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…7778808283…94

Comments

  • #2372
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 54,270 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Dominique Small Slavery wrote: »
    The answers lie within the family in my opinion so protesting outside FF headquarters is a waste of time.
    Obviously a political corruption story is better for Gemma though.

    In my view Gemma has become more of a hindrance than a help to the whole Mary Boyle story. She is only out for herself.


  • #2373
    qhe0i9zvfgdou8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 422 ✭✭qhe0i9zvfgdou8


    tayto lover wrote:
    In my view Gemma has become more of a hindrance than a help to the whole Mary Boyle story. She is only out for herself.


    I think the YouTube video had its use in getting people talking about it again. But her attempts to turn it into a corrupt politicians story is self serving and of no help in bringing the guilty to justice.


  • #2374
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Dominique Small Slavery wrote: »
    I think the YouTube video had its use in getting people talking about it again. But her attempts to turn it into a corrupt politicians story is self serving and of no help in bringing the guilty to justice.

    The "guilty"? There's never been a coherent investigation much less a credible suspect going by what the Garda have stated about the case.

    Too much shooting the messenger there. Her angle is peripheral to the case.

    Why not question why the Donegal Gardai and the local coroner are looking the other way. They are public servants, O Doherty is not.


    Her off the wall approach is just a few years old, it can't be blamed for a 40 year arrangement between the Boyles and the Gardai.


  • #2375
    qhe0i9zvfgdou8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 422 ✭✭qhe0i9zvfgdou8


    The dogs on the street know who's guilty.
    I gave her credit for the video she made. After that her antics have been no advantage to the case in my opinion.

    Not sure what the guards can do when the family shut up shop


  • #2376
    oranbhoy67
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,804 ✭✭✭oranbhoy67


    dense wrote: »
    Dominique Small Slavery wrote: »
    I think the YouTube video had its use in getting people talking about it again. But her attempts to turn it into a corrupt politicians story is self serving and of no help in bringing the guilty to justice.

    The "guilty"? There's never been a coherent investigation much less a credible suspect going by what the Garda have stated about the case.

    Too much shooting the messenger there. Her angle is peripheral to the case.

    Why not question why the Donegal Gardai and the local coroner are looking the other way. They are public servants, O Doherty is not.


    Her off the wall approach is just a few years old, it can't be blamed for a 40 year arrangement between the Boyles and the Gardai.

    I'd just like to point out that the Boyle family and their extended relatives live(d) on the complete other end of Donegal , Mary's Mother may be a Boyle thru marriage but I will never consider her an aunt, she will always be a Gallagher to me, as that's all that matters to her


  • Advertisement
  • #2377
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Dominique Small Slavery wrote: »
    The dogs on the street know who's guilty.
    I gave her credit for the video she made. After that her antics have been no advantage to the case in my opinion.

    Not sure what the guards can do when the family shut up shop

    What the 40 year old case?

    I find this a very narrow view!

    You say "who's guilty" as if that is it the buck stops their.

    The case is no longer about a single guilty party that ship sailed 40 years ago...

    The guilty are those who knew and said nothing, any government body or institution that may have been involved or impeded the investigation.


  • #2378
    qhe0i9zvfgdou8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 422 ✭✭qhe0i9zvfgdou8


    ShowMeTheCash wrote:
    The case is no longer about a single guilty party that ship sailed 40 years ago...

    I think you'll find Mary's family (well her twin sister and some others) would like to see what you describe as a single guilty party brought to justice. They would also like to know where her body is so she can get a proper burial and have some place to visit her.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote:
    The guilty are those who knew and said nothing, any government body or institution that may have been involved or impeded the investigation.

    But is there proof that the investigation was impeded by any government body or institution. The investigating gardai gave different versions and one even gave different versions himself at different times.

    What we do know is that members of the family impeded the investigation and still are.


  • #2379
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Dominique Small Slavery wrote: »
    I think you'll find Mary's family (well her twin sister and some others) would like to see what you describe as a single guilty party brought to justice. They would also like to know where her body is so she can get a proper burial and have some place to visit her.



    But is there proof that the investigation was impeded by any government body or institution. The investigating gardai gave different versions and one even gave different versions himself at different times.

    What we do know is that members of the family impeded the investigation and still are.


    Justice first and foremost is for Mary not her family or others for all we know family members could of been directly or indirectly involved.

    I have watched the documentary from the testimony it looks like outside forces where at play in who to investigate or who not to investigate as the case may be...
    Who these outside forces are I agree we need proof but it becomes somewhat of a mockery when these institutions are left to investigate themselves for wrong doing.

    It is not like whistle blowers in the past have been demonized in our "state" media...


  • #2380
    qhe0i9zvfgdou8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 422 ✭✭qhe0i9zvfgdou8


    ShowMeTheCash wrote:
    Justice first and foremost is for Mary not her family or others for all we know family members could of been directly or indirectly involved.

    Who said different ?

