31 Comments

• Towngate | Jul 13, 2011, 04:23 AM EDT

  ... see? That proves it! Even after all this time,you are still flapping around the magnificent magnetic flame!

• themurphia | Jul 06, 2011, 05:25 PM EDT

  I am not your buddy...I do not want your compliments or any other communication with you...I have not made any promises to you who...I TOLD you not to address offensive comments to me...It is immaterial what other people on this site do or have done...YOU have embarked on a course of conduct amounting to harassment/stalking in law and made defamatory comments publicly accusing me of dishonesty and some fantasy in your head about my motives for commenting on this site...I have told you on three previous occasions not to address your irrational comments to me...this is the fourth... I don't know what I am supposed to admit to myself this is not a confessional...I do not want to know anything about the personal life or 'demons' of other commenters particularly you...whoever you are...However I now believe I know where these comments are coming from and I will involve your employers...I have no intention of reading over your tragic idiotic comments...Seems you are a joke on this site... So you sleep tight saddo...

• Towngate | Jul 06, 2011, 04:39 PM EDT

  'the murphia' ~~ Nobody is harrassing you but yourself, buddy! Look back and you will see YOU began this self-destructive adventure. You said you would discontinue and when you broke your promise not to continue, and you now give out a high-pitched squeal about stalking and harrassment! ~ which I have never heard anybody claim of anyone before on this site. ~ Any threats made during these exchange have been made by you alone and are plain for all to see. I have not questioned your honesty or integrity either. But I will state that it is my opinion that you just don't have the personal courage to face your demons and admit to yourself ~ let alone this site ~ what is really gnawing away inside you. ~ Anybody who can be bothered to review our exchanges will plainly see @05.29 my Comment began with a compliment to you. What has happened since is down to you! ~ Sleep well, try and rest your dangerously troubled mind and oh, it might help if you were to ease up on the old Brando movies for a while,eh?

• themurphia | Jul 06, 2011, 03:23 PM EDT

  You clearly know less about Civil law than you do about criminal law...You have transgressed both here with your scandalous accusations...You have been warned to keep your offensive unwelcome comments to yourself...I will now do what is necessary involving third parties as necessary to stop you since you seem to have no self control... The law and what the moderators on this blog deem acceptable are two quite separate things not that you would know...I do not know what you mean by your scurrilous accusations about my honesty or integrity...or what or of whom you imagine I am jealous...Any jealousy is clearly on your part.So I repeat STOP stalking/harassing me.You are clearly quite dangerously out of control.

• Towngate | Jul 06, 2011, 02:43 PM EDT

  THEMURPHIA - YES YOU! The founding principles of this Website - if you care to read them - invite a platform for those with an interest or love of all things Irish, to comment and express their views on topical news items. Every time you Logon that invitation is repeated. The Moderators appear to take a very tolerant attitude to the often quarrelsome - and downright vicious - exchanges that take place between the notoriously hot-blooded and passionate Irish. We are all grateful for that. Censorship is a nasty word and practice and it only happens here in extreme cases. There is always the 'report abuse' button if you are really losing sleep and trust the rest to the Moderators. There is no need to resort to stamping you little feet like a schoolyard bully and threatening to abuse isp status and quasi-italiano phraselogy when the answer is entirely in your own hands. Keep your promise of silence and do not address commenters directly. Confine your comments to the Posts and life will be so much easier for you and all of us! ~ ~ ~ But y'know buster, I still say your problem here is that you are not being HONEST about who and what you are ~ and what's really eating you! ~ (There is a hint of the green-eyed monster! ) ~ and I'll put my bottom dollar on that!

