Why did Gardai destroy possible burial site of Irelands longest missing child?

Johnboy1951

tayto lover wrote: »

Feck all happened in 40 years and you are worried about the investigation being hampered by anonymous posters voicing their own opinions ???? :pac:

Nope, not worried at all.
That people base their opinions on hearsay, supposition and wild imaginings is their problem and not mine. :rolleyes:

oranbhoy67

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

A 15 second edited clip of her mother, with the rest of her views entirely edited out ? This is getting interesting.

Not one of these posts answers the original simple question of what Mary's mother currently suspects happened to her. This simple question seems to have caused great panic here.

The whole interview on highland radio recorded, go search for it

You have just been told the viewpoint of the mother, - she thinks the guards are doing a great job and is happy to let them carry on with it the same way they have the last 40 years.
she has disowned and threatened legal action to her Daughter who has a different viewpoint.
So now I have told you the mothers (latest viewpoint )
can you answer me on why you think a mother would disown a Daughter who is campaigning to get justice for her other daughter who is missing?

You have a strong whiff of a troll about you , another brand new account, and a similar sounding name to the last troll.. at least you made a few posts elsewhere first to try & look more legit this time.. I can debate with people all day theres a lot on here who dont agree with the viewpoint we have, debate is healthy its good , you imo are just trolling

Giacomo McGubbin

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

The whole interview on highland radio recorded, go search for it

You have just been told the viewpoint of the mother, - she thinks the guards are doing a great job and is happy to let them carry on with it the same way they have the last 40 years.
she has disowned and threatened legal action to her Daughter who has a different viewpoint.
So now I have told you the mothers (latest viewpoint )
can you answer me on why you think a mother would disown a Daughter who is campaigning to get justice for her other daughter who is missing?

You have a strong whiff of a troll about you , another brand new account, and a similar sounding name to the last troll.. at least you made a few posts elsewhere first to try & look more legit this time.. I can debate with people all day theres a lot on here who dont agree with the viewpoint we have, debate is healthy its good , you imo are just trolling

So someone asking for more information and the full story, rather than just one version of events is a troll ? - another interesting reaction.

It seems you're keen to provide a mere 15 second carefully edited link of Mary's mother, but won't provide one to the full interview.

Also you keep pretending what I asked, and avoiding what I actually asked.

You keep claiming to know Mary's mothers viewpoint and posting links to it, yet the real questions I asked (and still waiting for a truthful answer on) are as follows :

(1) From her recent interviews, what does Mary's mother currently suspect most likely happened to her ?

(2) Why has Mary's mother "disowned her other Daughter" as you claim ?

jenny smith

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

we want him to be questioned thoroughly as a suspect by officers that have nothing to do with Local gardai in that area.. there has been plenty of evidence put forward to the gardai to question him again, none of this was off course included in the documentary as it could affect due process and none of it that i know will i repeat elsewhere ..

and then people blether on about how the documentary only had hearsay .. or on the other scale say that anything we do say since might be wrecking the potential for a trial .. you cant win !

I have not mentioned who the supsect is on here or anywhere else and if i have seen his name posted anywhere online I have managed to get it taken down in every case .. I've no doubt missed a few but you can't stop every single person from speculating .. there would be less speculating if the job was done right from day 1 .. and for the record I don't blame the modern day Gardai for this they should be looking at different angles but I dont blame them , I think politicians could be doing more for sure, but ultimately the biggest blame lies on the shoulder of the suspect and those who are covering up for him

I know. I was responding to lochlach who said people wanted him questioned not arrested. Here are the two gardai confirming he was questioned/interviewed -the terms used by the two gardai - but not arrested https://vid.me/YpaO

oranbhoy67

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

So someone asking for more information and the full story, rather than just one version of events is a troll ? - another interesting reaction.

It seems you're keen to provide a mere 15 second carefully edited link of Mary's mother, but won't provide one to the full interview.

Also you keep pretending what I asked, and avoiding what I actually asked.

