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

Going Forward · 28-07-2016 12:05PM

Macca07 wrote: »

He was living and working in Fermanagh in 1977 in an Army barracks. At the time, supposedly, he was off, but had told Gardai that he was working, which gave him an alibi... However, Gardai claimed he wasn't working, but was down for "off-duty". What he said happened was that odd-duty is still needing to be in the barracks, but not patrolling, similar to "on-call" I presume. Gardai didn't beleive this initially. Then was arrested for it.

That would suggest that he's the only person whos account they didn't believe!

They appear to be steadfast in their faith in everyone else's accounts if arrests are what come from the one's they doubt.

Surely they've more to be doing than going to Fermanagh to seek a confession from someone they couldn't even place at the scene?

tayto lover · 28-07-2016 12:14PM

Going Forward wrote: »

That would suggest that he's the only person whos account they didn't believe!

They appear to be steadfast in their faith in everyone else's accounts if arrests are what come from the one's they doubt.

Surely they've more to be doing than going to Fermanagh to seek a confession from someone they couldn't even place at the scene?

They probably went so they could eliminate him from being a suspect and to appease the person who reported it.

Going Forward · 28-07-2016 12:31PM

tayto lover wrote: »

They probably went so they could eliminate him from being a suspect and to appease the person who reported it.

I don't buy it.

They seem to have great difficulty arresting anyone else to eliminate them from being a suspect.

Or to try to elicit a confession from them.

Burtman · 28-07-2016 12:57PM

tayto lover wrote: »

When i read about the dog going back to the same spot I wondered if Mary was put into a car or van at that spot and then driven away. Hence the scent disappearing. Now who had access to transport at that spot?

exactly, im sure AGS had that figured out at the time and know the scenario that was played out so why couldnt they wrap it up?

oranbhoy67 · 28-07-2016 01:20PM

Macca07 wrote: »

He was living and working in Fermanagh in 1977 in an Army barracks. At the time, supposedly, he was off, but had told Gardai that he was working, which gave him an alibi... However, Gardai claimed he wasn't working, but was down for "off-duty". What he said happened was that odd-duty is still needing to be in the barracks, but not patrolling, similar to "on-call" I presume. Gardai didn't beleive this initially. Then was arrested for it.

If he was in the Irish Army why would he be in a Barracks in Fermanagh?

oranbhoy67 · 28-07-2016 01:25PM

tayto lover wrote: »

When i read about the dog going back to the same spot I wondered if Mary was put into a car or van at that spot and then driven away. Hence the scent disappearing. Now who had access to transport at that spot?

There was two cars there , Marys fathers car (red) & Marys Uncle Gerrys car (blue) I dont know if Gerrys wife could drive at the time but she can now .. when they went looking for Mary initially.. there is conflicting statement on who took whos car with Marys mother saying she took Gerrys car and Gerry saying he took his own , I don't think their original statements where conflicted but there has been different talk down the years since on who drove what car and where

jenny smith · 28-07-2016 01:34PM

Going Forward wrote: »

I don't buy it.

They seem to have great difficulty arresting anyone else to eliminate them from being a suspect.

Or to try to elicit a confession from them.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/arrests/arrests.html "You can not be arrested for the purpose of gathering evidence or 'helping the Gardai with their enquiries'. "

Probably they do not have enough evidence to arrest the suspect. Things were even harder for the gardai then in terms of arrest detention . If the community close ranks how will they get the evidence. When Collins spoke to the suspect after the psychic meeting he asked him questions. he may have been hoping for answers which would allow arrest but the suspect said nothing

Going Forward · 28-07-2016 02:03PM

jenny smith wrote: »

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/arrests/arrests.html "You can not be arrested for the purpose of gathering evidence or 'helping the Gardai with their enquiries'. "

Probably they do not have enough evidence to arrest the suspect. Things were even harder for the gardai then in terms of arrest detention . If the community close ranks how will they get the evidence. When Collins spoke to the suspect after the psychic meeting he asked him questions. he may have been hoping for answers which would allow arrest but the suspect said nothing

I wonder what evidence they had to arrest McMahon on then?

There's no evidence to suggest he was near Mary when she went missing.