• themurphia | Jul 06, 2011, 10:27 AM EDT

  I have given you fair warning that your comments are unwelcome and tantamount to harassment/stalking...I have no interest in you or what you think...I am not sufficiently interested in you to devise a nickname for you...I know nothing about you and am content to leave it that way...I don't know what you think you know about me or what I want however if you continue to harass me I will take appropriate action...and if you are posting these comments from youer employers ISP I will hold them responsible...You seem a little confused about my gender having referred to me variously as a woman a boy and now a man...I note your bizarre comment questioning whether I had been called to the Bar...well obviously not as many bars as you...!However much you may like the contributions of other commenters they don't seem to like you very much buster! Now for the final time DO NOT address your idiotic puerile comments to me personally...Capisce?

• Towngate | Jul 05, 2011, 08:07 PM EDT

  Y'see, 'themuffia' nothing is too difficult for me to understand - that's where we differ! You seem to be content in adopting others appraisals and nicknames rather than devise your own. What I am considered on this site is plain for all to see and I hope in addition to the two titles you cite, you can't have missed many others including being denied my heritage,home,education, honours,and being accused of being American, English, Scottish, African, Irish, British and on one notable occasion ~ even being accused of being The Dauntless O'Dowd himself! ~ ~ ~ Look, buster, I enjoy the cut and thrust of this terrific site and all its contributers, especially the ones like you who are not capable of being truly honest, saying what's really troubling them, and accepting help. If you are a man of your word ~ we can all now look forward to your brilliant silence!

• themurphia | Jul 05, 2011, 03:10 PM EDT

  What both of you...? Do you really believe you represent anyone other than yourselves...as far as I can see you are considered a troll on this site Towntroll/Creakygate....So get over yourself grow up there's a good boy...Btw you are beginning to sound and behave like a stalker....I don't know you I don't want to know you... either of you...let's keep it that way...you post your comments and I'll post mine...You ignore me and I'll ignore you...Personally I won't find that too difficult...Not too difficult for you to understand is it...? I'm grateful...!

• Towngate | Jul 05, 2011, 02:22 PM EDT

  Be careful scruffia,your double identity is becoming obvious. ~ and not just because of your pathetic responses either. I do not refer to myself as 'we' ~ I refer to us as we. - any more of your eejitology and you will have to leave the class altogether!

• themurphia | Jul 05, 2011, 10:15 AM EDT

  Nurse! the screens...Now what is the psychiatric term that for those that refer to themselves as 'we'...hmmmm?

• Towngate | Jul 05, 2011, 09:47 AM EDT

  Wriggle and squirm with your weasel-words all you like, claim you are not discussing what has been said, or clain you are not relating to the person who said it;fling insulting innuendos,and blather and spit by way of excuse.Just sad. ... We had high hopes for you on here - but you have gone 'all Irish' on us with this jumbled 'thinking' and pointless argument. Sit Down! - the boy-at-the back! (and in case you are in any doubt, "themurphia" , - this means YOU!) If you do not want commenters to address to you personally, do not insult them personally, and we will al get along fine ....

• johhnyb | Jul 05, 2011, 09:27 AM EDT

  So Niall, do you love him or don't you? Stop sitting on the fence!

• themurphia | Jul 05, 2011, 08:17 AM EDT

  For those who are unable to differentiate between Criminal and Civil Law perhaps I can state for the last time hopefully but there are always the slow learners....Crime is prosecuted by the STATE...the STATE PROSECUTOR decides whether there is evidence to prosecute/charge/proceed to trail..NOT the accused or his her Law firm...Capisce?...GOOD!

• themurphia | Jul 05, 2011, 08:05 AM EDT

  Your ignorance is encyclopaedic..on this occasion of the law...I don't address my comments to you or to anyone in particular but to your hopeless arguments...so please don't flatter yourself...perhaps you are guilty of over identification with the subject...maybe you have some experience of it...As for law firms persuading accusers to proceed that would be a serious breach of the Code of Ethics...but clearly not one that troubles certian quasi-professions such as the gutter press...I would prefer if you did not address your comments to me personally...

