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…5657596162…94

Comments

  • #1742
    Smondie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭Smondie


    Going Forward wrote: »
    But what would it achieve if she did?

    It still doesn't compel the gardai to do anything?

    It may even strengthen any resolve not to do anything as a result.

    I think the Gardai aren't going to do anything anyway unfortunately. Naming him may be the only justice Ann will ever get.


  • #1743
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,087 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    Smondie wrote: »
    I think the Gardai aren't going to do anything anyway unfortunately. Naming him may be the only justice Ann will ever get.

    Are you serious? Naming someone as a murderer without due process?

    What the hell is justice in your weird world?


  • #1744
    twill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 587 ✭✭✭twill


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    Apparently there is no new evidence.
    None at all.
    There was not sufficient evidence to arrest, charge and hopefully convict someone in the last few decades, and nothing new has surfaced that I am aware of.
    Throwing out a name in the media is not going to end well.
    If the person cannot be show to be guilty then there can be legal repercussions.
    If new evidence came to light later that person could get off because of pretrial bias .... conviction in the media before any court case.
    The best that can be hoped for at present, is that the puzzle of the disappearance is resolved .... maybe by the child's body being discovered.
    The point is that there is enough evidence to arrest certain people, and as for finding Mary's body, the best chance for that would be finding the perpetrator. The Gardaí are refusing to act on information. All that happens when Ann Doherty has given information is that she has been threatened. And consider the nature of some of the allegations that she has made and the possibility that she may be very well placed to attest to them.


  • #1745
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,087 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    twill wrote: »
    The point is that there is enough evidence to arrest certain people, and as for finding Mary's body, the best chance for that would be finding the perpetrator. The Gardaí are refusing to act on information. All that happens when Ann Doherty has given information is that she has been threatened. And consider the nature of some of the allegations that she has made and the possibility that she may be very well placed to attest to them.

    The point is there is NOT sufficient evidence to arrest anyone, regardless what any of us might think.
    I know this is CT, but besides an alleged phone call to a garda station, and a nudge from a senior garda to a junior who might well have been getting over exuberant I have read nothing at all to indicate a garda conspiracy.
    Posting something repeatedly does not make it fact, or even likely.


  • #1746
    twill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 587 ✭✭✭twill


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    The point is there is NOT sufficient evidence to arrest anyone, regardless what any of us might think.
    I know this is CT, but besides an alleged phone call to a garda station, and a nudge from a senior garda to a junior who might well have been getting over exuberant I have read nothing at all to indicate a garda conspiracy.
    Posting something repeatedly does not make it fact, or even likely.

    There was enough evidence to arrest and question Brian MacMahon and there was certainly enough to arrest and question the person at issue here, and that's not even taking into account the information Ann Doherty has since given to the Guards. That's not a conspiracy theory - it's a simple fact.


  • Advertisement
  • #1747
    Smondie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭Smondie


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    Are you serious? Naming someone as a murderer without due process?

    What the hell is justice in your weird world?

    We've had 40 years of pretend due process


  • #1748
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,087 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    twill wrote: »
    There was enough evidence to arrest and question Brian MacMahon and there was certainly enough to arrest and question the person at issue here, and that's not even taking into account the information Ann Doherty has since given to the Guards. That's not a conspiracy theory - it's a simple fact.

    Just because you believe it and say so does not make anything a fact.
    There is not sufficient evidence to arrest anyone in this case.
    That is the fact we have to face at present.
    It is evidenced by the fact that no one has been arrested since McMahon.

    Imagining a country-wide conspiracy between the guards and politicians and even a large section of the media, does not make that factual. In fact it takes the attention from the real problem of an unexplained disappearance of a child.


  • #1749
    twill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 587 ✭✭✭twill


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    Just because you believe it and say so does not make anything a fact.
    There is not sufficient evidence to arrest anyone in this case.
    That is the fact we have to face at present.
    It is evidenced by the fact that no one has been arrested since McMahon.

    Imagining a country-wide conspiracy between the guards and politicians and even a large section of the media, does not make that factual. In fact it takes the attention from the real problem of an unexplained disappearance of a child.

    Again you ignore Ann Doherty. Why is that?


  • #1750
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,087 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    Smondie wrote: »
    We've had 40 years of pretend due process

    and your solution is to accuse someone of being a murderer without any evidence?

    absolutely crazy!


  • #1751
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,087 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    twill wrote: »
    Again you ignore Ann Doherty. Why is that?

    What evidence does she have?
    Did she witness something that she can attest to?

    or maybe you think unsubstantiated hearsay is evidence?


  • Advertisement
  • #1752
    PaddyWilliams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,121 ✭✭✭PaddyWilliams


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    and your solution is to accuse someone of being a murderer without any evidence?

    absolutely crazy!

    Why did they arrest McMahon without any evidence then?


  • #1753
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,087 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    PaddyWilliams wrote: »
    Why did they arrest McMahon without any evidence then?

    Is that true? Can you show it to be true?


  • #1754
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    I feel sure that the majority of the gardai involved in the case over the years also had a belief they knewthat the majority of the gardai involved in the case over the years also had a belief they knew.

