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

24-07-2016 02:03PM

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

As far as I'm aware the sister doesn't post here either, and yet it's quite clear some here are only willing to consider the one side of the story only and accuse and point to one person ? Is that what the campaign is about ?
I'd prefer to hear the full story and all the facts from everyone during the investigation, not just the selected ones some people are only seem interested in pushing an angle from one side the another. I'm afraid you won't stop me asking for all the facts and angles. - Very interesting how this is panning out here though. I didn't expect this reaction here for seeking a balanced neutral view, perhaps I was naive in thinking overall I'd get a balanced view on this thread.

I'd LOVE to hear the full story, and all the facts!

I'd love an actual investigation that might actually unearth the full story, and all the facts.....

The campaign, as far as I can tell, is one where relatives and friends are highlighting testimonies that they believe have not been adequately investigated.
I have yet to read a single post where someone said "Mr/Ms X is guilty of x, y, or z."

I have no intention of trying to prevent you from asking whatever questions you choose.
I have every intention of drawing attention to questions that may prejudice the possibility of a successful prosecution.

I don't believe that would serve Marys, or her family's right to justice, and I don't believe anyone should ask those questions to begin with, either.
Let's be honest here, "trial by media" is not an unheard of defence, is it?

Giacomo McGubbin · 24-07-2016 02:12PM

tayto lover wrote: »

I'd get it done one way or another. With or without consent.
I'd also get speaking to the suspect and afterwards i'd know if he was guilty or not.

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

I spoke to him, hes not the brightest spark its hard to read him at all tbh.. I also requested a dig which i was told would be granted as long as the gards are there , i never said where on the particular bit of land I want to dig & i wont until the day comes and im there.. I have my own ideas and the gards wont get a chance to get in there first this time .

tayto lover wrote: »

I'd keep going back to him and questioning him until his story changed or he let something slip.I'd also get someone to scare the life out of him to see if he'd crack.

I agree with you on the dig. Make sure you're there.

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

I tried good cop/ Bad cop with him , I have it all on video I may post the transcript somewhere but with all the names etc I will have to take out then it would probably render it useless anyway ,

Why are you people only interested in interrogating, videoing and accusing one particular person, and what makes you think you have any right to in the first place and have the right person ? What if that person is actually innocent ? What if that person is actually guilty and your actions and prejudice wreck any future legal case against them ? What about the all the other potential suspects in the case ? And that includes everyone who had any contact with Mary, and everyone who was in the vicinity during those days and everyone involved with the case.

What you should be calling for, instead of trying to play vigilante Gardai and wreck any chance of a sound case, and accusing and interrogating only particular people, is a full Gardai and legal re-investigation of everyone connected to the case by external Gardai and the proper authorities.

tayto lover · 24-07-2016 02:25PM

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Why are you people only interested in interrogating, videoing and accusing one particular person, and what makes you think you have any right to in the first place and have the right person ? What if that person is actually innocent ? What if that person is actually guilty and your actions and prejudice wreck any future legal case against them ?

From reading the thread he seems to be the prime suspect and the Garda have never even questioned him as a suspect despite the feeling and suspicions of the locals. He lives in the area of the disappearance and seems to have had the opportunity to commit the crime yet has never been questioned by the Garda as a suspect after 40 years. When being interviewed as a witness it appeard that a politician intervened on his behalf and the interview was cut short despite one the Garda members revealing that he believed he was about to break.

All the above from the thread. If it was my daughter i'd have made it my business to interview him myself for my own peace of mind.

SusieBlue · 24-07-2016 03:26PM

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Why are you people only interested in interrogating, videoing and accusing one particular person, and what makes you think you have any right to in the first place and have the right person ? What if that person is actually innocent ? What if that person is actually guilty and your actions and prejudice wreck any future legal case against them ? What about the all the other potential suspects in the case ? And that includes everyone who had any contact with Mary, and everyone who was in the vicinity during those days and everyone involved with the case.

What you should be calling for, instead of trying to play vigilante Gardai and wreck any chance of a sound case, and accusing and interrogating only particular people, is a full Gardai and legal re-investigation of everyone connected to the case by external Gardai and the proper authorities.

