Why did Gardai destroy possible burial site of Irelands longest missing child?

oranbhoy67

tayto lover wrote: »

But has anyone actually said it to the alleged perpetrator and has it been said in front of others? Was he forced to deny or threaten legal action?

I put it to him as was stated in the podcast i recorded it on video and have shown it too a few parties including the gardai

Legal action , a civil case is still a possibility

oranbhoy67

bubblypop wrote: »

What's her reasoning for this though?

I think she would rather the guards do the job instead, she is very non confrontational

tayto lover

Kelly Crashing Polygraph wrote: »

Did you listen to the podcast ?

Not yet.
Will do so when the house gets quiet.

g6fdyotp5nj2l7

tayto lover wrote:

Not yet. Will do so when the house gets quiet.

Well worth a listen tells the story pretty well I think

tayto lover

Kelly Crashing Polygraph wrote: »

Well worth a listen tells the story pretty well I think

I would imagine so but suspect there’s nothing new in it but a rehashing of what we have known for years.
Wasn’t there talk of a Civil action being taken against the suspect a year or so ago?

Johnboy1951

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

only that one man said he was red VW bettle and only remembered/reported it 15 years after the fact , everyone else working in the area that day including that man initally said they saw 3 cars that day all of which were traced one of which belongs to the person we suspect

Did his statement to the Guardaí include seeing 3 cars that day?

He said he reported the beetle at the time, and later found it was missing from his statement.
Is there some cause not to believe him?

oranbhoy67

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

I think she would rather the guards do the job instead, she is very non confrontational

But if she has made a statement, with actual evidence of who did it, then they would not ignore it?

g6fdyotp5nj2l7

bubblypop wrote:

But if she has made a statement, with actual evidence of who did it, then they would not ignore it?

Ann was only 6 when it happened so she's not the member of the family that needs to speak out.

g6fdyotp5nj2l7

tayto lover wrote:

I would imagine so but suspect there’s nothing new in it but a rehashing of what we have known for years. Wasn’t there talk of a Civil action being taken against the suspect a year or so ago?

Going by your question above there would be at least one new piece of information for you in it :-)

Kelly Crashing Polygraph

Kelly Crashing Polygraph wrote: »

Ann was only 6 when it happened so she's not the member of the family that needs to speak out.

No, that's not true. She is one of a few witnesses that were there.
If she has actual real evidence, then of course it wouldn't be ignored.
If it's not actual evidence, then it wouldn't be counted, but of course looked into.

g6fdyotp5nj2l7

bubblypop wrote:

No, that's not true.

What's not true she was only 6. And I still say she's not the one needs to speak out, in my opinion.

oranbhoy67

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Did his statement to the Guardaí include seeing 3 cars that day?

He said he reported the beetle at the time, and later found it was missing from his statement.
Is there some cause not to believe him?

yes he signed the statement that was read back to him and didnt mention anything about a red VW beetle

he said that when he realised 15 years later it wasnt actually in the statement that would have been read back to him and he signed that he went and told Marys Grandmother at her house in Cashelard

so he is saying that he visited Marys Grandmother in 1992 in her home in Cashelard to let her know about the VW beetle..

but the woman had moved out of the house and left it empty and moved in with Marys family in the opposite end of Donegal when her husband died in 1980.

His story doesnt add up in any way , the person fishing with him that day is adamant there was no red VW beetle & his family continue to say the same . the other witness who was working on the main road as a tree surgeoun has also stuck to his story of the 3 cars & no VW beetle

NIMAN

Couple of things for me.

