What ever happened to Larry Griffin?

ziedth

Hey,

So I'm not a big reader by any means. I spend a large portion of my day on boards so I just wouldn't have the stomach to try but I picked up the book "what ever happened to Larry Griffin" as I have recently moved to Stradbally and I thought it might be worth a peek as it investigates the Murder of a postman on Christmas Day in the village in 1930.

Anybody else give it a look? I must say I really enjoyed it. I only knew that the poor chap was never found so the few twists in the story made it well worth it.

I think I mentioned this before but my Grandfather would have been in his teens when this happened and was (like myself) from Bunmahon but till the day he died if you brought up the case he would leave the room so we're pretty sure he knew the full story. There is even a picture taken of him about 30 years later in the book as he was a postman and was good friends with Whelans.

Anyway, give it a look. It's a great read.

Sully

Ever see the program on RTE about it? Some mystery that's for sure, shame it was never concluded but perhaps there wasn't as much desire at the time to conclude the investigation appropriately.

ziedth

It's mentioned in the book a few times but I didn't see it and I would have lived too. I'd say if it happened these days the case would be solved within a week. forensics really did change the game.

dayshah

ziedth wrote: »

It's mentioned in the book a few times but I didn't see it and I would have lived too. I'd say if it happened these days the case would be solved within a week. forensics really did change the game.

Sorry, but CSI is fiction.

I think only about a third of murders result in conviction (I'm not 100% sure, but its something like that). Just look at all the gangland stuff in Dublin.

MacGyver

if you call into rte in city square and ask nicely they may be able to get a copy of it from the archive, or if your bored now you can have a watch of it on youtube but the sound is a bit dodgy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mbbHEnEEZI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AGgbPb-Aww&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_KyFmjp2c8&feature=related


Damn youtube links wont embed

Sully

dayshah wrote: »

Sorry, but CSI is fiction.

I think only about a third of murders result in conviction (I'm not 100% sure, but its something like that). Just look at all the gangland stuff in Dublin.

Without CSI, there is no evidence at all. I assume you mean DNA related forensics is fiction?

ziedth

dayshah wrote: »

Sorry, but CSI is fiction.

I think only about a third of murders result in conviction (I'm not 100% sure, but its something like that). Just look at all the gangland stuff in Dublin.

I would guess that the vast majority of murders in Ireland are gangland related so would be shootings and so on what I mean is that if killed your good self in my Kitchen and let you bleed all over the place and then dump your body by driving it in my car to a hiding placet (which is pretty much a theory of what happened in 1930) that forensics would would be open and shut. All they could tell back then was that if blood was human or animal.

ziedth

Sully wrote: »

Without CSI, there is no evidence at all. I assume you mean DNA related forensics is fiction?

I assume he means CSI the TV show and not the actual act.

dayshah

ziedth wrote: »

I would guess that the vast majority of murders in Ireland are gangland related so would be shootings and so on what I mean is that if killed your good self in my Kitchen and let you bleed all over the place and then dump your body by driving it in my car to a hiding placet (which is pretty much a theory of what happened in 1930) that forensics would would be open and shut. All they could tell back then was that if blood was human or animal.

Its still a needle in a haystack. First the police would need to find my body (or lots of blood), to establish its a murder, and not just that I decided to run away for whatever reason.

They also need some reason to suspect you were involved to get the warrant to search your house. This has given you plenty of time to clean your kitchen.

Then they need to prove that I wasn't just visiting you, making a steak dinner for you, and that I accidentally cut myself, explaining the DNA (if there is any, because you should have cleaned the kitchen). If we knew each other well there could be good reason for my DNA being in your kitchen.

Also, DNA degrades. So if the scene isn't fresh there mightn't be any evidence at all.

I'm not saying its easy to get away with, but plenty of people do get away with it. Take the Madeline McCann case for example. We don't know if she was murdered or not, and then there was all this controversial DNA evidence about her parents.

I reckon the human factor is a huge element is cracking a case. And as you suggested yourself, some people were simply unwilling to talk, to give the gardaí the lead they needed.

sparkling sea

The level of resources given to the forensic dept in Dublin is very low in comparsion to other Western countries.

Circumstantial and not forensic evidence still alllows for the bulk of evidence in most criminal cases, so if it wasn't solved then its hard to know to what degree forensics would help; people stayed silent, that still causes problems even today - look at what happened in Limerick.

Many legal experts especially in Europe would even argue that circumstantial evidence carries more weight in a case than direct evidence.

The OJ Simpson case is a prime example - the jury were swamped by the forensic evidence that they didn't have the knowledge to understand and so the rules of evidence were changed. That type of thing can't happen in the US anyone. Forensic evidence has to be simple enough for the ordinary person to understand, also the judge and legal team have to be well versed in the science that is being presented.

I think two days is the longest this type of evidence can be put forward for now in the US post OJ.

dayshah

sparkling sea wrote: »

The OJ Simpson case is a prime example - the jury were swamped by the forensic evidence that they didn't have the knowledge to understand and so the rules of evidence were changed.

That's a really good point. You can tell a jury that you have a DNA match with 99.9% confidence. Alternatively you can tell the jury that 5,000 people in Ireland would have that same DNA match. Both would be true, but how the statistics are framed has a huge impact.

Deise Tom

I wonder would the items with blood on them that was tested at the time and they could not figure out what or where the blood came from were ever kept and if they were, did anyone ever try and test them in modern times to see if they woould show up something.

Teegan

The funny thing is, people in the village know who killed him and where his remains are.
You just have to talk to the people who were alive around that time. The people involved in the case have children who are alive to this very day.

You just have to do some investigative work to find out who you should be talking to

But to those who have lived in Stradbally for quite some time know how the people there work. It's a little bit like don't ask, don't tell.
Scandal stays among their own and it stays hidden.

William Powell

Teegan wrote: »

The funny thing is, people in the village know who killed him and where his remains are.
You just have to talk to the people who were alive around that time. The people involved in the case have children who are alive to this very day.

You just have to do some investigative work to find out who you should be talking to

But to those who have lived in Stradbally for quite some time know how the people there work. It's a little bit like don't ask, don't tell.
Scandal stays among their own and it stays hidden.

Does anyone know how much research was done for the book by actually talking to people or was it all researched from public records?

Deise Tom

William Powell wrote: »

Does anyone know how much research was done for the book by actually talking to people or was it all researched from public records?

I would love to know the same, as there was very little in it that i did not know already. The book is a waste of money in my view for anyone that has any bit of knowledge at all about the whole case.

William Powell

Deise Tom wrote: »

I would love to know the same, as there was very little in it that i did not know already. The book is a waste of money in my view for anyone that has any bit of knowledge at all about the whole case.

I did hear an alleged story that at the book signing the Author asked someone, "Where do you live?"

"Ballyvoile", was the reply

To which the Author said, "Where's that?"

And all to obvious answer was "You should know, its in the Book!"

But take that with a pinch of salt as the story was 3rd hand when I heard it

ziedth

What I found awful in the whole thing was that when a collection was made for Larry Griffins wife because she did receive his pension as his body wasn't found that little or nobody from Stradbally contributed to it.

Even for the 1930's that's terrible.