Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…4243454748…94

Comments

  • #1322
    Jadaol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 134 ✭✭Jadaol


    Going Forward wrote: »
    So we're unsure if he had two suspects.

    I think we've discussed part of that before.

    The part I had overlooked until now was that he got the witness into the station after the reaction of the psychic.

    And he seemed fairly convinced he had the person responsible.

    Can you tell or not if that was the first time he had questioned that person?

    I remember I said before I thought there was no other mention of him putting the 3 questions to anyone else, but now I see it might be to the same person more than once or to a witness.

    It can't be that hard to figure what he was saying.

    It actually could have been made a lot clearer.


    I thought he was fairly clear. The person he put the 3 theories to was a relative of the suspect who made contact with him. He started to get upset when talking about it saying he loved those girls etc etc. Then he put the scenarios to him of what he thinks happened to her and he picked the last one

    I suspect as oranbhoy mentioned previously a lot more footage wasn't shown because of legalities.

    I think the whole point of the doc is it goes as far as it can in pointing out there's a lot more to this case that needs to be investigated properly and it reveals just enough to show people that something went seriously wrong with this case, but isn't a full expose that could hamper future proper investigating


  • #1323
    oranbhoy67
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,804 ✭✭✭oranbhoy67


    Going Forward wrote: »
    So we're unsure if he had two suspects.

    I think we've discussed part of that before.

    The part I had overlooked until now was that he got the witness into the station after the reaction of the psychic.

    And he seemed fairly convinced he had the person responsible.

    Can you tell or not if that was the first time he had questioned that person?

    I remember I said before I thought there was no other mention of him putting the 3 questions to anyone else, but now I see it might be to the same person more than once or to a witness.

    It can't be that hard to figure what he was saying.

    It actually could have been made a lot clearer.

    it was the second time "our" suspect was informally questioned

    thie first was when Aiden Murray got a kick under the table from Dom Murray to ease up and go get him a cup of tea

    he was asked down informally again nearly 20 years later by collins after the psychics reaction and his initial reaction was to tell the gards to F-off that he had told them all he knew but he came down eventually and neither denied nor admitted guilt .


  • #1324
    jenny smith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 716 ✭✭✭jenny smith


    oranbhoy67 wrote: »
    it was the second time "our" suspect was informally questioned

    thie first was when Aiden Murray got a kick under the table from Dom Murray to ease up and go get him a cup of tea

    he was asked down informally again nearly 20 years later by collins after the psychics reaction and his initial reaction was to tell the gards to F-off that he had told them all he knew but he came down eventually and neither denied nor admitted guilt .
    Wasn't it Inspector Daly who gave him the infamous nudge?


  • #1325
    Satriale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,023 ✭✭✭Satriale


    jenny smith wrote: »
    Would dogs, not just cadaver dogs, not be attracted to any burial site? Would there still be a scent there even though its only bones presumably and surely dogs roaming around such a rural area

    Who is the man known to Mary who followed sergeant Collins to Fenor on the way to Bundoran. Collins got into his car. He cried, said he knew the girls and was fond of them.The man said he had children the same age and how he felt about Mary's disappearance

    To Collins three possible scenarios he said the last i.e murder. Was he further questioned?

    Certain dogs are better than others but i'd guess all would need training and the right traits. They will signal for old bone. ( I understand wet boggy ground could possibly be preservative.)

    They are amazing creature from what i read, noone is exactly sure how they work but they can detect a shard of bone, a drop of blood. They can detect a body under 30 meters of water or 15 feet underground. They will signal on an item that has been in contact with a body for only 2 minutes 94% (98% for 10 minutes contact).

    http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/expert_well-trained_cadaver_dogs_95_percent_accurate_can_smell_remains_15_feet_d.html

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/04/etan_patz_search_renewed_can_cadaver_dogs_smell_30_year_old_corpses_.html

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-csi-death-dogs-sniffing-out-the-truth-behind-the-crime-scene-canines-835047.html


  • #1326
    oranbhoy67
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,804 ✭✭✭oranbhoy67


    jenny smith wrote: »
    Wasn't it Inspector Daly who gave him the infamous nudge?

    I was under the impression it was Murray but cant remember where i heard/saw/read that so you may well be right


  • Advertisement
  • #1327
    oranbhoy67
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,804 ✭✭✭oranbhoy67


    Satriale wrote: »
    Certain dogs are better than others but i'd guess all would need training and the right traits. They will signal for old bone. ( I understand wet boggy ground could possibly be preservative.)

