Rory Gallagher - A dismissed case that was dealt with and brought to attention? Mod Note in OP

All valid points.

Strange. We've seen this before where people were advised not to deny specific allegations but claim they were cleared by the authorities and it usually comes out later why they didn't deny those specific allegations. A former DJ / presenter currently up in court comes to mind.

What does "Belleek are supporting her" even mean?

Did all 1000+ people issue a joint statement? Did the spirit of Belleek take shape in human form and give an interview?

Or are we just talking about more social media posts here, with all the weight and integrity that implies?

I agree with pretty much everything you say to be honest. However I think you'll find that false allegations are pretty rare. Yes they do happen but not in the numbers you are trying to make out.

If these allegations are true and have been going on for many years and if Nicola has been hospitalised then surely there's records of these events?? She has now gone very public and she needs to produce the evidence. I don't know if the rumours are true or false. If true then he should feel the full rigours of the law. Surely there's witnesses? Surely there's medical records, photographs and statements to back up the claims?

On another front if I noticed my daughter with the kind of injuries she claims to have had then as a father i'd be insisting on action and I'd probably have taken action myself. Has she no brothers, uncles etc who could have intervened ?

His statement wisely stuck to the facts which should be let speak for themselves. If he had directly denied any of the allegations he would be putting himself in the impossible position of having to prove a negative.

but they do happen, and their frequency or lack of frequency has no bearing on an individual instance.

In the case of Syl Fox in Ireland and Mark Pearson in the UK cases which were clearly false were still prosecuted in court by the respective prosecution services on #ibelieveher type idealoical grounds.

Trial by social media is a very dangerous road to go down. Rory Gallagher is entitled to a presumption of innocence.

It's not a question of circling the wagons. Anyone or any organisation taking action against him on the basis of social media posts is more concerned with image than truth, justice or fair play.

Hmm google is your friend here. McDermott was also accused of other things which weren't denied by him. Yet he denied having sexual relations with a minor? Why deny one allegation ? Why not deny everything? It's a rabbit hole to be honest I suppose but you're way off the mark when you assume these things are black and white.

The football career

There are so many stories doing the rounds about him over the years that if any of them were true its fair to say that is a fair comment.

If he directly denied the accusations he would effectively be calling his ex a liar.

Without acheiving the near impossible task of proving a negative he would be leaving himself open to an action for defamation.

It's not inexplicable in the slightest, it's sensible.

I'm not in any position to judge the merit or demerit of the accusations but avoiding a subjective response and sticking to independent objective facts is the most sensible response.

Think about it. If somebody denies a claim it opens the door for cross examination. For example, he says he never hit his wife, next thing there is a video of him throwing a wine bottle in her general direction, now he is having to explain further why that isn't what he meant. And when you are explaining you are losing, people don't look at the details, they just see the headline that the guy is backpedalling and immediately shout that he is guilty. Not guilty of throwing a wine bottle, guilty of beating his wife.

So you neither confirm nor deny. If you don't specifically deny then your words can't be used against you. That is why his statement only contains factual information that can't be twisted.

Roughing her up a bit?

The wine bottle example is from the Johnny Depp trial, he had to sit through a very public court experience because of how such things get mis-represented. Because lads like you change the details from innocuous and never touched her, to "roughed her up a bit".

I certainly hope you never find out how easy it is for somebody to ruin your life with false accusations. All your internet "my name is my name" willy waving won't mean dick if that ever happens.

You sound very naïve. You may want to be all guns blazing, and lay into these allegations with a big verbal lashing. Your solicitor will obviously be calmer and will know the legal implications involved. I'm sure you are aware the legal world can be very technical and judgements can swing one way or the other by the mere interpretation of words that are specified in legislation. The solicitor will know all this, and whatever response was issued by RG was considered very carefully by his legal representatives - each word would be considered to make sure it cannot have any ambiguity. I'm sure an outright denial would have been on the table, but they choose against this, presumably for specific legal reasons.

Or alternatively, maybe there is something in the records (when he was being investigated) which confirm some physicality between himself and the ex-wife - that maybe they were both at it, and there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute on the basis that it wasn't instigated by him, that he retaliated. And therefore he couldn't deny some physicality now.

I don't know. I'm going off on a bit of a tangent. But just to caveat - the above is pure speculation. Just an opinion on what may or may not have happened. But for those who things that RG should issue a strong statement denying whatever the wife said, maybe ask your own solicitor why he wouldn't have gone that route next time you are in with them. Might provide some enlightenment.

I guess that's the point - him not being able to outright deny it implies that there was "some physicality" which may not meet the bar for a prosecution but for me anyway would almost certainly make him an unsuitable candidate for managing my county team. I think the Derry CB need to speak with Gallagher, get his side of the story and then decide whether to back him or not

Different approaches would be appropriate 'in camera' in a court and in public (social media or otherwise).

It would be unwise to say something potentially defamatory in public that you cannot prove with certainty. Proving you never did something is an impossible task.

Can you prove you never broke a red light in your life?

Whether you did or didn't do something there will always be those who think there's no smoke without a fire. The damage is done by the accusation whether it is true or not.

Sticking to the facts that accusations were made, investigated and the public prosecution service determined they did not merit prosecution is the most sensible public response.

Equating this with 'at least I wasn't convicted' is a false equivalence. There are several very significant steps between the two.

You've conveniently avoided the crux of the question, can you prove you never did?

I don't know why I'm bothering since you clearly have no interest in actually understanding these things, but others reading can consider this example.

A man has abused his wife for decades. Beaten her, raped her, tormented her mentally, for decades.

On one occasion ten years ago, she frustratedly lashed out and scratched his face.

That woman would fail the NattyO test. That woman would not be able to truthfully make the statement "At no time during our relationship did I use violence against my husband".

If she did say it her husbands lawyers would rip her apart, they would produce the doctors note that showed evidence that she hit her husband and say it was proof that she was the aggressor in the relationship. All her claims would become suspect, decades of abuse but because she lost her temper just once she cannot use the definitive statement "I never hit him".

And then, some dumbass on the internet says that because she didn't deny it, then she must have been the aggressor.

In terms of her being alcoholic (which she accepts), the kids are automatically deemed 'at risk' so she was going to lose custody. Whatever claims against him, theyre not proven, so couldn't be held against him in a custody sense. So in terms of reading into custody for disproving this case it doesn't serve much.

Files aren't forwarded to the DPP unless there is some evidence there and the police think there is something to pursue. For domestic abuse they unfortunately just have to build and build over time and as said before the DPP will have a high threshold (higher than the police) before seeking to move forward with something. (I'm not sure which authority/s are referred to, 2 incidents are ROI but wasn't sure if it was clear if they were the ones pursued.

I'd imagine being alcoholic she's isolated from many. It's possible people may be more amenable to being a witness if she has cleaned up. Most domestic abuse is behind closed doors anyway... He said, she said doesn't stand up in court.

On him saying nothing... I guess Trump has got done on the civil side of not the criminal side for calling her a liar... But he certainly handles things... Differently...