You keep claiming to know Mary's mothers viewpoint and posting links to it, yet the real questions I asked (and still waiting for a truthful answer on) are as follows :

(1) From her recent interviews, what does Mary's mother currently suspect most likely happened to her ?

(2) Why has Mary's mother "disowned her other Daughter" as you claim ?

I don't speak for Marys mother I don't know what goes on inside her head I sent you a link to her latest viewpoint from last week, to me that contained the answer to your original question.
I then asked you a question which you in turn have turned on its head and asked me,
not gonna happen.
you are asking very leading questions knowing that I am involved in this case personally,

go and find her phone number and give her a bell if you want to find out her views I dont speak to or for her.

If you keep repeating the same question which I answered with as best I could with her statements in the Sunday world article above ( her latest statements on the case) then I am going to put you on ignore as I'm flat out trying to keep this campaign for justice going. I can debate with the likes of the user john above all day who can disagree on our position and ask questions on it as is anyones right but he can ask questions without lowering himself to trying to act like some internet Jeremy Paxman.. good luck

PS Mods is there any way that you can check this guys IP address and see if it is the same user already banned from this thread for trolling ..Evan Costello or whatever it was.

Johnboy1951

Deleted User wrote: »

So, my question is this: If I was questioned because I was in the vicinity of a crime scene, then why wasn't everyone who was in the vicinity of that crime scene questioned?

So your opinion is based on a supposition that not everyone in the vicinity was questioned. I have not seen nor read anything to show your supposition is true.

Here's another disturbing item in your "few facts".
A man claims he reported finding a grave a few days after Mary went missing.
Now, if I were a guard, and someone came to me with information like that, I'd be calling forensics to get out there asap.

You actually KNOW this was not done? You KNOW it was not properly investigated at the time? ... or is this more supposition?

jenny smith

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

I don't speak for Marys mother I don't know what goes on inside her head I sent you a link to her latest viewpoint from last week, to me that contained the answer to your original question.
I then asked you a question which you in turn have turned on its head and asked me,
not gonna happen.
you are asking very leading questions knowing that I am involved in this case personally,

go and find her phone number and give her a bell if you want to find out her views I dont speak to or for her.

If you keep repeating the same question which I answered with as best I could with her statements in the Sunday world article above ( her latest statements on the case) then I am going to put you on ignore as I'm flat out trying to keep this campaign for justice going. I can debate with the likes of the user john above all day who can disagree on our position and ask questions on it as is anyones right but he can ask questions without lowering himself to trying to act like some internet Jeremy Paxman.. good luck

PS Mods is there any way that you can check this guys IP address and see if it is the same user already banned from this thread for trolling ..Evan Costello or whatever it was.

i did a search on highland radio for the full interview but cannot find it. That is not your fault.
Her position in 18 April 2013
http://www.highlandradio.com/2013/04/18/new-search-for-missing-mary-boyle-turns-up-nothing-but-rocks/

Johnboy1951

lochlach wrote:

Playing devils advocate, I could say maybe this man was lying, but years later an independent company found evidence that the earth had been disturbed in that exact spot.

Gee maybe the guards did investigate after all and disturbed the earth in that spot!

Therefore, it's reasonable to ask why a couple of acres of ground was dug up, then levelled, rather than one small 8 foot square patch.

You have not indicated that you KNOW the 'square patch' was NOT investigated at the time.

Johnboy1951

Deleted User wrote:

I'd suggest that these facts alone are enough to organise pressure on "officialdom".
I'll go further, actually, and say it's a sad day when concerned relatives have to go to these lengths to try to obtain justice.
I wonder if it was your cousin who was missing, would you be so dismissive of efforts to find her? I know if she was my cousin, I'd do exactly what Marys relatives are doing - and I'd feel proud of myself for doing so, too!

I would point out that I was not in any way dismissive of efforts to resolve the problem. I was - and am - dismissive of ideas based on nothing more than supposition and imagination, and am highlighting that doing so is detrimental to the 'cause'. The wilder the Conspiracy Theories advanced, the easier it is to dismiss all theories.

