On Listowel
This morning the three major broadsheets carry news of a trial in Tralee concerning Danny Foley, a bouncer who was sentenced to seven years in prison for the sexual assault of a young woman in Listowel. There are two particularly attention-grabbing facts about the case:
That the accused’s parish priest, Fr Sean Sheehy of Castlegregory, had provided a character reference saying the defendant “always had the height of respect for women” and that there was “not an abusive bone in his body”, a statement later heavily criticised by the judge, and- That, before the judge delivered the sentence, a group of fifty people – anecdotally, mostly male – queued up to shake the defendant’s hand and hug him, in some cases with tears in their eyes.
Now, rightfully, when people began sharing links to the story on Twitter this morning, most people were fairly appalled at the idea of a convicted sexual offender being party to such evident public support. However, it didn’t take long – probably because the victim was accompanied by representatives from the Kerry Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre – for people to start immediately referring to the convicted man as a ‘rapist’.
The man has not been convicted of rape. The man was convicted of a sexual assault.
Elsewhere in the same papers today, we have the news that a boy was taking a Supreme Court case to challenge the quick-fix Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006, because it deemed him to be a statutory rapist having slept consentually with a 14-year-old girl when he himself was 15, while she was portrayed as a “comely maiden” under the same act. Surely this is a reminder to us all that there are degrees of sexual offence – including, evidently, an offence that isn’t an offence at all.
Now, I can’t claim to have heard the defendant’s girlfriend on 2FM this morning – I believe she tried to portray a questionable picture of the nature of “circumstantial evidence” produced at her boyfriend’s hearing – and there’s a fair chance that she may have dug her partner into an even bigger hole depending on the merit with which she presented her thoughts.
But it seems that people are quick to condemn the man, and the people of Listowel, for such an unprecedented move in the courtroom, blithely assuming that those who queued to embrace him were endorsing the offence, and not the person itself.
One action does not, and cannot, give a complete reflection of a person’s character. Clearly, Danny Foley must have been a reasonably popular man in his hometown; any social outcast who is later found to have perpetrated a sexual assault (which, in case there’s any equivocation about this, I totally condemn) would probably have been assaulted himself a number of times in the fortnight between being found guilty and being summoned for sentencing. Obviously Danny Foley was held in great esteem by his friends, and thus must have been of reasonable standing and of seeming good nature to have won this kind of affection from his peers.
Nor does consoling a man who is about to be locked up for seven years – albeit deservedly, it would seem – a total endorsement of his actions and an expression of association with them. I know very few people who haven’t done something they’ve regretted; even if they had carried out transgressions (sadly a dirty word since Tiger-gate) I’d still like to try and see the bigger picture.
Of course seeing a display like this is a gruesome experience for the innocent victim of Foley’s crime. But it’s an enormous leap of faith to condemn the people of Listowel for standing by a friend, especially when they have the right to feel that his conviction is open to question (as his girlfriend clearly does, given her comments on the radio), and especially so to take the easy leap by pointing the finger at a priest who quite clearly wasn’t going to give a false statement.
Everyone’s entitled to their opinion.
(Edit: I’ve seen on RTE News tonight that Fr Sheehy was one of the people who queued to shake hands with Foley before his sentencing. That’s reprehensible and Fr Sheehy deserves the bollocking he’s gotten from the Bishop of Kerry as a result. Whatever about the intentions of the other people who shook Foley’s hand, a priest should have been far more conscious of the symbolism to the victim.)
Fair Comment
I think what was particularly sickening about this mornings news was the fact that a Catholic Priest was involved in the wholly unchristian act of consoling a convicted sex offender in front of his female victim. Then the same priest had the audacity to defend his actions on the national airwaves! Why couldn’t the Priest and the ‘Middle aged men’ wait until the victim was out of the court? It is the same ‘ah sure he was a grand lad’ and ‘normally he wouldn’t hurt a fly’ attitude in this country which for years (as evidenced by the Murphy and other reports) which covered up abuse and paedophilia. I feel neither Priests nor their Catholic church overloards have any moral authority in this country.
”The man has not been convicted of rape. The man was convicted of a sexual assault.,
I think your point here is slightly pedantic; the facts as reported was that the girl was carried into a lane by this guy and she was found naked from the waist down…. If this was yours or my sister/wife I can tell you now my friend that it would be rape.
One action does not, and cannot, give a complete reflection of a person’s character.
All I can say here is: Tiger Woods. Last Month Golfing Hero. This Month Whore Monger who now only plays golf on his Xbox360. What he did was undeniably his character. What; was it an accident that he slept with 11+ women? Was it an accident that Foley carried this woman into a lane? As the saying goes it takes a lifetime to build up your good name and only a second to destroy it. In my opinion this guy Foley got the sentence he deserved, I hope this will empower more women (and men) to come forward and report rapes and sexual assaults, we have the lowest conviction rates for rape in the EU and it is about time we started convicting and putting these deviant bullies in prison.
Gav Murphy
17 Dec 09 at 12:27 pm
Gav – thanks for your comment.
I think a lot of people are overlooking the fact that the priest gave his statement as a character reference when the trial itself was taking place. He didn’t stand up in the intervening two weeks and say “I know he’s a sex offender and all, but I still think he’s sound” or anything of that sort – people seem to be alleging that he’s been supporting Foley since the verdict was handed down. The only reason the priest’s statement has been made an issue of is because the judge chose to condemn it when handing down his sentence. I think when a judge has taken it upon himself to attack the statement – and the priest who gave it – the priest is right to take an opportunity to retort and defend his own character, so long as he doesn’t indulge in the aforementioned hypothetical behaviour.
Also, I reckon that if Tiger Woods comes back to golf, and performs as he had done before his private life came to light, his biographies wouldn’t be centred on his private transgressions but rather on his mastery of the sport. Though, to be fair, Tiger Woods clearly didn’t make one transgression, he made dozens. That constitutes a history of cheating or whoremongery.
Gav
17 Dec 09 at 12:39 pm
Gav Man I don’t buy it. A society that publicly comforts a sex offender in front of their victim is a sick sad society which ashamedly and evidentially still exists in Ireland. It reminds me of one of those ‘Song for a Raggy Boy’ or ‘The Field’ movies..
