Philip Cairns' Murder finally confirmed?

Shurimgreat

N365 wrote: »

She alleged to have witnessed what would have been clearly traumatic to a child. We don't know her circumstances. People were clearly afraid of this guy. Even an anonymous letter may have led to her being discovered. Wasn't he convicted of trying to burn down the home of a victim? If she was a victim of his then surely we should not be questioning her character.

I just think the timing of it is odd.

As for Cooke, clearly he was an evil man and clearly he was capable of something like this. But whether he did or didn't do it, is another thing.

He was however very ill for the last few months of his life, on deaths door by the sounds of it. That he was able to burn down a house or be a danger to someone at this stage is unlikely.

The point I am trying to make is victims should always come forward as soon as possible. The sooner the better to catch perpetrators. It takes bravery but it needs to be done. Leaving it 30 years isn't helpful to anyone.

Lollipop95

This is such a heartbreaking case. I wasn't born at the time but I've briefly heard about Philip Cairns throughout the years. So sad and horrendous.

I read that the woman was 9 at the time she witnessed what she did. I can totally understand why she told no one at the time and subsequent years that followed, as she was a child and must have been deeply traumatised. But what about when she reached her twenties? Late twenties? She should've made an anonymous tip off.

I'm just thinking about this poor family and god forbid, if it was a family member of mine, these are the questions I'd be asking of this woman.

But how is this confession going to help the guards find where Philip is? That Cooke monster died without revealing where he was buried. The witness coming forward has made it seem more than likely that Cooke was the murderer, but what about where Philip is? That's what his poor mother and rest of his family want to know surely. So they can lay to him rest and get peace at last after 30 years.

Kamili

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I just think the timing of it is odd.

As for Cooke, clearly he was an evil man and clearly he was capable of something like this. But whether he did or didn't do it, is another thing.

He was however very ill for the last few months of his life, on deaths door by the sounds of it. That he was able to burn down a house or be a danger to someone at this stage is unlikely.

The point I am trying to make is victims should always come forward as soon as possible. The sooner the better to catch perpetrators. It takes bravery but it needs to be done. Leaving it 30 years isn't helpful to anyone.

He had several people assist him in previous arson attacks against people, and him and these others were in court for it the day before Philip went missing.

So what is to say he didn't have someone else threatening her for him? She came forward as soon as she could.
It was noted that one of Cookes victims had to leave the country because of him, maybe this was her. We just don't know.

The other issue here is that I don't think she is the only one to have come forward, and other cases of other people coming forward were discounted for whatever reason. Lack of evidence?

So she did come forward as soon as she possibly could, physically and mentally.

Give the poor girl a break, she has already suffered a life sentence at the hands of this man.

I do agree though the timing is convenient, and suspect. That could be on the part of the Gardai too though.
Cooke was well involved with "helping" the force in the 80s, and this begs plenty of questions.

Going Forward

Wibbs wrote: »

Dunno why the rolleyes. The guy worked on the case, has a better idea of the evidence and lines of enquiry than we do and he's just giving his opinion. Personally it feels to me a little convenient to link that dead pervert to this crime. It could well have been him, but much more evidence required.

He worked on the case and is happy to admit that it never struck anyone to investigate whether Cooke was involved.

There is no valid reason why it's taking until now to test for DNA links between Cooke and the schoolbag.

There was only a finite number of named people who an "active investigation" had to investigate.

He was one of them.

Neyite

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I just think the timing of it is odd.

As for Cooke, clearly he was an evil man and clearly he was capable of something like this. But whether he did or didn't do it, is another thing.

He was however very ill for the last few months of his life, on deaths door by the sounds of it. That he was able to burn down a house or be a danger to someone at this stage is unlikely.

The point I am trying to make is victims should always come forward as soon as possible. The sooner the better to catch perpetrators. It takes bravery but it needs to be done. Leaving it 30 years isn't helpful to anyone.

But yet she still has high-profile public figures disregarding her statements as fabrication 30 years on. What chance had she to be believed as a child? As a teen? As a young adult struggling to come to terms with her abuse? Then finally as a grown up, and with what sounds like extensive counselling, she is brave enough to come forward to tell what she knows, despite knowing that her abuser evidently has friends in high places - or dangerous places, who could still do him a favour from his deathbed and carry out an old threat.