You appear to have just sailed in here and are asking all sorts of accusatory questions as to why Mary's relative is believed a certain person is responsible.
Did you consider think that over the course of the last FORTY YEARS that the poster might have learned some information that he can't share here for legal reasons, that would lead him to be questioning this person? He's hardly doing it for the laugh or for his own agenda?
And as for your last paragraph, if you knew anything about the case you'd realise how patronising you sound.
Do you really think it didn't occur to the family to ask for a new investigation at some point since 1977? And knowing what we know about how badly the first one was conducted, would you have faith that a thorough, proper investigation would happen? I know I wouldn't.

It's grand to say 'If it was me I would have done/would do ...', but with all due respect, it's not you. It's not me either. Shoulda woulda coulda. You can't say what you'd do, because none of us can. Unless you've been in exactly the same position you have no right to chastise someone for how they are reacting.

Lastly, please consider how desperate her family must feel after 40 years with no support at all from the government or the guards in finding Mary. You have no right to judge them for trying to keep her face in the media, and trying to do what they can to keep the investigation go forward.

Johnboy1951 · 24-07-2016 03:51PM

tayto lover wrote: »

I totally agree with you BUT you have to remember that feck-all seems to have happened in this investigation in 40 years. Forty years - that's a lifetime to have to wait for the relatives and still not a lot happening and not much, if any, progress likely to happen. It's hard to expect people not to go making their own inquiries and digging for evidence. If it were my child i'd have been trying to get answers long before now and i wouldn't care if my methods were legal or illegal either.

Perceptions are not facts. No one posting here has indicated they KNOW all that has been done in the investigation.
All I have read is a lot of supposition and questions implying things and a few obvious facts.
I do hope that the child's disappearance is solved, but there is nothing in this thread that helps to achieve that aim, bar the organisation of pressure on 'officialdom' through publicity and marches and the like.

tayto lover · 24-07-2016 04:19PM

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Perceptions are not facts. No one posting here has indicated they KNOW all that has been done in the investigation.
All I have read is a lot of supposition and questions implying things and a few obvious facts.
I do hope that the child's disappearance is solved, but there is nothing in this thread that helps to achieve that aim, bar the organisation of pressure on 'officialdom' through publicity and marches and the like.

Feck all happened in 40 years and you are worried about the investigation being hampered by anonymous posters voicing their own opinions ???? :pac:

Overheal · 24-07-2016 04:47PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Feck all happened in 40 years and you are worried about the investigation being hampered by anonymous posters voicing their own opinions ???? :pac:

Like it or not, yes. The Irish justice system is grand that way: a defendant can point at these conversations and those of say the conversations had on youtube or on other media sites and claim they cannot get a fair trial because of public perception.

tayto lover · 24-07-2016 04:57PM

Overheal wrote: »

Like it or not, yes. The Irish justice system is grand that way: a defendant can point at these conversations and those of say the conversations had on youtube or on other media sites and claim they cannot get a fair trial because of public perception.

Then he would be giving himself away as he has not been named by anyone.
I don't know who he is for one.

jenny smith · 24-07-2016 05:03PM

Stepping Stone wrote: »

I think that it is entirely normal behavior on his family's part. You interrogated him with a video camera and tried to get him to admit guilt and you are surprised that they aren't welcoming you back to have another go?

There seems to be a huge amount of naievity in the approach that the family are taking. Turning up to Pearse St Garda Station is like turning up to St James' Hospital and expecting someone to discuss the treatment of a relative in another hospital 30yrs previously. It is nothing to do with the rank and file Gardai who are up to their eyes in violent crime, thefts, suicides, traffic duty, etc. Totally the wrong approach.

Remembrance marches are a great idea. They highlight the issue in a dignified fashion but getting political and aligning it with water protesters is anything but a good idea. Have you seen those marches? They are inevitably attractive to the type of person who doesn't care what they are protesting; they just want to be aggressive in their own agenda. You cannot agree to allow a group that protests water charges to lead a march and expect them not to shout about water.

This questioning of a suspect is also very foolish. It will end with them making a complaint about you to the Gardai.

Do you not see how you are risking all of the good work that you have done by aligning yourselves to protest groups and risking the legal side by naming suspects and cross questioning them yourselves? My advice is to go to a solicitor and get yourself good advice before we end up reading that the Gardai's hands are tied because of revelations made here.

Also, Gemma O'Doherty is a journalist...her first priority is to promote herself, not to serve the family or the truth.

