The Kerry Babies Case

Day Lewin

The main purpose of the investigation was to find out who committed the brutal murder of the baby found on a beach.
Keep yer eyes on the prize.
This would have been true in any country of the world.
Glib soundbite blamings of "Irishness" "the church" the state" etc are only distracting clichés.

The guards naturally looked for someone who had recently given birth with no child to show for it, and they found one: naturally they had to look into that: it would have been grossly negligent NOT to.

They should then have dropped that angle when it clearly wasn't her.

We don't actually know what direction the investigation took subsequently - if they looked in every county hospital in Ireland, every GP, every gossipy neighbour etc etc;

Unfortunately it looks as if having found a nearly-fit, they insisted on stopping there and cramming it on, trying to make it fit.
Did they ever really look elsewhere after that?

We can speculate about the first baby - the murdered one - I would guess incest, and a guilty parent: but it's only a guess.

Pawwed Rig

Summer wind wrote: »

There was obviously a tremendous rage in whoever killed poor little baby John. How could anybody hate a little baby so much. I couldn't even imagine it. Such a very sad case.

The baby's grave has been vandalised on numerous occasions over the years too.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/destruction-of-kerry-baby-s-grave-investigated-1.984301

Guy:Incognito

What was the deal with the child the family buried on their land? Was that common practice or What? It seems to get a passing mention on the news like it was an incidental thing.

dense

mariaalice wrote: »

Most likely he is arrogant combined with an always right personality its become ingrained in him that he and his colleges were correct and he cant let it go.

May be time to start checking the quality of the evidence in other cases this guy worked on.

SEPT 23 1989

Another family wronged by the state is top of the news abortion debate next no mention of this case

Aineoil

Two very tragic cases. While the apology to Joanna Hayes was way overdue by the gardaí, I think that she has to relive again what

happened 33 years ago. I think the woman has suffered enough.

One eyed Jack

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What was the deal with the child the family buried on their land? Was that common practice or What? It seems to get a passing mention on the news like it was an incidental thing.

I don't imagine it actually was common practice, but it was incidental in light of the fact that it was then known that Ms. Hayes was not the mother of the baby that had been found on the beach.

skylight1987

this lady illegally buried her baby on her land .she wouldn't even give him the decency of a proper burial. didn't even register a name .yes she was wronged by the gardai in relation to the other baby but what she did to her own flesh and blood was cruel .no one bothers to mention this now though .the only people I feel sorry for are both babies .

igCorcaigh

skylight1987 wrote: »

this lady illegally buried her baby on her land .she wouldn't even give him the decency of a proper burial. didn't even register a name .yes she was wronged by the gardai in relation to the other baby but what she did to her own flesh and blood was cruel .no one bothers to mention this now though .the only people I feel sorry for are both babies .

Why did she do that? Honest question. I've heard talk about this case in reference to 'darker times', was there something to do with the role of the RCC? I don't know much about the case at all. I do remember the coverage of the story back then, but I was a kid.

igCorcaigh

skylight1987 wrote: »

this lady illegally buried her baby on her land .she wouldn't even give him the decency of a proper burial. didn't even register a name .yes she was wronged by the gardai in relation to the other baby but what she did to her own flesh and blood was cruel .no one bothers to mention this now though .the only people I feel sorry for are both babies .

What does it matter though? It was her baby, she could bury the child anywhere she wanted. I just wonder why she did what she did.

skylight1987

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Why did she do that? Honest question. I've heard talk about this case in reference to 'darker times', was there something to do with the role of the RCC? I don't know much about the case at all. I do remember the coverage of the story back then, but I was a kid.

I don't know why she did it but did it she did .cold fish that woman

Aineoil

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Why did she do that? Honest question. I've heard talk about this case in reference to 'darker times', was there something to do with the role of the RCC? I don't know much about the case at all. I do remember the coverage of the story back then, but I was a kid.