Ireland seriously needs to cop itself on and stop being so liberal on rapists (sorry I mean sexual offenders). How anyone with any conscience can defend a person who perpetrates such a crime, bar maybe his mother …. But fifty plus people shaking his hand! That place in Kerry must be a pretty grim place???
The Mayor or Chamber of Commerce should be quick smart making statements letting the rest of the country and the world know that North Kerry doesn’t welcome rapists and absolutely at no time condone giving them courtroom hugs.
>>>>>>>
BTW: Tiger Woods can be found on Xbox gamer name “TheWifeHasEverything” he is looking for firiends to play with!
If he can shag all those birds and still win majors the guy is a legend in my book:)
Gav Murphy
17 Dec 09 at 1:33 pm
Why are you defending a sexual abuser? Your words tell us more about your view of women than his.
Your tirade merits no more of my time than it has taken to write this.
Helena
17 Dec 09 at 2:14 pm
Gav – I accept your point; I would wager that a lot of the mob didn’t take the time to realise the insensitivity of their actions and how it might be perceived as an affront to the victim but I think it’s a little prejudicial to assume that a mob of Listowel natives are all, to a man, insensitive enough to endorse a sexual abuser’s actions. I agree with you on how the Mayor (or any local councillor, for that matter) should be making a bigger point of it, though.
Gav
17 Dec 09 at 2:17 pm
Helena – Thanks for your comment.
Where am I defending a sexual abuser? I said above:
Note the use of the word ‘rightfully’. Any sexual abuse is sick and reprehensible.
My points are merely twofold:
1) That people can’t start throwing around the word ‘rape’ when that’s not what Foley was convicted of, and
2) that people shouldn’t blithely assume that those shaking hands with Foley were endorsing his actions.
Gav
17 Dec 09 at 2:20 pm
Regardless of whether the victim was raped or sexually assaulted, Danny Foley committed a heinous crime. Furthermore, the contemptuous way he spoke about the victim was disgusting, and his lack of remorse and an apology speaks more of his personal character than any of his “character witnesses” could ever express.
So my question is this: why can’t these “middle aged men” support the victim, rather than the perpetrator? Should the names of these men be publicized and what would the women (if they have any) in their lives think of their actions?
Let’s hope that the victim finds some solace now that this ordeal is over, although I can’t help but think that her own community subjected her to yet another horrific experience for which she will never receive an apology.
Finally, the outcome of this trial sends a very scary message to women – when you prosecute someone for sexual assault or rape, you, the victim, are also going on trial. Imagine how few cases make it to court for these reasons alone, and think of all the other idiots, just like Danny Foley, who walk our streets assautling women again, and again, and again.
Caoileann
17 Dec 09 at 3:48 pm
Lets break this down here.
Dan Foley’s 7 years in prison are as a result of the following course of actions:
A) Buying a woman a vodka-based drink
B) Talking to her about the possibility of having sex
B) Taking the intoxicated woman outside of nightclub
C) Having oral sex
d) Taking her jeans off
e) Not having full sex with her.
f) getting found by some passing cops
g) Lying about the situtation to them.
I used to work in a country night club. This thing happens 5 times a night every night. In fact, if you walk out the back of any nightclub in North Kerry during this Christmas, you’ll find the same thing happening. Drink+lads+girls=embarressing situations. Except in Dan Foleys case, it was the cops, not the bouncers who came across them. He’s being treated like a rapist, and yet he’s doing what pretty much what every single guy does in a disco situation- chase tail. There arent many fellas who can’t claim to have gotten a woman’s jeans off after a nightclub, whether she was drunk or sober. Especially if she had just had his penis in her mouth. 7 years!!
NAF
17 Dec 09 at 5:10 pm
He’s being treated like a rapist, and yet he’s doing what pretty much what every single guy does in a disco situation
Really? How many women have you filled with drink, taken to a secluded area, jammed your dick in their mouths, and then started to undress them?
And shame on you if you saw that happening and let it go on.
Cyberwulf
17 Dec 09 at 5:38 pm
The only reason he didnt commit rape was he could n’t get an erection at the time, he sholud have been convicted of rape. He is a rapist.
The issue with this is that no one cares about the victim who has to live in a town full of scumbags who took his side, i mean come on.
Everyone knows who she is and she has to live with this. The poor girl, my heart goes out to hear.
As for the people who supported him they should seriouslt think about where it was their daughter, sister etc and his girlfriend….. idiot
Mairin
17 Dec 09 at 6:22 pm
Thank you all for your comments.
Mairin – If he couldn’t get an erection at the time, wouldn’t there have been a charge of attempted rape? I don’t mean to be cynical out of the traps but I haven’t seen that being reported anywhere; if you can supply a link it’d be welcome.
Gav
17 Dec 09 at 6:25 pm
The only reason he didn’t commit rape was he couldn’t get an erection at the time. He should have been convicted of rape. He is a rapist.
He carried her to the lane way and undressed her and sexually assaulted her.
How does any man think that this is their right to do this to a woman just because you bought her drink.
How can YOU defend this? It shows what kind of “man” you really are.
The garda found her and if it was just two people having sex they wouldn’t have gone to this lenght to have him convicted.
The people who supported him are scumbags. How can you hug someone who has just been sentenced for sexual assualt (you would have been convicted of rape if he would have got his way) while the victim who has done nothing wrong watches.
My heart goes out to her she has done nothing wrong. Her life must be hell, I mean everyone knows who she is. Its is awful and He got what he desereved.
mairin
17 Dec 09 at 6:44 pm
sorry but were ye all there that night that ye know for sure he raped her?are ye all fully sure that it was against her will and that she wasnt just fooling around drunk with him…next thing they were caught playin around and she claimed rape without thinking..then stickin to it rather than be known as a slapper…??this has happened many times and in many different situations…i remember reading before bout a girl that got stopped for id in niteclub..she got in but was so pissed off bout it she claimed later that she was raped by bouncer in toilet…at the trial it was established that she’d only been in club 10mins and nowhere near toilet!!theres lyin sick people out there….
so what im sayin to the lynch mob on this is:
unless u know for sure dont go lookin for blood ye fukin sados…thats what people did years ago…and we all know in hindsight that innocent people were blamed
ina real world
17 Dec 09 at 6:55 pm
Im not being sad I’m making a point.
Your point works both ways- you were not there so how do you know he didn’t rape her??
Just because you read somewhere that some other girl lied doesn’t mean this girl did.
