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

Smondie

Oranbhoy alluded to why those close to the case believe there was sexual abuse involved.

How are historical cases of sexual abuse prosecuted? What proof do do you think there should be?

Johnboy1951

Smondie wrote: »

Oranbhoy alluded to why those close to the case believe there was sexual abuse involved.

How are historical cases of sexual abuse prosecuted? What proof do do you think there should be?

Usually by testimony of the abused.

Tannerite

Smondie wrote: »

Oranbhoy alluded to why those close to the case believe there was sexual abuse involved.

How are historical cases of sexual abuse prosecuted? What proof do do you think there should be?

Belief does not equal fact and even if it was a fact it still requires proof

Dont misunderstand my intentions here i am trying to look at this in the most impartial way possible in the hope it could be used to build a wayer tight argument

I find impartial viewing of the facts more constructive then a passionate point of view on a subject

I do not say that trying to offend

Smondie

Tannerite wrote: »

Smondie wrote: »

Oranbhoy alluded to why those close to the case believe there was sexual abuse involved.

How are historical cases of sexual abuse prosecuted? What proof do do you think there should be?

Belief does not equal fact and even if it was a fact it still requires proof

Dont misunderstand my intentions here i am trying to look at this in the most impartial way possible in the hope it could be used to build a wayer tight argument

I find impartial viewing of the facts more constructive then a passionate point of view on a subject

I do not say that trying to offend

No offense taken all debate is good!. If I can find the post oranbhoy made on this I will post it. It's a few pages back. I found it quite interesting what was said. Hang on I see If I can find it.

Going Forward

Tannerite wrote: »

Is there any soild proof that mary was a victim of abuse in the public domain ???

Reading this thread it occurs repeatedly how ever i have not seen any proof just opinion, there very well could be proof that isnt public i accept that but all i have heard so far is hearsay at best

And with out a body and an autopisy can it ever be proven or is it he said she said if remains were found could it be proven now ???

The theory i am leaning to is an accidental death followed by irrational actions due to panic then the family closed ranks to protect one of it members

And now forty years on every one is commited to the lie it would explain to some why an inquest is not wanted by the family

I am leaning this way as i find it to be the least distasteful version of events

I am aware it dosent quite fit all the information but there is a lot of misinformation in this case too

Ex Gda Martin Collins seems to be of the opinion that it wasn't accidental, or at least if he is of that opinion he passed up an ideal opportunity to hold it out as an olive branch in the documentary.

To me at least, he had a different theory.

Smondie

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100503609&postcount=1420


This is oranbhoy post I was talking about. Page 95/96 of this thread.

There is only one conclusion I can draw from it. I don't want to be putting words in anyone's mouth. But the penny dropped for me with his words here.

Read his couple of posts before it for more context.

Tannerite

@ going forward

Yes your right i had not forgotten about that i really need to rewatch that again
Was there any physical proof or was it his experience on the job do you remember

UsedToWait

Hope oranbhoy is enjoying his few days away.

The case seems to have consumed him since he became aware of it - as I'm sure it would to most of us if we were faced with such an injustice, and seemingly such indifference / outright closing ranks from those with knowledge of what happened - both the family and the authorities.

Reading between the lines, it seems like the suspect is in failing health, and sadly I believe he may be allowed to take the truth about what happened to his grave.

I hope I'm wrong about that.

tayto lover

Smondie wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100503609&postcount=1420


This is oranbhoy post I was talking about. Page 95/96 of this thread.

There is only one conclusion I can draw from it. I don't want to be putting words in anyone's mouth. But the penny dropped for me with his words here.

Read his couple of posts before it for more context.

His reply was in response to my post.
However i didn't get the impression that there was any proof of child abuse from it. Suggesting something or hinting at something is not proof. Maybe there is stuff he can't say but there is no proof in what he did say.

Smondie

tayto lover wrote: »

Smondie wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100503609&postcount=1420


This is oranbhoy post I was talking about. Page 95/96 of this thread.

There is only one conclusion I can draw from it. I don't want to be putting words in anyone's mouth. But the penny dropped for me with his words here.

Read his couple of posts before it for more context.

His reply was in response to my post.
However i didn't get the impression that there was any proof of child abuse from it. Suggesting something or hinting at something is not proof. Maybe there is stuff he can't say but there is no proof in what he did say.

What proof do you think he could post online? The man has never been investigated.

tayto lover

Smondie wrote: »

What proof do you think he could post online? The man has never been investigated.

Well that's just it.
We only have his opinion and what someone told him i.e. hearsay. That's not proof though.
I wish he could actually prove it.

Smondie

tayto lover wrote: »

Well that's just it.
We only have his opinion and what someone told him i.e. hearsay. That's not proof though.
I wish he could actually prove it.

