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

Trevor Deely case - new witness

tdf7187

There was a previous lengthy thread on the case but it was locked for review and has yet to be reopened.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/new-witness-backs-up-gardas-theory-that-deely-killed-in-row-with-gang-38755889.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

snotboogie

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]

But why ?

Why go to the bother of moving the body of a guy that has no links to criminally and that many presume died by tragic accident on the way home from a Christmas party on a wet night ?

This is not Joe Peschi burying bodies in Goodfellas and having to dig them up again.

As others have said if there was an altercation and Trevor died as a result of it why go to all the bother.

You are really asking why somebody would move a body after a murder? Obviously the person is going to the bother to avoid a murder conviction.

That's not reserved for American gangster movies, Franno did it in love hate too

Snickers Man

Raconteuse wrote: »

My brother lived and worked in the area at the time and he said you'd go to sleep at night seeing Trevor's face. Excellent work by those who loved him.

This is true. I live in the area. Those posters were there for years. On every tree and lamppost.

As an aside. I am amused by the depiction of the area then, and now, as a seedy dangerous vice-ridden cesspit. True, you used to see a lot of particularly unalluring prostitutes plying their trade on the canal. They were there for years.

I believe the canal was advantageous for two reasons: given the number of bridges cars could circle around for ages looking for suitable, er, merchandise. And also, the canal itself was a boundary between two police districts so that if a cop was moving in to harass or arrest a girl she could just toddle over the bridge and thumb her nose at him because he couldn't follow her. That's all gone now of course. I can't remember the last time I saw a steetwalker. Mobile phones and social media have made it much easier to procure services, without having to drive around in the freezing cold and pouring rain.

And yes. Where you get hookers you get some dodgy creepy male hangers on, both in terms of the girls' management and her clentele. But the girls themslves were grand. Never a bother

[Deleted User]

sugarman wrote: »

I think the new information they received 2 years ago was pretty credible, the person waived the €100k reward and told them on back of a guilty conscious where he was allegedly taken to, what happened (shot) and where he was said to be buried. I mean, why else would anyone make that kind of thing up?

Similar happened in the case of Marioara Rostas, an innocent 18 year old girl. There was no 100K up for a reward but a person was granted immunity in the case and took the Gardai to find her body in a shallow grave in the Wicklow Mountains. Nobody was ever convicted of the murder but the family got some aspect of closure from it and were taken by the Gardai to the site and prayed there.

As a side note, I've heard the same name mentioned as being involved in both cases. I won't pretend to know if this individual had anything to with Trevor's fate but I'd be certain enough re: Marioara.

[Deleted User]

Snickers Man wrote: »

I believe the canal was advantageous for two reasons: given the number of bridges cars could circle around for ages looking for suitable, er, merchandise. And also, the canal itself was a boundary between two police districts so that if a cop was moving in to harass or arrest a girl she could just toddle over the bridge and thumb her nose at him because he couldn't follow her. That's all gone now of course. I can't remember the last time I saw a steetwalker. Mobile phones and social media have made it much easier to procure services, without having to drive around in the freezing cold and pouring rain.

Across State Lines, :pac: He could only arrest her if he had his hat on.

BDI

Omackeral wrote: »

Across State Lines, :pac: He could only arrest her if he had his hat on.

If she has a dump across a district line the garda is not allowed cover her with his coat

KWAG2019

snotboogie wrote: »

You are really asking why somebody would move a body after a murder? Obviously the person is going to the bother to avoid a murder conviction.

Yes we are asking that because it reveals a good deal. If you think of some of the ways in which people meet violent death and bodies are discovered then you will see that moving a body doesn't happen that often. When it does there is something to lose; perhaps as you say a conviction for murder is enough that people want to avoid but the act of moving a dead body is itself risky and may increase chances of discovery.

Destruction of evidence is another possibility be it DNA or ballistic. DNA evidence was in use I think from the late 80's but I could be a few years off the mark there.

Staying with the question though is interesting: why not just leave remains on the street? What links the remains to the attacker? Was it necessary to move remains from a building rather than a street?

And why go to those risks a second time which is what the poster was referring to? It seems unlikely that it would be done a second time.

TwoMonthsOff

BDI wrote: »

If she has a dump across a district line the garda is not allowed cover her with his coat

But can he give her his hat to sh*t in?

Coconut12

I was out that night and the weather was horrendous. I also went to the Spar on Baggot Street the next night after Buck Waleys and it was indeed open at 3/4am and serving food. There is no plausible theory for him going to the Spar on Bath Avenue that night in that weather .

Muahahaha

Deleted User wrote: »

I do wonder if the chapelizod thing was real. Maybe he was there but the people involved moved him, knowing full well that someone could talk at any moment.

I think the Chapelizod thing was real in so far as it was a dumping ground for criminals.I dont think the informant was out to lead them on a wild goose chase, its more likely he named a main suspect and said he knew him to bury drugs/money/guns on that site. With the forensic expertise available to Gardai if a body had of been moved recently they would have known. Also guessing they had a cadaver dog with them who could have picked up a scent.