And then she finds out that the evil fcuker was right when he threatened her and told her that people would not believe her. :mad:

It seems odd to me that so many non-involved people are stepping forward to discount her testimony. Gardai who apparently fcuked up previous investigations. Fellow DJ's. They'd do well to look across the pond and see how those who vigorously defended Saville or other DJ's and tried to discredit victims are faring in their careers afterwards.

All that matters to me is that the Gardai who did interview her are convinced she is genuine and that she had valid reasons for not coming forward before now. That's good enough for me.

My take on it is that similar to many other unsolved cases, (eg. Fiona Pender, Mary Boyle) that Philip's family have had a fair idea who the likely murderer is for some time (certainly his father in 2002 seems to indicate as much), but they know that the Gardai do not have sufficient evidence to convict that person. That's usual in cases where a body has never been recovered. Of course any media coverage is bound to be distressing but I'd doubt that there would be any theory or lead revealed they weren't already aware of, or haven't agonised over in the last 30 years.

Flippyfloppy

Kamili wrote: »

I do agree though the timing is convenient, and suspect. That could be on the part of the Gardai too though.
Cooke was well involved with "helping" the force in the 80s, and this begs plenty of questions.

Why is the timing suspect? The woman obviously felt she had to come forward before Cooke died, in the hope of the Cairns family getting some closure by finding where Phillip was laid to rest.
Besides, didn't she come forward already in 2007.

Kamili

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Why is the timing suspect? The woman obviously felt she had to come forward before Cooke died, in the hope of the Cairns family getting some closure by finding where Phillip was laid to rest.
Besides, didn't she come forward already in 2007.

no she didn't two ex partners of a man believed to be a pedophile came forward in 2007.

This woman came forward in 2011 but refused to make a statement in fear of repercussions.

Her Councillor now comes forward (not the woman herself) while Cooke is on his deathbed.

Thats what I find suspect.

Flippyfloppy

Kamili wrote: »

no she didn't two ex partners of a man believed to be a pedophile came forward in 2007.

This woman came forward in 2011 but refused to make a statement in fear of repercussions.

Her Councillor now comes forward (not the woman herself) while Cooke is on his deathbed.

Thats what I find suspect.

What is suspect about it though?

The counsellor just wanted him to confess before dying then? What is it you're implying?

Kamili

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

What is suspect about it though?

The counsellor just wanted him to confess before dying then? What is it you're implying?

He was never going to confess, why would he?

The Councillor couldn't have known he was dying could she? Unless told by someone?

Fleawuss

Kamili wrote: »

no she didn't two ex partners of a man believed to be a pedophile came forward in 2007.

But is that in doubt? From the Indo link of 2007:
"The latest story, which emerged late last year, is that the former partner of a suspected paedophile has come forward to claim that the paedophile abducted and then murdered Philip. Her story was allegedly corroborated by another woman, who was also a former partner of the man in question.
"I can absolutely confirm that that is not true," says Det Sgt Tom Doyle, who for the past 10 years has headed up the investigation into Philip's case. "That report was wildly inaccurate. We are still appealing for people to come forward, people who might be protecting someone, people who might have simply remembered something that they saw that day. There is, of course, the problem that it has been so long ago and people's memories become distorted -- which makes it more and more difficult."

He seems to be saying that they hadn't come forward at all.

Flippyfloppy

Kamili wrote: »

He was never going to confess, why would he?

The Councillor couldn't have known he was dying could she? Unless told by someone?

Off the top of my head: Maybe by the ex victim? Or another ex victim? We don't know what relationship any of these girls are to him. Just one possibility...

Kamili

Fleawuss wrote: »

But is that in doubt? From the Indo link of 2007:
"The latest story, which emerged late last year, is that the former partner of a suspected paedophile has come forward to claim that the paedophile abducted and then murdered Philip. Her story was allegedly corroborated by another woman, who was also a former partner of the man in question.
"I can absolutely confirm that that is not true," says Det Sgt Tom Doyle, who for the past 10 years has headed up the investigation into Philip's case. "That report was wildly inaccurate. We are still appealing for people to come forward, people who might be protecting someone, people who might have simply remembered something that they saw that day. There is, of course, the problem that it has been so long ago and people's memories become distorted -- which makes it more and more difficult."

He seems to be saying that they hadn't come forward at all.

this is also what I find suspect, why didn't they investigate the source of these reports then? or look into that option?

its just odd that what is in that report in 2007 seems to be the case now. After Cooke has died.

Kamili

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Off the top of my head: Maybe by the ex victim? Or another ex victim? We don't know what relationship any of these girls are to him. Just one possibility...

