Oh she murdered the baby now when did that comebout
The catholic church in Ireland took a sharp tack to the right in the second half of the 19th C.
Yet tghe bible stated that Mary Magdalene was a peostitute and that Jesus forgave her and even associated with her. Strange.
If she was young (someone said possibly as young as 11), then its quite possible that she disassociated during the entire birth, and has no *conscious* knowledge of it, or explanation for the state of her body afterwards.
Especially if the pregnancy was the result of rape.
But some adult (her mother, a midwife, doctor, etc) must have known.
This is the film. Warning - many scenes in it are absolutely shocking
OUT OF INNOCENCE
A new-born baby’s body is washed up on a deserted beach, shocking a rural community. On the same night eighty kilometres away , a young mother gives birth to a stillborn baby. Out of Innocence is set at a time of disharmony for women in Ireland, and inspired by the Kerry Babies Case which saw Joanne Hayes wrongly accused of infanticide and her and her family dragged through a prolonged and inhumane criminal investigation. The case (which coincided with the Ann Lovett case) became a landmark in Irish social history and contributed to societal change and the decline in the power of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
Dramatised with masterful restraint by Fionnuala Flaherty (Foscadh) and Fiona Shaw against an almost colourless palette, the film evokes the grim oppressions of smalltown Ireland in the 1980s.
RTÉ should show the film about the Joanne Hayes case instead of the late late this week.
The immaculate conception dogma established in 1850's coming from the belief that women and sex were inherently sinful and they couldn't countenance Jesus being born to a sinful woman. These changes in dogma of course played massively into the woman hating policies established in the Catholic church here over the subsequent 100 years and ultimately contributing to the environment in which the events under discussion occurred. An environment where any "transgression" of the norms associated with the catholic doctrine was to to be hidden from view and the assumption that the "fallen" woman was wicked was pervasive, which was likely one of the factors that played into the assumptions the investigation made around Ms Hayes.
Has anyone on Boards suggested it should be let slide?
All I can see is some people reserving judgement until we know the full facts and not deciding that the murderer was definitely one or both of Baby John's parents.
At the end of the day, there was a murder committed
Yeah I do agree she or they have no doubt suffered through the years - but that still doesn't make the silence right.
The bit I have the difficulty with is her watching Joanne Hayes's life being ruined and staying silent. Ireland is a different place than it was in 1984 - I think if the mother had come forward herself she would have been dealt with in a more compassionate manner in the last 20/30 years than the 80s. I don't believe the mother murdered the baby - someone vile was responsible for that. She had the power to stop Joanne's Hayes's life being ruined though- Joanne is in her sixties now and has lived with the shame of this for most of her life - imagine how sad that is? This woman would have watched as this story came out again and again.
It's a very sad case all round - seeing an innocent person's life ruined for 39 years though cannot be defended.
Well I hope someone is brought to justice. Should be fairly straight forward now for the guards. I have no bother thinking back 40 years what I was doing at that time , not to mind if you had a baby, that’s a major event in a persons life. And as a poster stated here, if a person had a baby and the baby was taken from them, and then a baby was found in the shore few days after, would that person not be thinking
If i murdered someone id probably be a bit scared and traumatized whenever it came up on the news too to be fair.
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.
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
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
They probably come from money, upper class etc., hence then seen that they cannot do wrong by neighbours fellow towns folk
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Here's something else you said:
"if the mother was a child at the time, there is no reason to think that she knew what was going on."
There is every reason to think she knew what was going on. You even say so yourself.
"In all likleihood, they probably did"
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!
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.
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!
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
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!
And still they are wondering why they are being called dim :) I give up.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e68aa2b0e039b12ade8384a2f42841c6.svg)