A patsy is was what they were looking for.

Maybe he was driving a red vw.

Johnboy1951 · 28-07-2016 02:12PM

Going Forward wrote: »

I wonder what evidence they had to arrest McMahon on then?

There's no evidence to suggest he was near Mary when she went missing.

A patsy is was what they were looking for.

Maybe he was driving a red vw.

I asked previously if anyone knew whether it was because they had to in order to question him as he was incarcerated at the time.

Apparently no one has that info.

HollyM46 · 28-07-2016 02:16PM

McMahon was in Finner camp which is close to Bundoran. Also stated somewhere that he didn't drive.

twill · 28-07-2016 02:18PM

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I asked previously if anyone knew whether it was because they had to in order to question him as he was incarcerated at the time.

Apparently no one has that info.

You could try Legal Discussion as there are people with knowledge of procedure posting there. I would imagine Gardaí can question people who are in prison on separate offences in the normal way.

tayto lover · 28-07-2016 03:08PM

Burtman wrote: »

exactly, im sure AGS had that figured out at the time and know the scenario that was played out so why couldnt they wrap it up?

Maybe they believed that the child was removed by car from the spot the dogs kept returning to but couldn't prove it as the witnesses stuck to their story.
It would also explain the reluctance to stop digging up the area if they believed the child's body was not there.
I'd have another go at trying to refute the car drivers stories.

I'm just speculating of course.

Going Forward · 28-07-2016 03:20PM

HollyM46 wrote: »

McMahon was in Finner camp which is close to Bundoran. Also stated somewhere that he didn't drive.

Bit of a long shot to have him appearing in the fields between the two houses between where the child went missing when no witnesses reported any unusual cars or people in the vicinity IMO.

Not plausible. No motive. No evidence. No knowledge of him being known to her.

He was also convicted of abusing boys not girls.

jenny smith · 28-07-2016 03:33PM

Going Forward wrote: »

I wonder what evidence they had to arrest McMahon on then?

There's no evidence to suggest he was near Mary when she went missing.

A patsy is was what they were looking for.

Maybe he was driving a red vw.

we do not know. the gardai do not post their plans or what they know on facebook.

could it be because McMahon had a conviction in a similiar area?

There is also • Section 42 Criminal Justice Act 1999

Empowers a Judge of the District Court to authorise a member of An Garda Síochána to arrest a prisoner*, and take him to a Garda station for possible detention there, once such Judge is satisfied, by way of information supplied on oath by a Garda Superintendent or person of higher rank, that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that such prisoner has committed an offence other than that for which he has been imprisoned.

*("prisoner" means a person who is in prison on foot of a sentence of imprisonment, on committal awaiting trial, on remand or otherwise)

EDIT. Just played doc again. It says "he was taken from the prison on a section 42 warrant which allows gardai detain inmates"

Burtman · 28-07-2016 03:35PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe they believed that the child was removed by car from the spot the dogs kept returning to but couldn't prove it as the witnesses stuck to their story.
It would also explain the reluctance to stop digging up the area if they believed the child's body was not there.
I'd have another go at trying to refute the car drivers stories.

I'm just speculating of course.

I would agree with that speculation, to me the child was murdered without premeditation, it was done in a panic, so the first thing the culprit did was hide the body to get time to think, then relocate the body beyond reach when the had a chance to think about it...the movement of all cars are key in this and who drove them...and to where..

jenny smith · 28-07-2016 03:42PM

Burtman wrote: »

I would agree with that speculation, to me the child was murdered without premeditation, it was done in a panic, so the first thing the culprit did was hide the body to get time to think, then relocate the body beyond reach when the had a chance to think about it...the movement of all cars are key in this and who drove them...and to where..

what would you speculate caused the panic. That the killer raped her first and she said she would tell or that she said she would tell about previous sexual assaults. Collins says he believes she was raped but how he reaches that conclusion without admission or body is beyond me

jenny smith · 28-07-2016 03:44PM

twill wrote: »

You could try Legal Discussion as there are people with knowledge of procedure posting there. I would imagine Gardaí can question people who are in prison on separate offences in the normal way.

