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.
Friday, 25 January 2013
Patrick Gageby
Top barrister calls for 15-year limit on sex abuse trials
Monday, May 30, 2005
By John Breslin
A STATUTE of limitations should be placed on criminal proceedings taken against those accused of sexual abuse, one of the country’s leading defence barristers told a conference this weekend.
A STATUTE of limitations should be placed on criminal proceedings taken against those accused of sexual abuse, one of the country’s leading defence barristers told a conference this weekend.
Patrick Gageby, who has defended individuals accused of sex crimes sometimes decades old, said it may be time for the Government to step in and draw a line in the sand.
Mr Gageby suggested a limit of 15 years, adding that all civil cases are subject to time limits, except ironically those relating to claims of sexual abuse.
Speaking at the National Prosecutors Conference, the defence barrister said there were inherent dangers in old cases, where the key witnesses have inaccurate, faded, changed or intruded memories and where there was little additional or corroborating evidence.
In too many cases, a jury trial can turn in to a "pure beauty contest."
"Who do you like more, who's the more attractive
? Who exactly is telling the truth? It comes down to body movements, gestures and the like," Mr Gageby said.
Trials often descend into desperate searches for collateral information, such as the colour of paint, whether a bicycle was in a yard or whether a school was open that year.
Mr Gageby cited a number of cases one dating back to 1951, where the accused was in his 70s and the complainant in his 50s. The jury had to decide events that happened in a closed room 50 years ago.
In another trial, there was much discussion over when Dana won the Eurovision Song Contest after it was initially claimed the assault took place some time between 1964 and 1970.
While the higher courts have consistently ruled it was up to the trial judge to decide if a case was proceeding fairly, there was little jurisprudence over when to intervene to protect an accused from an unfair trial, Mr Gageby said.
On the plus, side, there are high standards within the prosecution service and the gardaí, a strong commitment from all to secure a fair trial and the common sense of juries.
The barrister reserved his most trenchant criticism for the media and what he described as the "large industry abroad" of counsellors and psychologists.
The media is "wholly uncritical" of the redress and compensation system for victims of institutional abuse and there is almost "uncritical" acceptance of everything an alleged victim says.
Mr Gageby said he had never come across a psychological report that has found any difficulty with any person who has made a complaint. All the reports authors seem to assume the complainant is telling the truth, he said.
Mr Gageby suggested a limit of 15 years, adding that all civil cases are subject to time limits, except ironically those relating to claims of sexual abuse.
Speaking at the National Prosecutors Conference, the defence barrister said there were inherent dangers in old cases, where the key witnesses have inaccurate, faded, changed or intruded memories and where there was little additional or corroborating evidence.
In too many cases, a jury trial can turn in to a "pure beauty contest."
"Who do you like more, who's the more attractive
? Who exactly is telling the truth? It comes down to body movements, gestures and the like," Mr Gageby said. Trials often descend into desperate searches for collateral information, such as the colour of paint, whether a bicycle was in a yard or whether a school was open that year.
Mr Gageby cited a number of cases one dating back to 1951, where the accused was in his 70s and the complainant in his 50s. The jury had to decide events that happened in a closed room 50 years ago.
In another trial, there was much discussion over when Dana won the Eurovision Song Contest after it was initially claimed the assault took place some time between 1964 and 1970.
While the higher courts have consistently ruled it was up to the trial judge to decide if a case was proceeding fairly, there was little jurisprudence over when to intervene to protect an accused from an unfair trial, Mr Gageby said.
On the plus, side, there are high standards within the prosecution service and the gardaí, a strong commitment from all to secure a fair trial and the common sense of juries.
The barrister reserved his most trenchant criticism for the media and what he described as the "large industry abroad" of counsellors and psychologists.
The media is "wholly uncritical" of the redress and compensation system for victims of institutional abuse and there is almost "uncritical" acceptance of everything an alleged victim says.
Mr Gageby said he had never come across a psychological report that has found any difficulty with any person who has made a complaint. All the reports authors seem to assume the complainant is telling the truth, he said.
My Parents
Both of my parents are now dead, my mother died in August 2006, only a few months before Noleen was identified, in the Coroners court and my father died in December 2008, he attended the Inquest and sat laughing at me, he refused to give evidence saying he was ill, and did not turn up on the final day to hear Noleen being identified as my daughter.
Within weeks of the verdict at the Inquest my father took out a high court case against the coroner, claiming that the Coroners verdict was wrong, however the Coroner didnt identify Noleen a jury of 6 men and 6 women did, but regardless my father ploughed ahead with his case, this cut me to the core, the arrogance of the man, the fact that the only court action going on in Ireland for me or my daughter was from the paedophile who had abused me and the man who might be Noleens father.
But both my parents knew they were untouchable, they were arrested for ONE DAY, on 7th June 1995 and released without charge, they had too much on the cops who had abused me, and they knew they would never be convicted, if they ever were put on a stand they had too much to tell, too many other paedophiles to bring down with them.
From 1995 to 2005, through that whole time my father never hired a lawyer, but the day after my allegations came out in the media that I had been sexually abused by three retired police officers, my father gave an interview to a newspaper to say he was going to sue me, that he was hiring a lawyer.
At the Inquest he had hired a full legal team, solicitor, lawyer, and barrister, not only for him, but for three of my sisters as well, the Inquest went on for four and a half days, his fee's would have ran into anywhere between 30-50,000, and yet he was a retired corporation worker who drank 7 nights a week and smoked 60 cigarettes a day.
When he died, he left my 3 sisters and a brother 20,000 euro each, that was 100,000 euro, I had strong suspicions he was being "paid" to be kept quiet, and so were some of my siblings, and that all of their legal fee's were being paid for them.