    They are amazing creature from what i read, noone is exactly sure how they work but they can detect a shard of bone, a drop of blood. They can detect a body under 30 meters of water or 15 feet underground. They will signal on an item that has been in contact with a body for only 2 minutes 94% (98% for 10 minutes contact).

    http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/expert_well-trained_cadaver_dogs_95_percent_accurate_can_smell_remains_15_feet_d.html

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/04/etan_patz_search_renewed_can_cadaver_dogs_smell_30_year_old_corpses_.html

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-csi-death-dogs-sniffing-out-the-truth-behind-the-crime-scene-canines-835047.html

    This is something I am definitely gonna push for, I think when people think of dogs in case like this they just think of sniffer dogs, I know that was my initial impression


  • #1328
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    oranbhoy67 wrote: »
    This is something I am definitely gonna push for, I think when people think of dogs in case like this they just think of sniffer dogs, I know that was my initial impression

    I think it will be very interesting to see local reaction to cadaver dogs being used over a large area of land. This could be a very good next step.

    If crowd funding is needed I don't think you will struggle for support.


  • #1329
    h2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭h2005


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I think it will be very interesting to see local reaction to cadaver dogs being used over a large area of land. This could be a very good next step.

    If crowd funding is needed I don't think you will struggle for support.

    Would permission be granted to let them on the land?


  • #1330
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    h2005 wrote: »
    Would permission be granted to let them on the land?

    Like I said. It will be interesting to see local reaction. Who will support the efforts and who will oppose those efforts.


  • #1331
    oranbhoy67
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,804 ✭✭✭oranbhoy67


    h2005 wrote: »
    Would permission be granted to let them on the land?

    I was told I would be welcome to search anywhere as long as i told the Garda and had them there whilst I did


  • Advertisement
  • #1332
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    Jadaol wrote: »
    I thought he was fairly clear. The person he put the 3 theories to was a relative of the suspect who made contact with him.
    oranbhoy67 wrote: »
    it was the second time "our" suspect was informally questioned

    thie first was when Aiden Murray got a kick under the table from Dom Murray to ease up and go get him a cup of tea

    he was asked down informally again nearly 20 years later by collins after the psychics reaction and his initial reaction was to tell the gards to F-off that he had told them all he knew but he came down eventually and neither denied nor admitted guilt .

    Yes, M. Collins stated in the doc that there were 2 separate people both known to Mary who came to him about the suspect, the first he spoke to in the garda car a week after her going midsing was a male relation of Mary's.

    He didn't say he identified the suspect, but G. O'D says he is a relative of the suspect.

    The other person, a female, (not Mary' twin Anne,) also came forward and spoke to Collins a number of times and identified the same suspect and claimed to have knowledge of what happened to Mary.

    Neither were arrested for withholding information according to G. O'D.


  • #1333
    oranbhoy67
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,804 ✭✭✭oranbhoy67


    Going Forward wrote: »
    Yes, M. Collins stated in the doc that there were 2 separate people both known to Mary who came to him about the suspect, the first he spoke to in the garda car a week after her going midsing was a male relation of Mary's.

    He didn't say he identified the suspect, but G. O'D says he is a relative of the suspect.

    The other person, a female, (not Mary' twin Anne,) also came forward and spoke to Collins a number of times and identified the same suspect and claimed to have knowledge of what happened to Mary.

    Neither were arrested for withholding information according to G. O'D.

    yeah I can confirm this is all true


  • #1334
    sunbeam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,828 ✭✭✭sunbeam


    Are either of these individuals the person that Margo said spoke to her in the documentary? :confused:


  • #1335
    DonegalTech
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48 ✭DonegalTech


    oranbhoy67 wrote: »
    Going Forward wrote: »
    Yes, M. Collins stated in the doc that there were 2 separate people both known to Mary who came to him about the suspect, the first he spoke to in the garda car a week after her going midsing was a male relation of Mary's.

    He didn't say he identified the suspect, but G. O'D says he is a relative of the suspect.

    The other person, a female, (not Mary' twin Anne,) also came forward and spoke to Collins a number of times and identified the same suspect and claimed to have knowledge of what happened to Mary.

    Neither were arrested for withholding information according to G. O'D.

    yeah I can confirm this is all true

    I take it this was not enough for the Gardai to arrest the proposed suspect for questioning?