1) is there an element of 'old Ireland' in all this? By this i mean a time when women done what they were told, the church was in charge, local politicians were all powerful? I am thinking how can a mother not want this all pushed harder after losing a child? It's almost as if it's a case of 'say nothing' or 'do as you're told'. Maybe I'm way off the mark

2) the ending to the podcast I found strange. They simply said if the mum wanted to know what Mary would look like today, she need only look at Ann, her twin. But then informed us that mum and Ann aren't speaking. No explanation as to why not. It's almost as if they want to add to the mystery.

oranbhoy67

bubblypop wrote: »

But if she has made a statement, with actual evidence of who did it, then they would not ignore it?

theres no actual evidence as there was no trace of Mary left behind

but as the ex RUC officer says in the podcast that doesnt mean that the case cannot be solved

g6fdyotp5nj2l7

NIMAN wrote:

2) the ending to the podcast I found strange. They simply said if the mum wanted to know what Mary would look like today, she need only look at Ann, her twin. But then informed us that mum and Ann aren't speaking. No explanation as to why not. It's almost as if they want to add to the mystery.

The podcast explained why Ann and her mother aren't speaking

tdf7187

Oranbhoy, IIRC Gemma O'Doherty had avanced the theory that a now deceased FF local politician could potentially have been implicated, do you personally believe that there is any credibility in this claim?

oranbhoy67

no offence folks but a couple of you need to listen to it first before asking questions that are clearly answered in it . one of you even reviewing it in some way or at least assuming what is going to be in it but you admit you havent listened to it ?

oranbhoy67

NIMAN wrote: »

Couple of things for me.

1) is there an element of 'old Ireland' in all this? By this i mean a time when women done what they were told, the church was in charge, local politicians were all powerful? I am thinking how can a mother not want this all pushed harder after losing a child? It's almost as if it's a case of 'say nothing' or 'do as you're told'. Maybe I'm way off the mark

2) the ending to the podcast I found strange. They simply said if the mum wanted to know what Mary would look like today, she need only look at Ann, her twin. But then informed us that mum and Ann aren't speaking. No explanation as to why not. It's almost as if they want to add to the mystery.

1) very much so

2) it went into great detail into why they werent speaking I thought

did anyone notice the priest totally contradicting Marys mothers stance that she was still alive? I thought more people would have picked up on that but it seems to have gone unnoticed or maybe im looking too deep into that part

oranbhoy67

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

theres no actual evidence as there was no trace of Mary left behind

but as the ex RUC officer says in the podcast that doesnt mean that the case cannot be solved

I haven't listened yet to the podcast, Will do it this week, but why is an ruc man involved?

g6fdyotp5nj2l7

bubblypop wrote:

I haven't listened yet to the podcast, Will do it this week, but why is an ruc man involved?

I assume it was to get the opinion of a police force because the Gardai refused to take part

Kelly Crashing Polygraph

Kelly Crashing Polygraph wrote: »

I assume it was to get the opinion of a police force because the Gardai refused to take part

RUC?
That puts me right off, I couldn't take their opinion as a police force.
Maybe get someone from a different police force.

oranbhoy67

tdf7187 wrote: »

Oranbhoy, IIRC Gemma O'Doherty had avanced the theory that a now deceased FF local politician could potentially have been implicated, do you personally believe that there is any credibility in this claim?

Certainly couldnt rule it out

We all know how Gemma has went but at the end of the day she has a video uploaded of Sgt Collins from the time of her documentary of him clearly stating that McEniff rang the Station and told them "it was hands off the suspect"

He believes its the same person we believe but refuses to take part in any future dicussions , in his words to me "he has washed his hands clean of the case " because of Gemma,
but at the end of the day he might say that, can he just switch it off in his brain ? him and his collegaues were not properly trained for such an event which was not their fault but they also made mistakes in the hours and days after Mary went missing , crucial mistakes , he owes our family , & the Gardai owe our family & their decsion not to comment on this very fair podcast is yet another twist of the knife in this case and says more about them ( especially the Gardai ) than anyone

NIMAN

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

1) very much so

2) it went into great detail into why they werent speaking I thought

did anyone notice the priest totally contradicting Marys mothers stance that she was still alive? I thought more people would have picked up on that but it seems to have gone unnoticed or maybe im looking too deep into that part

Apologies, I caught up with it in work but had to stop and start it a few times.
I didn't hear a priest at all, so I must have missed a bit of it that explains why Ann and mum aren't speaking.