I tend to agree with that. She is also claiming Ronaid Murray's killer is being protected "a source close to the case has alleged."What does that actually mean

She says a garda has intimidated her is a phone call. Journalists covering the gangland killings were threatened by gangsters and would not be intimidated but Gemma is intimidated by a garda on a call. I think she is in the wrong job. She won't say who or what he said.

She seems to think anyone who is not poor is protected from prosecution.Who protected
Joe O'Reilly
Graham O Dwyer
Wayne O'Donoghue

Sometimes people get away with murder because there is not enough evidence to arrest them or they are arrested and they resist interrogation.If they never found any trace of Mary, or any clothing fibers etc they may not have had enough evidence to arrest him. Seemingly they had no evidence at all.

I am not a legal person and this is not legal advice. But in 1977 he would probably have had right to silence.
Under the Criminal Justice Act 1984 as amended by Part 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007 inferences can be drawn from your silence in certain circumstances in any proceedings against you for an arrestable offence
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/arrests/right_to_silence_in_criminal_cases.html#l5963a

So could the suspect be arrested now. I also wondered if the garda was told to back off because when he almost confessed he was not actually under arrest? Does that make any difference

Why didn't the gardai speak about about Superintendent Dom Murray while he was alive?

jenny smith · 24-07-2016 05:04PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Then he would be giving himself away as he has not been named by anyone.
I don't know who he is for one.

Sometimes people can claim to be identified by inference

24-07-2016 05:08PM

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Perceptions are not facts. No one posting here has indicated they KNOW all that has been done in the investigation.
All I have read is a lot of supposition and questions implying things and a few obvious facts.
I do hope that the child's disappearance is solved, but there is nothing in this thread that helps to achieve that aim, bar the organisation of pressure on 'officialdom' through publicity and marches and the like.

That's an interesting viewpoint.

Here's another one.

People have been given information. They would like this information to be investigated thoroughly.
In particular, they would like one person to be questioned, because they have been told more than once that this person committed a crime.
In 40 years, this person has not been questioned.

This person was known to be in the vicinity that day. That doesn't indicate guilt, in and of itself, of course.

However, I happened to be in Strabane shopping the day an elderly lady went missing some years ago.
Some time later, I had a visit from the guards, asking my whereabouts on that day, and where I went, why, etc.
I had nothing to hide. I answered their questions and heard no more about it, until I read about a conviction in the paper.

So, my question is this: If I was questioned because I was in the vicinity of a crime scene, then why wasn't everyone who was in the vicinity of that crime scene questioned?
Questioning can establish innocence as well as guilt, you know.

As such, I don't see why relatives of the victim shouldn't call for someone to be questioned.

Particularly since two of the Gardai involved in the original investigation appear to feel that they were prevented from questioning a person whom they considered to be "of interest".

Note that no-one here has called for this person to be arrested. Just questioned.
He has been referred to as "a suspect". Half the population of Donegal had decided one person or another was a suspect in the years after the case. The media have named a couple of suspects over the years. This man has not been named. Do you see the difference?

Here's another disturbing item in your "few facts".

A man claims he reported finding a grave a few days after Mary went missing.
Now, if I were a guard, and someone came to me with information like that, I'd be calling forensics to get out there asap.
Playing devils advocate, I could say maybe this man was lying, but years later an independent company found evidence that the earth had been disturbed in that exact spot.
Therefore, it's reasonable to ask why a couple of acres of ground was dug up, then levelled, rather than one small 8 foot square patch.

I'd suggest that these facts alone are enough to organise pressure on "officialdom".

I'll go further, actually, and say it's a sad day when concerned relatives have to go to these lengths to try to obtain justice.

I wonder if it was your cousin who was missing, would you be so dismissive of efforts to find her? I know if she was my cousin, I'd do exactly what Marys relatives are doing - and I'd feel proud of myself for doing so, too!

oranbhoy67 · 24-07-2016 05:22PM

Stepping Stone wrote: »

I think that it is entirely normal behavior on his family's part. You interrogated him with a video camera and tried to get him to admit guilt and you are surprised that they aren't welcoming you back to have another go?