  • #1336
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    tayto lover wrote: »
    I wouldn't pay much attention to what psychics say. Bunch of chancers. They could send you in the wrong direction if you give them much heed.

    True. 99.999% of them are total chancers, but I have personal experience of ordinary people (RIP) who were, on occasion, very psychic. They just couldn't turn it on, or off, like a tap.
    DonegalTech wrote: »
    I take it this was not enough for the Gardai to arrest the proposed suspect for questioning?

    I was wondering the same thing.
    I can't understand why two people, giving the same information, wouldn't lead to an arrest?


  • #1337
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    True. 99.999% of them are total chancers, but I have personal experience of ordinary people (RIP) who were, on occasion, very psychic. They just couldn't turn it on, or off, like a tap.



    I was wondering the same thing.
    I can't understand why two people, giving the same information, wouldn't lead to an arrest?


    Gemma OD implies that their information was more than pure speculation.

    She said that neither were arrested for withholding information.

    Not being peadantic, but are individuals often arrested in Ireland for "withholding information" or does it just fall into the general category of being arrested in connection with a case??

    I end up asking why didn't Martin Collins arrest those two, along with the supect if he had the power to do so?

    Unless the 2 had no information really, just hunches.

    But he treats their claims seriously even to this day, but no one seems to have done anything about it at the time, himself included.


  • #1338
    DonegalTech
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48 ✭DonegalTech


    Going Forward wrote: »
    Deleted User wrote: »
    True. 99.999% of them are total chancers, but I have personal experience of ordinary people (RIP) who were, on occasion, very psychic. They just couldn't turn it on, or off, like a tap.



    I was wondering the same thing.
    I can't understand why two people, giving the same information, wouldn't lead to an arrest?


    Gemma OD implies that their information was more than pure speculation.

    She said that neither were arrested for withholding information.

    Not being peadantic, but are individuals often arrested in Ireland for "withholding information" or does it just fall into the general category of being arrested in connection with a case??

    I end up asking why didn't Martin Collins arrest those two, along with the supect if he had the power to do so?

    Unless the 2 had no information really, just hunches.

    But he treats their claims seriously even to this day, but no one seems to have done anything about it at the time, himself included.

    Maybe he would have needed them to reiterate that information at the station, in an interview room. And they may have got cold feet and refused.


  • #1339
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    DonegalTech wrote: »
    Maybe he would have needed them to reiterate that information at the station, in an interview room. And they may have got cold feet and refused.


    Arresting them on suspicion of involvement or withholding information might have focused their minds on it if they had indeed refused to meaningfully cooperate, surely?


  • #1340
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    @ Oranbhoy.

    I just got someone to sign your petition, but when she tried to put a link to the petition on Facebook, it said the link wasn't working.

    Since she had just clicked into the link to sign the petition, it was clearly working - so maybe get whoever put the petition up to check that out? There's something strange about that, whether it's facebook policy, or whatever.
    I've seen countless petitions linked on Facebook before, though I don't have an account myself. (I can't see why anyone would want to know what I'm doing every minute of the day - If I want to tell someone something, I tend to do it myself!)

    Also, I was just chatting to someone else, who has no email address, who expressed interest in signing the petition, but wanted a pen and paper approach.
    I'm just wondering, could a few of us get together, and print off a few copies of the petition, and leave them in local business premises?

    It's an easy, cheap, way to spread the word, for those who don't have online accounts.

    Just a thought!


  • #1341
    oranbhoy67
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,804 ✭✭✭oranbhoy67


    sunbeam wrote: »
    Are either of these individuals the person that Margo said spoke to her in the documentary? :confused:

    The person that spoke to margo, marys twin ann, even the gards , and to a few other people down thru the years would be even closer to Mary than the afore mentioned


  • Advertisement
  • #1342
    jenny smith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 716 ✭✭✭jenny smith


    oranbhoy67 wrote: »
    I was under the impression it was Murray but cant remember where i heard/saw/read that so you may well be right
    In the doc

    33.28 Det Sgt Aidan Murray says he and Daly interviewed the suspect "Inspector Daly, who is recenlty deceased, and myself interviewed that man "

    At approx 33.44 Det Sgt Aidan Muray says "I got a little nudge from the Inspector at the time under the table" Presumably Inspector Daly as Murray was a Superintendent wasn't he?