• Towngate | Jul 05, 2011, 07:21 AM EDT

  Now,Murph: Oh dear, oh, dear! ~ What we were hoping was just a slight aberration ("hole in the head") seems to have become somewhat more serious. My dear fellow: You are "all over the option" now - even allowing for Scottish standards of Jurisprudence! ~ ~ ~ As a deterrent to those wishing to make a false OR unproven accusation, I simply propose that the systen and public purse would be better served if all parties stood in the same physical and financial jeopardy. Btw: The point of including Law Firms,etc, in that is to recognise that they very often play a major part in persuading the accuser to proceed, provided , and only if they are assured of their fees! - just ask yourself how many cased have not proceeded because of 'lack of funds'! Further: I note you resort to personal abuse at the end of 02.04 and bleat on about rape cases when my post specifically excluded any particular case! I quess you were never called to the Bar, but you must strive to get over your bittersess, and we hope that 'Boy-at-the Back' will pay more attention to the finer points of the argument in future.

• themurphia | Jul 04, 2011, 02:55 PM EDT

  Oh dear...no sooner do you get rid of one accusation than another one comes out of the woodwork...only this time it is not a low paid immigrant single parent but a writer and member of one of the elite French dynastic families...what was it Oscar said again...to have one allegation of sexual assault made against you is unfortunate but to have two....Mon Dieu! bit like whackamole for DSK these days...!

• themurphia | Jul 04, 2011, 02:04 PM EDT

  The decion to prosecute is not made by the 'Accuser's Law Firm' it is made by the State...The prosecutor does not 'represent' the Accuser/prosecution witness...it merely presents the evidence once the decision to prosecute has been made...In the event that the original evidence is discredited and the case is discontinued then it is for the defendant/Accused to bring charges against the Accuser...So where you get the idea that 'he should be paid handsomely from the Accusers Law Firm's financial resources' I don't really know...So unless you know what you are talking about it is best to keep it zipped...!

• themurphia | Jul 04, 2011, 06:20 AM EDT

  You cannot prove a negative...not being able to proceed with a case does not mean the accusation is false...even liars or prostitutes can be raped...it just means the prosecution can not prove the case BRD...that is why Scotland has the 'Not Proven' verdict...there are a number of cases where women have been tried for making 'false accusations'... The reason so few cases of rape are reported let alone prosecuted is because of the obstacles you suggest...For what it's worth those are the facts NOT my opinion...!

• Towngate | Jul 04, 2011, 05:29 AM EDT

  murph...: Yove made some notably sound comments here in the past - but you seem to have a surprising 'hole in your head' about accusation/guilt and innocence. - Putting this particular case aside for a moment: - The onus is on those making the Charge to PROVE Guilt. Failure to do so may not indicate your notion of 'innocence' - but it clearly states failure to prove guilt! ~ ~ ~ ~ for what it's worth my personal view is that Accusers should stand in the same Jeopardy as The Accused. The Sentence or Penalty for the crime being pre-determined by the Court. Failure to prove a case or the discovery of a False Accusation - should result in the Accuser suffering that Penalty and the Accused being handsomely compensated from their Law Firms financial resources! That would 'tidy things up a bit', I think.

• themurphia | Jul 03, 2011, 03:44 PM EDT

  The decision whether or not to prosecute is based on the available evidence not what 'feminists' might think... it's a little more objective that that....the Grand Jury indicted DSK ergo they were persuaded that there was sufficient evidence to found a reasonable prospect of conviction...The only avenue to the defendant therefore was to undermine the principal witness for the Prosecution....If the NYT is to be believed DSK got his big old wad out hired a 'private Dick' and dug the dirt on the 'maid'...the pooper scooper's information was then promptly fed to the meeja... allegedly...So now...as always in sex cases it is now about HER not about HIM...HER credibility is in issue...DSK returns to court to have his bail restrictions lifted...So much for 'justice'...He who pays the piper calls the tune...As I said elsewhere the fact that the Prosecution cannot prove guilt to the required standard does not prove innocence...merely that they cannot prove guilt...I rest my case...