    Nearly 40 years ago the family's privacy and feelings were more taken into account than these days, so it is hard to judge and looking back and applying the norms of today to that time just does not work well.
    Family members are often the first suspects these days; back then they were more likely to be the last.
    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    Apparently there is no new evidence.
    None at all.
    There was not sufficient evidence to arrest, charge and hopefully convict someone in the last few decades, and nothing new has surfaced that I am aware of.
    Throwing out a name in the media is not going to end well.
    If the person cannot be show to be guilty then there can be legal repercussions.
    If new evidence came to light later that person could get off because of pretrial bias .... conviction in the media before any court case.
    The best that can be hoped for at present, is that the puzzle of the disappearance is resolved .... maybe by the child's body being discovered.

    We agree that the case was questionably handled in 1977.

    You've said it's hard to judge looking at it in hindsight.

    Either it was made a mess of back then, or it wasn't.

    If there was a mess made of it back then, now is the time to investigate it professionally, before anyone dies.

    And the two ex gardai are saying it was and nothing is being done about it.

    The only other alternative is to continue with the "77 time warp investigation".


  • #1755
    twill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 587 ✭✭✭twill


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    What evidence does she have?
    Did she witness something that she can attest to?

    or maybe you think unsubstantiated hearsay is evidence?

    I believe I already addressed that above:
    And consider the nature of some of the allegations that she has made and the possibility that she may be very well placed to attest to them.
    PaddyWilliams wrote:
    Why did they arrest McMahon without any evidence then?
    It wasn't that there was no evidence; in a properly run investigation, where a number of leads were being investigated, his arrest would not be out of place. But in a properly run investigation, his would not be the first arrest.


  • #1756
    PaddyWilliams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,121 ✭✭✭PaddyWilliams


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    Is that true? Can you show it to be true?

    If they had any real evidence he would not have been let go again. So maybe they acted on 'unsubstantiated hearsay', or maybe it was just a ploy to deflect attention, who knows?

    Can you show it to be true that they have no evidence on the suspect that everyone knows about, as you seem quite definite on it.


  • #1757
    PaddyWilliams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,121 ✭✭✭PaddyWilliams


    twill wrote: »
    It wasn't that there was no evidence; in a properly run investigation, where a number of leads were being investigated, his arrest would not be out of place. But in a properly run investigation, his would not be the first arrest.

    But sure that only makes it even worse that the main suspect has not been questioned! They arrested someone who's only links to the case were that he molested boys and was born in the area. They've been given numerous leads on this main suspect, but not once in 40 years has he been interrogated in an official interview. Makes no sense!


  • #1758
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    What evidence does she have?
    Did she witness something that she can attest to?

    or maybe you think unsubstantiated hearsay is evidence?

    New information has been made public.

    She claims to have information that her mother has shared the identity of Mary's killer to her.

    That in itself is worthy of investigation.

    The mother may refute it. She may not. The Gardai need to check.

    To eliminate this named individual.

    Have they checked? I don't know. I doubt it.

    I doubt they want to, because in their way of investigating this missing persons case it's still 1977.

    They have no suspect, no focus.

    They official line is that they think she could be eating her dinner somewhere right now:

    http://internationalmissingchild.org/find-child/poster/IRGSMK1

    http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=6341&Lang=1


  • #1759
    twill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 587 ✭✭✭twill


    PaddyWilliams wrote: »
    But sure that only makes it even worse that the main suspect has not been questioned! They arrested someone who's only links to the case were that he molested boys and was born in the area. They've been given numerous leads on this main suspect, but not once in 40 years has he been interrogated in an official interview. Makes no sense!

    Even without such leads - and they are vitally relevant - this person (don't want to go into details of the circumstances as it would make it obvious who I mean) would be the first suspect in any such case. 40 years ago, it might have been unthinkable on a human level, but to say that police in any country wouldn't make an arrest in any similar case is unimaginable.


  • #1760
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,087 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    Going Forward wrote: »
    We agree that the case was questionably handled in 1977.
    An investigation cannot undo the bad practices of the time.
    Apparently the house was not even entered, not mind say searched, for the child, by the guards, at the time.
    Things like that cannot be undone and so would be no help to the investigation.
    Most of the bad practices of the time are now (I would hope) corrected, and investigations of this sort are much better run. I am unsure what benefit an enquiry would have in this case ..... that is the case of finding out what happened to the child even if no charges are ever brought against anyone.


  • #1761
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,087 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    twill wrote: »
    Even without such leads - and they are vitally relevant - this person (don't want to go into details of the circumstances as it would make it obvious who I mean) would be the first suspect in any such case. 40 years ago, it might have been unthinkable on a human level, but to say that police in any country wouldn't make an arrest in any similar case is unimaginable.

    There are a few posting here who strongly imply they are privy to facts the rest do not have.
    Without those facts, implications from anonymous on line posters cannot be taken at face value.


  • Advertisement
  • #1762
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,087 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    PaddyWilliams wrote: »
    If they had any real evidence he would not have been let go again. So maybe they acted on 'unsubstantiated hearsay', or maybe it was just a ploy to deflect attention, who knows?

