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

Esel · 10-09-2016 08:46PM

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

can you elaborate on that ? if you think it was my Uncle Charlie I can take it, we need an open debate but please state your reasons .

I'm very sorry, because having watched it again, I now realise I was wrong in my impression. Please accept my sincere apology for any upset my post may have caused to you and all of Mary's family.

oranbhoy67 · 10-09-2016 11:11PM

Esel wrote: »

I'm very sorry, because having watched it again, I now realise I was wrong in my impression. Please accept my sincere apology for any upset my post may have caused to you and all of Mary's family.

you don't have to apologise one bit, if anyone thinks my uncle was involved in some way come on and debate why they think that, obviously because he has passed on I would hope they could be respectful about him and for the record I don't think for a moment he was involved ,but i can't close my mind completely to the fact that he might've been just because he was my uncle . as it is I am 100% sure in my mind that he wasn't involved nor anyone else who was in the actual house when Mary went missing .. but I don't want my presence here to cause people to think certain things are taboo and can't be spoken about.

there has been nearly 40 years of silence imo on this matter and by chatting as we are it opens up different thoughts, I know I've certainly changed my mind on certain things since I started posting on here and some of that change of thought has been helped along by posts on here making me look at things from a different article

again no need to apologise ! no harm no foul as they say

Going Forward · 11-09-2016 12:22AM

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

you don't have to apologise one bit, if anyone thinks my uncle was involved in some way come on and debate why they think that, obviously because he has passed on I would hope they could be respectful about him and for the record I don't think for a moment he was involved ,but i can't close my mind completely to the fact that he might've been just because he was my uncle . as it is I am 100% sure in my mind that he wasn't involved nor anyone else who was in the actual house when Mary went missing .. but I don't want my presence here to cause people to think certain things are taboo and can't be spoken about.

there has been nearly 40 years of silence imo on this matter and by chatting as we are it opens up different thoughts, I know I've certainly changed my mind on certain things since I started posting on here and some of that change of thought has been helped along by posts on here making me look at things from a different article

again no need to apologise ! no harm no foul as they say

From an "outsider's" point of view, the question it raises is how reliable is the appointing of the prime suspect?

Looking from the outside in and if keeping the "patsy" theory in mind, any adult on the scene is a prime suspect in one sense.

Looked at WYB, and I was none the wiser to anything.

Ann Boyle looked to me very sincere and plausible, good eye contact, came over as natural enough, didn't look like someone lying, but maybe I missed something.

Gerry didn't say much alright, but if a six year old had followed me across a field and "vanished" I don't know if I'd be hogging the limelight either, it's inexplicable, and trying to explain it would draw attention to that......

Martin Collins pointedly stopped short of mentioning violence in it IIRC?

He said something about 3 theories but didn't elaborate as he has done lately.

mikeymouse · 11-09-2016 12:44AM

Going Forward wrote: »

From an "outsider's" point of view, the question it raises is how reliable is the appointing of the prime suspect?

Looking from the outside in and if keeping the "patsy" theory in mind, any adult on the scene is a prime suspect in one sense.

Looked at WYB, and I was none the wiser to anything.

Ann Boyle looked to me very sincere and plausible, good eye contact, came over as natural enough, didn't look like someone lying, but maybe I missed something.

Gerry didn't say much alright, but if a six year old had followed me across a field and "vanished" I don't know if I'd be hogging the limelight either, it's inexplicable, and trying to explain it would draw attention to that......

Martin Collins pointedly stopped short of mentioning violence in it IIRC?

He said something about 3 theories but didn't elaborate as he has done lately.

the new information in WYb (to me anyway) is the sibling's testimony, that

Mary headed out alone,after dinner.(again at about 4 mins in)

Going Forward · 11-09-2016 12:58AM

mikeymouse wrote: »

the new information in WYb (to me anyway) is the sibling's testimony, that

Mary headed out alone,after dinner.(again at about 4 mins in)

+1

Yes.

Was it the first time that it entered the public domain that there was a witness to her setting off on her final journey?

He didn't say it himself on camera of course, which may diminish the value of it.

mikeymouse · 11-09-2016 01:16AM

Going Forward wrote: »

+1

Yes.

Was it the first time that it entered the public domain that there was a witness to her setting off on her final journey?

He didn't say it himself on camera of course, which may diminish the value of it.

