Yeah I said that earlier. It's unlikely she had a natural birth without some tearing.
It is possible that she just left it be. Kept herself clean , kept infections away and the wound healed itself however haphazardly that may be.
Or else a local health practitioner absolutely knew she'd given birth and was present. Kept quiet out of fear etc.
There's so many possibilities.
Apparently the gardai did check with hospitals and GP - thats how Joanne Hayes became a suspect - She had been pregnant, now not pregnant but no baby.
Whatever about then, nowadays a GP would not be entitled to divulge a patients info if a garda turned up at their surgery door.
What makes you think they will be released?
You make it sound like a TV series, waiting for the next episode, or something.
Another thought, it's unlikely the mother received any postnatal care.
Was the investigation that bundled that no one checked to see if a girl/woman who had obviously given birth recently presented to a local GP or hospital?
Would records of that still be available because surely it was checked in the review of the case?
When are the DNA tests being released?
Yes, a teenage mother told by family what shame she would bring on the family,
or worse still what life/s she would destroy if she disclosed what happened to her child, or what she suspected happened.
The finding of the body and the realisation that it was probably hers would have terrified her, and the consequences it would have on the family if she owned up forced her to stay silent.
It still doesnt make it ok that she remained silent for 39 years - she could have came forward over the years and would have been treated compassionately if she hadnt murdered the baby. All she done was gave birth.
I'm inclined to think it was someone else that murdered the baby and if the mother knew her baby had been killed, she stayed quiet for fear of both the murderer (they did stab the baby 28 times) and fear of the legal consequences given what happened Joanne Hayes.
As time progressed, it became more difficult to be shown to come forwards and say they know what happened.
However, I'm guessing and making a story fit my understanding of how this could possibly happen. It us just as likely that the parents are evil sociopaths who murdered for kicks. We'll have to wait for the truth to come out.
I'm not saying move away that month, that year etc
However if I was keeping a secret that big I'd have moved before I started to raise a family.
Extremely far fetched. Your story involves multiple people neglecting to mention a local, pregnant teenager to gardai during a huge investigation into a murdered baby. Perhaps you don't know Caherciveen. It's a small, extremely rural town 40 miles from Killarney where most families go back generations and at that time, every one knew every one else in the locality. The mother, at the very least know there was a possibility that that baby was hers. Perhaps the father wasn't aware, it depends to what extent it was concealed but there certainly weren't local teachers and priests walking round knowing all about that pregnancy and staying quiet
I'd imagine they will be named, Baby John doesn't need his identity hidden to protect him now.
Sure -it's a massive stretch, I get that!
Concealed pregnancies were common place in the 80's. But even then while it was backward, there was a whole well greased lucrative adoption industry and all it would take is a quiet word with the priest to get the ball rolling and not a soul would ever know.
So why wasn't this an option, when it's how everyone else dealt with it back then?
I've always felt that the mother and the killer are two different people due to the nature of the murder. But I'm sure that we'll find out soon enough.
yes, but the mother could have been abused and beaten by others who didn't want the shame.
Honestly, at this stage it's all speculation. I'm interested to find out but I hope there's not unnecessary pain caused by this.
I do wonder, if charged, will the names of the accused be released? Because in cases involving children they're often not.
Moving away would just add to the focus I would have said- there’s likely just a small “few” that knew about this pregnancy but we don’t know the full story - there’s the circumstances around the birth itself and then there’s the circumstance of what happened after the birth- we’re not at all clear on either at this point.
Joanne Hayes life was ruined because of this - she was arrested, abused by gardai, spent time in jail and then had every details of her sex life discussed publicly. She had fingers pointed at her everywhere she went. A normal life was denied to Joanne because baby Johns parents didnt come forward. To this day there are certain members of the gardai that still think Joanne was the mother! Imagine what that was like for Joanne?
The mother knew what Joanne was being put through and knew she was innocent because the case was so widely discussed by the media. Its not right that this woman/man allowed Joannes life to be ruined - there is no justification for that.
Fear doesnt justify remaining silent - the mother would have been more respected had she come forward, but she didnt. DNA potentially revealed her/their secret.
What I don't understand is why remain in the area.
There was either an arrogance that they'd never be caught or a naivete about the situation.
It was the 80's everyone was emigrating, it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow to leave.
Now it looks like the chickens are home to roost.
The treatment of Joanne Hayes and pressure at home might have persuaded the mother to stay silent.
The longer you live with a lie the harder it is to come forward, I presume the mother was terrified of the consequences.
