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

tayto lover

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

credibility isn't something that Donegal Gardai haven't exactly smothered themselves in during the years

That's beside the point. It's not going to find Mary.
Facts are facts. Opinions are opinions.
The answers are in the family. No stranger came that day and took her.
The car was parked where the dogs lost the scent. Whoever left in the car has to be the number one suspect. Mary's mother knows who left, you probably do too. That's the person who knows what happened.

dense

tayto lover wrote: »

That's beside the point. It's not going to find Mary.
Facts are facts. Opinions are opinions.
The answers are in the family. No stranger came that day and took her.
The car was parked where the dogs lost the scent. Whoever left in the car has to be the number one suspect. Mary's mother knows who left, you probably do too. That's the person who knows what happened.

And the point is that in another couple of months it will be a year ago that the last garda appeal to the public took place, the usual stupid appeal to people who weren't there on the day, to help them solve the case.

The investigation got off on the wrong foot 40 years ago, it's high time it was put back on track.

A "review" was announced when, 2 years ago?
3 years ago?

What exactly are they reviewing?

tayto lover

dense wrote: »

And the point is that in another couple of months it will be a year ago that the last garda appeal to the public took place, the usual stupid appeal to people who weren't there on the day, to help them solve the case.

The investigation got off on the wrong foot 40 years ago, it's high time it was put back on track.

A "review" was announced when, 2 years ago?
3 years ago?

What exactly are they reviewing?[/QUOTE]
I wish we knew?
They usually have more information than they share to the public.

I still believe that they should re-interview the mother who I feel knows the whole story.

Muahahaha

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

For a link to the petition - please sign and share
https://www.change.org/p/justice-for-mary-boyle-call-on-donegal-coroner-dr-denis-mccauley-to-convene-an-inquest-into-mary-boyle-s-death

Signed, its up to 8,700 signatures now.

oranbhoy67

this is why we want a public inquest for the people who were there that day to be questioned publicly, to clarify everything while these people are still alive.

oranbhoy67

Muahahaha wrote: »

Signed, its up to 8,700 signatures now.

Brilliant, Thank you

by8auj6csd3ioq

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

this is why we want a public inquest for the people who were there that day to be questioned publicly, to clarify everything while these people are still alive.

The penalty for not attending is very small and no guarantee everyone will go. And inquests Inquest "distinguishes itself from other Court processes in that the Coroner cannot consider or attribute criminal or civil liability, or indeed exonerate any party. The purpose of the inquest is to establish the facts surrounding the death and to place those facts on the public record" http://www.aclsolicitors.ie/practice-areas/medical-negligence/inquests

Since there is no body and no proof Mary is dead how will it establish the facts surrounding the death and place it on record? What is to stop the people telling the same story they have for 40 years, that she followed her uncle and turned back etc

I think too much faith is being placed in the inquest

Creol1

Addilynn Wooden Saloon wrote: »

Since there is no body and no proof Mary is dead how will it establish the facts surrounding the death and place it on record? What is to stop the people telling the same story they have for 40 years, that she followed her uncle and turned back etc

I'm not intimately familiar with the legal bases for holding/not holding an inquest, but it is notable that in Dr McCauley's explanation for not holding an inquest, the opposition of Mrs Boyle was the main reason he cited, rather than issues surrounding jurisdiction.

by8auj6csd3ioq

Creol1 I cannot quote for some reason
This is from the link i gave above
Where a coroner is informed that the body of a deceased person is lying within his district, it shall be the duty of the coroner under law to hold an inquest in relation to the death of that person if he is of opinion that the death may have occurred in a violent or unnatural manner, or suddenly and from unknown causes.

Also if the family think there is a reason they should be one, even if coroner doesn't they can apply to him. But i have not seen a reverse where the family can object to it yet he did say as you say his main reason for not having one is mrs boyle

tayto lover

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

this is why we want a public inquest for the people who were there that day to be questioned publicly, to clarify everything while these people are still alive.

That would be a good way to go and the best of luck with it.
Has there ever been an inquest like this held before though, I mean without a body?

Creol1

Addilynn Wooden Saloon wrote: »

Creol1 I cannot quote for some reason
This is from the link i gave above
Where a coroner is informed that the body of a deceased person is lying within his district, it shall be the duty of the coroner under law to hold an inquest in relation to the death of that person if he is of opinion that the death may have occurred in a violent or unnatural manner, or suddenly and from unknown causes.

Also if the family think there is a reason they should be one, even if coroner doesn't they can apply to him. But i have not seen a reverse where the family can object to it yet he did say as you say his main reason for not having one is mrs boyle

In this case, the family is divided, with Ann Doherty supporting and Mrs Boyle opposing an inquest; I'm not sure whether there is a precedent for such a case.

dense

Creol1 wrote: »

In this case, the family is divided, with Ann Doherty supporting and Mrs Boyle opposing an inquest; I'm not sure whether there is a precedent for such a case.