I’m pretty sure cctv camera doesn’t lie. Why did he carry her outside? I’m pretty sure he wasn’t trying to act out scences from pretty woman!!
12 jurors found him guilty atfer hearing all the evidence. What are you suggesting that our legal system is wrong. He has been convicted, he did it.
mairin
17 Dec 09 at 7:08 pm
Hi Gav, this is some of the article about him, can’t get a link sorry. Irish independent
Sunday December 06 2009
A 35-year-old man who denied sexually assaulting a young woman he bought drink for at a night club in Listowel, Co Kerry, in June 2008 — claiming at first to gardai he had “found your wan” naked from the waist down and in a semi-conscious state next to a skip in a car park — has been found guilty by a jury in Tralee.
The verdict on Friday night at the Circuit Criminal Court was unanimous.
Bouncer Danny Foley of Meen, Listowel, outlined to the court in graphic detail what he claimed were consensual sexual acts between himself and the young woman, who cannot be named.
Foley claimed the woman, who was 22 at the time, asked him to have sex with her.
He told the jury they had performed oral sex on each other, she had got down on her hands and knees and requested intercourse but they had not had intercourse because he could not get an erection, he told the court.
mairin
17 Dec 09 at 7:15 pm
ina real world, I’m not usually one for getting into arguments in the comments section but…are you serious??? Yes, there have been cases where women falsely claimed rape or sexual assault, and I think that any woman who would do so has serious problems and should be locked up herself for putting an innocent man through such an accusation. However, in this case, we’re not jumping to unreasonable conclusions. Have you even read the reports of the case? There is CCTV footage clearly showing what happened. He lied to the cops about having dragged her out there. The guys attitude towards the girl in court was unforgivably rude and unremorseful…exactly how much more do you need before you’re willing to round up a lynch mob? Also, where do you get off suggesting that the first reaction to a reported case of sexual assault or rape should be that it’s probably the woman making it up? It’s attitudes like yours that make it so hard for a woman in that situation to come forward at all, and that made it possible for Catholic priests to get away with abusing children for years-all they had to do was tell the kid that nobody would believe them if they said anything, and with people who think like you in the country, they were probably right
Bridget
17 Dec 09 at 7:28 pm
Mairin, thanks for that story – here’s the link, which I found with Google News. I can see why it could be assumed that a rape would have been forthcoming had Foley been able to get an erection.
I would have to say, though, that an explanation like that has to come with a warning of caveat emptor. If the court rejected Foley’s alibi of intended consentual sex, it’d be a slight leap to assume that full penetrative sex was going to happen at all, whether the woman consented to it or not. Given how obviously full of lies Foley’s alibi was, I think to pick-and-mix bits from it is a bit rash.
Gav
17 Dec 09 at 7:35 pm
well i read that the ban garda who was with the victim on way to hospital had to hold victim down as she was getin agitated…and she reckoned that couldve been reason why bruises on girl…that wasnt on the papers though as facts such as that detract from juicy story!
as regards justice bein done…it wasnt done with that bastard in galway who raped and killed the spanish girl….the law werent so quick to jail there even though he had raped and try strangle a french girl the year before and had been guilty of manslaughter for killin a man prior to it also….oh no….that guy had a long history of criminal acts but was allowed walk around galway city with no limitations..probably free legal aid and all for the cunt…its the likes of him that should be put away for years..have his little prick cut off..etc…
as regards the kerry guy..i dont know for 100% WHO is or isnt guilty or who is or isnt partly to blame…so im not goin to put the blame on either..but i dont think ye should either..
ina real world
17 Dec 09 at 7:35 pm
The woman was found with bruises and scratches on her body. She says that she still takes painkillers for the injuries inflicted on her that night.
This is probably the most cut and dry case of sexual assault you can have. It’s the absolute stereotype of being “dragged down a lane”. I don’t think it’s at all leap to say that had Mr. Foley not been disturbed by the guards he would have raped her. Of course he may have just fought with her, undressed her and left her there, but I doubt it.
Anyway, the controversy about this case is not the issues of the case, the fact that he committed a henious crime and had he not been disturbed, may have committed an even worse one, is not the problem. It is the idiocy of people who continue to support someone who committed a horrific crime.
Let me put it this way – if the man was found to have committed sexual assault on a child, do you think the men would have been queuing up to give him a handshake and a slap on the back? Why, in this case, is it any more excusable for people to support him?
Joanne Doherty
17 Dec 09 at 7:53 pm
Are you seriously suggesting that if his penis was in good working order he would n’t have raped her? He openly admitted he would have if he could. The fact that he lied about the girl giving consent only makes this worse. He say she said yes to sex, and he couldn’t get it up so he didn’t rape her. Its hardly picking and mixing to think his.
As for the Galway man, if you are talking about the Swiss student he is serving a life sentence I am realy sure.
mairin
17 Dec 09 at 7:56 pm
Mairin – I’m not saying that he wouldn’t have raped her; I’m just saying you can’t choose to believe one part of his alibi (that he couldn’t get an erection) and disregard another (that she was seeking consentual sex).
Ina real world – thanks for your comments; Gerald Barry was convicted of killing Manuela Riedo and is serving a life sentence for it. link
Gav
17 Dec 09 at 8:01 pm
bridget, think u should examine your facts!!..i never for one second said i think he’s innocent….i didnt however try and say that cctv footage has the evidence on tape..it only showed him carryin her in his arms..a guy seen carryin a girl in his arms does not prove he raped her….ive carried my girlfriend afew times in my arms..the first time was on my third date with her…she broke her heel on her boot…glad a passer by who seen me carryin her didnt ring the guards and call me a rapist!!
p.s where did i suggest that the first reaction to a reported case of sexual assault or rape should be that it’s probably the woman making it up? i didnt say that..if u were a judge…goin on your comments every guy accused of rape is a rapist…and nearly all priests are rapists and paedos….cop on!
ina real world
17 Dec 09 at 8:26 pm
Whoa, easy up there, Ina real world. Deleting the last line of your last comment.
Gav
17 Dec 09 at 8:28 pm
thanks for the info gav…i just hope that gerald barry guy actually serves the life sentence and not just 5years like alot of the sickos convicted…..the law should be tough on the guys that are fully proven to be guilty..
ina real world
17 Dec 09 at 8:29 pm
Ina real world… if you think Gerald Barry was proven guilty, you have to extend the same trust to the verdict given to Danny Foley. Both were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers.
