Philip Cairns' Murder finally confirmed?

15-06-2016 04:41PM

As a 15 year old schoolboy in 1952, Cooke damaged the O'Connell Monument in Glasnevin Cemetery with a homemade bomb.

In 1957, was sentenced to five years imprisonment for shooting at Gardai after being caught trying to steal petrol from a petrol station near Bray. For the defence, Dr. Mary P. Mulvany, said the accused “suffered from meningitis, was of superior intelligence, was impulsive, and fond of approbation, and though not suffering from mental disease, was not completely stable and should receive prolonged psychological treatment.”

In 1965, he was threatened by a friend in Ballyfermot with a gun. Cooke had previously gone shooting with this friend in the Dublin Mountains.

In 1986, he was organised the firebomb attack of a former employee who was seen courting his ex. girlfriend/victim and father of his child.

Full article :

https://comeheretome.com/2016/06/15/eamonn-cooke-archive-mentions/

Allyall · 15-06-2016 05:09PM

^^
And when found guilty, the Judge let him off with a suspended 4 year sentence so that he could continue to earn £100,000 (in 1986) and keep his illegal radio station open (and continue to be a threat to the rest of the Irish public).

Also worth noting, she wasn't his ex "girlfriend". She was another victim of his obsession.

Samaris · 15-06-2016 05:33PM

Allyall wrote: »

^^
And when found guilty, the Judge let him off with a suspended 4 year sentence so that he could continue to earn £100,000 (in 1986) and keep his illegal radio station open (and continue to be a threat to the rest of the Irish public).

Also worth noting, she wasn't his ex "girlfriend". She was another victim of his obsession.

The only strange thing that I don't get about it all is -that-. Why is his continuing to run an -illegal- radio station even a consideration for letting him off committing ARSON on someone's house? O.O

I think my previous post does actually cover a lot of the points people are suspicious of regarding the timing.

No, she probably wouldn't have come forward if she thought he was to be released next year. Why? Because she would probably not be believed (see this thread for details), except by the highly dangerous man she possibly saw murder a young boy, plus abused her. He'd definitely believe her and could well have gone out of his way to destroy her life again. A man with three accomplices willing to burn down the house of a man guilty of nothing but seeing a woman that Cooke felt he "owned", because he had abused her as a young girl and got her pregnant with his child.* That part was not known when he was sentenced, mind, but I have no doubt the woman knew, or at least suspected that was the reason. And she certainly would have known that after the trial that actually landed him in prison for the ten years.

*-That- in itself shows the sort of man Cooke was, whether or not he killed Philip Cairns. Not just a violent, child-abusing thug (although that's bad enough), but someone who feels that he has a -right- to do so, and a -right- to own the lives of his victims. And he was very good at it. The child people keep saying had to be removed from the country to protect her from him are picking up the wrong end of the stick a bit. The reason she was removed from the country was because she believed she loved him and he loved her. This is a child, remember. She was as obsessed with him in her more innocent way as he was with her, because he was a very manipulative swine.

Degringola · 15-06-2016 05:46PM

November 11, 2007: It is reported that a prime suspect into Philip’s death – described as in his 60s, from the Rathfarnham area, and a suspected paedophile – is to be arrested within days. The man is described as having been first questioned after the 13 year old went missing but no evidence as to his guilt was then available.
(From the Broadsheet article)

Man to be arrested 'within days' back in 2007, and it presumably wasn't Cooke or the article would surely have named him as the Rathfarnham paedophile in question.

So what on earth happened there? They had no evidence to arrest this prime suspect at the time of Philip's disappearance, but obviously must have had something on him by 2007. But this was not followed up in the article, or am I missing something?

Just my thoughts, as far as I can tell from reading about him, Cooke's penchant was for girls, not boys. If he did kill Philip, it was to cover for someone else/others.

brooke 2 · 15-06-2016 05:47PM

Allyall wrote: »

^^
And when found guilty, the Judge let him off with a suspended 4 year sentence so that he could continue to earn £100,000 (in 1986) and keep his illegal radio station open (and continue to be a threat to the rest of the Irish public).