Apologies but was unable to post in one post so had to break it up into three.

oranbhoy67

jenny smith wrote: »

i did a search on highland radio for the full interview but cannot find it. That is not your fault.

i have the full interview here in MP3 file what would be the best way to upload it for listening ?

tayto lover

To the posters who are anti oranbhoy interviewing the suspect.

If he is the only suspect who many people in the area rightfully or wrongfully believe is responsible why do you lads think he was never questioned by the Gardai as a suspect?
Also as he lives in the area and was in the vicinity of the area where Mary disappeared from and is bound to have heard the rumours of his guilt, why do you think he never went to the Garda himself with his side of the story in order to clear his name?

Johnboy1951

tayto lover wrote: »

To the posters who are anti oranbhoy interviewing the suspect.

If he is the only suspect who many people in the area rightfully or wrongfully believe is responsible why do you lads think he was never questioned by the Gardai as a suspect?

The most obvious one would be lack of evidence. If you have evidence that would change that then I suggest you provide it to the authorities so they can act on it.

Also as he lives in the area and was in the vicinity of the area where Mary disappeared from and is bound to have heard the rumours of his guilt, why do you think he never went to the Garda himself with his side of the story in order to clear his name?

You KNOW he did not? Even if he did not, have you a reason why he should, if he is innocent? The guards are powerless to control what people might think - thankfully!

tayto lover

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Nope, not worried at all.
That people base their opinions on hearsay, supposition and wild imaginings is their problem and not mine. :rolleyes:

He was in the vicinity of where the child disappeared and like everyone else in the area at the time should have been regarded as a suspect.
Why has he never come forward to the Garda to complain about anyone who accused him?

oranbhoy67

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I would point out that I was not in any way dismissive of efforts to resolve the problem. I was - and am - dismissive of ideas based on nothing more than supposition and imagination, and am highlighting that doing so is detrimental to the 'cause'. The wilder the Conspiracy Theories advanced, the easier it is to dismiss all theories.

Apologies but was unable to post in one post so had to break it up into three.

i welcome all debate on this im glad to hear anyone ask questions, asking questions might lead to answers that i dindt take into account.. im just not listening to the same question repeated over and over again especially when that question is about the opinion of someone I cannot speak for

theres no way -especially without a body- that we can say who we suspect is 100% guilty

but I do believe from the information I was told (that cant be put in the documentary and have to be held back for a (hopeful) court case) and from my own personal witness and the suspect and his families behaviour since , im as positive as I can be that he is guilty .

I certainly believe he should at the very least be brought in for questioning but i am very wary of some of the local police down there so my hope would be it could be carried out by non local gardai

jenny smith

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

i have the full interview here in MP3 file what would be the best way to upload it for listening ?

upload it
http://vocaroo.com/ click audio upload link then upload. wait for the link

and post the link here. 50 MB is limit

oranbhoy67

heres the full interview in 3 parts. last part Gemma O Dohertys reply https://soundcloud.com/joe-craig-1/highland-radio-interview-part-1
https://soundcloud.com/joe-craig-1/highland-radio-interview-part-2
https://soundcloud.com/joe-craig-1/highland-radio-interview-part-3

Giacomo McGubbin

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

I don't speak for Marys mother I don't know what goes on inside her head I sent you a link to her latest viewpoint from last week, to me that contained the answer to your original question.

It doesn't, as you well know, answer the question of what does Mary's mother currently suspect most likely happened to her ? I can't understand why this is being covered up, as it's just as important as what Mary's sister thinks.

If you keep repeating the same question which I answered with as best I could with her statements in the Sunday world article above ( her latest statements on the case) then I am going to put you on ignore as I'm flat out trying to keep this campaign for justice going. I can debate with the likes of the user john above all day who can disagree on our position and ask questions on it as is anyones right but he can ask questions without lowering himself to trying to act like some internet Jeremy Paxman.. good luck

You're the one that likes video interrogating people, but not so keen when you're asked a few innocent questions yourself. Real justice is not presuming people are guilty until proven innocent, or trying to steer people away from other questions, or other people who might just as well be a suspect.