My argument is that people are inflating the nature of Foley’s crime and immediately equating him with a rapist when he wasn’t convicted of a rape, nor is it reasonable to assume that he was intent on carrying one out.
Gav
17 Dec 09 at 8:30 pm
Gav,
Why would he lie about not being able to have an erection? If he says she gave consent that doesn’t really matter. At least one part of him felt it was wrong.
The fact that you still think that there is any doubt whether she gave consent or not is actually worrying and wrong. Read the story. Maybe suggest that to the cops who came past that night.
Why you feel you have to defend him is beyond me.
mairin
17 Dec 09 at 8:31 pm
Ina real world, he was found crouching over the half dressed, semi conscious woman. A woman who had scratches and bruises on her, consistent with being restrained and dragged across the ground.He was found to have met the woman earlier in the night, and he lied about it. He was recorded on CCTV carrying the unconscious woman towards the skip, and he lied about it. Those are all the facts of the case and are plain to anyone who has read the reports. Yes, there wasn’t a cctv footage of him actually assaulting her, but I think any jury would convict him beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence.
Dear God, if we needed CCTV footage of an actual assault before anyone was convicted, no one would ever be held guilty.
Joanne Doherty
17 Dec 09 at 8:35 pm
Mairin, let me straighten something out. I trust in the wisdom of the courts; and thus I genuinely believe that Danny Foley sexually assaulted the woman in question. I’m not defending his actions. The man evidently poses a major danger to certain sections of a public and merits being locked up for at least the five years he was given.
That aside, there is nothing to suggest that Foley had the intent of raping this woman. Saying that he was hoping/trying to engage in consentual sex is merely a convenient alibi; it means that the only crime he would have been guilty of is trying to do so in a public place.
Put it this way – it would make more sense for him, trying to get away with his crime, to say he couldn’t get an erection than to claim that he could.
Gav
17 Dec 09 at 8:39 pm
hey gav, sorry if being to forward but just feel that some people here would rather have punishment handed out to guys without any fair hearing…that goes on alot in certain parts of America…they wear white masks..i dont agree with either form…amyways im goin off this topic…hope all rapists are caught and punished….and if that kerry guy was guilty i hope he’s bent over by a guy in jail and shown what it feels like to be taken advantage of!
(i do hope though that no ones blamed in the wrong for rape…there was also a case of a guy in galway whose family fell out with another family over land..one family accused a guy of raping their daughter…think he was actually accused of it..not sure though…years later the girl returned to ireland from abroad and admitted that it was lies and she was sorry for it…at this stage the accused had lost everything and had been blacklisted by all that knew him…life ruined)
ina real world
17 Dec 09 at 8:40 pm
How do you know whether he had intent or not?
You don’t know you never will.
Thats my point the only think that we have is the evidence and he was proven guilty, he is guilty of his crimes.
What he would have done to her if the cops havn’t had come over him is not worth thinking about.
The fact that his supports were allowed to hug him and shake his hand in court is sick.
Can you imagine if it was a priests convicted of sexually assulting a child that would not happen.
There would no doubt in any ones mind that the priest raped the child.
Why is it so different when its a man and a woman? Why are women always called sluts, slappers, whores in these situations? Why is there always doubt?
I mean think for one second what she felt like when she came round. She was so upset that she had to be restrained. She always has to live with his.
Alot ot people won’t report a rape, I don’t balme them and to be honest I wouldn’t report a rape either.
Its not fair on woman, most woman are raped by people they know and have to see them on a regular basis.
As men you have no idea how that feels and never will so don’t get on your high horses every time you read one of these stories as a group you don’t have a clue
mairin
17 Dec 09 at 9:02 pm
Mairin – hang on a second. Nobody has claimed to understand what it’s like to be the victim of a rape or a sexual assault. I might add that women aren’t the only victims, but that’s an academic point. I have no doubt that the victim in this case found it unbearable to watch a man who assaulted her in the way Foley did being hugged and wished well by his neighbours.
I don’t know that Foley didn’t intend to rape his victim. But nor do you know that he did. As you say, all we have is the evidence that he was guilty of his crimes, and his conviction is for sexual assault. Intercourse didn’t take place and neither you nor I know whether Foley intended for it, or whether the victim would have consented.
This is precisely my point – of course it’s a disgusting truth about society that women are so often subjected to such abhorrent behaviour, but why are you assuming that I’m on a high horse, defending a sexual offender for his brutal and disgusting actions, when I’m doing nothing of the sort?
Mairin, you don’t know whether Foley intended to rape this woman, just as much as I. It is a huge leap to assume that everyone who carries out a sexual assault intends to carry out a rape. The whole point of my post is that there is no evidence to suggest that Foley had the intent to rape this woman. And frankly, I think the victim is better off not knowing.
Gav
17 Dec 09 at 9:12 pm
I apologise for being insenstive to other rape victims.
Why does intent matter?
Doesn’t change anything.
To be honest I wish more was spoken about the victim and her rights rather than if he had intent.
Why were his followers let in to court?
As I said my heart goes out to her and I really really hope she knows she did nothing wrong.
I can not imagine whats its is like for for.
I just think it is a disgrace that this happened in the first place and some people need their head examined for their thoughts on the matter.
mairin
17 Dec 09 at 9:30 pm
Gav, that’s a bit naive.
Of course you can’t prove beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law that he did or did not intend to rape his victim. But anyone with a bit of cop on, looking at the facts of the matter, would say that it certainly looked like it was his likely intention. I mean, he took her jeans and underwear off. What do you think he was going to do? Go down on her? Finger her and then off he goes? Come on.
I don’t know what you need to prove attempted rape, but you possibly need the corrobration of the victim to say that penetration was attempted. Given that she was very drunk, she probably can’t remember either way, and therefore that is why a prosecution for attempted rape wasn’t brought.
I’m not saying that he’s a rapist, after all, rape did not happen. But I’ve no problem with saying that the facts make it look like he intended it.
And as for saying who knows whether she would have consented, I think it’s highly unlikely where an assault is proven that it would follow that the victim would then have consented to sex.
It’s not a leap to think this. It’s common sense.