I was 18 when it all happened. I am from Kerry hence my interest. We didn't

have twitter or facebook or any other social media back then but we had the local

gossips who added the most spurious allegations to each tragic event.

igCorcaigh

Aineoil wrote: »

I was 18 when it all happened. I am from Kerry hence my interest. We didn't

have twitter or facebook or any other social media back then but we had the local

gossips who added the most spurious allegations to each tragic event.

Oh I'd say. Do you know why she did what she did?

RustyNut

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Why did she do that? Honest question. I've heard talk about this case in reference to 'darker times', was there something to do with the role of the RCC? I don't know much about the case at all. I do remember the coverage of the story back then, but I was a kid.

Possibly fear of being enslaved for the rest of her life in a magdalene laundry. It was the beginning of the end of that shameful time in our history but would still have been a real fear in those days.

One eyed Jack

igCorcaigh wrote: »

What does it matter though? It was her baby, she could bury the child anywhere she wanted. I just wonder why she did what she did.

She couldn't though, nobody can, as there are guidelines for burials on the grounds of whether or not the burial may present a risk to public health.

As to why she did what she did, I don't know any specific reason either, but I assume the most reasonable explanation is that she was distraught and grieving at the time and couldn't be thought to have been thinking rationally.

Silentcorner

RustyNut wrote: »

Possibly fear of being enslaved for the rest of her life in a magdalene laundry. It was the beginning of the end of that shameful time in our history but would still have been a real fear in those days.

In a repressed rural part of an island do not underestimate the power "our betters" had at their disposal back then...and the fear that it imposed....

igCorcaigh

Was there not a case of a woman who died giving birth, in a graveyard I think? I remember that. Different story I guess.

up for anything

skylight1987 wrote: »

this lady illegally buried her baby on her land .she wouldn't even give him the decency of a proper burial. didn't even register a name .yes she was wronged by the gardai in relation to the other baby but what she did to her own flesh and blood was cruel .no one bothers to mention this now though .the only people I feel sorry for are both babies .

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Why did she do that? Honest question. I've heard talk about this case in reference to 'darker times', was there something to do with the role of the RCC? I don't know much about the case at all. I do remember the coverage of the story back then, but I was a kid.

skylight1987 wrote: »

I don't know why she did it but did it she did .cold fish that woman

You had to be there!

Having a baby out of wedlock back then was probably one of the worst things that could happen to a woman. Joanne Hayes while still unmarried had given birth to second baby who was born dead. At a guess I would say she was traumatised by hiding the pregnancy, traumatised by probably giving birth outside and in secret with the memory of Ann Lovett's death only two months previously fresh in her mind and the baby was dead so a proper burial wasn't first and foremost in her mind I would imagine. As for registering a name... seriously you have absolutely no idea of what it was like back then.

I could tell you stories for an hour about so many different girls and women back then and their pregnancies and deliveries and babies, both secret and known about, out of wedlock. I could tell you stories about the difficulty of getting any sort of contraception. I could tell you how at at the age of 24 I fell pregnant due to a contraception ****-up and how relieved I was to be newly living and working in London when it happened and to have access to a pregnancy termination so that I could go home and hold my head up, strange and alien as that sounds to me now. Jesus, you plainly have no idea of the fear that could run through a person and the panic that would take hold of them when the rabbit died.

Aineoil

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Oh I'd say. Do you know why she did what she did?

Joanne had an affair with Jerry Locke, a married man. She got pregnant and gave birth to the baby on the family farm. The family buried the baby on the farm in secret. Not the wisest thing to do. The state pathologist at the time was Dr John Harbison. He couldn't determine the cause of the death of Joanna's baby

Remember this was 1984 when it happened.... very different Ireland than today.
Having an affair with a married man was unthinkable and to have baby out of
wedlock was a scandal that was food for the gossips for months never mind the affair.

Silentcorner

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Was there not a case of a woman who died giving birth, in a graveyard I think? I remember that. Different story I guess.

Anne Lovett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Lovett

Happened around the same time....

Also around the same time was the Moving Statues madness...we live on a strange island all the same...