  • #1343
    jenny smith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 716 ✭✭✭jenny smith


    I wondered is the suspect in any way what used to be called 'slow' or low IQ and would that be the reason he is being protected.? Sort of 'he didn't understand what he was doing'? Pure speculation on my part


  • #1344
    jenny smith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 716 ✭✭✭jenny smith


    oranbhoy67 wrote: »
    The person that spoke to margo, marys twin ann, even the gards , and to a few other people down thru the years would be even closer to Mary than the afore mentioned
    Is there any more movement anywhere, anything happening?


  • #1345
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    oranbhoy67 wrote: »
    The person that spoke to margo, marys twin ann, even the gards , and to a few other people down thru the years would be even closer to Mary than the afore mentioned

    That's what I'd been thinking, I stress thinking, after looking at the doc again last night.

    You are not to say who it is, that person with information, but if it is as I suspect, in one way it put the local gardai of the day into an awful predicament, one which I'm not excusing, but one which I can see.

    There's more than a touch of someone in this documentary who comes across as having regrets about how things were done and what was not done.

    The producer never alludes to that, but at the same time clearly alleges the case was mishandled by gardai.

    Whilst making a documentary which would have been worthless without the assistance of two ex gardai who were investigating it.


  • #1346
    oranbhoy67
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,804 ✭✭✭oranbhoy67


    jenny smith wrote: »
    I wondered is the suspect in any way what used to be called 'slow' or low IQ and would that be the reason he is being protected.? Sort of 'he didn't understand what he was doing'? Pure speculation on my part

    certainly the impression i got tbh


  • #1347
    jenny smith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 716 ✭✭✭jenny smith


    oranbhoy67 wrote: »
    certainly the impression i got tbh
    really? that is interesting. Though it is not right it becomes a bit more understandable as to why, in the eyes of the protector, they would seek to shield the suspect


  • #1348
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    jenny smith wrote: »
    really? that is interesting. Though it is not right it becomes a bit more understandable as to why, in the eyes of the protector, they would seek to shield the suspect

    I'm not too sure about that, tbh.

    I would stress that I don't know who you are talking about, but, even if someone is a bit "slow", surely, in the interest of protecting other children, some steps should have been taken?

    I'm not suggesting that someone who may have been mentally incompetent should be treated in the same way as an ordinary suspect, but, nevertheless, where there is reason to believe that someone may be a danger to themselves, or others, surely there must have been an obligation to at least carry out a psychiatric evaluation?


  • #1349
    DonegalTech
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48 ✭DonegalTech


    Going Forward wrote: »
    DonegalTech wrote: »
    Maybe he would have needed them to reiterate that information at the station, in an interview room. And they may have got cold feet and refused.


    Arresting them on suspicion of involvement or withholding information might have focused their minds on it if they had indeed refused to meaningfully cooperate, surely?

    I would like to think those with information would have been arrested or threatened with arrest for not co-operating at a later stage, if a Garda knew they had relevant information.

    But to be honest, I don't know the intricate details of law enforcement, so maybe there is something I am unaware of that prevented Gardai from doing this.


  • #1350
    jenny smith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 716 ✭✭✭jenny smith


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'm not too sure about that, tbh.

    I would stress that I don't know who you are talking about, but, even if someone is a bit "slow", surely, in the interest of protecting other children, some steps should have been taken?

    I'm not suggesting that someone who may have been mentally incompetent should be treated in the same way as an ordinary suspect, but, nevertheless, where there is reason to believe that someone may be a danger to themselves, or others, surely there must have been an obligation to at least carry out a psychiatric evaluation?
    I am not saying it is or was right or that it excuses it. I agree " even if someone is a bit "slow", surely, in the interest of protecting other children, some steps should have been taken?"

    I also agree "where there is reason to believe that someone may be a danger to themselves, or others, surely there must have been an obligation to at least carry out a psychiatric evaluation? "

    Also I do not know it is was true. I was speculating

    And all i said is i could understand why it might happen especially in a rural area.It would make it less of a mystery for me to comprehend why the suspect might be shielded, that is all


  • Advertisement
  • #1351
    DonegalTech
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48 ✭DonegalTech


    jenny smith wrote: »
    oranbhoy67 wrote: »
    certainly the impression i got tbh
    really? that is interesting. Though it is not right it becomes a bit more understandable as to why, in the eyes of the protector, they would seek to shield the suspect

    Are they protecting a potential suspect because they feel that suspect is mentally "a bit simple", is innocent of the crime and may end up taking the rap for something they didn't do?

    Or do you think they are protecting a potential suspect who they suspect did do it, but maybe didn't intend to do it or did it by accident?


Advertisement