Thats true, but I wouldn't imagine that it would be common knowledge. Apparently the Gardai themselves didn't know he has dying...

Fleawuss

Kamili wrote: »

this is also what I find suspect, why didn't they investigate the source of these reports then? or look into that option?

its just odd that what is in that report in 2007 seems to be the case now. After Cooke has died.

Maybe not. Maybe these witnesses had spoken to Gardai informally but refused to sign statements. Maybe what they said was leaked and the report I quoted was Gardai covering the informal discussions. I remember years ago there was a bit of a trend of things in the media of reports claiming the gardai knew such and such about various cases but evidence was the problem.

Kamili

Fleawuss wrote: »

Maybe not. Maybe these witnesses had spoken to Gardai informally but refused to sign statements. Maybe what they said was leaked and the report I quoted was Gardai covering the informal discussions. I remember years ago there was a bit of a trend of things in the media of reports claiming the gardai knew such and such about various cases but evidence was the problem.

that could be very true, but again as Cooke was allowed show up at crime scenes regularly in the 80s and 90s, you have to wonder.

cerastes

Arsemageddon wrote: »

There is no justifiable reason for keeping quiet about the murder and disappearance of a child.

Read page 1, didnt have tome to read every intervening page and reply.
At first I was thinking, she should have come forward, and you'd think if only she had to deal with Cooke maybe so?
If you prosecute people who are in this situation, no doubt they may have a legitimate defence, maybe she could have reported Cooke and if he was not alone in things, then maybe she could have suffered a reprisal? essentially putting a target on herself or maybe he just used that threat against her, or worse, as someone else said, maybe now that he is dead, it is very convenient for anyone else that may have been involved.

Deleted User wrote: »

And my fear is that if people are prosecuted for withholding information it could make it all the more difficult for witnesses to come forward? I.e someone witnesses a gangland murder

Its terrible for that poor child and his family I am around the same age as he was and was in the same year of school at that time (elsewhere in Dublin), in hindsight I dont recal being scared, but it seems it could have been justifiable to be, as in hindsight I think I recal from time to time behaviour that showed my mother was scared of what could be. Looking back now, I think I had previously imagined people were more naive but I think it was something else, the want to conform and not rock the boat for those that are not aware of anything particularily dangerous seems justified as whistleblowers of anything serious are even now treated with suspicion.
Maybe there was the potential or threat of harm to her, maybe it was possible or maybe it was just a threat to her to keep her silence or else.

LorMal

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Simple really. She had ample time to go to the gardai with a statement. It could have solved this case years ago. Even an anonymous tip off would have helped solve it.

She kept it to herself and put the Cairns family through years of misery and not knowing what happened, unimaginable I would say. I'm sure they spent the last 30 years wondering, looking, searching, not resting for a minute.

Meanwhile she sat on this information all the time. Even an anonymous note to the family, guards, newspaper, etc would have helped.

So that's where the questionable character comes from. She needlessly put the family through hell.

Sorry but you have zero knowledge of her circumstances - none whatsoever. Any critique of her character is pure supposition and potentially damaging. I suggest you wait until you have some evidence to back up your accusation of a flawed character. We know she was a victim. Any idea of the damage that does?

Shurimgreat

LorMal wrote: »

Sorry but you have zero knowledge of her circumstances - none whatsoever. Any critique of her character is pure supposition and potentially damaging. I suggest you wait until you have some evidence to back up your accusation of a flawed character. We know she was a victim. Any idea of the damage that does?

As I said also, everything is supposition.

She might be right, she might be wrong.

At the moment, no-one including you has a clue if she is right or wrong.

So let's see how this investigation progresses, ok?

Fleawuss

Shurimgreat wrote: »

As I said also, everything is supposition.

She might be right, she might be wrong.

At the moment, no-one including you has a clue if she is right or wrong.

So let's see how this investigation progresses, ok?

The thing is it can't. All it will ever be is an allegation because the chief suspect is dead and cannot answer the charges. Even if the remains are found there is no way that the allegations can be turned into accepted fact. All that is left is that Mrs Cairns gets some closure. And that the Garda handling of the case and their relationship with the person named be thoroughly investigated.

Shurimgreat

Going Forward wrote: »

He worked on the case and is happy to admit that it never struck anyone to investigate whether Cooke was involved.

There is no valid reason why it's taking until now to test for DNA links between Cooke and the schoolbag.

There was only a finite number of named people who an "active investigation" had to investigate.

He was one of them.

Spot on.

