Mary Boyle cover up by mainstream media

oranbhoy67

themont85 wrote: »

Has anyone explained this yet?

http://www.donegalnow.com/news/focus-must-remain-on-missing-mary-boyle-says-investigator-who-believes-cover-up-was-neither-political-or-state/104493

yes, the retired sergeant never said in the documentary that he thought it was a gardai cover up

though it was edited to make it look that way imo

so he came out to clarify his thoughts

he still thinks the suspect has never been arrested and should be right away, he just personally think it's more a family covering up than the gards or state

themont85

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

yes, the retired sergeant never said in the documentary that he thought it was a gardai cover up

though it was edited to make it look that way imo

so he came out to clarify his thoughts

he still thinks the suspect has never been arrested and should be right away, he just personally think it's more a family covering up than the gards or state

Which flies in the face of what Gemma O'Doherty is screaming on social media;

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/755052433663926273

It's very hard to take someone like O'Doherty seriously when there is so much conflicting stuff out there. She also tweeted out her support for Gareth O'Callaghan's half baked theory on the disappearance of Phillip Cairns, claiming this theory was an "account" of the cover up (by the establishment)

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/754750781501284352

Cee-Jay-Cee

NIMAN wrote: »

I see Sean McEniff has come out publicily and stated he was definitely not the councillor who phoned the Guards to stop any investigation.

He sort of had to deny it. To say nothing suggests guilt, however denying something is also generally the first reaction of a guilty person. At the end of the day his statement means absolutely nothing to most people as rightly or wrongly they have their minds made up.

A full commission of inquiry is needed to uncover what went on at the time and snce then.

oranbhoy67

themont85 wrote: »

Which flies in the face of what Gemma O'Doherty is screaming on social media;

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/755052433663926273

It's very hard to take someone like O'Doherty seriously when there is so much conflicting stuff out there. She also tweeted out her support for Gareth O'Callaghan's half baked theory on the disappearance of Phillip Cairns, claiming this theory was an "account" of the cover up (by the establishment)

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/754750781501284352

I have made my feelings clear on Gemma on the conspiracy theories thread . This case doesn't begin and end with Gemma, she did well getting the documentary out there, what she might say or do on other cases is neither here nor there.

oranbhoy67

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

He sort of had to deny it. To say nothing suggests guilt, however denying something is also generally the first reaction of a guilty person. At the end of the day his statement means absolutely nothing to most people as rightly or wrongly they have their minds made up.

A full commission of inquiry is needed to uncover what went on at the time and snce then.

Pat the cope denied it. without solicitors or threat of them , unlike McEniff , for the record McEniff is the politician that the two ex gardai said rang the station he can sue me all he wants id love a few hours in court with the man

themont85

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

I have made my feelings clear on Gemma on the conspiracy theories thread . This case doesn't begin and end with Gemma, she did well getting the documentary out there, what she might say or do on other cases is neither here nor there.

I know that it doesn't begin and end with her, but it's the above type of misinformation which will put people off being serious amount the case.

oranbhoy67

themont85 wrote: »

I know that it doesn't begin and end with her, but it's the above type of misinformation which will put people off being serious amount the case.

I happen to agree yes, I'm not sure how authentic the above tweet was from her but yes in general I agree with your sentiments

EICVD

5starpool wrote: »

Who is Mary Boyle?

Susan's Ma?

oranbhoy67

EICVD wrote: »

Susan's Ma?

that was said about 5 times in the first page ya d1ck

I've just spent the morning reading this thread and watching the documentary.
I was unaware of the case previously. I take no shame in admitting that it brought tears to the eyes of this 40 year old man.

It has sickened me to the core. What sort of elected "public representatives" do we have in this country where none of them is willing to seek justice for poor Mary and her family?

If indeed there has been corruption, and I truly believe there has, this whole investigation needs to be thoroughly reinvestigated and those guilty be brought to justice.