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

PS Mods is there any way that you can check this guys IP address and see if it is the same user already banned from this thread for trolling ..Evan Costello or whatever it was.

Because I'm not, I'd fully welcome that, rather than you continually trying to shut down anyone who dares to ask questions about the full story, while making false allegations about trolling and calling people names for in turn asking questions.

I'd still like to know for what alleged reason Mary's mother allegedly "disowned" her other daughter, as is being constantly claimed here ?

Johnboy1951

@oranbhoy67 To be honest, I do not see the benefit of the speculation around the possible guilt of anyone. You obviously have information that is not public knowledge, and cannot be disclosed, from some person/s you trust. I fervently hope your trust is well placed. (I am not questioning that)
IMO all this speculation and questions that imply knowledge that does not exist, is seriously detrimental to the campaign.
A lot of the questions in this thread are in the form of "When did you last beat your wife".

oranbhoy67

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

It doesn't, as you well know, answer the question of what does Mary's mother currently suspect most likely happened to her ? I can't understand why this is being covered up, as it's just as important as what Mary's sister thinks.



You're the one that likes video interrogating people, but not so keen when you're asked a few innocent questions yourself. Real justice is not presuming people are guilty until proven innocent, or trying to steer people away from other questions, or other people who might just as well be a suspect.



Because I'm not, I'd fully welcome that, rather than you continually trying to shut down anyone who dares to ask questions about the full story, while making false allegations about trolling and calling people names for in turn asking questions.

I'd still like to know for what alleged reason Mary's mother allegedly "disowned" her other daughter, as is being constantly claimed here ?

cheery bye !! Ignored

jenny smith

tayto lover wrote: »

To the posters who are anti oranbhoy interviewing the suspect.

If he is the only suspect who many people in the area rightfully or wrongfully believe is responsible why do you lads think he was never questioned by the Gardai as a suspect?
Also as he lives in the area and was in the vicinity of the area where Mary disappeared from and is bound to have heard the rumours of his guilt, why do you think he never went to the Garda himself with his side of the story in order to clear his name?

I am not anti oranbhoy interviewing the suspect the way he explained it. But perhaps they did not have evidence. in 1977 there were stricter laws re arrest. If he had been arrested and did not admit anything and the gardai had no other evidence he may have been able to claim false arrest or malicious arrest. That might make him able to claim unfair trial if they did find evidence

@oranbhoy have you asked a solicitor if they could have arrested him in 1977 or under the 1984 Criminal Justice Act?

oranbhoy67

jenny smith wrote: »

I am not anti oranbhoy interviewing the suspect the way he explained it. But perhaps they did not have evidence. in 1977 there were stricter laws re arrest. If he had been arrested and did not admit anything and the gardai had no other evidence he may have been able to claim false arrest or malicious arrest. That might make him able to claim unfair trial if they did find evidence

@oranbhoy have you asked a solicitor if they could have arrested him in 1977 or under the 1984 Criminal Justice Act?

I dont have a solicitor I will put it to my cousin though to put to hers

Johnboy1951

A question for oranbhoy67:
Did you bring this knowledge/evidence to the proper authorities in an official manner so that they were bound to act upon it if they found it credible?
You appear from what you have posted, to have sufficient information to have one person arrested. I would think you are duty bound to bring this information to the authorities, if you have not done so already.
Of course if it is just hearsay then I guess you would have to arrange to have <whoever> attest to the veracity of your information.

oranbhoy67

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

@oranbhoy67 To be honest, I do not see the benefit of the speculation around the possible guilt of anyone. You obviously have information that is not public knowledge, and cannot be disclosed, from some person/s you trust. I fervently hope your trust is well placed. (I am not questioning that)
IMO all this speculation and questions that imply knowledge that does not exist, is seriously detrimental to the campaign.
A lot of the questions in this thread are in the form of "When did you last beat your wife".