All the same, strange that a mother and a twin daughter have fallen out over the death of a daughter/sister. If anything you'd think they would be on the same side.

I'll listen to the bit i missed and see if I'm any the wiser.

Didn't mean to sound like someone having opinions without the facts. Thought I had them all.

oranbhoy67

bubblypop wrote: »

RUC?
That puts me right off, I couldn't take their opinion as a police force.
Maybe get someone from a different police force.

Im a Republican through an through albeit not affilated to any party at all nor have any wish to be, ever

the mention of the RUC usually turns my stomach

I never knew this man was going to be in it

he turned out to be probably the most well informed person on the whole series and spoke a lot of sense in the 2 short sections that he appears

our own police force refused to make anyone available to speak to one of the worlds biggest media orginisations on one of Irelands most infamous cases

they shamed themselves & showed themselves for what they are, a tinpot inept police force in need of a total revamp from top to bottom

NIMAN

That's shocking that the Gardai are more or less refusing to discuss the case with anyone any more.

Could Drew Harris not be approached about this?

He should be impartial and should be seen not to ignore the case.

oranbhoy67

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

he turned out to be probably the most well informed person on the whole series and spoke a lot of sense in the 2 short sections that he appears

our own police force refused to make anyone available to speak to one of the worlds biggest media orginisations on one of Irelands most infamous cases

they shamed themselves & showed themselves for what they are, a tinpot inept police force in need of a total revamp from top to bottom

You only appreciate the ruc man because he obviously agreed with your point of view. I'll say again, I haven't listened yet to the podcast, but I will this week.
But sorry, I don't rate the ruc as a police force, at all. & I feel there should have been someone from a more credible police force involved.
And AGS, Will not be involved in an open investigation on a podcast, they are too professional now.

I'll listen with an open mind.

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

That's shocking that the Gardai are more or less refusing to discuss the case with anyone any more.

Could Drew Harris not be approached about this?

He should be impartial and should be seen not to ignore the case.

This is still, AFAIK, an open investigation? Gardai do not talk about ongoing investigations.
No-one wants to have adverse effects on ongoing investigations.
There is a press office that deals with these issues.

oranbhoy67

bubblypop wrote: »

You only appreciate the ruc man because he obviously agreed with your point of view. I'll say again, I haven't listened yet to the podcast, but I will this week.
But sorry, I don't rate the ruc as a police force, at all. & I feel there should have been someone from a more credible police force involved.
And AGS, Will not be involved in an open investigation on a podcast, they are too professional now.

I'll listen with an open mind.

mate im writing about this all day come back to me when you have actually listened to it if you want to discuss it and dont assume anything about something you havent even took time to listen too

the main thing I got from the RUC man was a great insight into police work

put your prejudice to one side ..AGS & Proffesional? you are having a laugh there

oranbhoy67

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

put your prejudice to one side ..AGS & Proffesional? you are having a laugh there

That's your prejudice right there

oranbhoy67

bubblypop wrote: »

This is still, AFAIK, an open investigation? Gardai do not talk about ongoing investigations.
No-one wants to have adverse effects on ongoing investigations.
There is a press office that deals with these issues.

yes the press office was contacted ,again go and listen to the podcast then come back you are making an absolute show of yourself now the Garda have spoke about this case on RTE many times with special Crimecall episodes devoted to it . that were so badly made that they were unreal

oranbhoy67

bubblypop wrote: »

That's your prejudice right there

any other opinons you want to impose on a podcast that you havent even bothered your arse to listen to and are such an uber republican you arent going to now because they speak to an RUC man for a total of about 3 minutes? as the Gardai were too busy to make anyone available. you are going on ignore you complete waste of time and energy

oranbhoy67

NIMAN wrote: »

That's shocking that the Gardai are more or less refusing to discuss the case with anyone any more.

Could Drew Harris not be approached about this?

He should be impartial and should be seen not to ignore the case.