Mary, wherever you are I really hope justice will be served one day and peace brought for you and your family.

joe swanson

First off, I would describe gemma o Doherty as a sensationalist self promoter rather than a "journalist "

Her audience appears to be conspiracy theorists and "fight the system that we are bleeding dry" crowd.

In relation to the Mary Boyle caSe, I hope her family get justice and I'm sure that there are dedicated people trying to achieve this.

Going Forward

themont85 wrote: »

Has anyone explained this yet?

http://www.donegalnow.com/news/focus-must-remain-on-missing-mary-boyle-says-investigator-who-believes-cover-up-was-neither-political-or-state/104493

Or this wording here?

http://www.highlandradio.com/2016/07/18/i-never-sought-to-use-political-influence-in-mary-boyle-case-mc-eniff/

themont85

Going Forward wrote: »

Or this wording here?

http://www.highlandradio.com/2016/07/18/i-never-sought-to-use-political-influence-in-mary-boyle-case-mc-eniff/

Sorry this isn't a zero sum game, I'm asking a specific question about this one Gard. The film was edited to make it look like he said there was political intervention, he then came out a few days later to say he doesn't believe there was political intervention, yet GOD says in a tweet a couple of days ago that this Gard has confirmed the identity of the person. Which is it?

oranbhoy67

themont85 wrote: »

Sorry this isn't a zero sum game, I'm asking a specific question about this one Gard. The film was edited to make it look like he said there was political intervention, he then came out a few days later to say he doesn't believe there was political intervention, yet GOD says in a tweet a couple of days ago that this Gard has confirmed the identity of the person. Which is it?

I explained above what the truth is , im Marys cousin, I'm not a big fan of Gemma, shes done some good work on our case I cant deny it but I'm not a big fan , i wish people could stop equating Gemma to this case she has made a documentary about it , it contains what I believe is the core truth

Going Forward

themont85 wrote: »

Sorry this isn't a zero sum game, I'm asking a specific question about this one Gard. The film was edited to make it look like he said there was political intervention, he then came out a few days later to say he doesn't believe there was political intervention, yet GOD says in a tweet a couple of days ago that this Gard has confirmed the identity of the person. Which is it?

The question would be best addressed to the Gard(sic) or GOD herself then.

:rolleyes:

Going Forward

joe swanson wrote: »

First off, I would describe gemma o Doherty as a sensationalist self promoter rather than a "journalist "

Her audience appears to be conspiracy theorists and "fight the system that we are bleeding dry" crowd.

In relation to the Mary Boyle caSe, I hope her family get justice and I'm sure that there are dedicated people trying to achieve this.

A dismissal of O'Doherty, and her "audience", but a show of confidence in the "dedicated people" who choose to entertain a narrative that is evident by their continuing to publish age progressed sketches of the missing child, 39 years later.

A narrative.

A narative supplied to them by the last person known to have seen her alive.

FrancieBrady

joe swanson wrote: »

First off, I would describe gemma o Doherty as a sensationalist self promoter rather than a "journalist "

Her audience appears to be conspiracy theorists and "fight the system that we are bleeding dry" crowd.

In relation to the Mary Boyle caSe, I hope her family get justice and I'm sure that there are dedicated people trying to achieve this.

Did you feel the same when the whistleblowers in the Gardai first spoke? Because that is exactly how those who sought to deny what they were saying reacted. Assassinate the characters of those seeking inquiry.

joe swanson

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did you feel the same when the whistleblowers in the Gardai first spoke? Because that is exactly how those who sought to deny what they were saying reacted. Assassinate the characters of those seeking inquiry.

I'm not seeking to deny anything. I don't know what this has got to do with any recent garda whistleblower controversy. If there was wrong doing , absolutely get it sorted. I have a sneaking suspicion though that there are a lot of people shouting about this case to further their own agendas . Does this poor family not have enough heartache to go through aswell as being jumped upon by the usual rent a mob

joe swanson

Going Forward wrote: »

A dismissal of O'Doherty, and her "audience", but a show of confidence in the "dedicated people" who choose to entertain a narrative that is evident by their continuing to publish age progressed sketches of the missing child, 39 years later.