Joanne Doherty
17 Dec 09 at 9:47 pm
He has the height of respect for women and he hasn’t an abusive bone in his body?
Hmmm.
Thank God for priests. Where would we be without them?
Bock the Robber
17 Dec 09 at 9:57 pm
Ina – it wouldn’t surprise me if you were from Listowel and on the “side” of Foley, the animal who was convicted of sexual assault by a jury and jailed for 7 years! Ireland seems to be going backwards instead of forward – what with the Murphy Report and now this – Lord only knows what the outside world must think of us. Inbred Savages perhaps? Foley certainly had the look of one! Foley is a liar and a sex offender of dispicable character. His family should hang their heads in shame, as should the 50 idiots who shook his hand! All of them should be named & shamed in my book – and if any of them are in business in Listowel town, I hope that the good people of the town will boycott them. John B Keane would turn in his grave at these goings on. RIP.
Norma Jean
17 Dec 09 at 10:15 pm
I have to agree with Gav Murphy, the point you are making between sexual assault and rape is rather pedantic. A sexual assault is a sexual assault; a rape is one form of sexual assault, not necessarily a lesser or worse from of sexual assault. In this case the judge explicitly classified this assault in the mid to severe range. Hence the long sentence, similar to sentence for a mid to severe rape conviction.
As for your defence of the priest. I agree to the
point that I think its OK for a priest to give a character reference, at a point where the accused hasn’t been convicted. But I think the disgust people are expressing is more towards the contents of the reference, which the judge rightly defines as lies. I find the priests quotes in the indo today unbelievable.
“To hand down a seven year sentence in that kind of situation, it seems to me is a miscarriage of justice,” Fr Sheehy said.
the priest said “the fact is, it was an alleged attack… but the jury convicted him.”
Every case goes to court as an alleged offence, as we presume innocence until found guilty. So what’s his point. It’s actually disturbing, coming from a anybody, not alone a priest. And is exstreamly insulting to the victim.
Liam
17 Dec 09 at 10:55 pm
It’s easier to say rapist than ‘that woman has loose morals’ in the Irish Times. Just sayin’. The woman is always the victim isn’t she? Always.
Ciara
17 Dec 09 at 11:20 pm
And the John B reference?! Are you for real?!
Ciara
17 Dec 09 at 11:25 pm
‘The man has not been convicted of rape. The man was convicted of a sexual assault.’ What difference does that make! How do you know which one would be worse in a particular instance.
And also showing support for this criminal in court is actually condoning the crime. That’s what the court case was about, not the person but the crime.
And talking about statutory rape between a 15 year boy and a 14 year old girl in the same post saying ‘Surely this is a reminder to us all that there are degrees of sexual offence – including, evidently, an offence that isn’t an offence at all’ is ridiculous and not comparible to this man’s crime in any way. Are you from Listowel by any chance?!
Audrey
18 Dec 09 at 12:27 am
Joanne – You call it naive, I call it realism. You might say “anyone with a bit of cop on”, I say ‘Anyone who immediately assumes the worst of any character’.
You say:
If you carry this logic through to its conclusion, and she probably can’t remember either way, it’s impossible to attest that any sex might not have been consentual.
Why is it fair to assume that Foley wanted to rape the woman, but not fair to point out that – if she’s unable to personally attest to her feelings at the time – her action might actually have been consentual?
Gav
18 Dec 09 at 1:16 am
Audrey – Thanks for your comment.
“What difference does it make?” It means that he wasn’t convicted of rape, and thus can’t be called a rapist. The genesis of this post was the fact that people were willfully and habitually referring to Foley as being a “rapist” when there was no mention of rape, no charge of rape, and most certainly no conviction of it.
Showing support for the criminal in court is not tantamount to condoning the crime. Let’s not forget that Foley was in custody for the fortnight between his being found guilty (which, I might again take the opportunity to state, is the right verdict for anyone with the capability of carrying out acts as reprehensible as Foley did) and it’s not as if his neighbours could throw a hooley for him before his sentence was handed down.
My reference to the statutory rape case was a reference to illustrate that there are degrees of sexual offences – if you disagree with this, and happen to think that a 15-year-old boy is a criminal for having consentual sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend, let me know.
Gav
18 Dec 09 at 1:17 am
Interesting thread. I’m from Australia where there is no difference between sexual assault what you seem to be calling ‘rape’. Put anything in any orifice where it isn’t wanted and it’s sexual assault colloq rape. Not that i’m saying were better or Ireland should adopt our laws but i dont think how far the crime went is the issue, its the support he was given – support they didnt give to the victim. Ashamedly i can say that support for rapists doesn’t differ between our countries. Judges still factor in what the woman was wearing and its women who are blamed for getting drunk enough to let it happen (never the man for being so drunk he did it). Our moral compass Footballers are regularly accused of rape and gang rape but the public crucify any news org who reports it as its just ‘boys being boys’ so they shouldn’t lose their jobs over it. A bunch of male uni students last month had a ‘pro-rape’ facebook page, it was taken down but they werent expelled and rape isn’t seen as serious by the colleges. Even if they were prosecuted and convicted they wouldn’t get 7 years here (1-2 is usual). The west is condeming other countries for how they treat women but we should be fixing our own before we can take the moral highground.
maree
18 Dec 09 at 2:25 am
THERE WAS NO CLINICAL EVIDENCE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, how can a court convict on these grounds? also the court was sitting for 3 day’s before it adjurned at approx 3.30pm Friday evening for the jury to concider there verdict, there was also 2 people on the jury that wanted more time to concider, it was’nt given I feel no one wanted to be there for the weekend.
There is a comment made about this on the web site big mental disease, Laura made the comment Dec 17th 15:42:30 it’s worth reading, she has documented events that were only heard in the courts.
All I can say is Guy’s be careful there are women out there who are out to hurt and distroy men anyway they can.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
christina
18 Dec 09 at 2:29 am
If the Bishop of Limerick took your line Gav, with the difference between rape and sexual assault, then would he have resigned? In terms of the law the difference between rape and sexual assault is negotiated between the prosecuting and the defending legal teams. Where would you draw the line? What would you think if your girlfriend, wife, sister, cousin, aunt, was subjected to such an assault and then verbally abused around town, because the attacker was a local “likely lad?” You have benefit of being aloof and diffident to the sexual attacks on women because maybe you don’t personally know any women who have been attacked.
