wrote: »

I had not actually been interested in who she was just how silverharp knew and how he knew it was true

if finding said information is not what you call a basic search I wonder what you call my search methods :P

anyway never heard of her and didn't look into who she played

I'm more interested in the accusation itself

he passed her in mere moments and there is no way he could have done what she said. even if the CPS slowed down the tape as was claimed it still makes no sense. why did the police even pursue it?

I believe the chief prosecutor at the time Alison Saunders wanted shift the scales of justice in sex cases and this lead to many lives been ruined.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/alison-saunders-should-be-sacked-for-the-janner-case-and-for-her-absurd-views-on-rape-10353802.html

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jul/20/mps-criticise-dpp-alison-saunders-collapse-rape-trials

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/03/paul-gambaccini-wins-payout-cps-unfounded-abuse-claims/

Spon Farmer

enfant terrible wrote: »

I believe the chief prosecutor at the time Alison Saunders wanted shift the scales of justice in sex cases and this lead to many lives been ruined.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/alison-saunders-should-be-sacked-for-the-janner-case-and-for-her-absurd-views-on-rape-10353802.html

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jul/20/mps-criticise-dpp-alison-saunders-collapse-rape-trials

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/03/paul-gambaccini-wins-payout-cps-unfounded-abuse-claims/

There no doubt that the victims of sex crimes in all aspects. Not just in the crime itself but in the ordeals afterwards.

Shifting the scales to benefit them is noble but only when it is done correctly.

The result here has been more victims and less justice.

Caquas

A report calls for anonymity also for defendants in sexual offence cases.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40027853.html

The Sil Fox case has changed the climate of public opinion. The damage done to an innocent man was greatly exacerbated by the publicity surrounding his case.


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sil-fox-backs-calls-to-give-anonymity-to-accused-in-sex-offence-trials-39430164.html

silver2020

good to see Sil Fox taking the DPP, the gardai and the state to court over this. He was treated horribly and the gardai involved must be made answer questions on their utter incompetence and what can only be seen as malicious prosecution of an entirely innocent person.

The woman who took the case should be named and she should face prosecution for making a false accusation.

But really its down to utter incompetence of the gardai not being able to realise from very clear cctv that there was no case. Even her friends said nothing happened. Those gardai must not be permitted to investigate such a case again as its obvious they do not have the ability of basic fairness


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/i-m-not-the-same-sil-fox-comedian-seeks-damages-after-sex-assault-case-is-dismissed-1.4488854

bigroad

You would have to wonder was she connected or did she know some guards for this to be pushed as far as it was.
She must have been fairly sure of her backing to go ahead with the accusation.

Caquas

silver2020 wrote: »

good to see Sil Fox taking the DPP, the gardai and the state to court over this. He was treated horribly and the gardai involved must be made answer questions on their utter incompetence and what can only be seen as malicious prosecution of an entirely innocent person.

The woman who took the case should be named and she should face prosecution for making a false accusation.

But really its down to utter incompetence of the gardai not being able to realise from very clear cctv that there was no case. Even her friends said nothing happened. Those gardai must not be permitted to investigate such a case again as its obvious they do not have the ability of basic fairness


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/i-m-not-the-same-sil-fox-comedian-seeks-damages-after-sex-assault-case-is-dismissed-1.4488854

Not incompetence - the Gardai have eyes in their heads and they are trained to collect evidence. The Gardai must have known they had a worthless case and so did the DPP but the accuser wouldn't back down.

My guess is that this case will be settled on the steps of the courthouse and we will never know the real reason why the Gardai and the DPP pursued this prosecution. Sil Fox and his legal team will walk away with a massive but undisclosed sum in compensation.

silver2020

Caquas wrote: »

Not incompetence - the Gardai have eyes in their heads and they are trained to collect evidence. The Gardai must have known they had a worthless case and so did the DPP but the accuser wouldn't back down.

My guess is that this case will be settled on the steps of the courthouse and we will never know the real reason why the Gardai and the DPP pursued this prosecution. Sil Fox and his legal team will walk away with a massive but undisclosed sum in compensation.

Surely the gardai or the dpp don't pander to an accuser in the face of very obvious evidence?

This is a case of the gardai involved making assumption of guilt and ignoring evidence thinking something else would come out.

They set out to destroy Sil Fox though maliciousness and a what could be called a corrupt manner of investigation.

I sincerely hope that this is not "settled" and the gardai involved are questioned and become answerable for their actions

suicide_circus

Considering how often seemingly open and shut cases never get near a courtroom it's odd this one went as far as it did

Caquas

silver2020 wrote: »

Surely the gardai or the dpp don't pander to an accuser in the face of very obvious evidence?
....