A narrative.

A narative supplied to them by the last person known to have seen her alive.

I hope the truth is established as would any right minded person. Don't really see what point your trying to make.

And as for criticizing Doherty, am I not allowed. It's an opinion. People can disagree with me if they wish. I happen to think she is a poor "journalist " , I think that's a separate issue to the case at hand

Going Forward

joe swanson wrote: »

I hope the truth is established as would any right minded person. Don't really see what point your trying to make.

And as for criticizing Doherty, am I not allowed. It's an opinion. People can disagree with me if they wish. I happen to think she is a poor "journalist " , I think that's a separate issue to the case at hand

You steer well clear of any criticism or comment on the "investigation", but describe those involved as "dedicated".

Would you not agree that O'Doherty is similarly dedicated?

Notwithstanding the possibility that her dedication may wane, what with it not being funded from the public purse would you prefer if she had NO interest in it, and just let the "dedicated" people get on with their job for another 39 years??

Or is there an issue there, as there is with your interpretation of "her audience"?

Best get it off your chest if there is.

joe swanson

Going Forward wrote: »

You steer well clear of any criticism or comment on the "investigation", but describe those involved as "dedicated".

Would you not agree that O'Doherty is similarly dedicated?

Notwithstanding the possibility that her dedication may wane, what with it not being funded from the public purse would you prefer if she had NO interest in it, and just let the "dedicated" people get on with their job for another 39 years??

Or is there an issue there, as there is with your interpretation of "her audience"?

Best get it off your chest if there is.

Its my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I think she may be very dedicated - to increasing her own profile. As iv said, I really hope it's not being used as issue of the day by the usual rent a mob at the expense of this poor family.
It's that simple, your trying to turn an opinion into something more.

FrancieBrady

joe swanson wrote: »

I'm not seeking to deny anything. I don't know what this has got to do with any recent garda whistleblower controversy. If there was wrong doing , absolutely get it sorted. I have a sneaking suspicion though that there are a lot of people shouting about this case to further their own agendas . Does this poor family not have enough heartache to go through aswell as being jumped upon by the usual rent a mob

Sneaky suspicion seeks to deflect from what may have been a horrible murder and a political intervention to protect the killer. Dear lord!

oranbhoy67

joe swanson wrote: »

Its my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I think she may be very dedicated - to increasing her own profile. As iv said, I really hope it's not being used as issue of the day by the usual rent a mob at the expense of this poor family.
It's that simple, your trying to turn an opinion into something more.

you are getting a bit of a hard time but you have valid points here and it is something on which we are determined wont happen on both fronts

anything else or anyone else attaching themselves to this case dont and wont take away from the core truth of this Documentary which is what we are focusing on

Going Forward

joe swanson wrote: »

Its my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I think she may be very dedicated - to increasing her own profile. As iv said, I really hope it's not being used as issue of the day by the usual rent a mob at the expense of this poor family.

I agree with that bit 100%.

oranbhoy67

Going Forward wrote: »

I agree with that bit 100%.

That is something we are quite determined, albeit slightly powerless ATM to stop happening , the march next Saturday has our support but is not being run by us or anyone in our campaign , we appreciate their efforts and just hope they can keep it dignified like the march we had up here last week.

Having chatted to some of the organisers I'm hopeful that they understand this , we need all the support we can muster at the moment. and are appreciative off it but the main way we want to conduct this campaign is with dignity & respect, & hopefully anything carried out in Marys name can adhere to this.

Going Forward

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

That is something we are quite determined, albeit slightly powerless ATM to stop happening , the march next Saturday has our support but is not being run by us or anyone in our campaign , we appreciate their efforts and just hope they can keep it dignified like the march we had up here last week.