The real severity of the sentence falls on the victim in this case, because for the next five years she will be intimidated in the town, and after when he is released it will be worse with the man himself.
Robert
18 Dec 09 at 8:27 am
Very interesting case.
If my daughter got drunk in similar circumstances I would expect somebody to help her and get her home safe.
In this case bouncers and the many customers must have seen what was going on, and with Date Rape drugs etc should be alert to a girl being escorted/carried outside.
Am I mistaken in thinking that legislation was passed recently to make it illegal to have an intoxicated person on your lisenced premises? Broadly speaking the night club was not without culpability,and the night club management have a case to answer.
Someone suggested that this happens all the time, but that the Garda involvement precipitated the action by this girl. Fact is that it shouldn’t happen at all!!
Danny Foley is lucky to be locked up for years, as there are too many shotguns in Kerry for him to walk the streets in safety!! I’d say he’s going to have a new nickname inside, and should have a great time with his fellow inmates as most of them don’t like this type of cowards.
The principles, courage, and tenacity of the girl must be applauded. I hope she will give strength to others who suffer the same misfortune.
Caoimhin
18 Dec 09 at 8:38 am
Hey CyberWulf.
“And shame on you if you saw that happening and let it go on.”
I more often than not got told to “f*** off” by both the woman and man involved.
Shame on me for doing my job, more like.
NAF
18 Dec 09 at 10:10 am
Gav,
I must disagree.
“But it seems that people are quick to condemn the man, and the people of Listowel, for such an unprecedented move in the courtroom, blithely assuming that those who queued to embrace him were endorsing the offense, and not the person itself.”
I think it’s pretty fair and reasonable to condemn a man who’s been convicted of a serious sexual assault, and I think it’s completely wrong to support him so overtly with the (perhaps unintended) consequence of alienating and intimidating the victim, while ignoring her suffering. HOW can you support a man like that?
I don’t care how popular he is – it’s completely irrelevant.
The priest should have known better, and judging the people who sympathized with him (though that’s not everyone in Listowel) is fair enough. They stood by a criminal and ignored his victim. It’s disgusting.
Like you said though, everyone’s entitled to their opinion.
Clare
18 Dec 09 at 10:34 am
[...] Coughlan also reminds us that this isn’t the first time this has happened. While Gav also blogs on it, although I disagree with his [...]
How Listowel Treats a Sexual Assault Victim | Clare Herbert
18 Dec 09 at 10:36 am
“The man has not been convicted of rape. The man was convicted of a sexual assault.”
– From the perspective of the victim there’s basically no difference. The attempted assault is as big a violation of trust as an actual assault.
I am writing this NOT having read all of the earlier comments but I was not at all surprised by the behaviour of the priest and I am honestly shocked by the naivety of people who would think otherwise. The best elaboration I can give on my opinionis in this story: http://www.enotes.com/wet-day-salem/wet-day and I throughly recommend reading the full text. I am NOT surprised by the priests character statement because for over five years of my adult life I spent 4/5 days a week, 8 months of the year in the same building as Sean John Drummond. To me he was a short, white-haired man with a quiet manner. Did I have anyway of knowing that Drummond, as a 19 year old, dropped coins into the clothing of 8/9/10 year old boys so he could them molest them? I did not. Nor did I have anyway of knowing he had five grown children. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1124/1224259338342.html This is the nature of our siciety’s approach to sexuality – it is an utterly private, and often hidden, thing.
Rather than a priest shaking hands with a person convicted of sexual assault what most struck me about this story when I read it in one of the tabloids was the phrase used by the judge. He said the accused has told “lie after lie” and that nothing he said stood up to close scrutiny. In spite of this the victim is reportedly held as a pariah in Listowel and that is what prompted me to join this facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=204392248545
And in reply to NAF, I hope you never have daughters.
Pierce
18 Dec 09 at 2:51 pm
‘My reference to the statutory rape case was a reference to illustrate that there are degrees of sexual offences – if you disagree with this, and happen to think that a 15-year-old boy is a criminal for having consentual sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend, let me know.’ I never said I disagree with this, I said it’s irrelevant to this case. You seem to be implying that because he wasn’t convicted of rape but instead sexual assault it is a crime of a lesser degree – compairing it to statutory rape between a 15 and 14 year old, but you do not know this. You have no way of knowing unless you were there which would have been worse. Those people who supported him in court should be ashamed of themselves.
Audrey
18 Dec 09 at 5:13 pm
Audrey – that’s exactly my point. I don’t know what his true intention was or which would have been worse… but neither do you or anyone else.
Gav
18 Dec 09 at 5:24 pm
You don’t know his true intention? Well all you’d have to do is look at the results for that. She was found battered and bruised and unconscious. It makes not one bit of difference what he intended to do, it’s the fact of what he did do. It’s trying to minimize the crime of sexual assault by comparing it to what you think is a worse crime of rape, it’s spurious.
Audrey
18 Dec 09 at 7:00 pm
what an absolutely awful post by NAF.
utter knuckle-dragging bollocks.
jon
18 Dec 09 at 7:50 pm
Sometimes I miss living in Ireland in good old Kerry and then I read this kind of trash and am glad to be gone. Why is the author arguing about the difference between sexual assault and rape? It’s a bit like saying, l know x killed 7 people but lets not get carried away, it’s not like he killed 8. Tosh, and the author knows it.
Irrespective of that, lets face facts, not rumours and heresay,He was convicted in a court of law! If there is any doubt, these cases fall apart. It didn’t, he is going down and hisListowel huggers should hang there heads in shame and ask themselves if they’d do the same if it was their daughter/sister.
Shameful
Ian
18 Dec 09 at 10:07 pm
When I was at College in the States we had to go on a course in which a police officer gives us a talk on sexual assault, rape, harrassment etc., For us blokes it was a rather uncomfortable lesson, but the officer (who was male) stated that for comparison, if a man wants to know what it feels like for woman to be raped he would need to masterbate for 20 minutes non-stop with sandpaper. The pain and damage done would be the same as the damage done to a woman who does not want to have sex.
The woman has to give consent for sex, and she must never be coerce, forced, blackmailed, or be so under the influence of drink or drugs as to give neither consent or assent. No means no, it doesn’t matter what interpretation the man has of No, but for a woman No means No.