I do believe my trust is well placed , i would trust these people with my life

Specualation is something that is going to happen when a wee girl goes missing 40 years ago and then a documentary is made alleging Political and Gardai cover up

at this stage and at the suspects advanced age I hope people don't speculate publicly on forums like this on social media on who the suspect is but IMO we need to put all the pressure we can to have a change in the way that this has been investigated cos unlike the child's mother we aren't happy with how the last 40 years investigations have been carried out and we don't think that continuing in the same vein they have been will uncover the truth, the person we suspect is in his 70s, he could pass away any day, hence the desperation sometimes and why we do sometimes maybe sail to close to the wind legally.

we are desperate to get our cousin/sister/nieces body back to bury alongside her father before that person might die with his terrible secret buried with him .

Giacomo McGubbin

tayto lover wrote: »

To the posters who are anti oranbhoy interviewing the suspect.

His motives may be good, but reasonable people are anti any stupid actions that could allow anyone off on a technicality in the future. I'm not saying oranbhoy or anyone else is, but it's also been known in other cases for people to try and direct attention onto others in an effort to protect the real suspect.

That's why a completely open new investigation by outside Gardai is the only solution here, and not a narrow investigation in one direction only, as it could be wrong.

tayto lover wrote: »

If he is the only suspect who many people in the area rightfully or wrongfully believe is responsible why do you lads think he was never questioned by the Gardai as a suspect?
Also as he lives in the area and was in the vicinity of the area where Mary disappeared from and is bound to have heard the rumours of his guilt, why do you think he never went to the Garda himself with his side of the story in order to clear his name?

According to the documentary he was questioned and went to the Gardai. You seem to be getting questioning and arrest mixed up.

As for claiming that's who the local people all suspect it is, that's not true at all. Most of the local people I know are very careful not to accuse anyone in the wrong or make any assumptions. In a civilised society people, all people, including you, must be considered innocent of a crime until proven guilty beyond all doubt in a proper court of law. If that is bypassed all hope of justice collapses. The fact remains everyone who was proven to be in the area that day should remain as suspect, or the real killer (if there is one) and any other accomplices (if there are any) are very likely to get off.

oranbhoy67

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

A question for oranbhoy67:
Did you bring this knowledge/evidence to the proper authorities in an official manner so that they were bound to act upon it if they found it credible?
You appear from what you have posted, to have sufficient information to have one person arrested. I would think you are duty bound to bring this information to the authorities, if you have not done so already.
Of course if it is just hearsay then I guess you would have to arrange to have <whoever> attest to the veracity of your information.

I was asked to go down speak to the gards after i spoke to the suspect by them to arrange a dig, when I got to the barracks the garda involved had went home , i was placed on to the phone to him where he said he wanted to liaise with me on the case and he believed i had an important part to play as a liasion but he had a big case on at the moment and would contact me the following week & maybe even come out to LK to meet me, a good few weeks passed with no contact then I rang back and he said he had lost my number and was on holiday right then but would ring me back the next week, he rang the next week & I'll be honest my mind was blank at the time and i forgot to give him what i believe was things said to me that day that contradicts the suspects original statement , so I rang back the next day , the Garda taking the call answered me with "ah so your the Scottish one " I said not according to my passport im not we had a wee joke about that..then he said he would pass it on for the detective to ring me back , that was the day of the documentary , still no call back .

hence why I have very little to no trust in the Ballyshannon Gardai

tayto lover

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

His motives may be good, but reasonable people are anti any stupid actions that could allow anyone off on a technicality in the future. I'm not saying oranbhoy is, but it's also been known for people to try and direct attention onto others in an effort to protect the real suspect.



According to the documentary he was questioned. You seem to be getting questioning and arrest mixed up.

