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

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

An assumption does not provide the evidence on which to base any decision.

There's no evidence to suggest she's alive so that works both ways.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The point is that no it does not work both ways.
The coroner only takes action if there is cause to believe there is a death.
Absence of evidence of one does not imply evidence of the opposite.

But there is cause to believe there has been a death.

Without stating the obvious it's nearly 40 year on.

A coroner has taken action before in absence of evidence.

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10569:open-verdict-recorded-in-louisburgh-mans-inquest&catid=23:news&Itemid=46

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The coroner did not take independent action but was permitted/instructed to hold the inquest by the minister. It does not say who applied to the minister for the inquest to take place.

The missing person was an adult whose car was


There is little these two cases have in common.

I don't know.

In my opinion the balance of probability that either two still were alive must be fairly close to non existent, and the 40 year elapse in this case must lend even more credibility to the suggestion that Mary is not alive.

Plus, if they were of a mind to, an adult could choose to engineer their own disappearance, something that cannot really be similarly expected of a 6 year old child.

That in itself places an onus on those in authority to begin to at least question the validity of continually entertaining the probability that she did not come to some form of harm of life ending proportion.

She'd be around 46 now.

Maybe they'll wait another 60 years just to be on the safe side so that they won't have made a mistake today in case she turns up in the middle of proceedings and makes the Coroner look ridiculous for suggesting she was dead.

That sounds disrespectful, it's not meant to be, but if it can relatively easily be accepted that the man in the case mentioned was dead I can't see a difficulty accepting that a 6 year old missing for the last 39 years is just as dead.

And that sounds disrespectful again, and it's not meant to be, I'm just trying to position the conventional and "legitimate" or "accepted" thought process for convening one inquest onto the "rejected" or "illegitimate" thought process that seem to be refusing a request for an inquest for Mary.

The fact that Martin Collins has made a clear allegation that there is a deliberate cover up and that it is his professional/personal opinion that she never left the area should be enough in this case, there were no allegations of any sort in the other inquest where death was freely accepted.

EDIT: It's very difficult to discern what exactly Marys sister has been told in writing or what formal approaches have been made about this request.

Talk of her mother putting it in her will etc. is completely irrelevant.

http://www.highlandradio.com/2016/08/15/retired-detective-sergeant-says-he-was-not-put-under-pressure-during-mary-boyle-investigation/

Aidan Murray's statement.

I'm a little confused by his present tense terminology.

He now says "I say", in describing the alleged call from the politician being hearsay.

This statement was the ideal opportunity for him to state that he "said" something, and that what he "said" was not broadcast or deleted or edited.

He is not saying he "said" it when his interview was being recorded.

He says it now. "I say".....

This is significant.

He does not do this, does not make any such claim when putting pen to paper.

That reluctance does his statement no favours.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

If one were to 'err on the side of caution' then the abduction theory might be the one chosen.
It would not be my choice but I am not the coroner.

He should throw caution to the wind.

How could it be ever later established that there was an error in arriving at the conclusion she's dead??

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Let's suppose, all these assumptions and accusations throughout the thread (and you know what they say about assumptions) might be correct.

Assumptions :
1. The person some people are currently accusing is guilty (even though under law people are supposed to assume innocence until proven guilty in a legal court of law)

2. A local politician rang the barracks asking a senior guard to go easy on a suspect who was a close family member of the missing girl.

3. The senior guard acted on this, and instructed his subordinates to go easy on the girl's relative.

4. Aside from all the above the Gardai also made some genuine mistakes in undertaking and planing the investigation. (A very safe assumption)

5. None of the Gardai or authorities are worth working with in any way, it can all be solved and sorted by the public without them, and by making all sorts of accusations about them. the Gardai and authorities are suddenly going to come on board with the campaign and divert all their efforts to it.

The expectation here seems to be, that due to public pressure, and based on the assumption that the above assumptions and accusations might be true :

1. The Gardai will arrest the public's preferred suspect
2. After 40 years of being blamed for it by the public, and successfully resisting the pressure up to now, the public's chosen suspect, will suddenly crack for everyone and confess where Mary is buried
3. The politician and his party will crack and admit he and his party got the Guards to cover it all up
4. The Garda Síochána will formally admit the dead senior Guard and a political party helped cover it all up
5. The Garda Síochána will formally admit all their other mistakes in the investigation and start the investigation from scratch and secure a solid conviction.

Honestly, how realistic do people here think the above is ?

In the absence of a public enquiry into the handling of the investigation you'd be right.

It hardly needs a public enquiry to make, and be confident of making the assumptions about the handling of the case that you've mentioned.

But, who's fooling who here?

No one is fooled by a reluctance of "the authorities" to have yet another enquiry into allegations of the failings of the national police force, which will either be received by the public as a whiitewash or another report on someone's desk gathering dust.

For the innocent and painfully naive amongst us, this case and any connected enquiry has the potential to offer the Gardai as a force under pressure, an opportunity of profound navel gazing, atonement and rebirth.

Going Forward wrote: »

In the absence of a public enquiry into the handling of the investigation you'd be right.

It hardly needs a public enquiry to make, and be confident of making the assumptions about the handling of the case that you've mentioned.

But, who's fooling who here?

No one is fooled by a reluctance of "the authorities" to have yet another enquiry into allegations of the failings of the national police force, which will either be received by the public as a whiitewash or another report on someone's desk gathering dust.

For the innocent and painfully naive amongst us, this case and any connected enquiry has the potential to offer the Gardai as a force under pressure, an opportunity of profound navel gazing, atonement and rebirth.

Public inquiries to date have always been a farce in Ireland.
More money for the lads.
Even if some of the authorities, politicians and Gardai are guilty of only a fraction of what is alleged, I don't think they even care about fooling most people anymore. Why would they have to ? It all continues to work for them anyway. All you have to do in Ireland is continue to deny and you are home and dry. What's even more depressing is all the other political clicks in Ireland, including the independents, would behave in exactly the same way if they were in power and had the connections.