I was videoing the land were my cousin went missing he turned up so i asked him questions on the case whilst the camera was still on it wasnt in his face most of the time he is not in frame

There seems to be a huge amount of naievity in the approach that the family are taking. Turning up to Pearse St Garda Station is like turning up to St James' Hospital and expecting someone to discuss the treatment of a relative in another hospital 30yrs previously. It is nothing to do with the rank and file Gardai who are up to their eyes in violent crime, thefts, suicides, traffic duty, etc. Totally the wrong approach.

yeah because that is all the family have done? we havent been to the Dail, Stormont, Westminster & Capitol hill and the local gards first for 30+ years .. oh wait we have

Remembrance marches are a great idea. They highlight the issue in a dignified fashion but getting political and aligning it with water protesters is anything but a good idea. Have you seen those marches? They are inevitably attractive to the type of person who doesn't care what they are protesting; they just want to be aggressive in their own agenda. You cannot agree to allow a group that protests water charges to lead a march and expect them not to shout about water.

the only march we have agreed to is the one that was held in Ballyshannon last week , we cant stop other groups marching for Mary we wish them well and hope they can do it with respect

This questioning of a suspect is also very foolish. It will end with them making a complaint about you to the Gardai.

they havent so far since in the months since, id welcome them to but their approach is to remain silent about everything, that's there prerogative

Do you not see how you are risking all of the good work that you have done by aligning yourselves to protest groups and risking the legal side by naming suspects and cross questioning them yourselves?
I have not done any of this nor have any of our family

My advice is to go to a solicitor and get yourself good advice before we end up reading that the Gardai's hands are tied because of revelations made here.
Thanks for the advice ... but no
Also, Gemma O'Doherty is a journalist...her first priority is to promote herself, not to serve the family or the truth.

If you were to read the whole thread ( ill be like you and make an an assumption that you havent) you will see my opinions on Ms O Doherty

my other replies to your points are in bold above

oranbhoy67 · 24-07-2016 05:24PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You appear to have just sailed in here and are asking all sorts of accusatory questions as to why Mary's relative is believed a certain person is responsible.
Did you consider think that over the course of the last FORTY YEARS that the poster might have learned some information that he can't share here for legal reasons, that would lead him to be questioning this person? He's hardly doing it for the laugh or for his own agenda?
And as for your last paragraph, if you knew anything about the case you'd realise how patronising you sound.
Do you really think it didn't occur to the family to ask for a new investigation at some point since 1977? And knowing what we know about how badly the first one was conducted, would you have faith that a thorough, proper investigation would happen? I know I wouldn't.

It's grand to say 'If it was me I would have done/would do ...', but with all due respect, it's not you. It's not me either. Shoulda woulda coulda. You can't say what you'd do, because none of us can. Unless you've been in exactly the same position you have no right to chastise someone for how they are reacting.

Lastly, please consider how desperate her family must feel after 40 years with no support at all from the government or the guards in finding Mary. You have no right to judge them for trying to keep her face in the media, and trying to do what they can to keep the investigation go forward.

Deleted User wrote: »

That's an interesting viewpoint.

Here's another one.

People have been given information. They would like this information to be investigated thoroughly.
In particular, they would like one person to be questioned, because they have been told more than once that this person committed a crime.
In 40 years, this person has not been questioned.

This person was known to be in the vicinity that day. That doesn't indicate guilt, in and of itself, of course.

However, I happened to be in Strabane shopping the day an elderly lady went missing some years ago.
Some time later, I had a visit from the guards, asking my whereabouts on that day, and where I went, why, etc.
I had nothing to hide. I answered their questions and heard no more about it, until I read about a conviction in the paper.

So, my question is this: If I was questioned because I was in the vicinity of a crime scene, then why wasn't everyone who was in the vicinity of that crime scene questioned?
Questioning can establish innocence as well as guilt, you know.

As such, I don't see why relatives of the victim shouldn't call for someone to be questioned.

Particularly since two of the Gardai involved in the original investigation appear to feel that they were prevented from questioning a person whom they considered to be "of interest".

Note that no-one here has called for this person to be arrested. Just questioned.
He has been referred to as "a suspect". Half the population of Donegal had decided one person or another was a suspect in the years after the case. The media have named a couple of suspects over the years. This man has not been named. Do you see the difference?

Here's another disturbing item in your "few facts".