BDI wrote: »

Some bizarre theories here.

If somebody hit him in their car why would they get out, put him inside and drive off without anybody noticing?

Why not drive off. Rediculous.

You dispose of a body when it can be tied back to you. Even gangland people shoot people in the street and leave them there.

He either went in the water or went to a place that if he was found would link him to the killer.

Its definitely strange that a killer would have gone to all the hassle of moving the body. It was back in 1999 so the fear of DNA wasnt around for them. But then you've to balance that against what seems to be the Gardais belief that this did happen. The Chapelizod search lasted 6 weeks and had dozens of Gardai working on it, they put huge resources and effort into it and you can only assume they were operating off credible information that matched up to other pieces of information they have.

[Deleted User]

In gangland, a shooter steals a car. Then shoots his victim. Speeds away in stolen car and burns the car out. Then gets into another car and casually drives away. No evidence to be found, unless they mess up burning out the stolen car.

In Trevors case, it probably wasn’t pre meditated. A chance encounter they say. They couldn’t shoot someone and cause a scene and then be found or spotted in their own car. It’s possible they had to dispose of the body. Maybe he ended up in chapelizod.

The person responsible was probably afraid of getting ratted out so moved the body to a different location.

Not suggesting this is what happened, but just pointing out that there are many reasons why a person might want to get a rid of the body of the person they just murdered.

KWAG2019

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think the Chapelizod thing was real in so far as it was a dumping ground for criminals.I dont think the informant was out to lead them on a wild goose chase, its more likely he named a main suspect and said he knew him to bury drugs/money/guns on that site. With the forensic expertise available to Gardai if a body had of been moved recently they would have known. Also guessing they had a cadaver dog with them who could have picked up a scent.

Its definitely strange that a killer would have gone to all the hassle of moving the body. It was back in 1999 so the fear of DNA wasnt around for them. But then you've to balance that against what seems to be the Gardais belief that this did happen. The Chapelizod search lasted 6 weeks and had dozens of Gardai working on it, they put huge resources and effort into it and you can only assume they were operating off credible information that matched up to other pieces of information they have.

DNA was around since late 80’s.

andekwarhola

Pheonix10 wrote: »

It is a bit strange to go into work on your way home at 3am and check emails. Fair enough if he grabbed the brolly and left. It's a bit perplexing.

Probably mentioned before - certainly was on the old thread - but it was 19 years ago. In this era of smartphones, its easy to forget that email was a lot less ubiquitous then. Probably some people had blackberry phones but the majority of mobile phones would have been basic I would say. I had something similar to this at the time

I worked in IT at the time but didht actually have home internet. I wouldn't say that was uncommon. I could well imagine myself popping in to check email or similar if my route home took me past a still-open office like Trevor.

[Deleted User]

People should really read up on the case and get a good understanding of the case.

He didn’t go to the office to send emails at 3am. He went to get an umbrella as it was lashing rain.

While at the office, he saw his friend that was working night shift and asked him if he wanted to go for a tea. His friend said yes but needed a few mins to finish what he was doing.

Trevor logged on to his PC for a few mins while waiting. They then had tea together.

Day Lewin

The question of "why remove the body from the scene?" is a good one and repays pondering.

If the crime took place in a room that was being used for eg, entrapment, drug supply, or intimidation, it might well be that the owners of the premises insisted on any such signs of crime being removed.
And it WAS the dead of night and filthy weather: easier to do it right there and then, than be stuck with the awkwardness of disposal later.

This all sounds a bit grim: yet, it appears to be that the Gardaí are thinking along these lines...at least, I think that is what the newspapers are implying.

Its kind of heart-breaking to think about it in such detail - the poor lad, and his poor family - I still hope for some justice, or a decent ending, for them.

noodler

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People should really read up on the case and get a good understanding of the case.

He didn’t go to the office to send emails at 3am. He went to get an umbrella as it was lashing rain.

While at the office, he saw his friend that was working night shift and asked him if he wanted to go for a tea. His friend said yes but needed a few mins to finish what he was doing.

Trevor logged on to his PC for a few mins while waiting. They then had tea together.

Can't link to the Irish times three part series enough times

KWAG2019

The IT thread is essential. After the initial GARDA announcement about the witness it really is just wait and see.

andekwarhola

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People should really read up on the case and get a good understanding of the case. .

Sorry Dad.

tdf7187

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

That footage has the only image of the MIB looking directly in through the gate.

Why would they not have released that at the time? Or mention that someone, other than colleagues, waited there?

All that was said was that Trevor had a “brief conversation” with an unknown man at the gate.

It’s truly bizarre that for so many years it was never mentioned that a guy waited for 30-40 minutes, moves when TD arrives, follows him to the gate, speaks to him, waits some more and then leaves. The man didn’t appear to have any interest in the work colleagues when they arrive and leave.

