Email Us My Blog


Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:06:14 +0100 (BST)
From: Rory Connor
To: Professor Vincent Comerford, Ronan Fanning,"Dr. Diarmaid Ferriter", "Dr. Colum Kenny", Daire Keogh , Dermot Keogh, "Dr. Eoin O'Sullivan", Professor Irene Whelan , Editor History Ireland, John Horgan,
CC: Mary Raftery, Vincent Browne

Ladies, Gentlemen and Scholars,

I also sent this to Geraldine Kennedy with my letter of 17 April 2005.

This is a further illustration of the truth of my thesis concerning Mary Raftery, her Motives and her Morals i.e.

Every word she writes is a lie including 'and' and 'the'.


Rory Connor
16 July 2006


On 8 March 2005 the Irish Times published a letter from Sister Una O'Neill , Superior General of the Sisters of Charity in response to Mary Raftery's column of March 3rd entitled "Piling Insult Upon Injury". Sister Una described this as:

"The latest example of [Mary Raftery's] use of selective quotations and innuendo to portray the Sisters of Charity in the worst possible light.

She cobbles together a selection of statements that imply that we not only knew of the sexual abuse of children in St. Joseph's, Kilkenny, but knowingly allowed it to continue and took no action to stop it. For the record it is a matter of fact that we first learned about the abuse of the children by David Murray as a result of investigations undertaken by An Garda Siochana in the mid-1990s".

In reply Mary Raftery writes; "I neither stated nor implied that the Sisters of Charity knowingly employed paedophiles as childcare workers in St. Joseph's, Kilkenny. I neither stated nor implied that Bishop Birch was aware that boys at St. Joseph's were being sexually abused."

The following is an extract from Mary Raftery's article:

"The change in attitude towards poverty sweeping the rest of Kilkenny passed St. Joseph's by. Its old industrial school culture remained largely untouched. Behind the high walls where its small inhabitants were incarcerated, we now know that the nuns employed at least three paedophiles to look after a group of about 30 boys.

Several of these children, as young as four, were subjected to over a decade of continuous and savage abuse both physical and sexual. We know that a number of them told adults of the torture that they were suffering. We know that a number of prominent individuals, including the local bishop, Dr. Peter Birch, and Sister Stanislaus Kennedy, were made aware of some of the allegations of abuse. We know that for the children concerned little or nothing happened as a result of their complaints."


Mary Raftery deliberately omits a great deal of relevant information. Edward Murphy was the social worker who, allegedly told Sister Stanislaus that children were being sexually abused in St. Josephs in the 1970s. On 22 December 1999, Mr. Murphy wrote to the Irish Times to say that he did NOT tell Sister Stan about sex abuse because he himself was unaware at the time that sexual abuse was occurring. It was in 1995/96 that he became aware that children had been sexually abused in 1977. This was nearly 20 years after Mary Raftery alleges that he told Sister Stan. Why does Mary Raftery not refer to Edward Murphy's evidence?

In "Piling Insult upon Injury", Mary Raftery writes:
"One of those who complained to the nun in charge of St. Josephs at the time, Sr Joseph Conception, was Raymond Noctor. Last Tuesday, he was awarded Eur370, 000 by the High Court in a landmark decision likely to have far-reaching implications for the State.

He was only 13 when he told Sr Conception that another of the subsequently convicted paedophiles (David Murray) was "at the boys". It was an act of extraordinary bravery for the child."

Mary Raftery again manages to omit vital information. The following is an extract from the judgement of Mr. Justice Finnegan in the case of R. Noctor-v.-Ireland, The Attorney General and Others. It concerns the claim by Raymond Noctor that he informed Sister Conception of sexual abuse.

"The Plaintiffs evidence is that he informed Sister Conception on a number of occasions that he was being subjected to sexual abuse by Mr. Murray. Sister Conception acknowledges that the Plaintiff called to her on one occasion but that his complaint then was not specific. He told her that Mr. Murray was "at him". She understood this to refer to physical abuse. I accept that the Plaintiff intended to make clear to Sister Conception that he was being sexually abused but the words used I am satisfied did not adequately communicate this to her.

Further the Plaintiffs evidence is that he attended on Sister Conception with Sergeant Tuohy and Sergeant Geraghty on which occasion an explicit complaint of sexual abuse was made. Both Sergeant Tuohy and Sergeant Geraghty deny that any such meeting took place. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that such a meeting took place. Both Sergeant Tuohy and Sergeant Geraghty were members of An Garda Siochana and I am satisfied they would have taken any such complaint very seriously indeed but if the Plaintiffs recollection is correct surprisingly no action whatsoever was taken. Sergeant Tuohy took the initial statement from the Plaintiff in relation to his sexual abuse in January 1995 and there is no mention in that statement of the meeting. Sister Conception had no recollection of any such meeting. Having regard to the manner in which she dealt with the complaint against Mr. Brady in 1977 he being immediately confronted and resigning it would be surprising if she did not take similar action had she been made aware of Mr. Murray's conduct.

The Plaintiff further gave evidence of a meeting at which he made a complaint of sexual abuse and attended by Dr. Birch, Sister Conception, Sergeant Tuohy and Sergeant Geraghty. Sister Conception, Sergeant Tuohy and Sergeant Geraghty denied that any such meeting took place. Dr. Birch is deceased. Dr. Birch had an interest in St. Joseph's and was instrumental in having the children educated in outside schools. Having regard to this interest I am not satisfied that he would have ignored, a complaint of sexual abuse brought to his attention. For the like reasons which I have given in relation to the alleged meeting with Sister Conception, Sergeant Tuohy and Sergeant Geraghty I am not satisfied on the balance of probability that any such meeting took place."

It would have been acceptable if Mary Raftery disagreed with the President of the High Court on this issue and gave reasons for her opinion. Instead she ignores his judgment altogether.

This is in line with her behavior in relation to Sister Stan in which she ignores the evidence of social worker Edward Murphy.

It also recalls her treatment of the death of Patsy Flanagan in Artane Industrial School in February 1951. In her book "Suffer The Little Children" she claims that his death occurred "in mysterious or unexplained circumstances". Patsy Flanagan died following a fall from a staircase. An inquest was held which gave a verdict of accidental death. Does Ms. Raftery dispute the verdict in her book? Of course not. She ignores it completely and implies that the Christian Brothers were to blame.

Mary Raftery's "witness" to the death of Patsy Flanagan gave 3 contradictory accounts of the boy's death, one of which got the date wrong by 5 years. Mary Raftery tried to square the circle by claiming (on Today with Pat Kenny, 22 November 1999), that there were a "number of incidents" involving deaths on staircases!

Mary Raftery is an anti-cleric and anti-clerics behave very much like anti-Semites. An anti-Semite WANTS to believe that Jews have committed vile crimes (including crimes against children). An anti-Semite is NOT pleased when he comes across evidence that Jews are innocent of a particular offence. He suppresses such evidence and invents non-existent crimes in order to justify his own hatred and that of others. Mary Raftery behaves in exactly the same way.

Rory Connor
5 April 2005