But prisoners would also have the right to silence non prisoners have?

jenny smith · 28-07-2016 04:26PM

why are they so anxious to have an inquest? what can it achieve in terms of moving thing on?

tayto lover · 28-07-2016 04:34PM

jenny smith wrote: »

what would you speculate caused the panic. That the killer raped her first and she said she would tell or that she said she would tell about previous sexual assaults. Collins says he believes she was raped but how he reaches that conclusion without admission or body is beyond me

I don't know if there is evidence to say that the child was raped or abused. It might have been the case. She could also have died accidently i.e a push and she banged her head on a stone or fell into a hole and someone panicked in case they would be accused of neglect by leaving her in a dangerous place unsupervised ??? Anything. Whatever it was somebody probably panicked and things then got out of hand after that and decided to get rid of the body.

jenny smith · 28-07-2016 05:05PM

tayto lover wrote: »

I don't know if there is evidence to say that the child was raped or abused. It might have been the case. She could also have died accidently i.e a push and she banged her head on a stone or fell into a hole and someone panicked in case they would be accused of neglect by leaving her in a dangerous place unsupervised ??? Anything. Whatever it was somebody probably panicked and things then got out of hand after that and decided to get rid of the body.

Collins is convinced and so is her sister. I do not know why they believe this

tayto lover · 28-07-2016 05:08PM

jenny smith wrote: »

Collins is convinced and so is her sister. I do not know why they believe this

I don't know why Collins would believe that though.
Also her sister was 6 years old and surely wouldn't know anything about abuse at that age.

jenny smith · 28-07-2016 05:16PM

tayto lover wrote: »

I don't know why Collins would believe that though.
Also her sister was 6 years old and surely wouldn't know anything about abuse at that age.

Her sister believes it now . have you seen the doc. She says "I believe Mary had a secret" and that it was sexual abuse and that Mary was "feisty and would tell" So she was killed. Margo believes it too. It may be Margo who said she would tell or both of them

Collins says he came to that conclusion over the years but does not say what made him believe it

tayto lover · 28-07-2016 05:21PM

jenny smith wrote: »

Her sister believes it now . have you seen the doc. She says "I believe Mary had a secret" and that it was sexual abuse and that Mary was "feisty and would tell" So she was killed. Margo believes it too. It may be Margo who said she would tell or both of them

Collins says he came to that conclusion over the years but does not say what made him believe it

I don't know why she would believe Mary had a secret and that the secret was sexual abuse. It could have been anything.
Also if there was abuse then it usually follows that the abuser would abuse other children in the area and there doesn't seem to have been any evidence of that. If there was you'd have a very good suspect.

Macca07 · 28-07-2016 05:49PM

Going Forward wrote: »

Bit of a long shot to have him appearing in the fields between the two houses between where the child went missing when no witnesses reported any unusual cars or people in the vicinity IMO.

Not plausible. No motive. No evidence. No knowledge of him being known to her.

He was also convicted of abusing boys not girls.

Article from Independant about Brian McMahon back in February 2015

Burtman · 28-07-2016 05:52PM

jenny smith wrote: »

what would you speculate caused the panic. That the killer raped her first and she said she would tell or that she said she would tell about previous sexual assaults. Collins says he believes she was raped but how he reaches that conclusion without admission or body is beyond me

The panic was caused by the fact that the killer acting on impulse had abused the girl and then couldnt quiten her so killed her, the body had to be hidden as it carried the evidence of a sexual assault and that would show in an autopsy...so there was no use claiming it was an accident or anything..the resulting panic caused the culprit to hide the body out of plain view until they had time to think and gather themselves, then when the opportunity was presented it was relocated by car to a better spot ...then a cover story was used to place the girl in a location she never was...ie: on the boreen to the Cauley house...

If the child had died accidentally then the parents were the ones in the firing line in the minute chance they would be considered to have neglected the child...which would have been highly unlikely..

