Once Noleen was identified in the Inquest in 2007, the then Minister for Justice Michael McDowell ordered a review into the police files, because of course, questions had to be asked how a baby could be murdered in my family home, and no one ever be brought to justice.
My solicitor and I had been corresponding with the Department of Justice and with Michael McDowell, he knew we wanted a public inquiry into the case, he knew I was accusing three retired police officers of sexually abusing me and covering up the murder, to hide the fact that they could have been Noleens father, we had handed in a petition from friends, neighbours and supporters with 2,000 signatures asking for a public inquiry but instead he commissioned Patrick Gageby to look at the police records.
Gageby was biased towards abuse victims as the previous article shows, we were never told why he was chosen, because we would have preferred at least three independent people to look at the files, not one biased barrister who had in it for abuse victims, my solicitor tried to draw up terms of reference for the review but McDowell only agreed to some of them.
Gageby refused to meet with me, I found this absolutely amazing, seeing as I was the victim but instead he got all his information from the police, his tone throughout the review was very harsh towards me, as if he personally knew me and hated me, he treated me more like a convict, he made many mistakes in the review, relied on his own personal opinion, and the bias information given to him by the police, who were friends with the men who abused me and with my father.
He did criticize the police for losing all the items at the scene, but said public inquiry
wouldn't find them, but on the whole, the review was made up of biases against me, it called me a "complainer" and said I was conducting a witch hunt against innocent men, who by the way were all arrested on suspicion of abusing me, and he said I was trying to bring down "powerful men" this confused me as some of the men who abused me did menial jobs, and given I was from Dalkey, where actors, politicians, lawyers, doctors, and writers lived. I was at a loss as to how I would have "picked" the men I did or accused the men I did, because if I was looking for attention or to bring down powerful men, I had the cream of the crop to choose from, but instead accused men who did mundane everyday jobs, grant it, some of them were business owners, or police officers, but they were not as rich or powerful as some of the men in Dalkey I could have falsely accused if I was making this up. If I was making it up, why was I never charged with wasting police time, and why did the DPP look at the file seven times? And why did the Inquest identify Noleen as being my daughter?
It makes my blood boil when victims are accused of looking for attention when they make abuse allegations, its not and never is, good or even bad attention when a victim alleges they have been sexually abused, its shameful, and embarrassing and awful. I had to sit through all the police statements I had made being read out at the Inquest, in front of approximately 100 people, I had never talked to my husband about the sexual abuse, or told him what they did to me. It was excruciating for me to have to sit on the stand, and have my husband and friends and strangers hear about the sex acts carried out on my body. And then have my fathers barrister accuse me of lying or looking for attention, its not the sort of attention any human being would want or seek, unless they were actual victims trying to put right a huge injustice. At the Inquest 4 of my sisters admitted they had been abused in my family home, and my brothers Martin and Michael and sister Theresa before they died all admitted being abused, and all of my four sisters at the Inquest said that Martin, Michael and Theresa and myself had complained to them over the years that we had been sexually abused, so that including me brought the total to 8 children in my family home saying they had been abused. And yet my father still wasn't convicted.
Gageby wrote one and a half sentences in his review about the Inquest, and gave no weight to the fact that an independent jury of 12 witnesses had unanimously identified Noleen, in other words he completely ignored the fact that she had been identified as my daughter. He recommended that no more money be spent on my case, which cut me to the core, and said that nothing further could come of a public inquiry.
Since that day, when the review was published, (September 2007) every other politician has stood by this review and held it up against me and said that the review was final, but despite this in November 2007, the police without my knowledge or prompting, opened the case again and sent another file to the DPP to try to secure prosecutions, this confused me again as it wasn't what Gageby recommended.
In the UK a similar review done in the North Wales Inquiry, by Ronald Waterhouse QC in 2000, has now been put under investigation, when it came out that the judge leading the inquiry was given false information by the police, and the government in the UK are calling for victims to come forward. And David Cameron ordered a "review into the review" but in Ireland, a biased, review full of errors, is apparently rock solid and stands, despite a baby being found dead, stabbed to death 40 times, and the mother of that baby, being able to give eye witness testimony to that murder and identify the fathers identity and the police officers who covered up her murder.
