David McConaghie Trial Lurches Forward

Creationist voyeurism

Creationist voyeurism

Our last update on this topic was a month ago: David McConaghie Trial Begins. At that time we were told that McConaghie’s defense will be heard at the end of July.

As you all know, David McConaghie is the creationist preacher and Northern Ireland political operative who was arrested in connection with the discovery of a hidden camera found in the loo of Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) member David Simpson’s constituency office. The trial has been delayed several times.

We’ve been eagerly following this case because we think it provides a unique insight into the minds of creationists, illustrating a connection between moral depravity and the intellectual aberration of creationism. Our hypothesis is that such behavior may be caused by some heretofore unsuspected disorder which we call Creationism-Voyeurism Syndrome (CVS).

Today, the website of the BBC reports: Ex-DUP adviser David McConaghie: Camera in toilet trial adjourned. After following this case for so long, we’ve learned that “adjourned” means “continued.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

David McConaghie is accused of recording a woman carrying out a private act in the toilets at MP David Simpson’s constituency office. A court viewed footage showing what appears to be Mr McConachie placing the device in a bowl of potpourri. Mr McConaghie denies making recordings for his sexual gratification.

Perhaps he did it for spiritual enlightenment. Then we’re told:

So far, Mr McConaghie’s lawyers have not said anything to suggest that this is not him. The prosecution said it appears the defence have in fact accepted that it is him.

Okay, now what’s left of the defense? Let’s read on:

But the defence says that there is no corroborating evidence to prove that Mr McConachie, from Cottage Hill, Dollingstown, carried out this act for his own sexual gratification. They say that, as this is a key pillar of the charges against him, the trial should now be stopped – effectively because there is no case to answer.

[*Groan*] What do they want from the prosecution — another batch of videos showing McConaghie pleasuring himself while he watches the bathroom videos? This is the last of the BBC story:

A district judge adjourned the case and will hear submissions in relation to this argument in August.

This is the most absurdly prolonged process we’ve ever encountered. Why wasn’t that issue raised before the trial, in a defense motion to dismiss the charges? Normally, if something new and unexpected pops up — which obviously isn’t the situation here — a quick recess would be in order, while the lawyers argued the point in the judge’s chambers. Then, when the judge ruled, the case would proceed.

But here, the essential elements of a criminal charge should be well known, so the judge should be able to rule immediately as to whether the prosecution had presented the essentials of its case. Why is it necessary to continue the trial?

It seems that nothing about this case is proceeding normally. This is taking forever! Well, okay — maybe that’s how things are done in Northern Ireland. The trial will resume some time in August. We’ll be right here, waiting.

Addendum: Another news article said the trial would be resumed on 26 August. That should be sufficient time for the judge to ponder this difficult issue.

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

11 responses to “David McConaghie Trial Lurches Forward

  1. “Normally, if something new and unsuspected pops up…”

    Interesting choice of words, given the subject.

  2. Jill Smith

    A new Peeping Tom defense. “I admit to gazing in her bedroom window with a high power telescope at the exact moment she was undressing, but nobody can prove my motive was sexual.”

  3. michaelfugate

    Will the defense explain why he was doing it – if it wasn’t for sexual gratification? A study on undergarment fashion?

  4. Maybe he was making sure they washed their hands before returning to work.

  5. Maybe they are using the Ken Ham defense, “you weren’t there”?

  6. The question is, if it wasn’t for his own sexual gratification, why did he do it?

  7. What are the odds that one of the women who work at the office the crime was committed at are being pressured to falsify a confession of guilt (stealing toilet paper or something rediculous) so that can be used to white wash his pervy behaviour.

  8. Dave Luckett

    I must admit that the extremely leisurely pace of this trial seems odd. The charge is serious enough, sure, and certainly sordid, but it’s hardly worth this sort of judicial pomp. On the other hand, this is Ulster, aka Northern Ireland, and its court system has historical reasons to be deliberate to the very highest degree and willing to consider any shred of defence. Still, this is going a bit far.

    I suspect an Australian judge’s assessment of this particular pleading would be to enquire how one says “Pull the other one, sport, it plays Jingle Bells” in Latin. Well, I can hope.

  9. Eddie Janssen

    “What do they want from the prosecution — another batch of videos showing McConaghie pleasuring himself while he watches the bathroom videos?”
    Maybe the Judge wants to avoid this at all costs and may even let him go; just to avoid having to watch these tapes.

  10. Diogenes' Lamp

    The defense is about as persuasive as Cosby’s.

    If the lawyer here were smart, he’d claim the women consented to being videotapted in the loo, then had “second thoughts” later.

  11. Diogenes’ Lamp says: “The defense is about as persuasive as Cosby’s.”

    Don’t be so quick to judge. McConaghie may have been making a training tape for children.