He was even interviewed about the disappearance a couple times before his death. Why wasn't the DNA testing done then? When he was alive and could have been put on trial.

GSOC do need to look into all this. As several people have said, the dots don't all add up, including the Garda involvement in the case.

Kamili

Shurimgreat wrote: »

So let's see how this investigation progresses, ok?

yes agreed, and stop victim blaming, ok?

Shurimgreat

Shurimgreat wrote: »

As I said also, everything is supposition.

She might be right, she might be wrong.

At the moment, no-one including you has a clue if she is right or wrong.

So let's see how this investigation progresses, ok?

So let's stop blaming a victim then, ok?

Shurimgreat

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Spot on.

He was even interviewed about the disappearance a couple times before his death. Why wasn't the DNA testing done then? When he was alive and could have been put on trial.

GSOC do need to look into all this. As several people have said, the dots don't all add up, including the Garda involvement in the case.

Perhaps gardai didn't have enough evidence when he was alive?
Do you know under what circumstances gardai can take DNA from people without their consent?

Shurimgreat

Kamili wrote: »

yes agreed, and stop victim blaming, ok?

I don't think a lot of people understand the meaning of victim blaming.

In the case of assault it means something along the lines of "they brought it on themselves".

What I did was ask valid questions about the timing and why it wasn't brought forward until now. Like a lot of people I am struggling to understand how this information was suppressed. There might have been valid reasons.

People have jumped on the latest details of this case as if the case has been solved, etc. It hasn't. Until a body has been discovered we are nowhere near solving it. Also corroborating witnesses.

The 30 year old memory of a traumatised 9 year old might not hold up in a court of law, if you were to be objective about it. That's not victim blaming, that's just pointing out the reality.

That said I hope the victim in this case is proven right. Let's see how it pans out. The case is still open in my opinion.

Shurimgreat

bubblypop wrote: »

Perhaps gardai didn't have enough evidence when he was alive?
Do you know under what circumstances gardai can take DNA from people without their consent?

Not certain, but I'd imagine any suspect in a case would have a DNA sample taken. If that didn't happen, it should have, and if the law needs to be changed it should be. DNA has broken open a number of cases and could have done so in this one too. In fact, it might have solved the case years ago.

wokingvoter

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I don't think anything has been solved yet. Until they find a body, everything is speculation and one person's word against another.
The truth is this may never be fully solved.

Either way the woman in this case if of questionable character, so can we believe anything she says?

Why do you say she is of questionable character?

Shurimgreat

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Not certain, but I'd imagine any suspect in a case would have a DNA sample taken. If that didn't happen, it should have, and if the law needs to be changed it should be. DNA has broken open a number of cases and could have done so in this one too. In fact, it might have solved the case years ago.

Nope, gardai can't just run around testing people's DNA.

You suggest changing the law so gardai can DNA test anyone they feel like?

Kamili

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Not certain, but I'd imagine any suspect in a case would have a DNA sample taken. If that didn't happen, it should have, and if the law needs to be changed it should be. DNA has broken open a number of cases and could have done so in this one too. In fact, it might have solved the case years ago.

Not the case, you need the permission of the person to take their DNA. so their samples have not been taken. The law hasn't been changed. The DNA database was only made operational 7 months ago.

So it wasn't possible to compare Cooke's DNA to the DNA on the bag as I presume they didn't have his permission to take it.

I did post previously that once he died they probably sought his next of kin's permission to take a sample of his DNA.

Shurimgreat

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Simple really. She had ample time to go to the gardai with a statement. It could have solved this case years ago. Even an anonymous tip off would have helped solve it.

She kept it to herself and put the Cairns family through years of misery and not knowing what happened, unimaginable I would say. I'm sure they spent the last 30 years wondering, looking, searching, not resting for a minute.

Meanwhile she sat on this information all the time. Even an anonymous note to the family, guards, newspaper, etc would have helped.

So that's where the questionable character comes from. She needlessly put the family through hell.

This is blaming the victim.
You suggest she just sat back & did nothing for 30 years.
You have no idea of her circumstances or what she has gone through.
Given that she is an abuse victim also, she may well be very damaged, she is obviously seeing a counselor atm.

Shurimgreat

bubblypop wrote: »

Nope, gardai can't just run around testing people's DNA.

You suggest changing the law so gardai can DNA test anyone they feel like?

Hmm let me see. Take a swab of a suspect and potentially solve a long running crime.

Or don't take a swab?

Did I say just anyone? Or did I say a suspect? Read back.