I also believe the reason for the mothers initial panic was the fact that she knew there was imminent danger in the area...she knew there was someone close at hand with the capability
to interfere with a child and who probabaly had a history of previous that was being kept under wraps like it is today

28-07-2016 05:57PM

tayto lover wrote: »

I don't know if there is evidence to say that the child was raped or abused. It might have been the case. She could also have died accidently i.e a push and she banged her head on a stone or fell into a hole and someone panicked in case they would be accused of neglect by leaving her in a dangerous place unsupervised ??? Anything. Whatever it was somebody probably panicked and things then got out of hand after that and decided to get rid of the body.

I think it's unlikely that anyone was afraid of being accused of neglect by leaving her in a dangerous place in the late 70s.

Accidents at that time tended to be accepted as accidents, maybe too much so, but certainly, it was very much the done thing in my part of Donegal for kids to be taught where the dangerous spots were, be told to stay away from them, and apart from that, we enjoyed a level of freedom that seems unthinkable nowadays.

Burtman · 28-07-2016 06:02PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it's unlikely that anyone was afraid of being accused of neglect by leaving her in a dangerous place in the late 70s.

Accidents at that time tended to be accepted as accidents, maybe too much so, but certainly, it was very much the done thing in my part of Donegal for kids to be taught where the dangerous spots were, be told to stay away from them, and apart from that, we enjoyed a level of freedom that seems unthinkable nowadays.

Thats true, children roamed free at that time and we even had a neighbours child drown in a small river at the foot of our garden, it was considered a tragic accident and the parents only recieved sympathy from from all and sundry..

Giacomo McGubbin · 28-07-2016 06:30PM

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

"Checking out" in what way? What makes you think it was ignored? Because there was nothing significant found? or do you have information no one else seems to have?

The postman's very recent interview. He was present when the dog was brought it. The dog kept leading them to the same spot repeatedly. It didn't sound like it lost any scent, rather that's where the sent lead. There could well have been a grave there, temporary or otherwise. The postman can't understand why that area was never properly investigated to this day. I can't either. Places of far less significance have been dug up in the search. Even if it was perhaps only a temporary grave rather than the permanent one, some forensic evidence could still remain. That's why this area should be excavated professionally. If nothing is found, then at least it can be safely eliminated. Until then it can't be, and shouldn't be ignored. It's quite suspicious that it was ignored at the time, and is still being ignored today, and the Postman is still disturbed by that. You could tell he wanted to say more in the interview, but seemed to be holding something back.

tayto lover · 28-07-2016 06:38PM

Burtman wrote: »

The panic was caused by the fact that the killer acting on impulse had abused the girl and then couldnt quiten her so killed her, the body had to be hidden as it carried the evidence of a sexual assault and that would show in an autopsy...so there was no use claiming it was an accident or anything..the resulting panic caused the culprit to hide the body out of plain view until they had time to think and gather themselves, then when the opportunity was presented it was relocated by car to a better spot ...then a cover story was used to place the girl in a location she never was...ie: on the boreen to the Cauley house...

If the child had died accidentally then the parents were the ones in the firing line in the minute chance they would be considered to have neglected the child...which would have been highly unlikely..

I also believe the reason for the mothers initial panic was the fact that she knew there was imminent danger in the area...she knew there was someone close at hand with the capability
to interfere with a child and who probabaly had a history of previous that was being kept under wraps like it is today

That's plausible alright as it opens up other alternatives i.e. water, bog holes and rough terrain which would take people's minds off the real scenario.

tayto lover · 28-07-2016 06:40PM

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

The postman's very recent interview. He was present when the dog was brought it. The dog kept leading them to the same spot repeatedly. It didn't sound like it lost any scent, rather that's where the sent lead. There could well have been a grave there, temporary or otherwise. The postman can't understand why that area was never properly investigated to this day. I can't either. Places of far less significance have been dug up in the search. Even if it was perhaps only a temporary grave rather than the permanent one, some forensic evidence could still remain. That's why this area should be excavated professionally. If nothing is found, then at least it can be safely eliminated. Until then it can't be, and shouldn't be ignored. It's quite suspicious that it was ignored at the time, and is still being ignored today, and the Postman is still disturbed by that. You could tell he wanted to say more in the interview, but seemed to be holding something back.

Was it not somewhere in the yard or on the lane that the dog kept going back to? I was of the opinion it was. I could be wrong.

I think that postman has suspicions about the whole thing himself.

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

Comments