The opinion of those connected to an inquest are irrelevant, there is no basis for their opinions to be taken into account.

The refusal to hold one, based on taking their opinions into account is an arbitrary one, and one which is being made by the coroner.

To my memory it is unprecedented anywhere, for a state official, to take the opinions of relatives into consideration in determining what course of action to take, in refusing OR granting an inquest.

To make public the reason for a refusal as in this case is highly irregular IMO.

dense

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

credibility isn't something that Donegal Gardai haven't exactly smothered themselves in during the years

You have identified yourself as being a relation of Mary's.

Isn't it terrible to think that because of comments like that which you have made, legitimately referencing the Morris Tribunal, they could be counterproductive, with decisions being made about not investigating the case, on order to teach you a lesson for being disrespectful?

One would hope that such vindictiveness is very much beneath a modern Garda force and a thing of the past.

(The past may be symbolised by the likes of retired garda Gerry O'Carroll, who still believes Joanne Hayes had twins in the face of new DNA evidence showing the contrary and a retired Donegal garda reported here voicing upset about criticism of the quality of his former colleague's investigation into the disappearance of Mary Boyle.)

Still, if I were you, I think I'd be a little like Maurice McCabe, constantly watching my back.

I don't know if I'd be as brave as you are, you seem a strong person, and I hope some answers come your way, whatever they are, whenever the current review is concluded.

The sad fact is that the truth may never come out.

Purple Mountain

As a result of this thread, I've signed the petition.
Best of luck with it.
I fear someday in the future, there'll be yet another tribunal into yet another Irish injustice.

by8auj6csd3ioq

"To my memory it is unprecedented anywhere, for a state official, to take the opinions of relatives into consideration in determining what course of action to take, in refusing OR granting an inquest."

It is usual for coroner to consider the application for an inquest by a family member. Even if he has decided not to hold one a memeber of the family can write to him and request one.

by8auj6csd3ioq

cannot edit here: the family request does not mean he will hold one. it is up to him in the final analysis

tayto lover

Anyone know why the mother is against the holding of an inquest?
I cannot figure this out unless she is afraid of something.

clfy39tzve8njq

tayto lover wrote:

Anyone know why the mother is against the holding of an inquest? I cannot figure this out unless she is afraid of something.

Have you not read this thread :-)

tayto lover

Jaylah Grumpy Pile wrote: »

Have you not read this thread :-)

Not all of it. I drop in now and then because i'd love to see Mary's body found. I think the mother knows what happened.

dense

Addilynn Wooden Saloon wrote: »

"To my memory it is unprecedented anywhere, for a state official, to take the opinions of relatives into consideration in determining what course of action to take, in refusing OR granting an inquest."

It is usual for coroner to consider the application for an inquest by a family member. Even if he has decided not to hold one a memeber of the family can write to him and request one.

Of course they can, there's nothing stopping any family members from putting pen to paper.

But can you show any previous instance where correspondence from a family has been cited by the coroner as the reason for them holding an inquest, or refusing to hold one?

BTW contrary to what you (?) said earlier there are serious repurcussions for not attending an inquest if summoned as a witness:


(2) A person who, having been duly served with a summons requiring him to attend an inquest as a witness, fails to attend on the date and at the time and place specified in the summons shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €3,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/33/enacted/en/print.html

by8auj6csd3ioq

Of course they can, there's nothing stopping any family members from putting pen to paper.

But can you show any previous instance where correspondence from a family has been cited by the coroner as the reason for them holding an inquest, or refusing to hold one?

once but cannot give any info in public

BTW contrary to what you (?) said earlier there are serious repurcussions for not attending an inquest if summoned as a witness:


(2) A person who, having been duly served with a summons requiring him to attend an inquest as a witness, fails to attend on the date and at the time and place specified in the summons shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €3,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/33/enacted/en/print.html

Didn't realise it was 12 months 3k. I am corrected but still it is a lot less severe than a murder charge, if going to one would set you up. I still see little point in inquest because there is no body or proof of death. Is someone assumed dead after a certain time? It is true the coroner's reason is very strange in MB case

oranbhoy67

Addilynn Wooden Saloon wrote: »

once but cannot give any info in public

Didn't realise it was 12 months 3k. I am corrected but still it is a lot less severe than a murder charge, if going to one would set you up. I still see little point in inquest because there is no body or proof of death. Is someone assumed dead after a certain time? It is true the coroner's reason is very strange in MB case

An Inquest will be the first time that those who were there that day will have to speak publicly about what happened, I'm sure their initial statements will also be scrutinised, Statements which I'm told don't match up, it will be on public record what happened that day and ultimately it will put pressure on the people who are responsible for this , she deserves an inquest and so do the citizens of Ireland.
It is farcical they are using the mother's mental wellbeing as one of their excuses not to have one. especially when she is on record saying she knows Mary is dead.. now all of a sudden that is a prospect she cant face and she doesnt want an inquest until she herself has passed away, and the state is facilitating this ... crazy.

dense

Addilynn Wooden Saloon wrote: »

Is someone assumed dead after a certain time? It is true the coroner's reason is very strange in MB case

Not sure about the first part (it is 7 years in certain circumstances), but the point to remember is that the lack of a body, to be blunt, does not prevent an inquest being held.