A man claims he reported finding a grave a few days after Mary went missing.
Now, if I were a guard, and someone came to me with information like that, I'd be calling forensics to get out there asap.
Playing devils advocate, I could say maybe this man was lying, but years later an independent company found evidence that the earth had been disturbed in that exact spot.
Therefore, it's reasonable to ask why a couple of acres of ground was dug up, then levelled, rather than one small 8 foot square patch.

I'd suggest that these facts alone are enough to organise pressure on "officialdom".

I'll go further, actually, and say it's a sad day when concerned relatives have to go to these lengths to try to obtain justice.

I wonder if it was your cousin who was missing, would you be so dismissive of efforts to find her? I know if she was my cousin, I'd do exactly what Marys relatives are doing - and I'd feel proud of myself for doing so, too!

Thank you very much from saving me from having to type all that out myself , needless to say I agree 100%

Giacomo McGubbin · 24-07-2016 05:41PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You appear to have just sailed in here and are asking all sorts of accusatory questions as to why Mary's relative is believed a certain person is responsible.

No, what I asked was what does Mary's mother currently believe if she doesn't agree with the sister, as I like to hear all sides of a story, not just one side, before going on a witch hunt. Seems this is a major problem for some people.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Did you consider think that over the course of the last FORTY YEARS that the poster might have learned some information that he can't share here for legal reasons, that would lead him to be questioning this person? He's hardly doing it for the laugh or for his own agenda?

Did you consider the same about Mary's mother ? Are you not interested in finding out what she thinks as well as posters here ?

WhiteRoses wrote: »

And as for your last paragraph, if you knew anything about the case you'd realise how patronising you sound.

The only one being patronised here are the people who want to hear all sides not just one side of the events.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Do you really think it didn't occur to the family to ask for a new investigation at some point since 1977? And knowing what we know about how badly the first one was conducted, would you have faith that a thorough, proper investigation would happen? I know I wouldn't.

So someone deciding he's going to video and interrogate only one person, instead of the proper authorities, and jepodise any future case and prosecution is the answer ?

What if some of the uncles relatives started videoing and interrogating other family members and pointing the finger at them instead of the uncle ? And demanded their land was dug up ? Would you be all on for that as well ? Because it would be exactly the same thing.

Most reasonable people want the killer (if there is one) to have to undergo a proper trial and doing proper time, and not getting off on a technicality because of some idiots.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

It's grand to say 'If it was me I would have done/would do ...', but with all due respect, it's not you. It's not me either. Shoulda woulda coulda. You can't say what you'd do, because none of us can. Unless you've been in exactly the same position you have no right to chastise someone for how they are reacting.

I support a new and full investigation, that's all I have called for, along with asking for other peoples side of the story not just one, which seems to be the real problem here.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Lastly, please consider how desperate her family must feel after 40 years with no support at all from the government or the guards in finding Mary. You have no right to judge them for trying to keep her face in the media, and trying to do what they can to keep the investigation go forward.

More making up what I said, I'm asking for the full story, not just some peoples preferred version of events, or some internet lynch mobs version of who's guilty without evidence or even a trial.

The panic and reaction I've exposed here, for simply asking for some balance, and for proper full investigation by the proper authorities of everyone involved is most interesting.

oranbhoy67 · 24-07-2016 05:53PM

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

No, what I asked was what does Mary's mother currently believe if she doesn't agree with the sister, as I like to hear all sides of a story, not just one side, before going on a witch hunt. Seems this is a major problem for some people.

Did you consider the same about Mary's mother ? Are you not interested in finding out what she thinks as well as posters here ?

The only one being patronised here are the people who want to hear all sides not just one side of the events.

So some vigilante, deciding he's going to video and interrogate only one person, instead of the proper authorities, and jepodise any future case and prosecution is the answer ?

I support a new and full investigation, that's all I have called for, along with asking for other peoples side of the story not just one, which seems to be the real problem here.

More making up what I said, I'm asking for the full story, not just some peoples preferred version of events, or some internet lynch mobs version of who's guilty without evidence or even a trial.

The panic and reaction I've exposed here, for simply asking for some balance, and for proper full investigation by the proper authorities of everyone involved is most interesting.