Having chatted to some of the organisers I'm hopeful that they understand this , we need all the support we can muster at the moment. and are appreciative off it but the main way we want to conduct this campaign is with dignity & respect, & hopefully anything carried out in Marys name can adhere to this.

Hopefully it'll be fine

The way for them to prove they are 100% sincere is by they themselves ensuring that their interests in any other campaign, such as water charges is completely off the agenda and invisible for this march.

If not they are using your campaign to further theirs.

Mary Boyle and water charges will be linked. Her image may have their logo on it.

They'll have hijacked her memory.

Now there's little you can control in any of that.

And maybe it will never happen. Maybe I am being paranoid.

But to keep yourself above and out of all of that, now is the time to be clear that whilst you welcome their support you don't endorse any other supporters' campaigns for anything else.

This is yours to say, whether you've organised it or not unfortunately.

Because some smart alec is going to ask you sooner or later and try to make news out of your views on other people's various agendas.

You sort that out now and your sorted on that from day one.

It's that simple IMO.

AND as always I wish you the best of luck.

Now by all means tell me to get lost:)

oranbhoy67

Going Forward wrote: »

Hopefully it'll be fine

The way for them to prove they are 100% sincere is by they themselves ensuring that their interests in any other campaign, such as water charges is completely off the agenda and invisible for this march.

If not they are using your campaign to further theirs.

Mary Boyle and water charges will be linked. Her image may have their logo on it.

They'll have hijacked her memory.

Now there's little you can control in any of that.

And maybe it will never happen. Maybe I am being paranoid.

But to keep yourself above and out of all of that, now is the time to be clear that whilst you welcome their support you don't endorse any other supporters' campaigns for anything else.

This is yours to say, whether you've organised it or not unfortunately.

Because some smart alec is going to ask you sooner or later and try to make news out of your views on other people's various agendas.

You sort that out now and your sorted on that from day one.

It's that simple IMO.

AND as always I wish you the best of luck.

Now by all means tell me to get lost:)

Thank you for you advice and i will actually find out what the scenario is

ill always welcome advice on this matter , its kind of a unique one

ShowMeTheCash

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Ted111 wrote: »

Why don't you answer the question? Who do you say is conspiring in this case.

Ted, do you know the definition of a conspiracy theory?

In a conspiracy theory, the 'conspiring' is the covert actions of individuals in positions of authority.

I don't believe anybody is conspiring, but some people have a paranoid belief that there is a conspiracy, i.e. people formerly or presently in authority (Gardai and politicians) are conspiring to cover-up the abduction of a girl.

I'd have more tolerance for this belief if the same people weren't spouting the exact same rubbish about other cases.

K-9 wrote: »

They fcuked up the investigation at the very least.

That's arguable, but that's not the crux of the theory.

I am talking about the widespread belief of political/judicial interference in a number of cases pursued by Gemma O' Doherty, including Fr Molloy's murder and the missing girl in this case.

Gemma O'Doherty has an axe to grind with the Gardai. She had no real interest in these cases until she lost her job. And there are plenty of people on lowest-common-denominator websites like thejournal.ie who are only too happy to believe in widespread conspiracies.

Just reading through this thread and I feel the need to come back to the views of Tyrant.

So initially you try and down play the documentary I think perhaps before watching? Or perhaps you have watched it? Then you try and defend a position by arguing over the definition of a "conspiracy theory".
You do not believe there is any conspiracy but make use of the word paranoid to describe individuals that do.
You then quickly shift focus on the actual documentary to your opinion of Gemma O'Doherty and talk about her axe to grind with the Gardai...

I then see you kind of went quiet for the rest of the thread which is of no wonder.

So you do not warrant anything in the documentary?
You do not warrant that the two gardai at the time of the investigation state clearly they where told by a prominent political figure to "look elsewhere" whilst interviewing a suspect which both gardai now and continue to believe is the person responsible for the disappearance of Mary Boyle??