    Can you show it to be true that they have no evidence on the suspect that everyone knows about, as you seem quite definite on it.

    I am not privy to what the gardai might or might not have or consider to be evidence. I can only judge by the actions of the police.
    They arrested and questioned one man, so obviously they thought they had good reason to do so.
    They did not make any further arrests, so obviously they did not have sufficient cause to do so.
    That is an much as most know.


  • #1763
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    An investigation cannot undo the bad practices of the time.
    Apparently the house was not even entered, not mind say searched, for the child, by the guards, at the time.
    Things like that cannot be undone and so would be no help to the investigation.
    Most of the bad practices of the time are now (I would hope) corrected, and investigations of this sort are much better run. I am unsure what benefit an enquiry would have in this case ..... that is the case of finding out what happened to the child even if no charges are ever brought against anyone.

    But failing to acknowledge this causes an enduring problem for the force's credibility today and will do so for as long as it remains swept under the carpet.

    An enquiry into the handling of the case forces this to be acknowledged.

    Unless it's publicly investigated, the original handling of the case remains officially endorsed.


  • #1764
    PaddyWilliams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,121 ✭✭✭PaddyWilliams


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    I am not privy to what the gardai might or might not have or consider to be evidence. I can only judge by the actions of the police.
    They arrested and questioned one man, so obviously they thought they had good reason to do so.
    They did not make any further arrests, so obviously they did not have sufficient cause to do so.
    That is an much as most know.

    And police have never been known to take action that it not necessarily by the letter of the law. Come on! It's been proved many times that this is the case, arrests made on the back of nothing, false accusations made at innocents etc. Is it really outside the realm of possibility that this was part of a cover up that seems to have been going on almost 40 years?


  • #1765
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,087 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    PaddyWilliams wrote: »
    And police have never been known to take action that it not necessarily by the letter of the law. Come on! It's been proved many times that this is the case, arrests made on the back of nothing, false accusations made at innocents etc. Is it really outside the realm of possibility that this was part of a cover up that seems to have been going on almost 40 years?

    No, not outside the realm of possibility.
    There is not sufficient cause to believe it probable.
    There is not sufficient evidence to state it as fact.

    Anything is 'possible' .... even that alien abduction suggestion is within the realm of possible!


  • #1766
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,087 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    Going Forward wrote: »
    But failing to acknowledge this causes an enduring problem for the force's credibility today and will do so for as long as it remains swept under the carpet.

    An enquiry into the handling of the case forces this to be acknowledged.

    Unless it's publicly investigated, the original handling of the case remains officially endorsed.
    You might well be right.
    I don't view it as being swept under the carpet. I view it as fairly normal behaviour for the time. I remember when it was normal for suspects to be taken to the station and roughed up a little to get 'evidence'. That evidence would today be thrown out of court.
    I believe the failures of past times have been well acknowledged (generally). Is it necessary that every case gets its own enquiry to acknowledge the same things? Who decides what is and is not a case deserving of an enquiry?
    For the most part I think a bunch of enquiries would not do much at all.


  • #1767
    PaddyWilliams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,121 ✭✭✭PaddyWilliams


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    No, not outside the realm of possibility.
    There is not sufficient cause to believe it probable.
    There is not sufficient evidence to state it as fact.

    Anything is 'possible' .... even that alien abduction suggestion is within the realm of possible!

    You're a little bit all over the place really, aren't you? Earlier in the thread you were asking why they had arrested McMahon when they hadn't enough evidence to charge him, now you seem to be defending their decision to do it anyways and disagreeing with people who ask why McMahon was arrested!

    I'll finish my debate with you there, I actually thought you were arguing something you fully believed, but seems you don't know yourself!


  • #1768
    Smondie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭Smondie


    You know on crimeline they ask for viewers to ring in and they get leads from the public? The seem to be able to act on information given in those cases.



    Mary Boyle has been featured on crimeline. Have the gardai not been able to act on information collected in this case?

    *crimeline/gardapatrol/whatever the name of the tv show is


  • #1769
    mikeymouse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 568 ✭✭✭mikeymouse


    Even at this late date all possible suspects should be traced ,interviewed and eliminated,or arrested and charged


  • #1770
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    Who decides what is and is not a case deserving of an enquiry?

    The Minister for Justice and Equality.

    But in making that decision she has to balance whether it's in anyone's interest to know whether the case was mishandled and whether it would be damaging to garda morale and public confidence in the force if it is found that it was.

    A lot of this comes down to saving face, and letting things be.

    It has the potential to be another "scandal" they could do without.

    There probably will be an enquiry into the handling of this case, but in a decade or two, long after anything could come of it.


  • Advertisement
  • #1771
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,087 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    mikeymouse wrote: »
    Even at this late date all possible suspects should be traced ,interviewed and eliminated,or arrested and charged

    That is what is required ....... but is there any indication this has not been done during the preceding years, and they did not have sufficient evidence to 'arrest and charge' anybody?
    It appears most assume all efforts have not been made to gather evidence, because those efforts have not resulted in an arrest and charge.


Advertisement