Also worth noting, she wasn't his ex "girlfriend". She was another victim of his obsession.

And that judge was Frank Roe who presided in the Fr. Niall Molloy case,
in which the defendant, a friend of his!!, walked free. He should have recused
himself from the case. :mad:

Fleawuss · 15-06-2016 06:00PM

Degringola wrote: »

November 11, 2007: It is reported that a prime suspect into Philip’s death – described as in his 60s, from the Rathfarnham area, and a suspected paedophile – is to be arrested within days. The man is described as having been first questioned after the 13 year old went missing but no evidence as to his guilt was then available.
(From the Broadsheet article)

Man to be arrested 'within days' back in 2007, and it presumably wasn't Cooke or the article would surely have named him as the Rathfarnham paedophile in question.

So what on earth happened there? They had no evidence to arrest this prime suspect at the time of Philip's disappearance, but obviously must have had something on him by 2007. But this was not followed up in the article, or am I missing something?

Just my thoughts, as far as I can tell from reading about him, Cooke's penchant was for girls, not boys. If he did kill Philip, it was to cover for someone else/others.

There was a retired DI on drive time who said Cooke was never a suspect. Was he out of the game by 2006 and unaware of the above or does it refer to someone else? And we have the same pattern: a flurry of media speculation and then... Nothing. The latest bag appeal seems a final throw of the dice to find some exploited children used to drop the bag. If they don't come forward then the current story ends.

LorMal · 15-06-2016 06:05PM

Fleawuss wrote: »

There was a retired DI on drive time who said Cooke was never a suspect. Was he out of the game by 2006 and unaware of the above or does it refer to someone else? And we have the same pattern: a flurry of media speculation and then... Nothing. The latest bag appeal seems a final throw of the dice to find some exploited children used to drop the bag. If they don't come forward then the current story ends.

And therefore I really hope potential witnesses are not put off by the social media judge and jury.

brooke 2 · 15-06-2016 06:10PM

Degringola wrote: »

November 11, 2007: It is reported that a prime suspect into Philip’s death – described as in his 60s, from the Rathfarnham area, and a suspected paedophile – is to be arrested within days. The man is described as having been first questioned after the 13 year old went missing but no evidence as to his guilt was then available.
(From the Broadsheet article)

Man to be arrested 'within days' back in 2007, and it presumably wasn't Cooke or the article would surely have named him as the Rathfarnham paedophile in question.

So what on earth happened there? They had no evidence to arrest this prime suspect at the time of Philip's disappearance, but obviously must have had something on him by 2007. But this was not followed up in the article, or am I missing something?

Just my thoughts, as far as I can tell from reading about him, Cooke's penchant was for girls, not boys. If he did kill Philip, it was to cover for someone else/others.

Something which I saw on another site re the timing of his court case
and the disappearance of Philip Cairns -

1. Pleas were entered on Oct. 21st.

2. Philip went missing on Oct. 23rd.

3. Sentence hearing on Nov. 3rd.

This was an important time for Cooke - as mentioned in the case,
he could lose thousands if he were in prison for the possible opening
of the radio licence competition. Lots of money at stake for him.

Therefore, sorting out a problem for a person of influence, (paedophile
or friend of paedophile?) who could ensure that no sentence would be
handed down for the arson, would be a great incentive for Cooke.

Remember, the judge was Frank Roe, who dismissed the case against
his pal Flynn in the Fr. Molloy case, around the same time. You might say,
this judge 'had form'. :mad:

Fleawuss · 15-06-2016 06:32PM

LorMal wrote: »

And therefore I really hope potential witnesses are not put off by the social media judge and jury.

I really hope any potential witnesses realise the importance of finally coming forward so that the Cairns can have some closure and that the shambles of this investigation can be held up to the light of day.

Samaris · 15-06-2016 06:35PM

Fleawuss wrote: »

I really hope any potential witnesses realise the importance of finally coming forward so that the Cairns can have some closure and that the shambles of this investigation can be held up to the light of day.

