twowheelsonly wrote: » Less chance of a stitch up with DNA this time around. Because of bull-headed people like Gerry O'Carroll, who's stll intent on making a fool of himself. My own feeling (re the Baby John case) is that Gardai are pretty sure of the circumstances at this stage and are trying to flush somebody out. Just a hunch but I find it interesting that they themselves seem to have brought this to the forefront again despite the damnation they knew they'd be facing.
MrJones1973 wrote: » Im curious why this case has been reopened now ? It was established 33 years ago that joanne hayes was not the mother ? The Dna sample only reaffirmed this. 33 years is a long time to leave this case on a shelf .
Odhinn wrote: » The hayes family, and certainly joanne hayes. were certainly beaten.
Ralf and Florian wrote: » The killer of Nancy Smyth in Kilkenny was convicted recently after 30 years. Its not unusual for cold cases to be reopened after 20, 30 or more years.
Stepping Stone wrote: » It was never locally accepted that Joanne Hayes had anything to do with it. I doubt that the local Gardaí ever thought that either, but the Murder Squad took the case and that was that. Read anything about Gerry O’Carroll and think about how he would be about taking on board the evidence that local Gardaí would have brought forward that it had to be local. He is delusional! Look at the area that the body was found, tides, currents, etc can only point to a local dumping. Reading between the lines, they know which family they are looking for. Heavy hints have been dropped about the powerful person in that family having died and the murder being weak and powerless as long as they were alive. I doubt that there will be a prosecution because I suspect that the person who stabbed a baby 28 Times is now dead. Think about what sort of person that must have be. Wouldn’t you live in fear of this person it was your parent? No wonder it was kept entirely quiet. 1984 was a different time and Joanne Hayes suffered for that but whoever murdered that baby would probably be capable of murder today. Stabbing anything 28 Times is pretty crazy. Other babies were smothered, but stabbing that many times...it wasn’t the first time that they were violent or took a life (animal life is what I mean).
tayto lover wrote: » I read a case in the newspaper a few years ago about an ex-soldier being convicted on DNA evidence of a murder in the Curragh many years beforetoo. There was no such thing as the DNA process at the time but some garda insisted on evidence from the victim being kept.
LynnGrace wrote: » This case;https://www.irishtimes.com/news/former-soldier-sentenced-to-life-for-murder-of-kildare-woman-1.1103512
tayto lover wrote: » I read a case in the newspaper a few years ago about an ex-soldier being convicted on DNA evidence of a murder in the Curragh many years before too. There was no such thing as the DNA process at the time but some garda insisted on evidence from the victim being kept.
Deleted User wrote: » You are saying it again, but what are you offering as evidence this happened? You repeatings it doesn't count as true.
twowheelsonly wrote: » I was in there for a quite a few days of that case - the first in this country where DNA was used to convict someone. Whilst Crerar maintained his innocence throughout he had 'the look' of a guilty man who was resigned to his fate. DNA evidence is probably the greatest ever advancement in detecting and prosecuting acts of crime. If there is DNA evidence then it's practically indisputable and it can save you from prosecution and false convictions as much as convict you.
volchitsa wrote: » I havent seen this mentioned on the thread, but ...
volchitsa wrote: » I havent seen this mentioned on the thread, but there was also a suggestion that the Cahirciveen may not have been murdered either, and that the "stab" wounds could have been made by seagulls. I think given the terrible police work that seems to have been done here, that's a serious possibility.
kbannon wrote: » volchitsa wrote: » I havent seen this mentioned on the thread, but ... volchitsa wrote: » I havent seen this mentioned on the thread, but ... volchitsa wrote: » I havent seen this mentioned on the thread, but ... I've seen it mentioned a few times
tayto lover wrote: » volchitsa wrote: » I havent seen this mentioned on the thread, but there was also a suggestion that the Cahirciveen may not have been murdered either, and that the "stab" wounds could have been made by seagulls. I think given the terrible police work that seems to have been done here, that's a serious possibility. So did the birds carry it out to the beech and why wasn't it reported missing?
Pawwed Rig wrote: » volchitsa wrote: » I havent seen this mentioned on the thread, but there was also a suggestion that the Cahirciveen may not have been murdered either, and that the "stab" wounds could have been made by seagulls. I think given the terrible police work that seems to have been done here, that's a serious possibility. I would have thought a pathologist could tell the difference between stab wounds and seagulls
Odhinn wrote: » Yep. Unlesshttps://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/ There was one incident where the lab technician deliberately corrupted samples, as she believed the 'nice' police people when they said certain parties were guilty. Can't find the link at the mo.
Ralf and Florian wrote: » The Crerar case wasn't the first to be solved by DNA in Ireland. It was first used in the below case.https://presspack.rte.ie/2005/07/09/cracking-crime-7/
twowheelsonly wrote: » Great read there... Like any science there's sure to be flaws but at least 99.999% of them will be human error rather than human opinion /hunch / imagination that was evident with the Kerry babies case. Interestingly, in the first quoted case in that article the guy who was initially convicted by the DNA evidence was also exonerated by it, as have been many others. Excellent article though and does highlight the potential flaws - which is also good !! I always thought it was - perhaps it was the first 'cold-case' to use DNA for a conviction ? Was definitely first at something regarding DNA anyway !!
Day Lewin wrote: » The main purpose of the investigation was to find out who committed the brutal murder of the baby found on a beach. Keep yer eyes on the prize. This would have been true in any country of the world. Glib soundbite blamings of "Irishness" "the church" the state" etc are only distracting clich The guards naturally looked for someone who had recently given birth with no child to show for it, and they found one: naturally they had to look into that: it would have been grossly negligent NOT to. They should then have dropped that angle when it clearly wasn't her. ........ Unfortunately it looks as if having found a nearly-fit, they insisted on stopping there and cramming it on, trying to make it fit. Did they ever really look elsewhere after that?
Snickers Man wrote: » Of course had they done so, careers might have been damaged. Top detectives in Miami Vice suits might have found themselves back on traffic duty and some important convictions of serious criminals and "subversives" whose activities were the more usual focus of these detectives attention might have been overturned. So instead we had the spectacle of the police and judiciary holding themselves up to ridicule and contempt in the way they brutally went out to destroy the life of a quiet, unassuming, overawed young country girl who had done nothing wrong except make an unfortunate choice in her romantic life. There but for the grace of God (and maybe Tinder and other internet dating sites) go a lot of us. .
Odhinn wrote: » It matches various cases where that kind of thing has happened, the family testified that it happened at the time, there has never been an explanation for how they confessed (all of them) to a remarkably similar story with details they could not have known.
Deleted User wrote: » So, nothing but your allegations then.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a2f3ae3bc561a654d087af4d67ea885a.svg)