What if the person that told him was abused too?

What if they told the Gardai they were abused too any nothing was investigated? What if the Gardai passed off the report as some sort of retaliation against thier handling of the investigation?

(Above are just hypothetical as I have no idea really)


Back to historical sex abuse cases and how are they "prooved"?

I know what you mean, if there had of been investigated and court case and found guilty....

historical child abuse are a very difficult thing to provide proof of.

Tannerite

This is the problem i have too there is little to no proof that we know of and it can not and should not be made public untill after or during a trail

It is like grasping at shadows i belive there is something there but what

Does any one have any idea as to why the family is protecting this guy if it is know to them that he abused two girls and commited murder ???

Going Forward

Tannerite wrote: »

This is the problem i have too there is little to no proof that we know of and it can not and should not be made public untill after or during a trail

It is like grasping at shadows i belive there is something there but what

Does any one have any idea as to why the family is protecting this guy if it is know to them that he abused two girls and commited murder ???

What two girls?

Your last line assumes an awful lot, I know there's an "IF" in it but we don't know anything really!

Going Forward

Tannerite wrote: »

@ going forward

Yes your right i had not forgotten about that i really need to rewatch that again
Was there any physical proof or was it his experience on the job do you remember

No physical evidence of anything.

But then the case seems to (IMO) have been hampered by a mix of garda inexperience (SFA training and expertise at the time, primitive equipment and methods), possibly a closing of family ranks and possibly a misplaced garda intention to go easy on the ones at the scene in the aftermath.

Hindsight is a great thing.

I would guess there's an element of "what good would it do" in relation to applying today's standards to this case in any internal garda review of it.

It would be publicly admitting they made a mess of it in 77 for starters.
And there's I'd say an unspoken hope that the secret will go with someone to the grave.

The only thing is, Martin Collins suggests that others are implicated in a cover up.

There's time yet for the "investigating team" to act appropriately.

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

His reply was in response to my post.
However i didn't get the impression that there was any proof of child abuse from it. Suggesting something or hinting at something is not proof. Maybe there is stuff he can't say but there is no proof in what he did say.

I'd strongly suggest that he doesn't post anything that he considers as proof online, just in case this ever does go to trial.

Certainly, the amount of sexual abuse cases in Ballyshannon and surrounding districts suggest that the chickens from many years ago are coming home to roost, statistically speaking.
Add the comment from Gerry Adams brother about a paedophile ring that may have been active in Donegal, and it looks like he has very valid reasons for his suggestions.

We know for a fact that two known paedophiles were familiar with the area, though not necessarily with Mary Boyle.
We know for a fact that two convicted paedophiles were active in the Gortahork area.

In both cases, the size of the population wouldn't seem to fit with having two paedophiles in the area, so, that would suggest to me that these perverts seem to gravitate towards similar areas.
If that's the case, how many more paedos/perverts have we heard nothing about?

Tannerite

Going Forward wrote: »

Tannerite wrote: »

This is the problem i have too there is little to no proof that we know of and it can not and should not be made public untill after or during a trail

It is like grasping at shadows i belive there is something there but what

Does any one have any idea as to why the family is protecting this guy if it is know to them that he abused two girls and commited murder ???

What two girls?

Your last line assumes an awful lot, I know there's an "IF" in it but we don't know anything really!

I was speculating not assumeing although i was posting from work so it may have come across as an assumption

If i understood correctly mary was abused then murdered and there may have been a second person abused as well

But like i have said and as you have said there is no evidence of any kind just hearsay

Johnboy1951

Tannerite wrote: »

I was speculating not assumeing although i was posting from work so it may have come across as an assumption

If i understood correctly mary was abused then murdered and there may have been a second person abused as well

But like i have said and as you have said there is no evidence of any kind just hearsay

All I have read is speculation about abuse as a possible reason for the child's disappearance because she might have been about to expose the abuser.

Tannerite

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Tannerite wrote: »

I was speculating not assumeing although i was posting from work so it may have come across as an assumption

If i understood correctly mary was abused then murdered and there may have been a second person abused as well

But like i have said and as you have said there is no evidence of any kind just hearsay

All I have read is speculation about abuse as a possible reason for the child's disappearance because she might have been about to expose the abuser.