Also, the lack of remains is not the reason being given for the refusal to hold one.

Regarding the coroner's reported reasons for refusing to hold an inquest:

This could well be interpreted as the coroner believes Mary is dead, and he is putting Mary's mother's feelings to the fore and doesn't want her to face such upset.

However, if the coroner is of the opinion that a death has occurred and the remains are not present, the Minister may order an inquest. Notice it is "may", and not "shall".


One could sensibly advance an argument that in any particular case it would be wise for the coroner to defer to seeking advice and direction from the Minister and let the Minister take the final responsibility for a decision to hold one or not:


17 Subject to the provisions of this Act, where a coroner is informed that the body of a deceased person is lying within his district, it shall be the duty of the coroner to hold an inquest in relation to the death of that person if he is of opinion that the death may have occurred in a violent or unnatural manner, or suddenly and from unknown causes or in a place or in circumstances which, under provisions in that behalf contained in any other enactment, require that an inquest should be held.



23.—Whenever a coroner has reason to believe that a death has occurred in or near his district in such circumstances that an inquest is appropriate and that, owing to the destruction of the body or its being irrecoverable, an inquest cannot be held except by virtue of this section, the Minister may, if he so thinks proper, direct an inquest in relation to the death to be held by that coroner or another coroner, and thereupon the coroner so directed shall hold an inquest in relation to the death in like manner as if the body were lying within his district and had been viewed by him.

dense

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

An Inquest will be the first time that those who were there that day will have to speak publicly about what happened, I'm sure their initial statements will also be scrutinised, Statements which I'm told don't match up, it will be on public record what happened that day and ultimately it will put pressure on the people who are responsible for this , she deserves an inquest and so do the citizens of Ireland.
It is farcical they are using the mother's mental wellbeing as one of their excuses not to have one. especially when she is on record saying she knows Mary is dead.. now all of a sudden that is a prospect she cant face and she doesnt want an inquest until she herself has passed away, and the state is facilitating this ... crazy.

Is she on record anywhere saying she believes the child is dead?

Not being pedantic, but has her belief that a death has occured ever officially been reported to the coroner or the gardai by anyone?

If no official record of someone claiming that a local death has occurred has been logged it could impede things.

oranbhoy67

dense wrote: »

Is she on record anywhere saying she believes the child is dead?

Not being pedantic, but has her belief that a death has occured ever officially been reported to the coroner or the gardai by anyone?

If no official record of someone claiming that a local death has occurred has been logged it could impede things.

yes she says it here in the following video

she has also in the past told many people including myself in front of others

and she has in fact told many people in the past who she believes Killed Mary. amongst people she told this to was gards on the case.

by8auj6csd3ioq

@dense just because you have not head of a coroner taking family considerations into account and i only know of one case , it does not follow it did not happen. Do coroners come under FOI? Maybe it would be possible to find out

tayto lover

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

yes she says it here in the following video

she has also in the past told many people including myself in front of others

and she has in fact told many people in the past who she believes Killed Mary. amongst people she told this to was gards on the case.

Does she have any proof though?
I'm sure from reading the thread we all have a suspect but none of us can have proof because we were not there at the time.

I would like to know if there was anyone at the house gerry Gallagher was going to when Mary allegedly followed him?
Apart from Gerry who is to say that Mary turned back on that day?
Did the Garda investigate if Mary turned back at all?

by8auj6csd3ioq

she has in fact told many people in the past who she believes Killed Mary

I can tell people who i believe sell drugs near me but that is not good enough for court

dense

Addilynn Wooden Saloon wrote: »

I can tell people who i believe sell drugs near me but that is not good enough for court

Why not?

The road to getting them to court could depend on you reporting their activities to begin with.

dense

Addilynn Wooden Saloon wrote: »

@dense just because you have not head of a coroner taking family considerations into account and i only know of one case , it does not follow it did not happen. Do coroners come under FOI? Maybe it would be possible to find out

Are you definitely saying that a coroner has previously refused to hold an inquest based on pleas from a family? Not wanting specifics but how do you know?

What was to be gained for the family by not holding an inquest?

Would it have been something sensitive or embarrassing for the deceased?




On reporting a death to a coroner:

"This category identifies those who are obliged to report a death. However, it
should be noted that ANY person who has reasonable grounds to believe
that a reportable death has not been reported may inform the coroner"

https://encrypted.google.com/url?q=http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/coronersfulljob.pdf/Files/coronersfulljob.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiiq-HT9enYAhWJBsAKHQcFCvQQFggYMAQ&usg=AOvVaw19NeioigDjdpD3CiLJQ3MR