It's Ann's version of what happened on the day,

I believe the elder brother who now lives in the States or Canada wants no part in this.

oranbhoy67 · 11-09-2016 04:38AM

mikeymouse wrote: »

It's Ann's version of what happened on the day,

I believe the elder brother who now lives in the States or Canada wants no part in this.

I haven't got around to re-watching this again but I will now, & I watched it back then originally without knowing then what I know now, but if I remember right it was the Brother Michael who was interviewed in this show.. if that is who you are referring to then he has passed away since filming.

*Edit* yes the brother interviewed in this show has since passed away

*further edit* if you mean Marys brother Paddy then he does work in the states but he still lives in Donegal his job takes him al over the world . from what he told me his thoughts on the recent developments is that he doesn't want things "played out in public"

oranbhoy67 · 11-09-2016 06:28AM

quite heartbreaking to watch that , I t was hard enough first time when it was originally on TV, believing what I do now it was even harder , one part stood out to me Ann (senior) mentions it was Charlies wish that he found out to Mary before he died .

I made a phone call to her the month before Gemmas documentary came out and asked her why she kept refusing an Inquest , after at first repeatedly telling me that it was none of my or anyone's business other than her own she started saying she and Charlie discussed it before he died and he had stated clearly he wanted no inquest ever.

I don't believe this for a minute

and her saying it disgusted me

My Uncle Charlie had an inquest. I know we don't have Marys body but she deserves one too

Johnboy1951 · 11-09-2016 01:37PM

With the elimination of a 'stranger' abduction from the probability list of what might have happened to the child, there are two main probabilities ...
1. death by deliberate or accidental act
2. death by accident, due to being unfamiliar with area and age.

Setting aside #2 for the moment, when considering #1 the first thing to be done is to make a list of all persons present on the farm at the time.

Don't forget that another child could possibly have done something that caused harm so the children as well as adults would be on the list.

Go through each on the list and consider how they have reacted, particularly in the immediate aftermath, and use those reactions as indicators for considering each a possible suspect.

Bear in mind, that this being a family affair, which occurred when family considerations overruled all else, then a family 'cover-up' would not be at all unlikely.

Investigators can do little without cooperation of those present.
If there was a deliberate cover-up of an event by those with information (maybe only two) then it is no wonder the puzzle was not solved.

Such an analysis would not be a pleasant affair, particularly for surviving family members, and relatives, descendants etc.. There is likely little appetite for it, with a couple of exceptions.

Doing such an analysis, on the other hand, might well exonerate all family members, and help point any further investigation in the right direction.

"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

oranbhoy67 · 11-09-2016 06:00PM

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

With the elimination of a 'stranger' abduction from the probability list of what might have happened to the child, there are two main probabilities ...
1. death by deliberate or accidental act
2. death by accident, due to being unfamiliar with area and age.

Setting aside #2 for the moment, when considering #1 the first thing to be done is to make a list of all persons present on the farm at the time.

Don't forget that another child could possibly have done something that caused harm so the children as well as adults would be on the list.

Go through each on the list and consider how they have reacted, particularly in the immediate aftermath, and use those reactions as indicators for considering each a possible suspect.

Bear in mind, that this being a family affair, which occurred when family considerations overruled all else, then a family 'cover-up' would not be at all unlikely.

Investigators can do little without cooperation of those present.
If there was a deliberate cover-up of an event by those with information (maybe only two) then it is no wonder the puzzle was not solved.

Such an analysis would not be a pleasant affair, particularly for surviving family members, and relatives, descendants etc.. There is likely little appetite for it, with a couple of exceptions.

Doing such an analysis, on the other hand, might well exonerate all family members, and help point any further investigation in the right direction.

"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

I could not agree with this more

very well said

ShowMeTheCash · 12-09-2016 02:17AM

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Keep going. Keep focusing.
More than anything I pray your family find little Mary and get to give her a decent burial and have a grave to visit and where she can finally rest in peace.
Anything else after that, including convictions would be a bonus.
Best wishes Oranbhoy.

It is this type of thinking that actually makes me feel embarrassed as it is all too common here in Donegal.

Finding the body is not for Mary, finding the body is more for the family.
If you actually want to focus on doing something for Mary the focus should be on finding her killer...

Find the killer is a bonus???
There is something seriously wrong with how people think on this thread!