    ShowMeTheCash wrote:
    I have watched the documentary from the testimony it looks like outside forces where at play in who to investigate or who not to investigate

    What it looks like to you in the documentary is neither here nor there. You will find that at least one of the people in the documentary gave a different opinion at a later date.


  • #2381
    qhe0i9zvfgdou8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 422 ✭✭qhe0i9zvfgdou8


    ShowMeTheCash wrote:
    It is not like whistle blowers in the past have been demonized in our "state" media...

    Don't know what this has to do with the discussion


  • Advertisement
  • #2382
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Dominique Small Slavery wrote: »
    Who said different ?

    I said this is not about a single party, you say

    "I think you'll find Mary's family (well her twin sister and some others) would like to see what you describe as a single guilty party brought to justice."

    So maybe you are just voicing thoughts but you seem to be making some kind of counter argument to the "I said this is not about a single party, you say" to what the family and friends what......



    Dominique Small Slavery wrote: »
    What it looks like to you in the documentary is neither here nor there. You will find that at least one of the people in the documentary gave a different opinion at a later date.

    Different opinion? Or different account?

    I am talking about the phone call by a Politician to say that "none of a particular family are to be questions about Mary's disappearance".

    This is what Sgt Martin Collins claims happened.

    What are you talking about?


  • #2383
    qhe0i9zvfgdou8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 422 ✭✭qhe0i9zvfgdou8


    ShowMeTheCash wrote:
    So maybe you are just voice thoughts but you seem to be making some kind of counter argument to the "I said this is not about a single party, you say" to what the family and friend what......

    WTF are you on about my head hurts after reading that :-)

    ShowMeTheCash wrote:
    What are you talking about?

    Collins gave a different account at a later stage. It's discussed back in the thread but I don't have time to look for it now.


  • #2384
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Dominique Small Slavery wrote: »
    WTF are you on about my head hurts after reading that :-)

    You make an argument to what the family and friends want with regards obtaining "who" is responsible.... Suggesting justice.
    The family and friends getting what they want is not justice.
    Dominique Small Slavery wrote: »
    Collins gave a different account at a later stage. It's discussed back in the thread but I don't have time to look for it now.

    So account not opinion of which you do not know off hand?

    So are you suggesting he lied?
    Either way you look at it, either a politician did call and interfered or we have gardi lying about events....


  • #2385
    qhe0i9zvfgdou8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 422 ✭✭qhe0i9zvfgdou8


    ShowMeTheCash wrote:
    You make an argument to what the family and friends want with regards obtaining "who" is responsible.... Suggesting justice. The family and friends getting what they want is not justice.

    Ok if you want to be a smart arse about it carry on. I'm sure you knew what I meant.

    ShowMeTheCash wrote:
    So are you suggesting he lied? Either way you look at it, either a politician did call and interfered or we have gardi lying about events....

    I'm not suggesting anything I'm saying he gave two different accounts.
    If you want to go down the corruption route feel free but the facts of the matter in my opinion are that if the family spoke up 40 years it would have been solved then.
    Even if they spoke out now. For me this is the important thing. Any corruption could be investigated afterwards.


  • #2386
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Dominique Small Slavery wrote: »
    Ok if you want to be a smart arse about it carry on. I'm sure you knew what I meant.


    I'm not suggesting anything I'm saying he gave two different accounts.
    If you want to go down the corruption route feel free but the facts of the matter in my opinion are that if the family spoke up 40 years it would have been solved then.
    Even if they spoke out now. For me this is the important thing. Any corruption could be investigated afterwards.

    "That facts of the matter in your opinion"?
    Either they are facts or your opinion....

    They are your opinion!

    I am not going down the corruption route I am stating a FACT

    "Either a politician did call and interfered or we have gardi lying about events"

    This is a fact.


  • #2387
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Dominique Small Slavery wrote: »
    Ok if you want to be a smart arse about it carry on. I'm sure you knew what I meant.




    I'm not suggesting anything I'm saying he gave two different accounts.
    If you want to go down the corruption route feel free but the facts of the matter in my opinion are that if the family spoke up 40 years it would have been solved then.
    Even if they spoke out now. For me this is the important thing. Any corruption could be investigated afterwards.


    That doesn't get the coroner off the hook for not holding an enquiry.


  • #2388
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    dense wrote: »
    That doesn't get the coroner off the hook for not holding an enquiry.

    Well yes this is not the only thing but is a huge implication of corruption.


  • #2389
    qhe0i9zvfgdou8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 422 ✭✭qhe0i9zvfgdou8


    ShowMeTheCash wrote:
    They are your opinion!
    They are facts too. If the family members said what they knew case closed.

    ShowMeTheCash wrote:
    "Either a politician did call and interfered or we have gardi lying about events"

    I don't really care about that. The answers lie within the family.


  • #2390
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Dominique Small Slavery wrote: »
    They are facts too. If the family members said what they knew case closed.

    Really? Fact?
    What do the family know? You are pontificating and speculating to what the family know and to what the Gardi would of done......

    Dominique Small Slavery wrote: »
    I don't really care about that. The answers lie within the family.

    So you do not care for actual facts?