Whether the MIB was involved in Trevor’s disappearance or not, he was certainly behaving in a very suspicious manner.

Yes it's very strange, not the kind of location you would wait for a taxi or even to beg for spare change, there are plenty of other better locations nearby for that. Now that I think of it IIRC there was a taxi strike on that night but not the kind of location you would wait to hail a car if you were stuck for a lift home. Then the second guy who appears to follow Trevor after he leaves the bank, also suspicious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLXEME-G0A8&feature=youtu.be

dark crystal

farmchoice wrote: »

just on this, its actually much more difficult then people imagine to find bodies in rivers and other bodies of water.
where i live now we have a river and unfortunately people occasionally commit suicide by jumping in. sometimes the bodies are found and sometimes even though diving teams are in the river within 6 hours the bodies are never found. recently one search went on for 5 days with a helicopter with specialized equipment and diving team every day for 3 weeks, teams searched the river banks for months and the body was never found. the diving teams even came back the next spring and still nothing.

i'm not talking about the canal, if he went into the canal he would have been found. either the canal basin or the dodder. back then the only reason anyone would have gone near the canal basin was if the planned to jump in.
in fact it was such a run down deserted part of the city a lot of people didn't even know it was there. unlike today nobody ever went near it.

If he went into the water, wouldn't his phone have gone dead straight away? From what I've read, his phone continued to ring for several days after he went missing.

noodler

dark crystal wrote: »

If he went into the water, wouldn't his phone have gone dead straight away? From what I've read, his phone continued to ring for several days after he went missing.

Irish times series didn't say that.

[Deleted User]

dark crystal wrote: »

If he went into the water, wouldn't his phone have gone dead straight away? From what I've read, his phone continued to ring for several days after he went missing.

That's completely inconclusive.
His sister in the UK rang him on the Saturday, she is not sure if it rang out, went straight to voicemail etc.
Same as others

KWAG2019

dark crystal wrote: »

If he went into the water, wouldn't his phone have gone dead straight away? From what I've read, his phone continued to ring for several days after he went missing.

Not if he and his phone were apart.
He was reported missing after the weekend.
His sister said she phoned him over the weekend and the phone rang.

Asitis2019

I've been rereading the Irish Times articles from 2015

One thing that has always puzzled me over the years about this case is that it has always been assumed that he never made it home on the morning of December 8. Has it ever been disclosed why this is the case? For example, was his apartment examined? What about his flatmates?

It is the one thing about the case that seems odd - that there has been no attention to his place of residence and his flatmates.

[Deleted User]

Asitis2019 wrote: »

I've been rereading the Irish Times articles from 2015

One thing that has always puzzled me over the years about this case is that it has always been assumed that he never made it home on the morning of December 8. Has it ever been disclosed why this is the case? For example, was his apartment examined? What about his flatmates?

It is the one thing about the case that seems odd - that there has been no attention to his place of residence and his flatmates.

If there were no clothes on the floor or in the washing machine/wash basket from the night before it would point to him not having been home. Failing that, it was mankey out so he would've probably trudged in some wet or dirty footprints.

wyrn

Asitis2019 wrote: »

I've been rereading the Irish Times articles from 2015

One thing that has always puzzled me over the years about this case is that it has always been assumed that he never made it home on the morning of December 8. Has it ever been disclosed why this is the case? For example, was his apartment examined? What about his flatmates?

It is the one thing about the case that seems odd - that there has been no attention to his place of residence and his flatmates.

The clothes he was wearing wasn't there and neither was the massive umbrella. He could have popped in but it seems highly unlikely

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

I’m a bit puzzled myself by this. Going into the office at 3am or so after a night out. Was it to use email facilities which were then not so readily available outside work-emailing girlfriends, boyfriends or overseas relatives?

Back then a lot of people used internet cafes for checking personal email. In this case, it's quite possible that personal email (Hotmail / Yahoo etc) was blocked / not permitted by the employer so it would not have been accessible on his work PC.

noodler

NewbridgeIR wrote: »

Back then a lot of people used internet cafes for checking personal email. In this case, it's quite possible that personal email (Hotmail / Yahoo etc) was blocked / not permitted by the employer so it would not have been accessible on his work PC.

Yeah but again (and again) the IT articles have interviews with the guy he chatted with, set down and had tea with, gossiped with etc

tara73

after reading the OP again, this whole thread seems so stupid or so obvious in it's intention.

why announce it on the news/media a new witness has come forward? what does it tells us? nothing. just that, just that a new witness has come forward. great, but why do announce it on the media? Is AGS really that bold to try to attract interest and potential witnesses in this case again with a lie?

noodler

https://youtu.be/hS6GUgJ4y0E

It's actually kind of scary looking at the video, I'm only a few minutes in but did read the comments. They are missing that the two people staring in the fence are colleagues and running with a Bank robbery theory seemingly missing the fact it wasn't a retail bank.

220k views too.

[Deleted User]

That thumbnail is ridiculously annoying and tasteless