As for claiming that's who the local people all suspect it is, that's not true at all. Most of the local people I know are very careful not to accuse anyone in the wrong or make any assumptions. In a civilised society people, all people, including you, must be considered innocent of a crime until proven guilty beyond all doubt in a proper court of law. If that is bypassed all justice collapses. The fact remains everyone who was proven to be in the area that day should remain as suspect, or the real killer (if there is one) is very likely to get off.

He was only questioned as a witness and not as a suspect though.
The Garda felt that he was going to disclose something during that interview but the senior Garda there received a phonecall from a politician and told the questioning Garda to go desist according to this thread. Whether that is true or not i do not know. All I have to go on is what's posted here.

Going Forward

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

His motives may be good, but reasonable people are anti any stupid actions that could allow anyone off on a technicality in the future. I'm not saying oranbhoy or anyone else is, but it's also been known in other cases for people to try and direct attention onto others in an effort to protect the real suspect.

That's why a completely open new investigation by outside Gardai is the only solution here, and not a narrow investigation in one direction only, as it could be wrong.



According to the documentary he was questioned and went to the Gardai. You seem to be getting questioning and arrest mixed up.

As for claiming that's who the local people all suspect it is, that's not true at all. Most of the local people I know are very careful not to accuse anyone in the wrong or make any assumptions. In a civilised society people, all people, including you, must be considered innocent of a crime until proven guilty beyond all doubt in a proper court of law. If that is bypassed all hope of justice collapses. The fact remains everyone who was proven to be in the area that day should remain as suspect, or the real killer (if there is one) and any other accomplices (if there are any) are very likely to get off.

I'd agree with all of that TBH.

There are a very limited number of theories as to what happened to her.
Just 3 theories I'd say.

To get into them here is unnecessary IMO.

From a distance it appears that those who were questioned gave answers that were taken at face value.

Hindsight is a great thing.

Leave all the allegations of political interference out of it for the minute.

Would you agree?

Giacomo McGubbin

tayto lover wrote: »

He was only questioned as a witness and not as a suspect though.
The Garda felt that he was going to disclose something during that interview but the senior Garda there received a phonecall from a politician and told the questioning Garda to go desist according to this thread. Whether that is true or not i do not know. All I have to go on is what's posted here.

There will always be good, bad, and incompetent politicians and good, bad and incompetent Guards. Who really knows who is who in this case, tarring them all with the one brush will be a sure way to kill the investigation.

Also just because someone allegedly asked a local politician (who should have perhaps known better even in the 70's) for help in getting a particular Guard or Guards to ease off harassing them, does not automatically mean the suspect is guilty of the crime. Gardai can get it wrong and harass the wrong people. The documentary was interesting, but what worried me was that it didn't appear very balanced and jumped to a lot of conclusions.

Gemma O'Doherty is good journalist who suffered at the hands of corruption, but I think she made a balls in some aspects of this documentary.
Retd Sgt Collins was one of the two retired member of An Garda Siochana who featured in the documentary, and he has stressed that that no senior Garda influenced other members of the force in the direction of the investigation at the time, and he's raised concern over the portrayal of some of his former colleagues in the documentary – now deceased – who were involved in the investigation.

http://www.highlandradio.com/2016/07/13/lead-investigator-in-mary-boyle-case-says-there-was-neither-apolitical-nor-garda-cover-up/

Insisting on a full complete new investigation by external Gardai is a good aspect of he campaign. Making allegations about who should be arrested as a suspect and focused on, who should not is not, and bringing politics into it, is not a great aspect of the campaign.

jenny smith

On that Highland Radio clip Gemma says she would not object to any journalist calling to any door when investigating the murder of a child and that is "normal" /"what we do". Well, a journalist has no power to question anyone and no one has any obligation to speak to them.They can knock on the door as I could but have no authority to demand answers

I was once living where a murder happened and the gardai did house to house. We had to speak to them and fill in forms. We would have no such obligation for a journalist. A journalist has no power in law an ordinary citizen hasn't though some seem to think they do as 'investigators'. Gardai do have powers to question

Giacomo McGubbin

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

No, what I asked was what does Mary's mother currently believe if she doesn't agree with the sister, as I like to hear all sides of a story, not just one side, before going on a witch hunt. Seems this is a major problem for some people.