Yes you right i addressed that in the last paragraph of my post

oranbhoy67

Tannerite wrote: »

The theory i am leaning to is an accidental death followed by irrational actions due to panic then the family closed ranks to protect one of it members

And now forty years on every one is commited to the lie it would explain to some why an inquest is not wanted by the family

I am leaning this way as i find it to be the least distasteful version of events

I am aware it dosent quite fit all the information but there is a lot of misinformation in this case too

This actually has been suggested was what happened by one of the people who we believe is protecting the suspect , hello from Barcelona folks

I'll be in Glasgow Wednesday so will have more WiFi then back home the following Sunday ..but as one poster said this is consuming me so I need to just breathe here . it was planned ages ago but timing couldn't have been better ,chat soon guys

Seth Brundle

Second garda denies Mary Boyle cover-up
Retired sergeant alleges his comments to a documentary were 'taken out of context'...
http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/second-garda-denies-mary-boyle-coverup-34963362.html


He makes reference to the selective editing used in the documentary.

Johnboy1951

kbannon wrote: »

Second garda denies Mary Boyle cover-up
Retired sergeant alleges his comments to a documentary were 'taken out of context'...
http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/second-garda-denies-mary-boyle-coverup-34963362.html

He makes reference to the selective editing used in the documentary.

I am not surprised.
As I posted a long way back I did not believe in the 'political cover up or interference' angle, nor a cover up by the garda.

I do continue to believe there is a cover up by parties who know what happened. I refer here to definite knowledge and not just 'belief'.

Going Forward

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I am not surprised.
As I posted a long way back I did not believe in the 'political cover up or interference' angle, nor a cover up by the garda.

I do continue to believe there is a cover up by parties who know what happened. I refer here to definite knowledge and not just 'belief'.

The two of them are back pedalling.

They just don't want to betray their former colleagues.

Murray in the documentary:

"The result of that phone call is that certain people weren't allowed to be interviewed and it was all hands off. The sting went out of the whole investigation after that."


Murray last week:

"I was not aware of any alleged phone call at the time and I subsequently heard the rumour many months later at a garda conference."


These are men who have experience giving evidence in court, imparting accounts of incidents in a manner which is clear and unambiguous and not open to misinterpretation.

Are they now both seriously suggesting that they dropped their gaurd and were both somehow tricked by a journalist into saying things they did not want to say?

Johnboy1951

It is up to G 'OD to release the full interviews to show one of two things
1. She deliberately misrepresented what the guards meant
2. She showed exactly what they meant.

Only the release of the unabridged videos will sort it.
If she refuses to do this I will certainly draw my own conclusions.

Going Forward

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

It is up to G 'OD to release the full interviews to show one of two things
1. She deliberately misrepresented what the guards meant
2. She showed exactly what they meant.

Only the release of the unabridged videos will sort it.
If she refuses to do this I will certainly draw my own conclusions.

Speaking of unabridged videos, this is an example of one that I'd forgotten about.

No sun at the beginning cuts to a still returns to the interview and sunshine and shadows appear in the time it takes to view the still image, with a soundtrack that admittedly also sounds like it's been messed with

https://t.co/en54CIbKCe

What I am suspicious of is why the interviewees did not make repeated reference to "alleged/rumoured" in any complete sentences about this phone call.

Johnboy1951

two different conversations stitched together at a particular point to provide the producer the effect required.
Nicely pointed up, and until we can all see both of those conversations in full we have no idea of the context or either.

Kenny Logins

Going Forward wrote: »

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

It is up to G 'OD to release the full interviews to show one of two things
1. She deliberately misrepresented what the guards meant
2. She showed exactly what they meant.

Only the release of the unabridged videos will sort it.
If she refuses to do this I will certainly draw my own conclusions.

Speaking of unabridged videos, this is an example of one that I'd forgotten about.

No sun at the beginning cuts to a still returns to the interview and sunshine and shadows appear in the time it takes to view the still image, with a soundtrack that admittedly also sounds like it's been messed with

https://t.co/en54CIbKCe

What I am suspicious of is why the interviewees did not make repeated reference to "alleged/rumoured" in any complete sentences about this phone call.

No clouds in Donegal?

Going Forward

Kenny Logins wrote: »

No clouds in Donegal?

Whatever way you look at it it's not a continuous clip.

It's been edited. There's a still shot put in there for no reason IMO other than to mask the joining of two different segments.

Why fiddle in any way with what's supposed to be one of the biggest revelations in the documentary?

He's not showed saying it without the aid of editing.

Even what he says sounds tacked together.

Johnboy1951

Looking at the lean-to on the building behind the guard and flicking between two shots (before & after insert) it becomes obvious that even the camera is in a slightly different position, and the lighting on the roof of the lean-to is completely different and not explained by a cloud IMO.

Kenny Logins

Going Forward wrote: »

Whatever way you look at it it's not a continuous clip.

It's been edited. There's a still shot put in there for no reason IMO other than to mask the joining of two different segments.

Why fiddle in any way with what's supposed to be one of the biggest revelations in the documentary?

He's not showed saying it without the aid of editing.

Even what he says sounds tacked together.

Yeah it does appear to be edited alright, but the sun/clouds don't really corroborate or contradict this.