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

Leg End Reject

I haven't read the thread but I remember this case. I was still young but I remember father telling me not to be afraid to come to him if I got pregnant and that he would make sure I was never treated like that.

The treatment of women, babies born "out of wedlock" and the fathers of these children has left a dark legacy. Shame on those complicate.

I hope Joanne finds peace.

Sardonicat

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

No, the State Pathologist was unable to determine a cause of death for the Abbeydorney baby, or if the child was still born.

He did say that the umbilical cord was cut and not torn, which was significant as it was not consistent with testimony to the effect that the birth took place in a field alone with the cord being torn. It was more fitting with Bridie Fuller's testimony that she had assisted with the birth and cut the cord, with the birth occurring in the house.

AFAIK that was the only bit of physical evidence relating to the circumstances of the birth. As a point if detail, I don't know if the birth or death of the Abbeydorney baby was ever registered, or if the Coroner held an inquest. Typically, there is an inquest if a dead body is discovered and the cause of death is unknown. At the time, stillbirths were not registered - but I'd take it someone would have to determine that to be the case.

That said, the case was bizarre, so I'd expect folk just wanted to move on. The Garda investigation was a Keystone Cops affair, as the Tribunal Report stated frankly.

As I posted earlier, a midwife actually testified and demonstrated that it was possible to sever an umbilical cord cleanly with her bare hands.

Caquas

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Joanne Hayes was not charged with 'smothering' her baby.
Joanne Hayes was not tried for 'smothering' her baby.
Joanne Hayes was not found guilty of 'smothering' her baby.
That is a fact.

Despite all the hours being interrogated.
Despite all the investigative hours spent no evidence was found with which to charge Joanne Hayes.

So no, it doesn't matter what a tribunal believed. It matters what was proven in a court of law.

If one were to convict and sentence Joanne Hayes, proof beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal trial would be required. However, I believe many things that haven’t been proven in that way and, like the Tribunal, I’m ready to believe her

VillageIdiot71

Antares35 wrote: »

Was it ever ascertained how her own baby died or if it was stillborn?

No, the State Pathologist was unable to determine a cause of death for the Abbeydorney baby, or if the child was still born.

He did say that the umbilical cord was cut and not torn, which was significant as it was not consistent with testimony to the effect that the birth took place in a field alone with the cord being torn. It was more fitting with Bridie Fuller's testimony that she had assisted with the birth and cut the cord, with the birth occurring in the house.

AFAIK that was the only bit of physical evidence relating to the circumstances of the birth. As a point if detail, I don't know if the birth or death of the Abbeydorney baby was ever registered, or if the Coroner held an inquest. Typically, there is an inquest if a dead body is discovered and the cause of death is unknown. At the time, stillbirths were not registered - but I'd take it someone would have to determine that to be the case.

That said, the case was bizarre, so I'd expect folk just wanted to move on. The Garda investigation was a Keystone Cops affair, as the Tribunal Report stated frankly.

Bannasidhe

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Yet your response was supposition as well, without a shred of evidence to support your claim she ran from a corpse.

If the baby was stillborn - it was a corpse.
If it died immediately after childbirth - it was a corpse.

The State charged the Hayes family with concealing the birth of a child but no charges in relation to abandoning a child, manslaughter of a child, child endangerment. Or to put it another way the investigating gardaí who were determined to charge her with the murder of baby John (on highly dubious evidence) accepted that baby Shane was dead when she fled - or they would have brought charges.

Yes - that is supposition, but supposition based on the events.
After all - whatever the Tribunal 'believed' Joanne Hayes faced no prosecution whatsoever in any way in relation to her child's death. She didn't even face serious charges.
Not even for the emotively phrased 'abandoning a defenseless baby' - which would be a crime, particularly if it resulted in the child's death.
The logical conclusion is there is zero evidence she abandoned any living child.

Montage of Feck

FFS, after everything that went there are posters on here making insinuations from their ivory towers.

[Deleted User]

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You may think I am judgemental, I don't really care.
If I am then I am as judgemental as someone who was a young woman in Ireland at the time who listened to so-called experts on childbirth and women's bodies - most of whom were middle aged men - condemning Ms Hayes without a shred of evidence that she had committed any crime.
We had innocent until proven guilt back then too (allegedly) and here we are with poster stating she abandoned a defenseless baby as if this was a fact.
It is not a fact.
It is pure supposition without a shred of evidence.

Yet your response was supposition as well, without a shred of evidence to support your claim she ran from a corpse.

Bannasidhe

Caquas wrote: »

So we set up a Tribunal, chaired by a distinguished Judge, lawyers on all sides, witnesses under oath, all in public view and the glare of the media but thirty six years later, "it matters not a damn".