Heres Mary Boyles mothers viewpoint from a newspaper last sunday on the march attended by hundreds the day before

http://www.sundayworld.com/news/crimedesk/justice-for-mary-campaign-has-nothing-to-do-with-family-anne-boyle

The mother of missing Mary Boyle has slammed the ‘Justice for Mary’ campaign march, which is scheduled to be held this weekend.
Donegal woman Anne Boyle lost her daughter in 1977 when little Mary walked across a field in Cashelard, near Ballyshannon, never to be seen again.

Anne told the Donegal Democrat that she didn’t support the ‘Justice for Mary campaign march organised by Ballyshannon woman Naomi Brady .

When asked by the paper to explain why Anne said:

“It has nothing to do with the people most affected – Mary’s family.”

Mary Boyle

The march for Mary Boyle will begin in Ballyshannon on the 16th of July at 2pm and will continue to the local garda station where a peaceful vigil will be held.

Event organiser Naomii Brady said there has been "a massive response" since she created the Facebook event.

A recent documentary about the case, released last week, repeats claims by Mary’s twin Ann and singer Margo O’Donnell that a politician attempted to interfere with the initial investigation.

An excavation was conducted today on land near where six-year-old Mary disappeared on March 18 1977.

Gardai confirmed the dig was taking place in Co Donegal, understood to be on bogland near Cashelard, a few miles from Ballyshannon.

Mary disappeared while visiting her grandparents' home a few miles from the town 39 years ago.

Mary was from Belcruit, Kincasslagh, in the north of Donegal and went missing while on a St Patrick's Day visit to relatives with her parents Ann and Charlie and siblings.

Her body has never been found and her disappearance remains the longest running case of its kind in Ireland.

"I have great faith in the guards , they have always done their job, they never stopped looking for Mary,” said Anne Boyle when asked about the new case review.

Repeated searches have taken place in bogland and fields around Cashelard over the years.

Mary had been playing outside when she followed her uncle across fields near her grandparents' house but was never seen after she turned to go back.

oranbhoy67 · 24-07-2016 05:58PM

“It has nothing to do with the people most affected – Mary’s family.”

And heres me thinking i had Marys twin leading the March alongside me and my brother on the other side , and Marys Nieces(if she were still alive) there & brother in law , and there was plenty of support for it from our family who live abroad

We dont try and speak for everyone in our exteneded family we know there will be different opinions .

she was also asked to participate in the documentary and declined.

This woman has lost a Daughter, seems she has forgotten she has another one.

What in your mind could Marys twin possibly be doing that is so bad for her own mother to disown her??

enfant terrible · 24-07-2016 05:59PM

jenny smith wrote: »

Why didn't the gardai speak about about Superintendent Dom Murray while he was alive?

Did it not state in the documentary that a series of complaints were made internally about Superintendent Murray.

I believe it did.

jenny smith · 24-07-2016 06:01PM

enfant terrible wrote: »

Did it not state in the documentary that a series of complaints were made internally about Superintendent Murray.

I believe it did.

But they did not include Mary Boyle issue as far as i know

oranbhoy67 · 24-07-2016 06:02PM

https://vimeo.com/168521340

Giacomo McGubbin · 24-07-2016 06:03PM

Deleted User wrote: »

However, I happened to be in Strabane shopping the day an elderly lady went missing some years ago.
Some time later, I had a visit from the guards, asking my whereabouts on that day, and where I went, why, etc.
I had nothing to hide. I answered their questions and heard no more about it, until I read about a conviction in the paper.

Should you have been video interrogated by a member of the public with a conspiracy theory that you did it, and allow him to dig up your land, instead of the authorities, and if not why not ?

jenny smith · 24-07-2016 06:08PM

Deleted User wrote: »

That's an interesting viewpoint.

Here's another one.

People have been given information. They would like this information to be investigated thoroughly.
In particular, they would like one person to be questioned, because they have been told more than once that this person committed a crime.
In 40 years, this person has not been questioned.

This person was known to be in the vicinity that day. That doesn't indicate guilt, in and of itself, of course.

However, I happened to be in Strabane shopping the day an elderly lady went missing some years ago.
Some time later, I had a visit from the guards, asking my whereabouts on that day, and where I went, why, etc.
I had nothing to hide. I answered their questions and heard no more about it, until I read about a conviction in the paper.

So, my question is this: If I was questioned because I was in the vicinity of a crime scene, then why wasn't everyone who was in the vicinity of that crime scene questioned?
Questioning can establish innocence as well as guilt, you know.