In court, any of his previous convictions etc., are not allowed to be brought up, and yet her character, dress etc., were continuously questioned. A woman has a free choice of what clothes she may wear, and for a choice of whom she sleeps with. This fella chose to violate her and knowing within himself, attempting to cheat on his girlfriend, premeditated his actions to liaise with this woman.
He had plenty of opportunity, to refute, and to provide contrary evidence to defend himself in court, and the jury found him guilty.
Gav you seem more concerned about the character assassination of this fella and the priest, than the character assassination of the victim by the defendant, his hoodlum friends, the priest and the town of Listowel. He gets a soft 5 years, She gets life in a red-neck town.
Robert
18 Dec 09 at 11:32 pm
SHAME ON THAT PRIEST.
brian walsh
19 Dec 09 at 5:33 am
FOR FAR 2 LONG WE HAVE BEEN CODED BY THE CAT O LICK CHURCH.
IT HAS DESTROYED MANY A GOOD HOME ALL OVER THE WORLD.
MY HEART GOES OUT TO ALL IT’S VICTIMS.
brian walsh
19 Dec 09 at 5:46 am
I’m watching all of this unfold from the other end of the world- as a Listowel native my only comment is that a man his age, having worked as a bouncer should know when a young woman is incapacitated,clearly having to carry her means she was in no place to make ANY decision…that said …this also should call North Kerry to examine it’s conscience on “when to say when” – the level to which it is acceptable to drink and behave is highly questionable…going to either nightclub in the town is highly intimidating…best call is to have a few with your folks and call an early night..I call on any regular at the pubs to say they have NEVER witnessed ‘trouble’ ?
runningfool
19 Dec 09 at 7:29 am
PS: Robert, spot-on, I worry for her in Listowel, the area she was brought up in and her dress/character meant she was immediately doubted…I admire her for standing her ground.
runningfool
19 Dec 09 at 7:40 am
Ever see the movie “Goodfellas” when the leading fella as a young criminal is congratulated by the mob by not squealing in court. Is this Dan Foley part of a local mob, to which these 50 upstanding men in the community are also part of. I would hazzard a guess that they would try to orchestrate some harm to this young woman as some kind of punishment to her for standing up to such thugs, and also as a warning to other women. It makes one think whether this is County Kerry 2009, or Mississippi 1964. Either way their attempt at intimidation of the young woman did not remove her resolve and has turned the Nation’s spotlight on these thugs. The priest’s involvement in the case is also indicative of the role of the church in these crimes against women (and children) now that evidence has to come to light of the State’s involvement in the Magdalen Sisters, and also detailed in the Murphy Report. As a Nation we need to do allot of soul searching and clear out these skeletons in closet – something we failed to do during the Celtic Tiger. I doubt somehow these 50 thugs from Listowel will ever feel remorse or guilt for their involvement in this sordid affair, but the town of Listowel has been blackened by their odious presence.
Robert
19 Dec 09 at 9:22 am
Always tell the truth. If you have nothing to hide or be ashamed of just tell the truth. If you tell lies it will come back against you. Lying is dangerous. Tell the truth at all times.
Margaret Fleming
19 Dec 09 at 10:22 pm
I lived near Listowel and used to socialise there in the lates ninetys. this article that gav has written is truly shocking. shame on you and that so called priest. I recall a similar case that happened 96 , 97 also in Listowel. The man was convicted of rape and everyone turned on the girl from the area truly sick it was and to hear its happening again is not surprising. Listowel people / north kerry has to be one of the most backward holes in Irleand. Gav you clearly have issues.
John
20 Dec 09 at 4:15 pm
The Liam Sheehy case in 1997, was when factory worker raped a 33 year old woman 5 miles up road from Listowel. He was sentenced for 7 years, but what is alarming is the nature of behaviour of local people to the crime. The victim and her family became the centre of a vicious campaign of intimidation and exclusion. The rapist was given fantastic character references by his supporters.
The behaviour of Liam Sheehy friends and family in comparison to the behaviour of Dan Foley friends and family, in addition to both men’s attitude give rise to the thought that there is something highly sinister in that part of Kerry. How many women have been raped/sexually assaulted and with the fear and threat of further violence, intimidation and exclusion never pursued justice. Hopefully women can come forward with truth, and as a nation we need to clean out these sort of men from our society.
Robert
21 Dec 09 at 7:41 am
Gav Reilly: I’m reading this from Australia. I’m somewhat appalled that you are actually trying to make a point of distinction between rape and sexual assault – the intent behind either offences is still very much the same. Neither is a lesser evil to each other.
Can I point out when a person is inebriated that person (male or female) is not in a capacity of making a decision. I would have thought it is obvious that when a woman is not capable of saying no it does not mean she is consenting to the sexual activity.
The offender is captured on CCTV carrying the girl to the skip where she was found later by gardai naked with evidence of sexual abuse, and the people of Listowel still thinks he’s innocent?!! I’m from Australia and this does not give me a good impression of certain attitudes that goes in Irish countryside.
Jasmine
21 Dec 09 at 7:43 am
Such a show of “sympathy” in the Listowel courtroom was appalling. What must the poor girl have felt as she witnessed this support? I suspect that many of the good citizens of Listowel think she led Foley on, that in some way he was not completely to blame for the rape (call it by it’s real name). Shame on them for subjecting the girl to even more anguish after all she has been through. Things will never be the same for her again, that’s for sure.
Happy Christmas one and all.
Kieran
21 Dec 09 at 9:50 am
funny though how his girlfriend of 3 wks at the time of the incident stood by him and waits to marry him.
When he worked in a night club more than 10yrs back ,his colleagues viewed him as big and strong with a very low intellect and they were Irish too by the way, some who knew him well and learned of this story by way of the internet etc believed that he could have done this. Just their opinion only backed up with a comment of “there was an incident involving a girl …….”
sean
23 Dec 09 at 8:00 pm
Sean, you’re touching a nerve here. The people who lined up in court for the Foley animal are staying very quiet, probably there’s a lot more to this guy’s character than we think. As for the girlfriend: How sad can you get, but she like the mis-guided priest and the 50 or so court sympathisers were on a mission to convince the Justice that Danny wasn’t as bad as he seemed. If the Justice saw the extent of the sympathy maybe he’d reduce the sentence for poor, poor Danny. “Shure he didn’t even rape the girl”. Worth a try but it backfired thank God.