I dunno, Neyite. Everything you say about concealing a pregnancy, believing your parents had arranged an adoption etc. and living in blissful ignorance for the rest of your life are perfectly possible/plausible with a "normal" teenage pregnancy at the time. But one where a baby the *exact* same age as your own turns up murdered pretty much on your doorstep literally days later and it's all the entire country can talk about for months going on years? I'm sorry, I just can't buy into that level of naivete. From anyone.
What puzzles me, is WHY the baby was killed- as you rightly point out, there was practically a hidden industry and support structure underwritten by the Catholic Church around giving babies up for adoption after so called “illegitimate births” - medical intervention would have been required at some point so doctors would have been involved somewhere along the line- informal “behind the scenes” arrangements to give up the baby after birth would have been readily available - I just don’t see why this baby suffered these injuries and his untimely death - I hope we can at the very least, learn something about our dark past as a society from this terrible tragedy.
I never heard such a load of horseshlt in all my life .
If you assume that she was somewhere in the middle of the age range- say mid teens, it's easy enough (or was back then) to take them out of school, no external authority checked attendance the way Tusla do now. In fact it was routine for schools to exclude expectant mothers back then. Everyone colluded, from the head to the local priest to the family to keep the secret. I did my LC in 92 and it was in 91 that the first pregnant pupil was encouraged to remain in school. But I had a cousin who was "off sick" for a term and did schoolwork at home. Her baby was adopted out. I know a couple (adults) who had many children of their own and their first secretly adopted baby found them again in her mid thirties. Adoptions were very secretive back then, often the children themselves never had any idea well into adulthood that they had been adopted and only found out due to a medical issue. .
An April full-term baby like John was easy enough to conceal. Conception would have happened around August, but visible signs of pregnancy wouldn't be noticeable until possibly November. It's really only 4 or 5 months of hiding really. The school would then exclude her. After that the story could go around that "Mary" went to a mother and baby unit to help her Auntie Sally after her operation.
In terms of concealment /murder, well, if you were told during your pregnancy that you baby was going to be adopted by your mother or father then after 5 days they take the baby to the adoptive parents, you'd believe them. And it's fairly easy to continue the lie onwards and insist that John is with his loving parents in Boston or Dublin, every time it's mentioned - if you were allowed ever mention it again. But also very easy to hand the mother a photo of a baby in 6 months or a year and say the adoptive parents sent it. They all look like bald spuds at that age. So if you as a teen have a picture of your baby, why would you think the one washed up on the beach had anything to do with yours? Most of us would think that our own parents would be incapable of murder - and especially such a brutal and callous one.
It may very well be possible that the couple who were arrested fully believed that they had a son out there who would someday trace them and they could be reunited and that baby John's birth date was just a coincidence. And that the perpetrator is long dead and literally got away with murder all their life.
Indeed- speculation and fitting square pegs into round holes is what has brought us to this situation- thankfully investigations and resultant decisions to prosecute these days are based on facts and evidence - hopefully we have a much improved Garda investigation team who are far removed from the keystone cops who previously investigated this tragic death.
Ok yes that’s true… a full sibling would imply both parents. I just wonder if the reporting is completely accurate. Half sibling or full sibling might not be differentiated at this early stage. I’m not sure if the papers have the full story and the official Garda reports seem to be very sparse.
Sorry, getting threats of bans from mods here. Probably time to leave the thread.
I was ten at the time, it was a huge story and a long running one due to the tribunal. You couldn't not be aware of it.
What ages are the children?
Given the age of this womans children i doubt very much she was 11 when baby john was born.
This was in the news non stop for months. And then on and off for years. We even chatted about it in school all the time at the time.
You could not avoid this. It was the biggest news ever in the country for so long.
And if you were from Kerry, it was part of your daily life wondering what happened to that baby. It would have been like 9/11 is to new yorkers.
The Times article linked earlier said the DNA was from "a sibling of the deceased Baby John". If another man or woman was involved that DNA would be from a half sibling.(assuming the DNA was from a child of both people arrested).
From the Times article;
"DNA at the centre of the Kerry Baby case was voluntarily handed over by a person who gardai believe to be a sibling of the deceased Baby John. This then led gardai to focus on the couple, who have denied any role in the murder of the five-day-old infant. Gardai believe the couple are the biological parents of Baby John."
The Gardaí believe both are Baby John's parents.
I dare you to call any woman aged 55 as being in her "late 50's". 😁
Late 50's suggests 58/59