And we need to encourage that, and not by condemning those that do come forward. That solves nothing but the decrier's own anger.

Fleawuss · 15-06-2016 06:40PM

Samaris wrote: »

And we need to encourage that, and not by condemning those that do come forward. That solves nothing but the decrier's own anger.

Don't leave out properly investigating claims. And speaking as one of many deeply angered by what passes for the administration of justice in this country anger isn't solved in the way you think. It's solved by Justice. And there is none in this case for the Cairns. I hope some people come forward now before it really is finally too late.

LorMal · 15-06-2016 07:34PM

Fleawuss wrote: »

Don't leave out properly investigating claims. And speaking as one of many deeply angered by what passes for the administration of justice in this country anger isn't solved in the way you think. It's solved by Justice. And there is none in this case for the Cairns. I hope some people come forward now before it really is finally too late.

What 'claims'? A witness statement isn't a 'claim'.

Everyone here wants the truth and justice done. However, it is not up to us to pour scorn on any witness (and certainly without full knowledge of all the facts).

Fleawuss · 15-06-2016 07:40PM

LorMal wrote: »

What 'claims'? A witness statement isn't a 'claim'.

Everyone here wants the truth and justice done. However, it is not up to us to pour scorn on any witness (and certainly without full knowledge of all the facts).

Of course it is a claim. In any court of law based on centuries of common law it is open to challenge and examination. And it's not up to anyone here without full knowledge of the facts to take a statement and elevate it to proven fact.

LorMal · 15-06-2016 07:46PM

Fleawuss wrote: »

Of course it is a claim. In any court of law based on centuries of common law it is open to challenge and examination. And it's not up to anyone here without full knowledge of the facts to take a statement and elevate it to proven fact.

You're being a little picky. Lets not argue about semantics. My point is about social media not pouring scorn over witnesses which may lead to increased reluctance by others to come forward (eg the kids who left the schoolbag in the laneway)

Fleawuss · 15-06-2016 07:50PM

LorMal wrote: »

You're being a little picky. Lets not argue about semantics. My point is about social media not pouring scorn over witnesses which may lead to increased reluctance by others to come forward (eg the kids who left the schoolbag in the laneway)

Your point was made clearly that a witness statement isn't simply a claim. You bolded the sentence in my post to emphasize the point it related to. You are attempting to be dismissive of having the legal ignorance of your post pointed out to you.

LorMal · 15-06-2016 07:52PM

Fleawuss wrote: »

Your point was made clearly that a witness statement isn't simply a claim. You bolded the sentence in my post to emphasize the point it related to. You are attempting to be dismissive of having the legal ignorance of your post pointed out to you.

Okay - you win. Don't forget to collect your winners badge on your way out.

Fleawuss · 15-06-2016 07:55PM

LorMal wrote: »

Okay - you win. Don't forget to collect your winners badge on your way out.

It's not personal. At least not for me.

LorMal · 15-06-2016 07:58PM

Fleawuss wrote: »

It's not personal. At least not for me.

Of course not - but it might be for the witness that was called a 'bitch' earlier in this thread.
Best to be non judgemental at this stage.

Fleawuss · 15-06-2016 08:04PM

LorMal wrote: »

Of course not - but it might be for the witness that was called a 'bitch' earlier in this thread.
Best to be non judgemental at this stage.

You say of course but the tone of your comment belies it. Being non judgmental can be the right approach: it has to be applied to all claims. There's no privileged status in the eyes of the law. I hope the Cairns get some pitiful portion of justice after all the years.

LorMal · 15-06-2016 08:24PM

Fleawuss wrote: »

You say of course but the tone of your comment belies it. Being non judgmental can be the right approach: it has to be applied to all claims. There's no privileged status in the eyes of the law. I hope the Cairns get some pitiful portion of justice after all the years.