Giacomo McGubbin · 14-09-2016 01:05PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

It is this type of thinking that actually makes me feel embarrassed as it is all too common here in Donegal.

Finding the body is not for Mary, finding the body is more for the family.
If you actually want to focus on doing something for Mary the focus should be on finding her killer...

The family have stated many times that finding Mary is the priority and giving her a proper and respectful Christian burial and resting place. That is doing something for Mary. I'm merely supporting the families priority. If you have a problem with that priority at least have the decency to take it up with a family member. Her killer by all accounts is already suspected. What is lacking is evidence, and in particular physical evidence. Finding her body may also lead vital evidence that will support a solid conviction.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Find the killer is a bonus???
There is something seriously wrong with how people think on this thread!

At least have the decency to quote me honestly, I said securing a conviction would be a bonus, and certainly a lot easier with some physical evidence linking the killer to the crime. So in other words, the family and those who wish to support them, are absolutely correct in their priority to find her remains.

tayto lover · 14-09-2016 06:56PM

I am bringing this back to the tracker dogs returning to the same spot time after time.
Could someone say if this spot was used to park cars or if anyone's car was parked there on the day Mary disappeared please?

I can't help but think that this is crucial to getting close to the answer of this riddle.

Giacomo McGubbin · 14-09-2016 08:22PM

tayto lover wrote: »

I am bringing this back to the tracker dogs returning to the same spot time after time.
Could someone say if this spot was used to park cars or if anyone's car was parked there on the day Mary disappeared please?

I can't help but think that this is crucial to getting close to the answer of this riddle.

You keep thinking it's a road or parking area ? Why ? the postman said it was "down the lane near the house". That can be anywhere, it doesn't have to be a surfaced area or on the actual lane itself, and could well have been where the body was buried temporarily, or still buried today.

tayto lover · 14-09-2016 08:31PM

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

You keep thinking it's a road or parking area ? Why ? the postman said it was "down the lane near the house". That can be anywhere, it doesn't have to be a surfaced area or on the actual lane itself, and could well have been where the body was buried temporarily, or still buried today.

Or where a car was parked. A lane indicates a hard surface.

Giacomo McGubbin · 14-09-2016 08:52PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Or where a car was parked. A lane indicates a hard surface.

We've had this conversation before.
Colloquially, the phrase, "down the lane near the house" can mean anywhere adjacent to or in the vicinity of the lane, not just on the the lane. That's why the postman would be worth talking to properly, and the area he remembers the original search dog identifying should be properly excavated by professionals in conjunction with the authorities (if you want it to stand up later in court). If the lane was disturbed it would have been obvious at the time. There's a very good chance that "down the lane near the house" is where the body was either buried temporary even permanently. A body carried in someone's arms and then put into a car is going to leave a lot less sent than one buried. It's madness that the location repeatedly identified over and over by the original sniffer dog has been repeatedly ignored and never professionally excavated. At the very least it should be professionally excavated forensically to properly eliminate it from the enquiries. Then you could move onto thinking it might have been a body carried to a car and taken away.
(But this opens up all sort of other questions, i.e. why did no one notice someone borrowing/using a car before she disappeared etc.)
There was some excuse at the time for ignoring the area identified by the sniffer dog close to the house, when they thought they were dealing with a missing child instead of a body, but today there is no good reason to continually ignore this area. I guess it's just not juicy and entertaining enough in terms of other agenda's, fueds, conspiracy theories and politics.

Occam's Razor (Problem solving principle) : Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected

oranbhoy67 · 14-09-2016 11:06PM

The Lane to the house is very long

(Just one of the reasons I dont think she made it to the main road - the vast vast majority of kids would have got bored/scared half way down )

From what I have been told Marys Fathers car was parked next to the house, the Uncle Gerry's was parked at the very top of the Lane before you get to the house .

Im pretty sure it was also said though that by the time the dog was brought in countless people had came and went and the dog could very well have just lost her scent because of all the people who had trampled thru the place in the meantime

Giacomo McGubbin · 15-09-2016 12:21AM

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

The Lane to the house is very long

True, but the postman added "near the house". He sounded as though in the interview he knew a lot more but was holding back.
I'd be talking to him if I were you. It might be worth your while.

mikeymouse · 15-09-2016 12:22AM

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

The Lane to the house is very long

(Just one of the reasons I dont think she made it to the main road - the vast vast majority of kids would have got bored/scared half way down )

From what I have been told Marys Fathers car was parked next to the house, the Uncle Gerry's was parked at the very top of the Lane before you get to the house .