OK, pay up then.

Joanne Hayes was not charged with 'smothering' her baby.
Joanne Hayes was not tried for 'smothering' her baby.
Joanne Hayes was not found guilty of 'smothering' her baby.
That is a fact.

Despite all the hours being interrogated.
Despite all the investigative hours spent no evidence was found with which to charge Joanne Hayes.

So no, it doesn't matter what a tribunal believed. It matters what was proven in a court of law.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And here we are again.
If there was even a shred of proof that Joanne Hayes was directly responsible for the death of her baby she would have been charged.
If there was proof positive she would have been tried and convicted.

It matters not a damn what the tribunal 'believed'. There is no proof of these crimes you are claiming she committed.

Well, they believed something Hayes said herself.

Caquas

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And here we are again.
If there was even a shred of proof that Joanne Hayes was directly responsible for the death of her baby she would have been charged.
If there was proof positive she would have been tried and convicted.

It matters not a damn what the tribunal 'believed'. There is no proof of these crimes you are claiming she committed.

So we set up a Tribunal, chaired by a distinguished Judge, lawyers on all sides, witnesses under oath, all in public view and the glare of the media but thirty six years later, "it matters not a damn".

OK, pay up then.

p.s. Gerry O'Carroll is worse with his nonsense theory. If only he and his colleagues were really smart, they could get some compo too because the Tribunal lambasted the Gardai.

Bannasidhe

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

How very judgemental yourself!

You can have compassion for both JH and her baby Shane, and any of the tragic stories of the time.

But there is no evidence she ran from "a corpse" or "a defenceless baby". Thats an assumption. Had Shane a probability of survival after JH's trauma? no, probably not.

But no one as far as I'm aware, knows how or when that baby died. Could the baby have survived with proper pre/post natal care ? Who knows. To postulate isn't a condemnation of JH.

But her particular circumstances were more advantageous than poor Ann Lovett for example. He was in a relationship with the father JL , they already had a daughter together. She was bring her up in the family home.

And that's not a heartless judgement on any girl going through such trauma alone, however you read it, nor a defence of the shocking treatment of women in our past.

You may think I am judgemental, I don't really care.
If I am then I am as judgemental as someone who was a young woman in Ireland at the time who listened to so-called experts on childbirth and women's bodies - most of whom were middle aged men - condemning Ms Hayes without a shred of evidence that she had committed any crime.
We had innocent until proven guilt back then too (allegedly) and here we are with poster stating she abandoned a defenseless baby as if this was a fact.
It is not a fact.
It is pure supposition without a shred of evidence.

[Deleted User]

Edgware wrote: »

Was society's attitude so strict that the poor girl had no option but to try and conceal her pregnancy to the bitter end?

No. Thousands of babies born out of wed lock. It is a modern convenience to blame society.

[Deleted User]

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How very 1984 judgemental statement that is. Exactly the kind of 'no smoke without fire, she has to be guilty of something' nonsense prevalent then.

She did not abandon "a defenceless baby" - to be blunt she ran away from a corpse.
As for "might be excused by post natal depression" - that comment is beneath contempt casting doubt, as it does, on the very real trauma that is PND, and completely ignores the trauma of being alone, in a field, in labour for hours only to be faced with a dead or dying baby - she panicked. She ran.
And she paid some price for it.

Do you dare judge her? Are you so lacking in compassion?

How very judgemental yourself!

You can have compassion for both JH and her baby Shane, and any of the tragic stories of the time.

But there is no evidence she ran from "a corpse" or "a defenceless baby". Thats an assumption. Had Shane a probability of survival after JH's trauma? no, probably not.

But no one as far as I'm aware, knows how or when that baby died. Could the baby have survived with proper pre/post natal care ? Who knows. To postulate isn't a condemnation of JH.

But her particular circumstances were more advantageous than poor Ann Lovett for example. She was in a relationship with the father JL , they already had a daughter together. She was bringing her up in the family home.

And that's not a heartless judgement on any girl going through such trauma alone, however you read it, nor a defence of the shocking treatment of women in our past.

Bannasidhe

Caquas wrote: »

The State Pathologist was not able to determine the cause of the baby's death .... and the Tralee baby smothered at birth and its birth was concealed, a crime in itself.

And here we are again.
If there was even a shred of proof that Joanne Hayes was directly responsible for the death of her baby she would have been charged.
If there was proof positive she would have been tried and convicted.