I think they are all related...as in, this decade was the point where the most social change/debate took place....the start of the rapid decline of the church...

up for anything

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Was there not a case of a woman who died giving birth, in a graveyard I think? I remember that. Different story I guess.

Not a woman but a schoolgirl - died giving birth on her own, in terror, in a cold graveyard.

Ann Lovett

One eyed Jack

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Was there not a case of a woman who died giving birth, in a graveyard I think? I remember that. Different story I guess.

You might be thinking of the case of Ann Lovett -

Tuesday, 31 January 1984 was a cold, wet, winter's day in Granard, County Longford. That afternoon, the fifteen-year-old school girl left her Cnoc Mhuire Secondary School and made her way to a Grotto dedicated to the Virgin Mary at the top of her small hometown in the Irish midlands. It was here beneath the statue of Our Lady, that she gave birth, alone, to her infant son.

igCorcaigh

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You might be thinking of the case of Ann Lovett -

Tuesday, 31 January 1984 was a cold, wet, winter's day in Granard, County Longford. That afternoon, the fifteen-year-old school girl left her Cnoc Mhuire Secondary School and made her way to a Grotto dedicated to the Virgin Mary at the top of her small hometown in the Irish midlands. It was here beneath the statue of Our Lady, that she gave birth, alone, to her infant son.

"At around 4 pm that day some children on their way home from school saw Ann's schoolbag on the ground and discovered her lying in the Grotto. They alerted a passing farmer who rushed to the nearby priest's house to inform him of the chilling discovery of Ann and her already deceased baby in the adjacent grotto. The priest's response to his request for help was; "It's a doctor you need"."

Indeed.

Aineoil

The Kerry Babies and Ann Lovatt - Ireland of 1984, we have nothing to be proud of.

dense

igCorcaigh wrote: »

It was her baby, she could bury the child anywhere she wanted.

Not so.

Beechwoodspark

Anyone who has had to endure Gerry O’Carroll’s trashy and often plain delusional evening herald columns or indeed his regular appearances on RTÉ will not be surprised by his pig ignorant comments today.

He is not merely an ignorant boastful buffoon with a huge sense of self importance but the frightening thing is this guy was/is held up as a shining exemplar of the Gardaí over the years.

dense

Aineoil wrote: »

The Kerry Babies and Ann Lovatt - Ireland of 1984, we have nothing to be proud of.

Their "partners" don't have much to be proud of either.

Aineoil

dense wrote: »

Their "partners" don't have much to be proud of either.

I agree but partners don't often know.

jelutong

Was Sean Doherty Minister for Justice at the time? Another beauty.

theoneeyedman

RustyNut wrote: »

Two things stand out for me about this.

The first is the mealy mouth apology from the guards. It should have been delivered publicly by the commissioner (acting), not some local kerry lad.

The second is the timing. The guards have been asked since the 90's to do dna analysis in this case but low and behold it all becomes public the week that the dirt is due to be aired at the Charlton Tribunal. Hardly a coincidence, good deflection. As Judge Peter Smithwic found, the most important thing to the guards is to protect the reputation of the guards above all else.

The timing is very obvious.
This issue, and by extension Ms Hayes, are being used to set the mood music around.yhe repeal the 8th discussion. Several pro choice voices have already brought up the case, along with the Ann Lovett tragedy, with the suggestion being 'look, if you're against abortion, you're harking back to an Ireland of the Kerry babies, Magdalen laundries etc.'... At no point since 1985 has official Ireland given two fvcks about righting this wrong, until now when it serves it's purpose. It's sickening to be honest.

I'm not anti-abortion BTW, I just hate being fed a pile of sh1te and being expected to swallow it.

RustyNut

Aineoil wrote: »

The Kerry Babies and Ann Lovatt - Ireland of 1984, we have nothing to be proud of.

I was discussing these cases earlier the car with two of the Nut teenagers and trying to explain what society was like back then.