Im pretty sure it was also said though that by the time the dog was brought in countless people had came and went and the dog could very well have just lost her scent because of all the people who had trampled thru the place in the meantime

Did uncle Michael and his family not have a car?

oranbhoy67 · 15-09-2016 04:13AM

mikeymouse wrote: »

Did uncle Michael and his family not have a car?

They weren't there that day just the grandparents & their daughter Ann and her Family (Boyles) & son Gerry and his Family.

oranbhoy67 · 15-09-2016 04:14AM

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

True, but the postman added "near the house". He sounded as though in the interview he knew a lot more but was holding back.
I'd be talking to him if I were you. It might be worth your while.

agreed he sounded very tuned in and on the ball , I will try & track him down the next time I'm out there .

Going Forward · 15-09-2016 05:23PM

No danger of "the authorities" taking the initiative to do any of these investigations.

Bizarre that such a discussion should even be taking place.

Giacomo McGubbin · 15-09-2016 08:34PM

An important reminder of how decent Gardai are treated by the management and their clicks . . . .
On the inside, the Gardai is a complex political environment . . to put it mildly.
Spare a thought for the Gardai Sergeant that committed suicide in Ballyshannon station and how he was treated and manipulated by Gardai management.

An inquest into the death of Sergeant Michael Galvin who died in Ballyshannon Garda Station in May last year has returned a verdict of suicide.

Sgt Galvin's death was the subject of a judicial inquiry, which found that the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission was mistaken to begin a criminal investigation into his actions and the actions of two colleagues following the death of a woman in a traffic incident on New Year's Day 2015.

He and the two other gardaí were cleared of all wrongdoing but had not been informed by GSOC.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0914/816565-michael-galvin/

Seth Brundle · 15-09-2016 08:43PM

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

An important reminder of how decent Gardai are treated by the management and their clicks . . . .
On the inside, the Gardai is a complex political environment . . to put it mildly.
Spare a thought for the Gardai Sergeant that committed suicide in Ballyshannon station and how he was treated and manipulated by Gardai management.

The GSOC are not part of Garda management.

Giacomo McGubbin · 15-09-2016 08:48PM

kbannon wrote: »

The GSOC are not part of Garda management.

Officially. Unofficially politics and contacts as rife as anywhere else.

15-09-2016 09:19PM

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

An important reminder of how decent Gardai are treated by the management and their clicks . . . .
On the inside, the Gardai is a complex political environment . . to put it mildly.
Spare a thought for the Gardai Sergeant that committed suicide in Ballyshannon station and how he was treated and manipulated by Gardai management.

GSOC are not Garda management.
I don't know why you would try to blame the gardai for something that GSOC put the poor man through

Giacomo McGubbin · 15-09-2016 09:28PM

bubblypop wrote: »

GSOC are not Garda management.
I don't know why you would try to blame the gardai for something that GSOC put the poor man through

My they are all coming out. I never said there were.
If you claim anything in Ireland is above politics and manipulation you are either naive or trying a spin. The fact remains he was treated abismily by Gardai management / GSOC. The reason I'm highlighting here, is to demonstrate the Gardai are not some monolithic consistent force. There's as much complicated politics going on inside the Gardai as outside.

15-09-2016 09:33PM

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

My they are all coming out. I never said there were.
If you claim anything in Ireland is above politics and manipulation you are either naive or trying a spin. The fact remains he was treated abismily by Gardai management / GSOC. The reason I'm highlighting here, is to demonstrate the Gardai are not some monolithic consistent force. There's as much complicated politics going on inside the Gardai as outside.

No, he was treated badly by GSOC.
They are not slash Garda management.

Giacomo McGubbin · 15-09-2016 09:35PM

bubblypop wrote: »

No, he was treated badly by GSOC.
They are not slash Garda management.

You already tried that.

On a separate note, now that you are here, tell us when's the last time GSOC investigated and reprimanded anyone in Gardai Management ?

Overheal · 16-09-2016 06:54AM

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

My they are all coming out.

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

You already tried that.

Mod: Users in good standing are all welcome to post here; this attitude is not. Thank you!

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

Comments