I notice also that my post was deleted too without notification. The facts are out there already in kerry circles, the parents ages at the time are known, their names are known, the location where they have since resided is known. The fact that they were taken to different stations for questioning is perhaps now irrelevant as they have already spent the last 40 years ironing out their story line.
If indeed they have made 'no comment' during the 24 hour questioning, then can they be charged on the suspicion of murder & withholding information.
The easier route out for them to not have themselves implicated is indeed to say that Baby John was murdered by a relative for example her mother as she is since deceased, however again, can they be charged on withholding information all this time.
Now the question is, do the gardai have any third-party leads already, now that they know the parents what new leads can they explore, are friends of both parents likely to talk, do they know anything.
The DPP can and do decline cases for public interest reasons. This may well be one of them.
A lack of evidence or the risk of an unconstitutional trial with the inability to adequetly mount a defence due to the passage of time being dragged throught the higher courts for years is exactly a scenario whereby they may walk away.
If they have a slam-dunk case of murder, they'll proceed - if not, (and this is just my view) the DPP will probably be shy to proceed. I don't think it's in anyone's interest for this extremely sad and grim case to become another circus.
There is no exact science to this, and wisdom will be required from the Gardai, the DPP and the judiciary.
If the DPP doesn't see a reasonable likelyhood of conviction, they are unlikely to proceed. A trial will not be conducted for some appeasement of the public.
Someone is or was carrying some baggage from the time, the grave has been vandalised several times over the years.
Even in the scenario you've outlined there needs to be a prosecution. If mental health is successfully used as a defence then fine, but justice will be seen to be done in a public court. Just sweeping it under the carpet is not acceptable.
It always comes out in the end.
Generally, I agree. But even without knowing all the facts, this case has features which may mean the DPP may step back from it.
For instance, one of the possible scenarios* is that the mother killed the child in a post-natal psychotic break - which could leave us with a case of manslaughter or guilty but insane on the face of things. Better understood now, but not understood in 1984. If it goes in that direction, I can envision a lot of people being uncomfortable with a prosecution being pursued. With the passage of time, mounting a defence may be extremely difficult (can a credible psychological report be generated 40 years after the fact? I don't know) - the prospect of the case being thrown out due to the danger of an unsafe trial would be high.
I'm not answering yay or nay to a prosecution either way, but in the above scenario for instance, the DPP would have to have the wisdom of Job to make the right call in deciding to bring a prosecution or not. Where the case rests in Irish social and legal history is another consideration, a prosecution of what was an ill mother may not play well with the public at all.
*That's just one scenario, and entirely speculative at that.
It's certainly possible but by no means certain.
Without further evidence all one can say is that they are the baby's parents.
Prosecuting a murder is always in the public interest no matter how far back it is. There is no statute of limitations for murder.
Neither of them may be responsible for the murder, but at least one of them knows who the murderer is. And kept quiet about that for 39 years even as another family was tortured over it. Despicable.
Isn't the whole point that you wouldn't be aware?
I'm not aware of any guards, doctors or teachers who engaged in a large-scale conspiracy to shield paedophiles from justice, but you might be able to enlighten me.
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...
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 would imagine the solicitor was called in early before they were questioned, a right anyone has, and he told them to say nothing.
All it took was for one to say to the other, 'say nothing'.
What story if they both answered no comment?
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.
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.
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.
thats not what you said though....you said you cant stand defence lawyers.
You're referring to the special training they get down there?
The notion that a kerrry solr is a bit simple or not sure of what he's doing!!!
He's fully aware.
That's not the point anyone is making. The solicitor being a publicity seeking whore is what posters are alluding to.
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.
I’m aware of that, I said it didn’t have to be a close match for the parents to be correctly identified.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/08231869fd786c2459f2d35b207b4d26.svg)