Have you not noticed the concerted campaign which has been waged for years now, in the media, in the Oireachtas, in our educational institutions, to increase the number of prosecutions and, above all, convictions for sexual assault cases?

Do you think an ordinary Garda would dare tell a complainant in such a case that they are lying? Or that someone in the DPP's Office would tell the Gardai to drop the case? On the contrary, these cases are taken by specialist Gardai who are not employed to abandon such cases. Similarly, in the DPP's Office.

The only one who could safely shout stop to this obvious injustice was a judge in open court.

So now we are about to pay up, big time. Don't worry, it all just piles up onto the national debt which is so big now, no one will notice an extra million which we can borrow for free.

el Fenomeno

suicide_circus wrote: »

Considering how often seemingly open and shut cases never get near a courtroom it's odd this one went as far as it did

I remember being on jury duty for a case where a girl was on trial for being an accomplice to a massive drug deal that her father was taking part in. He'd been found guilty in a separate trial before hand, now they were trying to send her away for it too.

The state/prosecution's case was absolutely dreadful. The whole case was basically the father's trial all over again - his fingerprints on the gear, his movements that had been monitored. After the third day of it, the defence started being less than polite (they dropped the whole "thank you to my honourable friend" shíte every time they addressed each other) and started sarcastically reminding them that it was the girl on trial, not the father anymore.

The judge then asked us to step outside. We were called back in and she basically said the case was being thrown out and that we would be finding her innocent based on the judge's order.

I'd always assumed if it went to court, there was a strong case behind it. Apparently not.

paw patrol

silver2020 wrote: »

Surely the gardai or the dpp don't pander to an accuser in the face of very obvious evidence?

I think cos this was sexual the gardai absolved themselves of any responsibility and foisted this on the DPP in a cowardly dereliction of duty

The DPP , well WTF
I think the DPP should be held accountable and the woman named.

paw patrol

paw patrol wrote: »

I think cos this was sexual the gardai absolved themselves of any responsibility and foisted this on the DPP in a cowardly dereliction of duty

The DPP , well WTF
I think the DPP should be held accountable and the woman named.

Gardai do not decide when charged should be brought. They gather the evidence and it's up to the office of the DPP to examine the evidence and decide charges.

paw patrol

bubblypop wrote: »

Gardai do not decide when charged should be brought. They gather the evidence and it's up to the office of the DPP to examine the evidence and decide charges.

do they not decide if something goes to the DPP or not?

I had a complaint made about me 10years ago - both parties interviewed and gardai said there was no evidence.
Never went any further and defo not the DPP (cos I asked specifically)

Although I had a quick look there, it seems the DPP decides in "serious cases" not sure what that is defined as.
So maybe you are correct.

https://www.dppireland.ie/criminal-justice-system/investigation/

When a crime victim reports a crime to the Garda Síochána, they take a witness statement from the victim. A witness statement is a written record of the complaint. The Gardaí then investigate the crime. Depending on the investigation and the evidence, they may arrest a suspect.

In serious crimes, the Gardaí send a file to the DPP and the DPP decides whether or not to prosecute the suspect. In less serious crimes, the Gardaí make the decision, but whoever makes the decision the prosecution is still taken in the name of the DPP who has the right to tell the Gardaí how to deal with the case.

silver2020

Funny thing, if someone in a private company acted in the way that the gardai seem to have acted in this case, they'd have been sacked by now for gross misconduct.

But not in the gardai where the members will form a huddle around those colleagues involved and protect them. They probably won't even get a warning and the ombudsman does not get involved in garda procedure.

as for the chance of the gardai resigning if it is shown that they acted maliciously or carried it out in a corrupt manner - you've a better chance of winning the lotto two weeks in a row without buying a ticket.

Esho

bubblypop wrote: »

Gardai do not decide when charged should be brought. They gather the evidence and it's up to the office of the DPP to examine the evidence and decide charges.

Anyone see The Wire? Anyone seen how justice is dispensed in the courts?

Sil Fox decision may have been another statistic.

How come he was named when the case broke here?

paw patrol

paw patrol wrote: »

do they not decide if something goes to the DPP or not?

I had a complaint made about me 10years ago - both parties interviewed and gardai said there was no evidence.
Never went any further and defo not the DPP (cos I asked specifically)

Although I had a quick look there, it seems the DPP decides in "serious cases" not sure what that is defined as.
So maybe you are correct.

https://www.dppireland.ie/criminal-justice-system/investigation/

I am correct

Dempo1

Whatever about the rights of wrongs of this case, I've no doubt there would have been as much outrage if the Gardai didn't persue the case. Furthermore, Gardai do the investigation and forward reports and evidence to the DPP for consideration and determination of whether to prosecute or not.

