The solicitor makes no sense at all. He insists there is no grounds for arrest, giving out about the gardai, saying there's a danger of a repeat of how they treated Joanne Hayes when there isn't any evidence of this at all. He strikes me as a bit simple.
He talks about how a DNA match doesn't mean they are murderers. I don't think anyone claimed that (although it's not unlikely). Surely a DNA match means the case needs to be investigated and questions answered.
He would prefer if nothing was answered.
As I say he comes across as not all there.
It doesn’t even have to be a close match, as I’ve explained earlier in thread. I can be a third cousin for example, and it’s possible to build trees to find the common ancestor then work downwards to find the match.
public databases are currently not allowed to be used in Ireland. I hope this changes. In USA, GEDmatch and FTDNA are allowed to be used, but only if the user opts in and gives permission. If you had your DNA tested with Ancestry or 23&me, you download your raw data then upload it to the other sites. There’s tons of cold cases being solved using these databases.
I can’t see how at least one of baby Johns parents weren’t involved. They’ve apparently “no commented” through the entire interrogation, not offering any explanation as to the birth and disappearance of their child, yet their solicitor is mouthing off to the press at every opportunity and painting them as victims. It beggars belief.
He’s a peace of work isn’t he. Can’t stand defence lawyers, not sure how they sleep at night.
They're doing a job
"It doesn’t even have to be a close match, as I’ve explained earlier in thread. I can be a third cousin for example, and it’s possible to build trees to find the common ancestor then work downwards to find the match."
The match was from a sibling, you can't get much closer than that ( maybe identical twins)
There's no need to go building trees, just find the parents.
He comes across very media hungry like he wants the case done and dusted now for attention
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/kerry-baby-murder-suspects-traumatised-29609683
I'd say trying to soften the blow for when all the information is made public.
"gardai try to identify people who knew the couple in the 1980s. Among them is a garda officer who had general knowledge of the investigation, but who is now deceased.
The couple remain the focus of the investigation, though gardai are trying to establish with some degree of certainty if Baby John was stabbed to death by a third party"
I can't help but think the above 2 statements in the Times are linked.
I notice @John007's post has been deleted!
It could get interesting for all the wrong reasons
He either he craves the attention or hes doing it on their behalf
Won't change the investigation
You wouldn't know what's going on behind the scenes either
Could be there was a blowup with the gardai or maybe they extracted info from suspects he didn't want
And he's off to the media venting and trying to play catchup
so would you rather someone was taking in for questioning with no legal defence?
I’m aware of that, I said it didn’t have to be a close match for the parents to be correctly identified.
This isn’t really about my preference, a constitutional right is a constitutional right.
this guy is loudly painting the couple as victims at every press opportunity he gets. Do I have a problem with that? Yes I do. They aren’t the victims here.
That's not the point anyone is making. The solicitor being a publicity seeking whore is what posters are alluding to.
The notion that a kerrry solr is a bit simple or not sure of what he's doing!!!
He's fully aware.
You're referring to the special training they get down there?
thats not what you said though....you said you cant stand defence lawyers.
The mark of a justice system that enjoys public acceptance and that doesn't lapse into arbitrary tyranny is the fundemental right of all accused to a robust defence. That's a pillar of the justice process. And if it's taken away you end up with disasters like how the original (wrongly) accused was treated all those years ago.
We are operating on very limited facts and Miss Marple conjecture at this stage. Either one of the parents could be responsible for the murder, both, or indeed neither.
With regard to the Kerry solicitor, this is an extremely high-profile case where every Tom, Dick and Harry will have an opinion and temperatures will be high. He's upholding the rights of his clients in a very difficult media environment. What justice there is to be achieved by the State is on behalf of Baby John (and secondarily the Hayes family), not internet sleuths, rubber-neckers and vigilantes who think the justice process belongs to their outrage. And there is always a possibility of high-profile cases like this lapsing into vigilantism.
I don't think we'll ever know what really happened.
All the parents have to do is blame someone who is conveniently already dead on taking the baby away and killing him.
There is no way of proving them liars.
So basically, other than being found out, they'll get away with it. I don't see either of them doing jail time for concealment.
And a third-party being responsible may well be what happened, we don't know. That's part of the trouble of prosecuting a case with extremely limited evidence 40 years in the past. The further in time you go from the events, the less a case meets the public interest test for prosecution and the greater a risk for an unfair trial. As alluded to in an article posted in the thread, the DPP may walk away from this when they examine the file.
Absolutely not pointing the finger at anyone but why would you answer 'no comment ' in the interview, is it recommended by the solicitor in this type of case or personal choice?
That link to the report does not work for me? I get:
"This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it."
You are aware of the caution - “You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so, but anything you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence.” - if in doubt it is probably best to say nothing.
But they were split up when they were picked up. The solr said the knock on the door was out of the blue, yet they both appear to stick to the same story.
What story if they both answered no comment?
All it took was for one to say to the other, 'say nothing'.
I would imagine the solicitor was called in early before they were questioned, a right anyone has, and he told them to say nothing.
Wondered about that
Best tactic from a garda viewpoint is surprise
Did they go to the parents before approaching the relative whose DNA matched
Most of the "facts" so far are speculation
I lived all through the 70s and 80s and it’s only now that I’m in my late 50s that I feel oppressed, as a biological woman, by anyone or anything.
Sounds rather TERFy.
It's not acceptable to hate on gay people any more so another target had to be found...
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/08231869fd786c2459f2d35b207b4d26.svg)