The girlfriend won’t be around in five years, but like Foley she must be clearly a biscuit short of a packet.
I shudder to think of what the offspring might be like!!
Caoimhin
24 Dec 09 at 7:46 am
All I can say to you GAV is you are a total neadathol. Even if I had such uneducated, backward thoughts such as yours, I would keep my mouth shut. I had always been very proud of Listowel and coming from there but now I would not even dream of getting into a conversation with a guy from there if this is what is produced there and what the local community, church deem as a good character.
If I ever met one of these 50 people I would ask them to close their eyes and imagine their mother, sister or daughter being dragged down a lane and being sexually abused by this animal and then think about what a top guy he is now.
I could not care less if this woman was the town bike or a nun. No one has the right to force anyone into sexual relations.
He is just VERY lucky it wasn’t me as he would not have lived to get the sentance. I would have gathered myself up the next day, gone and bought a shot gun and blown him to hell and his supporters with him!!!!!! I just pray you don’t have any female children or sisters as you must treat them like dirt!!!
Kelly
25 Dec 09 at 1:14 am
Thannks for your comments everyone; sorry I’ve taken a while to get to them, I had a family bereavement just before Christmas so I’ve been offline for a while.
Jasmine – You said:
Because she can’t remember it, what’s to say she hadn’t consented at the time? As Ciara said in an earlier comment, it’s easier to cry foul and call a man a rapist than to admit that women have loose morals.
Kelly – I wish you had read over the earlier comments where I’d made it painfully clear that I think the guy is sick and deserves to be locked up. I’m just saying that it’s a typically myopic reaction to label someone a rapist when rape didn’t happen here.
Thanks to everyone for their comments on this; while I clearly can’t say I’m on the popular side of the argument I think the responses this post has gotten have been very interesting indeed.
In the interests of letting the rest of the blog live, though, sadly I’m probably not going to be able to respond to any further comments on this post.
Gav
26 Dec 09 at 9:39 pm
Kelly,
Neanderthals were considered highly intelligent with a comparable brain structure to that of HomoSapian, but not as indented. In fact it is thought that if we could bring back a Neanderthal man to the present, shave and clean him up, dress him up in a suit, he would be indistinguishable to “modern man.” Neanderthals also had a complex societial structure similar to HomoSapians at that time. The skeletal structure also varied just like “Modern man” so not all Neanderthals had the same heavy brow, and wide chin, there were regional variations.
So I think that Neanderthal man would be highly indignant and insulted by being compared to someone like Dan Foley.
Another thing about consent, is that a woman could walk around naked with a mattress strapped to her back and have a reputation of a bike, but if she says No to a fella it means No. If she is inebriated then it is understood that not being able to give consent also means No.
As for changes in Ireland about our attitudes, we are changing and websites such as these show that we are now facing these issues. A few years ago, cases such as these as well as the scandals in the church, were brushed under the carpet. No more to that, we are now voicing our opinions and all abusers named and shamed.
Robert
27 Dec 09 at 9:24 am
While man has clearly been caracterised as a rapist and has not been convicted as such try to put yourself in the shoes of the womans father, her brother, her boyfriend, her friend, then ask yourself how you would feel to see your parish priest que to shake his hand, to see your neighbours do likewise, All the while bare in mind… She has done nothing wrong, but be assaulted at the hands of that man.
Then come back with your comments of understanding, and equality for all, it has been proved that he commited a crime, proved that he acted in a manner while both disgusting and vile totally illegal,
Perhaps hes a likleable man, perhaps hes a friendly fun chap, but he is still a foul, disgusting, vomit endusing pervert who deseves condemnation, and disgust. He made his bed when he assaulted that girl let him lie in it.
Oh and while im at it, we have a peadophile in our area, hes a friendly helpful chap too, do you have children Reilly?………….Perhaps he could babysit for you.
clare curran
30 Dec 09 at 9:45 am
they could have gone to visit him in prison if they felt that stronly about it. they even hav visitors rooms and dedicated visiting times. a courtroom is not the time or the place especially when he had already been convicted! its scary to think that ther are at least 50 people in listowel who thinks what they did was ok, think il steer clear of that neck of the woods. also i feel that rape and sexual assault affect the victim in much the same way, bothe are a degrading, frightening and humiliating experience which profoundly affects your life!!
Alohababy
30 Dec 09 at 1:00 pm
This thread has been dead for a while but this case has intrigued me so……..
I’m not going to attempt to state whether the accused is guilty or not as many of the previous posts have done. What I would like to do is to ask people to look more closely at the external facts of the case.
The internal facts; accused caught on CCTV carrying the victim down an alley, found with her unconscious semi-naked body; initial denial and later admission of having attempted sex with the woman. Those facts are pretty damming. Not hard to see why the man was convicted.
Why then, given the open&shut nature of the evidence, have the people of Listowel come out so strongly in favour of the accused? What is the local insight that Listowel people have access to that results in the parish priest and even the man’s fiancé to stand by him? From what I have read, and I could have interpreted it wrong, it seems the people supported him because they thought he was innocent, rather than commiserating with him on his conviction.
This can not be simply explained as ‘small town small mindedness’. I come from a similarly sized Kerry town and a few years back an acquaintance of mine in his early 20s was convicted of the sexual assault of a young girl. This was based on the accusations of that young girl. In a case that seemed a lot less concrete and more unusual the local people unanimously accepted the evidence and the findings of the court.
This is one example and there have been many cases of sexual assault in towns like Listowel that have not garnered anything like the response seen. People have become accustomed to cases like this and a lot worse. People have been shown what priests are capable of, so I don’t think they would find similar actions by the local bouncer such a surprise.
So, why?
Rape is such an emotive issue we are often tempted, in our own minds, to lessen the burden of evidence required. The accused is normally painted as a monster and is quickly convicted in the public eye long before the courts reach a verdict.
Fact – CCTV, man lied, found with unconscious woman
Fact – miscarriages of justice not as uncommon as we would like to think
Fact – women do lie and make false accusations of rape
Fact – it was shown that the woman felt in necessary to lie about the amount of alcohol she had consumed that night.
kerryperson
12 Feb 10 at 7:05 am
Gav,
Do yourself and everyone else a favour,
Stop your s**t stirring, no good will
come of it.
christina
12 Feb 10 at 2:24 pm