This does lead to the ultimate question, who in THE DPP looked at the cctv and still decided to proceed. Its curious a defendant can not sue the DPP for defamation etc as they have absolute immunity but can sue if Malice can be proven. It's just a humble thought but if the cctv evidence is as clear cut as we are led to believe, surely Malice could be proven?

Instead fox is using breaches of his constitutional rights etc in his case, just seems odd to me. I certainly don't think Gardai are culpable in this matter.

silver2020

silver2020 wrote: »

Funny thing, if someone in a private company acted in the way that the gardai seem to have acted in this case, they'd have been sacked by now for gross misconduct.

But not in the gardai where the members will form a huddle around those colleagues involved and protect them. They probably won't even get a warning and the ombudsman does not get involved in garda procedure.

as for the chance of the gardai resigning if it is shown that they acted maliciously or carried it out in a corrupt manner - you've a better chance of winning the lotto two weeks in a row without buying a ticket.

How can it be a garda at fault when the DPP is responsible for examining all evidence and deciding whether or not to bring charges?
I don't know why his name was released though?
Seems very unusual

Dempo1

bubblypop wrote: »

How can it be a garda at fault when the DPP is responsible for examining all evidence and deciding whether or not to bring charges?
I don't know why his name was released though?
Seems very unusual

I agree, it's THE DPP who has questions to answer, suggesting garda conspiracies just widely off the mark. Re his name being released, I belive it was the victim who consented to that but I'm open to correction.

paw patrol

bubblypop wrote: »

I am correct

a bit of a trite response tbh - please elaborate.
if there is no evidence , is a complaint sent to the DPP?
So if I accuse you of sexual assault baselessly with contradictory evidence , does that go to the DPP regardless?

MrMusician18

Dempo1 wrote: »

I agree, it's THE DPP who has questions to answer, suggesting garda conspiracies just widely off the mark. Re his name being released, I belive it was the victim who consented to that but I'm open to correction.

What victim?

osarusan

The main piece of complainant testimony - that he had put his had under the table and touched/tickled her vagina for 30 seconds - was directly contradicted by the CCTV evidence which showed his hands on the table for all but 3 seconds of the encounter, and when the judge realised that, she threw the case out.

Seeing as how the case was thrown out in the way it was because of the evidence contradictions, it's hard to understand how the DPP thought they had a reasonable chance of a conviction in the first place. On what evidence did they make the decision to proceed with the case?

bucketybuck

Dempo1 wrote: »

Whatever about the rights of wrongs of this case, I've no doubt there would have been as much outrage if the Gardai didn't persue the case.

Bull****. There would have been no outrage at the Gardai not pursuing a case where the CCTV clearly and unequivocally showed that the alleged crime did not take place.

"He touched me inappropriately"
"We checked the CCTV and you could clearly see his hands the entire time he was near you, why are you making up stories?"
>Liar has left the chat

Dempo1

MrMusician18 wrote: »

What victim?

Apologies Aledged Victim

seamus

It's typical for the DPP to exclude items from the book of evidence that would cast doubt on the security of their case. Obviously.

The big question really is when the DPP became aware of this CCTV footage. If it was 11th-hour stuff and they were blindsided in court by it, then maybe it's excusable.

If they became aware of it before the court date but chose not to have the case struck out themselves, then it could be down to simple incompetence, or even clerical error.

But if they knew of it before even proceeding with charges, then the whole thing needs an independent investigation. Because simple incompetence doesn't account for that.

Dempo1

bucketybuck wrote: »

Bull****. There would have been no outrage at the Gardai not pursuing a case where the CCTV clearly and unequivocally showed that the alleged crime did not take place.

"He touched me inappropriately"
"We checked the CCTV and you could clearly see his hands the entire time he was near you, why are you making up stories?
>Liar has left the chat

Your clearly missing the point, whilst the CCTV was the crucial evidence, I've no doubt other evidence was presented, especially witness statements (and perhaps that too requires looking into) . Gardai are tasked to gather evidence, present it and of course make recommendations, next step of any investigation is the facts, evidence presented to the DPP for determination, it's not rocket science, this is how it works.

Even in a case were there's clearly no evidence or spurious accusations are made the matter is ultimately determined by the DPP.

And yes there would have been outrage if the complaint was not thouraghly investigated, especially in the current environment which for the record is right and proper.