My 3 oldest sisters, and my brother, had always hated my father, when we were growing up, they would never sit in the same room with him, when they left home, if they came back to visit, they would always try to visit when he was out, he never spoke to any of them, and he was very hostile towards all of them.
My 3 oldest sisters all gave police statements saying that they had been abused in our family home and that their four youngest siblings had been too, two of them admitted on the stand at the Inquest that the younger children were constantly complaining about being sexually abused, and that they did nothing to help us or rescue us.
But then went on to give newspaper interviews calling us liar, and yet, the police didn't take any action against them for this, on the one hand giving police statements backing up the abuse, but on the other hand publicly calling us liars. Then they turn up at the Inquest WITH my father and support him, the change in them was too radical, and knowing them the way I do, only money could have been what changed their mind.
A newspaper ran an article asking where they all got the money for their legal fees, and where did my father get the 100,000 euro to leave in his will, but the paper was immediately threatened with a law suit if they ever printed anything like that again???
My father died before the High Court case was heard, in March 2010, but my sisters continued with it, who paid their fee's? They were unemployed? The outcome was that my sister agreed to drop the case (she hadn't a leg to stand on anyway, because there was no way she would have had the decision overturned) if the Coroner agreed to make a statement saying he wasn't implicating her in Noleens murder, that in effect meant she was now admitting Noleen was my daughter and had been murdered in our home, only she wanted her name cleared.
All of this destroyed me, that Noleen could be treated like this, beyond what they had done to her, that even my sisters could taunt me and Noleen and call us liars, that my father was behind this even though he was dead, I continually asked myself what kind of Country would allow this to happen, that even when I have fought for so many years to get Noleens inquest up and running, within weeks my abuser snatches it from my hands and begins to abuse me all over again using the legal system to do so.
I put it to the gardai that my father was being paid "bribe" money and asked them to investigate who was paying his legal fee's but they said that was a private matter, even though the Criminal Assets Bureau can investigate solicitors if they think that someone is committing fraud, and surely if a retired member of the gardai was paying my father to stay quiet about his involvement in child rape and murder, that IS a criminal matter, but my father was untouchable, no one could touch the man, he had way too much on other people and it was that, and that alone, that kept him and my mother free.
Within weeks of the verdict at the Inquest my father took out a high court case against the coroner, claiming that the Coroners verdict was wrong, however the Coroner didnt identify Noleen a jury of 6 men and 6 women did, but regardless my father ploughed ahead with his case, this cut me to the core, the arrogance of the man, the fact that the only court action going on in Ireland for me or my daughter was from the paedophile who had abused me and the man who might be Noleens father.
But both my parents knew they were untouchable, they were arrested for ONE DAY, on 7th June 1995 and released without charge, they had too much on the cops who had abused me, and they knew they would never be convicted, if they ever were put on a stand they had too much to tell, too many other paedophiles to bring down with them.
From 1995 to 2005, through that whole time my father never hired a lawyer, but the day after my allegations came out in the media that I had been sexually abused by three retired police officers, my father gave an interview to a newspaper to say he was going to sue me, that he was hiring a lawyer.
At the Inquest he had hired a full legal team, solicitor, lawyer, and barrister, not only for him, but for three of my sisters as well, the Inquest went on for four and a half days, his fee's would have ran into anywhere between 30-50,000, and yet he was a retired corporation worker who drank 7 nights a week and smoked 60 cigarettes a day.
When he died, he left my 3 sisters and a brother 20,000 euro each, that was 100,000 euro, I had strong suspicions he was being "paid" to be kept quiet, and so were some of my siblings, and that all of their legal fee's were being paid for them.
My 3 oldest sisters, and my brother, had always hated my father, when we were growing up, they would never sit in the same room with him, when they left home, if they came back to visit, they would always try to visit when he was out, he never spoke to any of them, and he was very hostile towards all of them.
My 3 oldest sisters all gave police statements saying that they had been abused in our family home and that their four youngest siblings had been too, two of them admitted on the stand at the Inquest that the younger children were constantly complaining about being sexually abused, and that they did nothing to help us or rescue us.
But then went on to give newspaper interviews calling us liar, and yet, the police didn't take any action against them for this, on the one hand giving police statements backing up the abuse, but on the other hand publicly calling us liars. Then they turn up at the Inquest WITH my father and support him, the change in them was too radical, and knowing them the way I do, only money could have been what changed their mind.
A newspaper ran an article asking where they all got the money for their legal fees, and where did my father get the 100,000 euro to leave in his will, but the paper was immediately threatened with a law suit if they ever printed anything like that again???
My father died before the High Court case was heard, in March 2010, but my sisters continued with it, who paid their fee's? They were unemployed? The outcome was that my sister agreed to drop the case (she hadn't a leg to stand on anyway, because there was no way she would have had the decision overturned) if the Coroner agreed to make a statement saying he wasn't implicating her in Noleens murder, that in effect meant she was now admitting Noleen was my daughter and had been murdered in our home, only she wanted her name cleared.
All of this destroyed me, that Noleen could be treated like this, beyond what they had done to her, that even my sisters could taunt me and Noleen and call us liars, that my father was behind this even though he was dead, I continually asked myself what kind of Country would allow this to happen, that even when I have fought for so many years to get Noleens inquest up and running, within weeks my abuser snatches it from my hands and begins to abuse me all over again using the legal system to do so.
I put it to the gardai that my father was being paid "bribe" money and asked them to investigate who was paying his legal fee's but they said that was a private matter, even though the Criminal Assets Bureau can investigate solicitors if they think that someone is committing fraud, and surely if a retired member of the gardai was paying my father to stay quiet about his involvement in child rape and murder, that IS a criminal matter, but my father was untouchable, no one could touch the man, he had way too much on other people and it was that, and that alone, that kept him and my mother free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)