As such, I don't see why relatives of the victim shouldn't call for someone to be questioned.

Particularly since two of the Gardai involved in the original investigation appear to feel that they were prevented from questioning a person whom they considered to be "of interest".

Note that no-one here has called for this person to be arrested. Just questioned.
He has been referred to as "a suspect". Half the population of Donegal had decided one person or another was a suspect in the years after the case. The media have named a couple of suspects over the years. This man has not been named. Do you see the difference?

Here's another disturbing item in your "few facts".

A man claims he reported finding a grave a few days after Mary went missing.
Now, if I were a guard, and someone came to me with information like that, I'd be calling forensics to get out there asap.
Playing devils advocate, I could say maybe this man was lying, but years later an independent company found evidence that the earth had been disturbed in that exact spot.
Therefore, it's reasonable to ask why a couple of acres of ground was dug up, then levelled, rather than one small 8 foot square patch.

I'd suggest that these facts alone are enough to organise pressure on "officialdom".

I'll go further, actually, and say it's a sad day when concerned relatives have to go to these lengths to try to obtain justice.

I wonder if it was your cousin who was missing, would you be so dismissive of efforts to find her? I know if she was my cousin, I'd do exactly what Marys relatives are doing - and I'd feel proud of myself for doing so, too!

He has been questioned but not while arrested. That is the issue some people are raising. He was questioned at the start when the garda Murray was told to ease off -or similar wording-. Hew as also questioned when he went to the station when the psychic wanted to see him. He was told he was not under arrest but that Collins wanted to speak to him. These time of questioning were i think as a witness not a suspect. Am i right? But this is the issue people have, that the was never arrested not that he was never questioned under arrest

When you were questioned you were not under arrest. He was also questioned but not under arrest. EDIT: here it is https://vid.me/YpaO

enfant terrible · 24-07-2016 06:10PM

jenny smith wrote: »

But they did not include Mary Boyle issue as far as i know

How do you know that?

oranbhoy67 · 24-07-2016 06:10PM

enfant terrible wrote: »

Did it not state in the documentary that a series of complaints were made internally about Superintendent Murray.

I believe it did.

it did and there was , in fact RTE made a documentary about it in 1985 & the Donegal Democrat wrote about it a few days later

whether those guards who complained about the relationship between Murray and Certain politicians hampering their work mentioned Marys case is something I do not know.

It shows as false what McEniff said the other day about "his name never being mentioned in any TV show, Radio, Or Newspaper article"

His statement was also in stark contrast to Pat the Copes - who merely stated that he wished for it to be known he wasn't the politicians involved and there was no mention of legal threats to anyone who dare utter his name

jenny smith · 24-07-2016 06:13PM

I said as far as I know

enfant terrible wrote: »

How do you know that?

"The documentary relates that in 1985, a series of complaints was made internally about Murray’s general conduct, including that he had attended a Fianna Fáil meeting, which was against Garda regulations. No documentary evidence of this complaint is produced, and neither is there any suggestion that it contained any allegation about interference in the Mary Boyle case."

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/michael-clifford/hearsay-is-no-substitute-for-evidence-411902.html
I said as far as I know

Giacomo McGubbin · 24-07-2016 06:14PM

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

Heres Mary Boyles mothers viewpoint from a newspaper last sunday on the march attended by hundreds the day before

http://www.sundayworld.com/news/crimedesk/justice-for-mary-campaign-has-nothing-to-do-with-family-anne-boyle

The mother of missing Mary Boyle has slammed the ‘Justice for Mary’ campaign march, which is scheduled to be held this weekend.
Donegal woman Anne Boyle lost her daughter in 1977 when little Mary walked across a field in Cashelard, near Ballyshannon, never to be seen again.

Anne told the Donegal Democrat that she didn’t support the ‘Justice for Mary campaign march organised by Ballyshannon woman Naomi Brady .

When asked by the paper to explain why Anne said:

“It has nothing to do with the people most affected – Mary’s family.”

Mary Boyle

The march for Mary Boyle will begin in Ballyshannon on the 16th of July at 2pm and will continue to the local garda station where a peaceful vigil will be held.

Event organiser Naomii Brady said there has been "a massive response" since she created the Facebook event.