• Porickseantuny | Jul 03, 2011, 03:14 PM EDT

  Given the information they had and the fact that SDK was about to high tail it to France where he would have been insulated from trial the police had no choice. If the accuser had been legitimate they would have been hounded by feminists for ignoring the claim of rape. The wicked flee and the righteous stand bold as lion. In today's world any claim by a woman results in a rush to judgment.

• themurphia | Jul 03, 2011, 01:54 PM EDT

  Just because the Prosecution can't prove the case to the required standard doesn't prove innocence just means they can't prove guilt...!

• IronMountainMovies | Jul 03, 2011, 09:54 AM EDT

  It's a real pity that no one else in either the European or US media, had the wit to examine this story more closely. It is also a real shame and an appalling indictment of western media standards that someone like Jim Dwyer stands out from the pack for doing what any decent journalist should have done, asked the right questions and checked out the facts behind the story. This in no way takes from Mr Dwyer's excellent work but does raise questions about his colleagues on both side of the Atlantic who appear more and more as well paid mouthpieces, rather than investigative journalists.

• themurphia | Jul 03, 2011, 04:40 AM EDT

  'When money talks...everything else walks'...or as Mr Zimmerframe put it...'Money doesn't talk...it swears'...!so suck on that biatch...!

• Pittsburghkid | Jul 03, 2011, 12:45 AM EDT

  Strauss-Kahn paid for investigator to uncover dirt on the maid. These investigator gave the N.Y. Times the story. Of course the N.Y. Times is going to take credit, because The Times is an overrated rag.

• CroughPatrick | Jul 02, 2011, 10:04 AM EDT

  Dwyer did not sniff out the story. It was hand fed to him. The investigators at the DA's office found all the lies of the accuser and they gave him the scoop. I like Dwyer. He does not write fiction like Jimmy Breslin, but please he did not investigate the woman. Dwyer was not the predicator of the story, it was the DA who chose him and the NY Times to print the story. If he went on TV, he would honestly have to say all he did was he answered the phone this week and on the other end someone completely credible, who he can't reveal, gave him all the information.

• NYCsheridan | Jul 02, 2011, 09:46 AM EDT

  oops, sorry, I'm writing about the wrong journalist. :P

• NYCsheridan | Jul 02, 2011, 09:43 AM EDT

  "His piece today is a classic example of his sniffer dog ability to check the real truth out." Yes, that sniffer dog ability. Pity the snifffer dog didn't sniff the disturbing background of the maid rather than just focusing on the sensationalism of the story. Hindsight is a BITCH, eh? This is not "journalism" and Dwyer looks like a complete fool now, eh?

• themurphia | Jul 02, 2011, 07:40 AM EDT

  Sexual assault is NOT seduction...!

• Towngate | Jul 02, 2011, 03:30 AM EDT

  Looks like the case against DSK is about to collapse and he will stand for President of France after all. It would be great to see him put the despotic Sarkosy in his place - if the plucky heroic little Muammar Ghaddafi doesn't get to him first for leading the cowardly attacks on his people and attempting to destroy their beautiful country!

• solyeant | Jul 01, 2011, 12:27 PM EDT

  Seems Jim has lost his nose for the facts on this one and if StraussKahn is 'guilty" of anything its thinking at 62 he can be the great seducer he once was What Jim may have been advised to check up on was the stroy behind the screen and for the life of me I never saw a screen that wasn't covering something Any journalist may have been prudent to hold his water until he was sure it wasn't just a romp by an old guy on someone who perceived what many women have seen but us men can't Experience has shown me and indeed amongst "so called great' irishmen that seduction can often give way to force when sex is not syncronized or programmed i'm sorry that this scope of Jim's is so hollow now we see a different picture How long did he take to pen the story If i were his sub editor i would hang him up to dry and hope my pension wasn't on the line when the counter claims for defamation arise At least he never spoke to anyone who mattered in the affair which reduces the NYT's liability for defamation The drum which is hollowest often sounds louder voir Lambeg Drum Next time he needs to earn his corn with a bit of work alas.