It matters not a damn what the tribunal 'believed'. There is no proof of these crimes you are claiming she committed.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Caquas wrote: »

The State Pathologist was not able to determine the cause of the baby's death but the Tribunal believed Joanne Hayes when she told the psychiatrist that she had put her hand over the baby's mouth.

The whole saga was a horrible mess from beginning to end and the Gardai come badly out of it but so do the Hayes family and, I think, parts of the media. I doubt if those who decided on this settlement have read the original Tribunal report written by a distinguished judge, ultimately on the Supreme Court, who bitterly resented the media's treatment of the Tribunal.

The most important facts are that the Caherciveen baby was stabbed to death most horribly and the Tralee baby smothered at birth and its birth was concealed, a crime in itself. No justice for the innocents, certainly no millions in damages. They weren't even given the dignity of a name but, thirty six years later, taxpayer millions are showered on the family of the Tralee baby.

I know, the babies are who I think of the most when reading about this case. It was such a circus (or so I understand. I was busy filling my nappy with poo at the time so can’t say I remember it) that I feel like those two little souls were forgotten about.

I wouldn’t say it’s been established as fact that the Tralee baby was smothered though.

buried

Over 1500 years ago a young woman and her family would have had more rights and protection on our island than the Hayes had in 1984. And that is a fact. That is the most sickening aspect of this. Plenty of other innocent Irish children thrown into oblivion too, all on the voodoo power of a foreign Death Cult from Rome who worshiped some lad that came from the eastern fringes of the Mediterranean over in the sands of Egypt. No amount of compensation will ever be enough for what the vatican taliban scum did to this island, when they were let in here and were basically let loose and given the power to literally terrify and brainwashed our own people into acts of total subjugation, desperation and pain.

They were allowed to do the ultimate number on us and nobody should ever forget it.

Caquas

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, it’s not clear there whether the baby was stillborn or not. Or if it died shortly after the birth. The state pathologist was unable to confirm the cause of death.

The compensation is for the coercion into confessing to the murder of baby John.

There was, I think. Cause of death couldn’t be determined.

The State Pathologist was not able to determine the cause of the baby's death but the Tribunal believed Joanne Hayes when she told the psychiatrist that she had put her hand over the baby's mouth.

The whole saga was a horrible mess from beginning to end and the Gardai come badly out of it but so do the Hayes family and, I think, parts of the media. I doubt if those who decided on this settlement have read the original Tribunal report written by a distinguished judge, ultimately on the Supreme Court, who bitterly resented the media's treatment of the Tribunal.

The most important facts are that the Caherciveen baby was stabbed to death most horribly and the Tralee baby smothered at birth and its birth was concealed, a crime in itself. No justice for the innocents, certainly no millions in damages. They weren't even given the dignity of a name but, thirty six years later, taxpayer millions are showered on the family of the Tralee baby.

Bannasidhe

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I know well it was another era regarding unmarried mothers. But abandoning a defenceless baby like that is a cruel action. It might be excused by post-natal depression for example, yet she is now lauded and entitled to compensation?

How very 1984 judgemental statement that is. Exactly the kind of 'no smoke without fire, she has to be guilty of something' nonsense prevalent then.

She did not abandon "a defenceless baby" - to be blunt she ran away from a corpse.
As for "might be excused by post natal depression" - that comment is beneath contempt casting doubt, as it does, on the very real trauma that is PND, and completely ignores the trauma of being alone, in a field, in labour for hours only to be faced with a dead or dying baby - she panicked. She ran.
And she paid some price for it.

Do you dare judge her? Are you so lacking in compassion?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Yes the Guards screwed up the investigation, but there's very little said about this: "Hayes had already delivered her child – a baby boy who had died during or after his birth on the farm. She told gardaí this, explaining that after the labour she panicked and returned to the farmhouse. A day later, she returned to the spot to find the baby’s body. She put the remains in a paper bag and then a plastic bag before placing them in a pond elsewhere on the 65-acre farm."

I know well it was another era regarding unmarried mothers. But abandoning a defenceless baby like that is a cruel action. It might be excused by post-natal depression for example, yet she is now lauded and entitled to compensation?

Well, it’s not clear there whether the baby was stillborn or not. Or if it died shortly after the birth. The state pathologist was unable to confirm the cause of death.

The compensation is for the coercion into confessing to the murder of baby John.

Antares35 wrote: »

Why wasnt an investigation carried out to determine the cause of death of her own baby?

There was, I think. Cause of death couldn’t be determined.

Sardonicat

Antares35 wrote: »

Why wasnt an investigation carried out to determine the cause of death of her own baby?