I find you comment on this matter shocking I can only guess you are one of two things, someone with connection to the "establishment" i.e. political party or perhaps the gardai or maybe something less sinister and something that is rampant is this country an entrenched fool!

Gemma O'Doherty was let go from a publication for her work around the gardai points scandal which was a complete embarrassment to the gardai. She then sued said publication and rightly so.

Corruption in Ireland is not paranoid delusion, the establishment in any society should always be questioned.
Just take a look at the tax fiasco with apple at the moment!

One of the problems in Ireland is the press in that it is essentially monopolised, there are not enough people like Gemma who are willing to question the establishment and hold people to account.

I think your attempt to undermine the work Gemma has done specifically in this documentary speaks more to your own character and views, which I place using your own words as "lowest-common-denominator" of thinking!

Maybe you think gardai should be allowed to operate outside the law?
Maybe you think politicians should be allowed to operate to their own benefit and not the benefit of the state and it's constituents?
Maybe you think it is OK that a 6 year old girl disappears and that political influences where allowed to interfere with the investigation?

Cee-Jay-Cee

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Just reading through this thread and I feel the need to come back to the views of Tyrant.

So initially you try and down play the documentary I think perhaps before watching? Or perhaps you have watched it? Then you try and defend a position by arguing over the definition of a "conspiracy theory".
You do not believe there is any conspiracy but make use of the word paranoid to describe individuals that do.
You then quickly shift focus on the actual documentary to your opinion of Gemma O'Doherty and talk about her axe to grind with the Gardai...

I then see you kind of went quiet for the rest of the thread which is of no wonder.

So you do not warrant anything in the documentary?
You do not warrant that the two gardai at the time of the investigation state clearly they where told by a prominent political figure to "look elsewhere" whilst interviewing a suspect which both gardai now and continue to believe is the person responsible for the disappearance of Mary Boyle??

I find you comment on this matter shocking I can only guess you are one of two things, someone with connection to the "establishment" i.e. political party or perhaps the gardai or maybe something less sinister and something that is rampant is this country an entrenched fool!

Gemma O'Doherty was let go from a publication for her work around the gardai points scandal which was a complete embarrassment to the gardai. She then sued said publication and rightly so.

Corruption in Ireland is not paranoid delusion, the establishment in any society should always be questioned.
Just take a look at the tax fiasco with apple at the moment!

One of the problems in Ireland is the press in that it is essentially monopolised, there are not enough people like Gemma who are willing to question the establishment and hold people to account.

I think your attempt to undermine the work Gemma has done specifically in this documentary speaks more to your own character and views, which I place using your own words as "lowest-common-denominator" of thinking!

Maybe you think gardai should be allowed to operate outside the law?
Maybe you think politicians should be allowed to operate to their own benefit and not the benefit of the state and it's constituents?
Maybe you think it is OK that a 6 year old girl disappears and that political influences where allowed to interfere with the investigation?

I agree with everything you say however I do Believe Gemma O'Doherty is using this story for her own agenda. She pulsar care less about Mary Boyle or her family, this is about her getting revenge and she doesn't care who she takes along with her for the ride.

She tweeted last week that the commissioner sent to Gardai to her door. She ever stated what they questioned or spoke to her about it was more amazed that they managed to find out where she lived which is an utterly thing for an investigative journalist to come out with. Is she so detached from reality that she doesn't think the Gardai could manage to find out her address? Is this not something she does herself all the time when investigating stories?

I fully agree that there a lot lot of questions to be answered in relation to Mary Boyle but I think Gemma's approach is wrong. She's using the plight of Mary Boyles family for her own agenda.

Dolbert

^She did say what they wanted to speak to her about. It was to do with allegations she had made regarding a cover-up of the murder of Raonaid Murray.