I mean, someone going to prison for murdering a newborn baby would be a just outcome, no?
SMALL POINT OF ORDER.
The 'Immaculate Conception' is not about a virgin giving birth. The catholic reference to the Immaculate Conception refers to Our Lady being born without 'Original Sin', not the fact that herself and St Joseph had never got jiggy.
Proceed with your bickering....
Here is what you said:
"if the mother was a child at the time, there is no reason to think that she knew what was going on."
No reason to think she knew?
How can you suggest that she could completely miss, for nearly 40 years, that the baby on the beach might be hers?
Even allowing for the usual level of trolling on boards.ie, it's shocking to me that some people think stabbing a baby to death and breaking its neck should be let slide because the Gardai are dicks.
No need to shout.
The fact that the grave was vandalised more than once suggests an awful lot of ongoing bitterness and anger from someone very close to the murder.
Despite getting away with the crime, it wasn't enough and there was resentment the baby was found and buried. I can't imagine why someone who committed murder to get rid of a problem (baby) would be emotionally invested enough to carry that anger for years unless they were very emotionally invested.
The fact that somebody had a baby?
The fact that 5 days later a baby washed up on a beach, murdered?
You are the one claiming the mother could have lived in the area for the next 40 years and never once wondered if that child could be hers until the knock came on the door last week.
Eh? Then why is she always referred to as the Virgin Mary?
All that I'm claiming is that we simply don't know what happened and people should stop posting their own conclusions as fact. @DownByTheGarden made the claim that we know that "at least one parent knew what was going on".
Between this and other claims of facts posted on here, there are a lot of people pushing their imagination as fact
Because she didn't have marital relations until after the birth of Jesus. She was a virgin. Jesus was conceived through the power of the holy spirit.
It's implausible to suggest that for nearly 40 years a woman would never once wonder if a murdered 5 day old baby might be hers.
So Immaculate conception then?
And still they are wondering why they are being called dim :) I give up.
Implausaible still leaves room for doubt! You cannot say, hand on heart, that you know for a fact that either parent knew all along what happened. If you do, then you are making an assumption about their involvement. I did post this though: "In all likleihood, they probably did but we currently don't know that for a fact (despite what some posters are claiming are facts)."
How is waiting for details on facts being dim? I'm not the one making stuff up and calling it fact!
If more people were prepared to wait for basic facts, then Gerry O'Carroll and his colleagues wouldn't have tried to stitch up an innocent woman!
It was in the Independent that her father was Gardai but I think someone said earlier he was not or dead around the time. Could be wrong about the 2nd bit
No!!! The immaculate conception is the conception of Mary.....she was conceived without sin.
Two different events!
Guaranteed you probably have the wrong understanding of "blood is thicker than water" too!
Will you just go away. A few minutes ago you were asking for proof that the baby was murdered.
Here is the quote from you - "Ok so tell us, using the known facts, how "at least one parent knew what was going on""
What a stupid statement.
You are just making up excuses for a crime and willing to blind yourself to known facts so you dont lose the arument. You make no sense whatsoever. So this is the last time i'll be responding to you.
To be fair one parent absolutely knew a baby was born.
Whatever about being "innocent" and not realizing they were pregnant (it happens seemingly) you would certainly know when you are in labour!
I presume it was a natural birth. Did she receive any medical care.... unusual for a natural birth not to tear ....so did she end up needing stitches but went without them? Either way she'd be bleeding for weeks afterwards and her boobs would feel like bags of cement....so yeah I'm pretty sure she knew she had given birth!
Here's something else you said:
There is every reason to think she knew what was going on. You even say so yourself.
"In all likleihood, they probably did"
Christ! I did not state that. But you don't know who killed the baby or who else knew/knows despite your assertions that they do.
Not something I suggested remotely!
So you know for a fact that she knew/knows that the baby was murdered and who exactly killed the baby? Grand - maybe you can let the gardai know too.
It's very hard to believe that she didn't join the dots.
You're suggesting that she gave birth to a baby boy that she subsequently gave away to persons unknown and never saw again, and a few days later, a baby boy of unknown parentage was found murdered, and it's plausible that she didn't connect these two events.
Come on.
Nobody is saying that.
Your theory is that she could have been spun a yarn about the child being adapted out to America, forgot all about the whole thing and never once wondered if the murdered baby could be hers until a knock on the door nearly 40 years later.
Bonkers stuff.
No. I was saying to not post that as fact because we simply don't know what happened!
Some here have claimed that XYZ is fact when it's not. It possibly (anbd probably) is the case that the baby was taken and one or other parent joined up the dots (unless both have mental disabilities) but we have not been given enough information to state with certainty that it is true (depsite what some here have asserted). People here have claimed that we know who killed the baby - we don't. People have also claimed that we know that the parents knew all along what happened - we don't.
But surely you see that the mother gave birth and baby was taken away ( ok she may have been spun a good yarn that baby was being adopted). But a few days later a newborn baby was found dead in the same county and the family doesn't come forward. How could she not think that's strange that her baby was taken away around the same time this dead baby was found?
It's not plausible that when the story came up again and again over the years that she didn't for a second think that the baby could have been hers - it's just not Seth. Any mother that has given birth in any circumstances doesn't forget and she doesn't forget the date either.
While she may have had no involvement in the murder she would had to have had an inkling that the baby could be or was hers.
Probably - but as I said, unlike others are doing, I can't claim this as fact. I'd rather wait and see what happens in the coming days.
Anyhow, this is detracting from the thread, let's move on!
They probably come from money, upper class etc., hence then seen that they cannot do wrong by neighbours fellow towns folk
Every bit of information seems to leak to the press here , just as well they can't print most of it
I don't think similar happens in the UK in cases such as Nicola bulley
No. Immaculate here refers to the state of her soul at the point of her conception, I.e. not 'stainef" with original sin , thus making her worthy of conceiving, via the Holy spirit, the son of God. So, she's differen to every other human conceived before or after, but not on a parGod because she's just a woman, like.
/Back on topic
It's not plausible that when the story came up again and again over the years that she didn't for a second think that the baby could have been hers.
Id agree that it's not plausible.
But what is plausible is that she was so scared and traumatized by the whole episode back in 1983 and 1984 that she never talked about it or wanted to talk about it.
And every time it came on the radio, tv etc she just shut it out.
People can wax lyrical all they like about what she should have done, but only she knows what she went through.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e68aa2b0e039b12ade8384a2f42841c6.svg)