nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Kerry Babies Case

irishguitarlad

What do you think of it? As the son of an Abbeydorney woman I take an interest in it as I kept on hearing about it growing up. I reckon the gardaí were covering up for someone when they blamed Joanna Hayes. Anyways, what's your opinion?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ohnonotgmail

pilly wrote: »

And yet O'Carroll still believes she had fcuking twins!

O'Carroll doesn't believe that the recent DNA evidence is correct. Probably because it shows that he was wrong all along. He wants the bodies exhumed and a british lab to run the tests again.

tringle

sunbeam wrote: »

I had to google this but the legal concept of 'illegitimacy' was not abolished in Ireland until 1986:

http://www.rte.ie/archives/2016/0511/787763-illegitimacy-bill/

I was an 18 year old unmarried mother and my daughter was one of the first born out of wedlock not be be classed as illegitimate. I lived in Dublin which was slightly more open about single parents but still had a major struggle not to be shipped off for an abortion or rushed into a marriage.
The Kerry babies and Ann Lovett cases where very clearly in my mind at the time. I was the first participant in a longtitudanal survey by the maternity hospital to improve things for unmarried mother's and I remember them being very protective of me. However rural attitudes hadn't changed and my daughters best friend at school was born the same week in a shed on the family farm, her 16 year old mother was in labour all night and arrived home and said she found a baby.
Christy Moore has a very poignant song about the Ann Lovett case and I can't listen to it without crying

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s8VoEE_NL00

As for burying the still born baby, there are old churches with a lot of stillborn babies buried in them. They couldn't be buried in graveyards if they hadn't been baptised and parents would go out at night to old church ruins feeling it was still consecrated land.

My thoughts with the families of both babies this week.

pilly

Snickers Man wrote:

The surviving policemen owe that family an apology for what they did to them. Even now.

And yet O'Carroll still believes she had fcuking twins!

Odhinn

Deleted User wrote: »

You SAY that but offer no evidence. you have presented NOTHING.

Me? I don't have an explaination because I don't know. I'm not just going to make stuff up but, so I ask the question.

So when asked a question you automatically stick your hands in the air, say "I don'gtknow" and let things roll on. Thats probably part of the reason she had to wait 34 years for an apology.

[Deleted User]

tayto lover wrote: »

That's my point. A lone unarmed officer went out to him because he was not informed by senior garda. That does not mean that he was corrupt or incompetent. He was let down by the people who were using the murderer. Maybe they were after bigger things too and doing their best. It was all tragic.

In the other case it seems they know the killers and are just connecting the dots. One of them is in prison already so they know where he is.

It's easy to be the hurler on the ditch.

Am I right in thinking that no-one told him that there was someone in his area on bail for arms importation? And I believe they originally went to Dundalk (a "main" station) and were told to go to the small station? There's a huge amount of incompetence involved.
For the other care it's been going on ridiculously long time. If they had the evidence (not sure how much more they'll get at this stage) could they not have charges ready and get the suspects extradited?

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

Really? A guy who was out having been done for importing guns etc. had a gun, hundreds of rounds of ammunition and petrol and a lone, unarmed officer went out to him. There's huge incompetence somewhere along there. Just to be clear, as far as I know the guy who was killed was let down mostly by colleagues rather than any of his own actions.
In the other case they still haven't done anyone. If they can't manage to get someone for killing one of their own then it doesn't inspire confidence.

That's my point. A lone unarmed officer went out to him because he was not informed by senior garda. That does not mean that he was corrupt or incompetent. He was let down by the people who were using the murderer. Maybe they were after bigger things too and doing their best. It was all tragic.

In the other case it seems they know the killers and are just connecting the dots. One of them is in prison already so they know where he is.

It's easy to be the hurler on the ditch.

[Deleted User]

tayto lover wrote: »

The vast percentage of them have not been revealed to be corrupt or incompetent.
I still have great faith in the men on the ground from my dealings with them.
I prefer to call out the wrong doers rather than the entire organisation.
Two of them were murdered, shot dead quite close to where i live, in the last few years for doing their jobs. They weren't corrupt or incompetent.

Really? A guy who was out having been done for importing guns etc. had a gun, hundreds of rounds of ammunition and petrol and a lone, unarmed officer went out to him. There's huge incompetence somewhere along there. Just to be clear, as far as I know the guy who was killed was let down mostly by colleagues rather than any of his own actions.
In the other case they still haven't done anyone. If they can't manage to get someone for killing one of their own then it doesn't inspire confidence.

Wombatman

tayto lover wrote: »

The vast percentage of them have not been revealed to be corrupt or incompetent.
I still have great faith in the men on the ground from my dealings with them.
I prefer to call out the wrong doers rather than the entire organisation.
Two of them were murdered, shot dead quite close to where i live, in the last few years for doing their jobs. They weren't corrupt or incompetent.

It's always tragic when frontline workers get injured or killed. However, without wanting to sound callous and heartless, this has no bearing on weather or not they were corrupt or incompetent. You don't know.

What we do know is that breath tests and traffic convictions were falsified all over the country. Guards were involved at all levels. This wasn't just incompetence, it was fraud. Again nobody will be disciplined or held to account.

