More on the Roscommon abuse case
Posted on | January 26, 2009 | 10 Comments
Sorry to come back to this because it’s hardly cheery stuff, but one of the questions people have been asking about the horrific Roscommon abuse case is ‘Where is/was the father in all this?’.
Someone posted this link as a comment on the original post. From the article:
A HUSBAND and wife have been charged with incest, sexual abuse and with the neglect and cruelty of their six children.
The married couple were arrested yesterday morning and brought before Castlerea District Court. The two, who cannot be named for legal reasons, face 40 charges between them in relation to the neglect, cruelty and sexual abuse of the children.
The man … was charged yesterday with 26 charges in relation to the neglect, cruelty and sexual abuse of the six children.
I guess that answers the question.
Similar posts
Comments
10 Responses to “More on the Roscommon abuse case”
January 26th, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
Our very own Wests. I wonder if they’ve checked under the garden.
January 26th, 2009 @ 11:56 pm
I havent read anything about this case for the same reason as I have abandoned Naked lunch on page 69.. There is some shit we just dont need to read..
January 27th, 2009 @ 12:13 am
Yup, before the courts in due course.
Btw, HSE have acknowledged contact with the family since 1989.
January 27th, 2009 @ 12:29 am
It answers the question, where he was. But where is he now?
January 27th, 2009 @ 1:16 am
from page 69 of naked lunch “they leap on guests like bitch dogs in heat with rabies”
January 27th, 2009 @ 8:50 am
1989?! The wheels of the HSE grind slowly… sure sometimes you wouldn’t think they were moving at all at all!
January 27th, 2009 @ 9:02 am
Funny how the meeja focused solely on the Mother.
January 27th, 2009 @ 9:19 am
Its possible there were restrictions on reporting of the Father as his case was not being heard..
January 27th, 2009 @ 9:31 am
The guilty plea kept many of the facts out of the public domain and made it unnecessary to mention any other parties, which might have prejudiced the outcome of any other case. I would advise absolute caution about this. Even the worst of the tabloids have observed reporting restrictions, for good reason.
January 27th, 2009 @ 9:47 am
The information is in the public domain but I think you’re right. It might be best to close comments for now.