I don't get your point. Can you explain? What claims are you referring to? What privileged status?
Is there someone making claims who is expecting privileged status? You obviously feel strongly about this and maybe I am missing something?

Fleawuss · 15-06-2016 08:27PM

LorMal wrote: »

I don't get your point. Can you explain? What claims are you referring to? What privileged status?
Is there someone making claims who is expecting privileged status? You obviously feel strongly about this and maybe I am missing something?

You got it a few posts back when you admitted it. What has changed for you?

LorMal · 15-06-2016 08:29PM

I don't understand. Specifically what claims? What privileged status?

Fleawuss · 15-06-2016 08:30PM

LorMal wrote: »

I don't understand. Specifically what claims? What privileged status?

You understood a few posts back. What has changed for you?

LorMal · 15-06-2016 08:31PM

Good night

Samaris · 15-06-2016 08:32PM

I don't quite get it either, but what I -think- is being said (mostly because it seems the most sensible explanation to a rather unhelpful half-page of posts) is that no-one gets to just be believed implicitly when alleging a criminal act against someone else, yes?

SEPT 23 1989 · 15-06-2016 08:32PM

So they have the Dna off the bag and I'm sure even they thought to take a sample off the Irish Jammy Savile before he died

So whats the delay one way or the other?

Samaris · 15-06-2016 08:36PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

So they have the Dna off the bag and I'm sure even they thought to take a sample off the Irish Jammy Savile before he died

So whats the delay one way or the other?

Too much CSI!

Basically, it's going to be a complicated process. The DNA from the bag is thirty years old, and, while the bag has been preserved, there will be some decay. The samples will have to be sent to a specialist laboratory, probably not even one in Ireland, more likely the UK, to be tested, for it to be ascertained whether the residue is viable (and it's on canvas as well, which makes it even more tricky) and/or whether the various strands they isolated before are still testable against the new blood from Cooke (assuming they did take some from him).

It -will- take weeks.

Fleawuss · 15-06-2016 08:37PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

So they have the Dna off the bag and I'm sure even they thought to take a sample off the Irish Jammy Savile before he died

So whats the delay one way or the other?

There have been so many delays, media briefings that go nowhere and false starts in this case that it is a national disgrace. And no focus on how all of this came to pass.

LorMal · 15-06-2016 10:16PM

Samaris wrote: »

Too much CSI!

Basically, it's going to be a complicated process. The DNA from the bag is thirty years old, and, while the bag has been preserved, there will be some decay. The samples will have to be sent to a specialist laboratory, probably not even one in Ireland, more likely the UK, to be tested, for it to be ascertained whether the residue is viable (and it's on canvas as well, which makes it even more tricky) and/or whether the various strands they isolated before are still testable against the new blood from Cooke (assuming they did take some from him).

It -will- take weeks.

Do they have only 3 samples? It seems like a very long shot. We know many people touched it Philip, numerous Guards, the (unknown) person(s) who dropped the bag there, the girls who found it - thats more than 3.
I can't see how it is in any way likely that the perpetrator is going to be confirmed by this?

Samaris · 15-06-2016 10:59PM

LorMal wrote: »

Do they have only 3 samples? It seems like a very long shot. We know many people touched it Philip, numerous Guards, the (unknown) person(s) who dropped the bag there, the girls who found it - thats more than 3.
I can't see how it is in any way likely that the perpetrator is going to be confirmed by this?

I did read somewhere that three DNA samples were isolated from the bag, but presumably they didn't match any potentials. They were kept though as DNA testing wasn't particularly good back then, but there was the potential for improvement.

The bag itself was made of canvas though, and canvas isn't good at picking up what they need for it. Presumably the very coarse fibres interfere, fingerprints would be ideal ofc, and a modern polyputhekettleon one would be great for it.

It does seem that the Gardai kept the bag carefully and didn't get it get badly contaminated. Of course, anyone in his school could have the potential to quite innocently get traces on it, so it'd pretty much come down to "anyone without a sane reason to have DNA on it".

Philip Cairns' Murder finally confirmed?

Comments