I'm not talking about individual guards, I'm talking about an organization with a rotten culture, that has an influence on it members actions. Does AGS serve us better AGS better than it did in 1984? I wouldn't be overly confident is all.

tayto lover

Wombatman wrote: »

Why have more faith now? AGS has been reveled to be corrupt, incompetent and under resourced in the last year. Moral is at an all time low. Leadership arrogant and incapable of accountability.

The vast percentage of them have not been revealed to be corrupt or incompetent.
I still have great faith in the men on the ground from my dealings with them.
I prefer to call out the wrong doers rather than the entire organisation.
Two of them were murdered, shot dead quite close to where i live, in the last few years for doing their jobs. They weren't corrupt or incompetent.

Wombatman

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The fellas looking into this case back then were totally incompetent but I've a bit more faith in the people doing the investigation now.

Why have more faith now? AGS has been reveled to be corrupt, incompetent and under resourced in the last year. Moral is at an all time low. Leadership arrogant and incapable of accountability.

[Deleted User]

Odhinn wrote: »

And that of others that have looked at the case. But all is well, because your alternative explanation is.................?

You SAY that but offer no evidence. you have presented NOTHING.

Me? I don't have an explaination because I don't know. I'm not just going to make stuff up but, so I ask the question.

Galwayguy35

I'm amazed at the amount of idiots in the comments section of articles I've seen about this case suggesting it's a waste of resources and money re opening the investigation and the guards shouldn't bother because it was 34 years ago.

The fellas looking into this case back then were totally incompetent but I've a bit more faith in the people doing the investigation now.

Odhinn

Deleted User wrote: »

So, nothing but your allegations then.

And that of others that have looked at the case. But all is well, because your alternative explanation is.................?

[Deleted User]

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.

So, nothing but your allegations then.

Odhinn

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.

.

Indeed. And who knows how many others have gone that way. Justified by making dots join and "well you know her brother was....", "ye know the father was....", "they used hang around with...." as opposed to evidence.

Snickers Man

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?

And that's the core of the scandal: that the police, having made a serious mistake, were unable or unwilling to redress it and instead insisted they had done no wrong. And at least one of the main Garda players is STILL saying that their fantastic concoctions could be true, despite the fact that modern forensic evidence now categorically rules it out.

Being as nice as possible to the Gardai, you can see how a mistake might plausibly have been made. They were looking for the mother of a murdered baby, they heard of a young woman who had gone into hospital, clearly having recently given birth to a child in highly irregular circumstances; local knowledge had it that she was engaged in a long-term affair with a married man and already had a child by him. They were perfectly right to investigate her further.

And when the family, under questioning, first denied that she had ever been pregnant, which the cops knew was untrue, you could understand why this might only have reinforced their belief that they had the right person, and all they had to do was get her to confess. Which they did.

But then when the weight of evidence, forensic and otherwise, showed that she had had nothing to do with the murdered baby the police couldn't accept their shortcomings, admit they took shortcuts and had come close to convicting an innocent family.

Instead they blustered, bull****ted, and persevered with a bizarre set of theories which were ridiculous at the time and have been reinforced as such with new developments in science.

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.

The surviving policemen owe that family an apology for what they did to them. Even now.

julyjane

Totally hypothetical question here but can a DNA sample show whether parents are likely to be related or not?

Sounds off the wall but a child born to unrelated parents will have DNA similarities with both and they will be different? I was never much good at science but there's all sorts of DNA testing now that we can supposedly get online for small money which claims to tell us of our origins from just a saliva sample. Wasn't there a DNA project involving some members of the travelling community to see if they were really unique?

Ralf and Florian

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 !!

It was certainly the first cold case murder to be solved in Ireland as far as I'm aware.

twowheelsonly

Odhinn wrote: »

Yep. Unless
https://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.

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 !!

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/

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 !!

Ralf and Florian

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.

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/

volchitsa

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

Depends what they're looking for doesnt it? Remember the Dingo Baby case in Australia where the mother was found guilty of killing the child, but in fact her story was true? And I think it was actually a pathologist or other expert who said it could have been seagulls, he couldnt be sure.

volchitsa

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?

No that wasn't the point, it was claimed at the time I think that it was relatively common to dispose of dead or stillborn babies which wouldn't have been given a burial in consecrated grounds, especiallly illegitimate ones.
Even infanticide was not infrequent in many places at the time, not just Ireland. So perhaps I should have said that Baby John might not have been killed in such a gruesome way. But you're right that he may still have been killed.

Pawwed Rig

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

volchitsa

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

Oops. I didnt notice. :ermm:

tayto lover

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 beach and why wasn't it reported missing?

Seth Brundle

volchitsa wrote: »

I havent seen this mentioned on the thread, but ...

I've seen it mentioned a few times

volchitsa

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.

volchitsa

tayto lover

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.

Yes it seems to be foolproof.
It has led to the convictions of many murderers who thought they had got away with it. I couldn't find any cases where anyone successfully challenged it either and as you say it can help to find a suspect innocent too.