  • #2391
    qhe0i9zvfgdou8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 422 ✭✭qhe0i9zvfgdou8


    ShowMeTheCash wrote:
    Really? Fact? What do the family know?
    Yes fact. They know what happened Mary.


  • Advertisement
  • #2392
    qhe0i9zvfgdou8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 422 ✭✭qhe0i9zvfgdou8


    ShowMeTheCash wrote:
    So you do not care for actual facts?


    I don't care for the corruption story you're pushing


  • #2393
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Dominique Small Slavery wrote: »
    Yes fact. They know what happened Mary.

    Facts require proof, do you have proof?
    If it was a fact then someone should be charged with withholding information if that is a "fact"?

    I do not think you really understand what a fact is.


  • #2394
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Dominique Small Slavery wrote: »
    I don't care for the corruption story you're pushing

    I am not pushing the corruption story, the corruption story is as blatant as you can get, you are the one who wants to side step something so obvious.


  • #2395
    qhe0i9zvfgdou8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 422 ✭✭qhe0i9zvfgdou8


    Just because there's no proof doesn't mean they aren't facts.






    Please don't presume you know what I understand.






    I'm not side stepping anything. The point I'm making is that if the family spoke out on day one the case would be closed. Even if they spoke out now it could be.
    For me the corruption is a side issue what's important is that Marys body is found and her sister has a grave to visit.


  • #2396
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Dominique Small Slavery wrote: »
    Just because there's no proof doesn't mean they aren't facts.

    No that is exactly what it means, without proof it is not a fact.
    That is not to say it is not true otherwise I could literally say all sorts of nonsense with no proof and claim it to be a fact.



    Dominique Small Slavery wrote: »
    Please don't presume you know what I understand.

    Not a presumption more an observation.

    Dominique Small Slavery wrote: »
    I'm not side stepping anything. The point I'm making is that if the family spoke out on day one the case would be closed. Even if they spoke out now it could be.
    For me the corruption is a side issue what's important is that Marys body is found and her sister has a grave to visit.

    And you have made that clear.
    What is important to me is justice for Mary, and by justice I mean taking to task the person/s responsible for her abduction and anyone who may have interfered or got in the way of the initial investigation.


  • #2397
    qhe0i9zvfgdou8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 422 ✭✭qhe0i9zvfgdou8


    ShowMeTheCash wrote:
    I could literally say all sorts of nonsense with no proof and claim it to be a fact.

    No comment


    ShowMeTheCash wrote:
    Not a presumption more an observation.

    Doesn't show much class but there you go.

    ShowMeTheCash wrote:
    And you have made that clear.

    Good. We'll leave it there so.


  • #2398
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Well yes this is not the only thing but is a huge implication of corruption.

    The "establishment" decided to wash its hands of this case long ago.

    The Minister replied: “The disappearance of the person in question remains the subject of an ongoing Garda investigation and I am advised that the Garda Review Team is endeavouring to advance the investigation and that all avenues of investigation are being pursued in this regard. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the case, nor would the establishment of a parallel Commission of Investigation be warranted.”
    A Fianna Fáil spokesman said after that “All of the claims made to Deputy Martin have been forwarded to An Garda Síochána and the Garda Ombudsman”

    Forwarded to AGS. Oh, and GSOC. Filed in a locked drawer by the looks of things.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/mary-boyle-s-disappearance-and-the-40-year-fob-off-1.2637996?mode=amp


  • #2399
    qhe0i9zvfgdou8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 422 ✭✭qhe0i9zvfgdou8


    Both guards deny there was interference in the investigation

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/second-garda-denies-mary-boyle-coverup-34963362.html


  • #2400
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Facts require proof, do you have proof?
    If it was a fact then someone should be charged with withholding information if that is a "fact"?

    I do not think you really understand what a fact is.

    Why do you think a number of family members hasnt been charged with withholding information? Too messy/too awkward at this stage.

    Marys sister has claimed a family member told her what happened, on more than one occasion.

    Why has that family member not been arrested for withholding?

    My understanding is that this person has not forwarded their information to the investigation team.

    In other words, they have withheld information pertaining to an investigation.

    (The Gardai do appear to need to be spoon fed information in easy to understand nuggets before thinking about doing anything that might upset anyone, but they did do a bit of showboating arresting a randomer a couple of years back...)


  • Advertisement
  • #2401
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Dominique Small Slavery wrote: »
    Both guards deny there was interference in the investigation

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/second-garda-denies-mary-boyle-coverup-34963362.html


    Look at the language used.

    Claiming their words were taken "out of context", and the programme was "selective" and "misleading".


    That is the language of someone covering up.

    It is the language regularly used by politicians trying to worm their way out of a mess of their own creation.

    But the phone call is irrelevant. If it never happened it makes no difference.

    The investigation was amateur from the start. And that amateurism is being respected by those who wear the uniform today.

    Notice I didn't say the investigation was corrupt. Corruption claims usually involve external sources having some input.

    This investigation was so inept it didn't need outside influence to scupper it.


Advertisement