Contraception was not generally available, abortion illegal, homosexual practice was illegal, getting pregnant outside wedlock could see a girl shipped off to the nuns, never to be seen again. All thanks to the power and influence of the catholic church.

goose2005

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't think that it's required to register a stillbirth.

goose2005

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Both babies murdered by society’s foolish following of Catholic Church at the time.
Let it go.....we are all guilty.

What? We have no idea how or why the Cahirsiveen baby was murdered / died

goose2005

mariaalice wrote: »

Most likely he is arrogant combined with an always right personality its become ingrained in him that he and his colleges were correct and he cant let it go.

sunk cost fallacy

One eyed Jack

RustyNut wrote: »

I was discussing these cases earlier the car with two of the Nut teenagers and trying to explain what society was like back then.

Contraception was not generally available, abortion illegal, homosexual practice was illegal, getting pregnant outside wedlock could see a girl shipped off to the nuns, never to be seen again. All thanks to the power and influence of the catholic church.

Or rather due to the prevailing social morality at the time that was represented by the Catholic Church?

In the last number of decades since the 80's, the influence of being seen to be a member of the Catholic Church has fallen away significantly, and yet the prevailing social morality still exists, and for a large number of people in Irish society, the Catholic Church simply isn't needed to represent their wanting to impose their own morals on Irish society at large.

Nowadays the authoritarian influence used to represent and justify the prevailing social morality is simply identity politics.

splinter65

RustyNut wrote: »

I was discussing these cases earlier the car with two of the Nut teenagers and trying to explain what society was like back then.

Contraception was not generally available, abortion illegal, homosexual practice was illegal, getting pregnant outside wedlock could see a girl shipped off to the nuns, never to be seen again. All thanks to the power and influence of the catholic church.

I was 19 in a rural town in Ireland in 1984.
The first female chemist opened a pharmacy in the town and put a display of Durex condoms on the counter. She was also the first divorced person anyone had ever met.
Within weeks all the other chemists were selling condoms, they just didn’t display them .
I did my LC in 1982. Two girls got pregnant in 5th year. Both took a year out. Both returned with their babies, and went back to school, an all girls school.
Unbelievably, they came back and the pregnancies were never mentioned.
There was as much sex going on then as there is now.
I had plenty of sex.
One later gave her baby up for adoption under pressure from her mother who insisted that she’d never get a husband, a fate worse then death.
Everyone went to mass, automatically , every Sunday.
That summer was lovely and sunny, the music was great, good times.

Buford T. Justice XIX

splinter65 wrote: »

I was 19 in a rural town in Ireland in 1984.
The first female chemist opened a pharmacy in the town and put a display of Durex condoms on the counter. She was also the first divorced person anyone had ever met.
Within weeks all the other chemists were selling condoms, they just didn’t display them .
I did my LC in 1982. Two girls got pregnant in 5th year. Both took a year out. Both returned with their babies, and went back to school, an all girls school.
Unbelievably, they came back and the pregnancies were never mentioned.
There was as much sex going on then as there is now.
I had plenty of sex.
One later gave her baby up for adoption under pressure from her mother who insisted that she’d never get a husband, a fate worse then death.
Everyone went to mass, automatically , every Sunday.
That summer was lovely and sunny, the music was great, good times.

Yeah, that's a pretty fair reflection of the 1980s in Ireland.

Day Lewin

Yes...1984 wasn't the same as the nineteenth century or the 1920s. Really, it wasn't.

There are lots and lots of places in the world, which have nothing to do with churches at all, where it still would be dubious to have kids to a married man from an ongoing local affair. And the baby was stillborn, so....

Meanwhile, some other place, a criminal rapist (guessing here) was horrified that his young daughter had a baby to reveal the horrible truth...quick, murder that child! *VIOLENCE*

Granted you're supposed to declare births and dispose of bodies decently: but can't everyone see the difference between the two situations?

jelutong

jelutong wrote: »

Was Sean Doherty Minister for Justice at the time? Another beauty.

No, Michael Noonan FG...

splinter65

Day Lewin wrote: »

Yes...1984 wasn't the same as the nineteenth century or the 1920s. Really, it wasn't.