Did you consider the same about Mary's mother ? Are you not interested in finding out what she thinks as well as posters here ?



The only one being patronised here are the people who want to hear all sides not just one side of the events.



So someone deciding he's going to video and interrogate only one person, instead of the proper authorities, and jepodise any future case and prosecution is the answer ?

What if some of the uncles relatives started videoing and interrogating other family members and pointing the finger at them instead of the uncle ? And demanded their land was dug up ? Would you be all on for that as well ? Because it would be exactly the same thing.

Most reasonable people want the killer (if there is one) to have to undergo a proper trial and doing proper time, and not getting off on a technicality because of some idiots.



I support a new and full investigation, that's all I have called for, along with asking for other peoples side of the story not just one, which seems to be the real problem here.



More making up what I said, I'm asking for the full story, not just some peoples preferred version of events, or some internet lynch mobs version of who's guilty without evidence or even a trial.

The panic and reaction I've exposed here, for simply asking for some balance, and for proper full investigation by the proper authorities of everyone involved is most interesting.

You've been given a full transcript of Mary's mothers opinion.
I fail to see what more you can be told. As Oranbhoy said, why don't you try asking her?

I haven't seen any panic in response to your asking for balance.
My own honest opinion is that your questions were, at best, overly intrusive, and insensitive.

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Should you have been video interrogated by a member of the public with a conspiracy theory that you did it, and allow him to dig up your land, instead of the authorities, and if not why not ?

LOL. If someone wants to interview me on video, they can carry on. If they want to dig up my land, they're quite welcome to do that, too.
They wont find any bodies.
Mind you, I would be likely to look for an apology when they were finished, in fairness.
I would be offended if I were accused of something I didn't do. That's human nature.
Having said that, if I were a suspect, I think I'd want to clear my name. In fact, I think I'd make a beeline for the nearest Garda station to make a statement.

jenny smith wrote: »

He has been questioned but not while arrested. That is the issue some people are raising. He was questioned at the start when the garda Murray was told to ease off -or similar wording-. Hew as also questioned when he went to the station when the psychic wanted to see him. He was told he was not under arrest but that Collins wanted to speak to him. These time of questioning were i think as a witness not a suspect. Am i right? But this is the issue people have, that the was never arrested not that he was never questioned under arrest

When you were questioned you were not under arrest. He was also questioned but not under arrest. EDIT: here it is

That link isn't working for me?
I'll go back and check the documentary when I get time.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So your opinion is based on a supposition that not everyone in the vicinity was questioned. I have not seen nor read anything to show your supposition is true. You actually KNOW this was not done? You KNOW it was not properly investigated at the time? ... or is this more supposition?

Right. Are you then suggesting that the man who claims to have initially reported finding what appeared to be a body was lying?

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Gee maybe the guards did investigate after all and disturbed the earth in that spot!
You have not indicated that you KNOW the 'square patch' was NOT investigated at the time.

Do you KNOW that it was?
Because if you do, then the man who made the claim originally is lying. Is that what you are claiming?

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I would point out that I was not in any way dismissive of efforts to resolve the problem. I was - and am - dismissive of ideas based on nothing more than supposition and imagination, and am highlighting that doing so is detrimental to the 'cause'. The wilder the Conspiracy Theories advanced, the easier it is to dismiss all theories.

Apologies but was unable to post in one post so had to break it up into three.

Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense.
You can choose to disbelieve people who have chosen to come forward with information.
You might even be right to disbelieve them.
What you cannot do, without presenting a shred of evidence of your own, is dismiss these statements as "supposition and imagination", much less "conspiracy theories".

So, I repeat, my opinion is that there should be a full investigation, rather than a cold case review - precisely so that the truth can be found, whatever it may be. SOMEONE knows the truth. 40 years is long enough to wait for it, imo.