There was a post mortem. Even the umbilical chord eas examined. Joanna stated that she severed it with her hand and the coroner ssid that wasn't possible. At some point in the tribunal a midwife was put on the stand to give evidence and demonstrated that it was in fact possible. The baby died shortly before or just after delivery. As Joanna had no ante natal care and had been in labour for hours alone that is not at all surprising.

Antares35

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Yes the Guards screwed up the investigation, but there's very little said about this: "Hayes had already delivered her child – a baby boy who had died during or after his birth on the farm. She told gardaí this, explaining that after the labour she panicked and returned to the farmhouse. A day later, she returned to the spot to find the baby’s body. She put the remains in a paper bag and then a plastic bag before placing them in a pond elsewhere on the 65-acre farm."

I know well it was another era regarding unmarried mothers. But abandoning a defenceless baby like that is a cruel action. It might be excused by post-natal depression for example, yet she is now lauded and entitled to compensation?

Why wasnt an investigation carried out to determine the cause of death of her own baby?

Galwayguy35

Remember it well even though i was only 10 at the time, she was treated very badly and deserves the money she got.

Unfortunately the murdered baby won't ever get justice after all these years i think.

jimmycrackcorm

Snickers Man wrote: »

I think most of them are dead. The original events took place in April/May 1984 and the Tribunal was in 1985. I think only one of the "Murder Squad" detectives is still alive; the judge, Kevin Lynch, who presided over the Tribunal is dead and I suspect the lawyers who acted for the police are all long gone.

Joanne Hayes is in her 60s now and I believe she is the youngest of her siblings, some of whom could be well into their 70s by now.

Personally, I wouldn't begrudge the family a penny.

They should never have been charged, let alone dragged before a tribunal.

Cops screwed up.

Yes the Guards screwed up the investigation, but there's very little said about this: "Hayes had already delivered her child – a baby boy who had died during or after his birth on the farm. She told gardaí this, explaining that after the labour she panicked and returned to the farmhouse. A day later, she returned to the spot to find the baby’s body. She put the remains in a paper bag and then a plastic bag before placing them in a pond elsewhere on the 65-acre farm."

I know well it was another era regarding unmarried mothers. But abandoning a defenceless baby like that is a cruel action. It might be excused by post-natal depression for example, yet she is now lauded and entitled to compensation?

igCorcaigh

sunbeam wrote: »

I was 11 turning 12 in 1984.

I remember Nell McCafferty gave a talk in UCG in the early 90s and asked us if any of us had heard about the case. She thought we might be too young to remember it. Everyone in that lecture theatre raised their hands when she asked.

I was the same age too, born in '73, I also remember the Ann Lovett case.
They were in the news from what I remember, but I didn't understand the context at the time.

It seems like another world now, but really not that long ago.

Antares35

Was it ever ascertained how her own baby died or if it was stillborn?

dxhound2005

Snickers Man wrote: »

Worldometers currently estimates we're over 4.9m. The next census, due next year - - Covid lockdowns permitting - - will probably reveal that we have exceeded 5m for the first time since the mid 19th century.

The next Census is April 2022.

sunbeam

I was 11 turning 12 in 1984.

I remember Nell McCafferty gave a talk in UCG in the early 90s and asked us if any of us had heard about the case. She thought we might be too young to remember it. Everyone in that lecture theatre raised their hands when she asked.

Bannasidhe

Edgware wrote: »

Two babies deserve justice. Would Joanne's baby have lived if delivered in a maternity hospital instead of an isolated farmhouse?
Was society's attitude so strict that the poor girl had no option but to try and conceal her pregnancy to the bitter end?

1984.

The same year 15 year old Ann Lovett died giving birth beside a grotto in Longford.
A year after The 8th Amendment was written into the Irish Constitution.
The Magdalene Laundries were still in operation.

Ireland was not a good place to be a young woman. I remember it well. I was 19 years old when I got the hell out in 1983, and followed the "Kerry Babies" case closely. Even those who didn't think she was responsible for murder thought she should be shamed for getting pregnant while unmarried.
One of the few people publicly fighting in Joanne Hayes corner was Nell McCafferty.

[Deleted User]

silliussoddius wrote: »

Hopefully whenever this case is mentioned in future the name of the Guard in charge will be mentioned along with it, at the time he probably thought he was going to get away with it and now his legacy will be this case.

For someone so wrong, he was pretty adamant he was right.
Was he that inebriated with his own self importantance and confidence?
He even wanted Scotland Yard in to review the case.

silliussoddius

Hopefully whenever this case is mentioned in future the name of the Guard in charge will be mentioned along with it, at the time he probably thought he was going to get away with it and now his legacy will be this case.