There are lots and lots of places in the world, which have nothing to do with churches at all, where it still would be dubious to have kids to a married man from an ongoing local affair. And the baby was stillborn, so....

Meanwhile, some other place, a criminal rapist (guessing here) was horrified that his young daughter had a baby to reveal the horrible truth...quick, murder that child! *VIOLENCE*

Granted you're supposed to declare births and dispose of bodies decently: but can't everyone see the difference between the two situations?

There are African villages where if a girl is found to be pregnant to someone else’s man that girl has to walk off into the wild, with nothing, and never be seen or heard of again.

splinter65

In 1978 when I was 13, I clearly recall my 11 year old brother sitting up to the Sunday dinner table to announce that his friends 19 year old sister was having a baby.
An argument quickly ensued between us because I absolutely knew that she simply couldn’t be pregnant because you can’t physically become pregnant unless you are married.
And my poor mortified mother trying to shut us up.
And on your wedding night you wake up in the morning and you have grown breasts. Overnight. Fact.

pawdee

I wonder where Jeremiah Locke is and what he's up to these days?

Day Lewin

splinter65 wrote: »

And on your wedding night you wake up in the morning and you have grown breasts. Overnight. Fact.

The poet Ovid mentioned that bit of folklore - even way back in Ancient Rome...
the theory that when a girl has sex for the first time her breasts are slightly larger the next morning.

-- never thought of testing it!

Ralf and Florian

goose2005 wrote: »

What? We have no idea how or why the Cahirsiveen baby was murdered / died

How yes. Stabbed nearly 30 times. Why is not so clear.

brooke 2

Laois_Man wrote: »

Really, all this hullabaloo over an apolagy - I get the distinct feeling that Joanne Hayes would rather have done without any apolagy than it be all over the news again.

I also see in the news this morning, Gerry O'Carroll, one of the original investigating detectives, in an interview with The Kerryman newspaper this week, is still not accepting the DNA results, wants the bodies of both babies exhumed and further DNA profiling carried out by a foreign police force and only then will he accept that Joanne Hayes is not the mother of birth babies. Absolute tool-bag!

She agreed to accept the apology if she could be left in peace.

It appears that Gerry Carroll is the only one who is persisting with the ridiculous twins theory. Wouldn't you think he would just shut up at this
stage and stop making a fool out of himself? :mad:

brooke 2

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

She said the baby was stillborn. Harbison did not arrive at any definite conclusion, IIRC.

brooke 2

splinter65 wrote: »

Even today when approached by The Kerryman, even in the face of the DNA results he insists that he is right, that J Hayes was the mother of twins by 2 different married men and that she is the mother of stabbed baby John.
He wants Scotland Yard to investigate.

He is a deluded fool.

brooke 2

mariaalice wrote: »

That retired Garda who still believes she was the mother of the two babies despite all the evidence to the contrary what on earth is going on there he is completely delusional.

I honestly don't know why anybody even listens to him. Everybody knows at this stage that he sounds like a crackpot. :mad:

brooke 2

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

In any other country that fcuking headcase would be now stripped of his pension and jailed over his behaviour

Absolutely!

iguana

Deleted User wrote: »

Joanne’s baby was stillborn.

Joanne's baby was stillborn, which is something that can still happen today even with the best healthcare possible. However if Joanne's second pregnancy had happened during an era where unmarried pregnancy is mostly unremarkable, she would almost certainly have availed of medical care all the way through. If the baby had a heart defect, if he was breach or back to back and became immobile during second stage labour, if his cord was wrapped around his neck, if he swallowed meconium and went into distress, Joanne's medical care providers would have had a good chance of realising there was a problem and been able to take steps to save him. We don't know that he would have definitely survived in a more liberal society but we do know that there are numerous potential causes of stillbirth that, even in the mid-80s, would have been preventable if she was under the care of a midwife and/or hospital. But the world she lived in, heavily influenced by the church, made her feel unable to avail of that care. So in all likelihood the RCC has the blood of baby Hayes on it's (metaphorical) hands.