A recent documentary about the case, released last week, repeats claims by Mary’s twin Ann and singer Margo O’Donnell that a politician attempted to interfere with the initial investigation.

An excavation was conducted today on land near where six-year-old Mary disappeared on March 18 1977.

Gardai confirmed the dig was taking place in Co Donegal, understood to be on bogland near Cashelard, a few miles from Ballyshannon.

Mary disappeared while visiting her grandparents' home a few miles from the town 39 years ago.

Mary was from Belcruit, Kincasslagh, in the north of Donegal and went missing while on a St Patrick's Day visit to relatives with her parents Ann and Charlie and siblings.

Her body has never been found and her disappearance remains the longest running case of its kind in Ireland.

"I have great faith in the guards , they have always done their job, they never stopped looking for Mary,” said Anne Boyle when asked about the new case review.

Repeated searches have taken place in bogland and fields around Cashelard over the years.

Mary had been playing outside when she followed her uncle across fields near her grandparents' house but was never seen after she turned to go back.

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

“It has nothing to do with the people most affected – Mary’s family.”

And heres me thinking i had Marys twin leading the March alongside me and my brother on the other side , and Marys Nieces(if she were still alive) there & brother in law , and there was plenty of support for it from our family who live abroad

We dont try and speak for everyone in our exteneded family we know there will be different opinions .

she was also asked to participate in the documentary and declined.

This woman has lost a Daughter, seems she has forgotten she has another one.

What in your mind could Marys twin possibly be doing that is so bad for her own mother to disown her??

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

https://vimeo.com/168521340

A 15 second edited clip of her mother, with the rest of her views entirely edited out ? This is getting interesting.

Not one of these posts answers the original simple question of what Mary's mother currently suspects happened to her. This simple question seems to have caused great panic here.

jenny smith · 24-07-2016 06:15PM

tayto lover wrote: »

I heard a retired postman, who covered that area, speaking on Newstalk this morning. From reading between the lines i'd say he has opinions on the matter that he is reluctant to speak about on radio.

Here

enfant terrible · 24-07-2016 06:17PM

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

A 15 second edited clip of her mother, with the rest of her views entirely edited out ? This is getting interesting.

Not one of these posts answers the original simple question of what Mary's mother currently suspects happened to her. This simple question seems to have caused great panic here.

Maybe she hasn't made it public, why would it cause panic?

oranbhoy67 · 24-07-2016 06:19PM

jenny smith wrote: »

He has been questioned but not while arrested. That is the issue some people are raising. He was questioned at the start when the garda Murray was told to ease off -or similar wording-. Hew as also questioned when he went to the station when the psychic wanted to see him. He was told he was not under arrest but that Collins wanted to speak to him. These time of questioning were i think as a witness not a suspect. Am i right? But this is the issue people have, that the was never arrested not that he was never questioned under arrest

When you were questioned you were not under arrest. He was also questioned but not under arrest. Have you seen the doc.? I can upload the clip if you want

we want him to be questioned thoroughly as a suspect by officers that have nothing to do with Local gardai in that area.. there has been plenty of evidence put forward to the gardai to question him again, none of this was off course included in the documentary as it could affect due process and none of it that i know will i repeat elsewhere ..

and then people blether on about how the documentary only had hearsay .. or on the other scale say that anything we do say since might be wrecking the potential for a trial .. you cant win !

I have not mentioned who the supsect is on here or anywhere else and if i have seen his name posted anywhere online I have managed to get it taken down in every case .. I've no doubt missed a few but you can't stop every single person from speculating .. there would be less speculating if the job was done right from day 1 .. and for the record I don't blame the modern day Gardai for this they should be looking at different angles but I dont blame them , I think politicians could be doing more for sure, but ultimately the biggest blame lies on the shoulder of the suspect and those who are covering up for him

Giacomo McGubbin · 24-07-2016 06:19PM

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

What in your mind could Marys twin possibly be doing that is so bad for her own mother to disown her??

You tell us, because some of us don't make assumptions and jump to conclusions without hearing all sides.

What do you claim it is ?

Giacomo McGubbin · 24-07-2016 06:25PM

enfant terrible wrote: »

Maybe she hasn't made it public, why would it cause panic?

I don't know, perhaps it doesn't fit the script of considering people guilty until proven innocent, which is the exact opposite of justice.

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

Comments