We are going to press for that now on the back of this

oranbhoy67

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

any other opinons you want to impose on a podcast that you havent even bothered your arse to listen to and are such an uber republican you arent going to now because they speak to an RUC man for a total of about 3 minutes? as the Gardai were too busy to make anyone available. you are going on ignore you complete waste of time and energy

I don't think you should be disregarding people.
I already said I will listen to the podcast this week, nothing to do with not bothering, people do have other things to do you know, like work etc.
I'm not giving opinions on a podcast I haven't listened to. & I am not, ever, an. Uber republican.
Don't make a statement saying gardai were too busy, when that is not the reason the were not involved in a podcast.

Johnboy1951

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

...
did anyone notice the priest totally contradicting Marys mothers stance that she was still alive? I thought more people would have picked up on that but it seems to have gone unnoticed or maybe im looking too deep into that part

I did not take that from what I heard.
I took it that the clergyman was attempting to get her to accept that all hope was lost of ever finding the child alive.
He did, while being asked, pray for a missing person, and only changed that on the mother's request.
So, no I did not understand his stance as contradiction ..... more advising what almost all people believe ... even Mary's mother eventually.

chooseusername

bubblypop wrote: »

I don't think you should be disregarding people.
I already said I will listen to the podcast this week, nothing to do with not bothering, people do have other things to do you know, like work etc.
I'm not giving opinions on a podcast I haven't listened to. & I am not, ever, an. Uber republican.
Don't make a statement saying gardai were too busy, when that is not the reason the were not involved in a podcast.

The whole 7 episodes is less than 3 hours long,
maybe the last couple of hours spent on here ,and watching "I'm a celebrity"
could have been better spent.

oranbhoy67

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I did not take that from what I heard.
I took it that the clergyman was attempting to get her to accept that all hope was lost of ever finding the child alive.
He did, while being asked, pray for a missing person, and only changed that on the mother's request.
So, no I did not understand his stance as contradiction ..... more advising what almost all people believe ... even Mary's mother eventually.

but its marys mothers insistence that she is still alive is the main reason the coroner cites that he wont give us an inquest

she said it on a live interview with RTE almost 2 decades ago that she had accepted Mary was dead!!

I cant find it at the moment it might have been one of Gemmas videos so will have been removed

Johnboy1951

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

but its marys mothers insistence that she is still alive is the main reason the coroner cites that he wont give us an inquest

she said it on a live interview with RTE almost 2 decades ago that she had accepted Mary was dead!!

I cant find it at the moment it might have been one of Gemmas videos so will have been removed

Like any mother, she will still be hoping her daughter is still alive, and of course will say so.
Having to accept her daughter is definitely, without question, dead, would seem like an abandonment of her daughter, which no parent would be happy with. Hence the lack of request for an inquest.

I find no inconsistency at all in what her mother has said (that I have heard) about Mary being alive or dead.
From the podcast she seems to accept that the most likely situation is that Mary is dead, but she still expresses hope that it is not so, and without a body she will not let go of that hope ....... and I for one would not place any blame on her for that.

Of course if one were of a mind one could read something very sinister into that refusal ....

chooseusername

chooseusername wrote: »

The whole 7 episodes is less than 3 hours long,
maybe the last couple of hours spent on here ,and watching "I'm a celebrity"
could have been better spent.

How condescending of you.... Roll eyes

Not that it's any of your business but I listen to podcasts in the morning while walking.
After a long hard day at work, I like to turn my brain off for a while to try to relax before bed. So yeah, boards & I'm a celeb tend to do that.

oranbhoy67

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Like any mother, she will still be hoping her daughter is still alive, and of course will say so.
Having to accept her daughter is definitely, without question, dead, would seem like an abandonment of her daughter, which no parent would be happy with. Hence the lack of request for an inquest.

I find no inconsistency at all in what her mother has said (that I have heard) about Mary being alive or dead.
From the podcast she seems to accept that the most likely situation is that Mary is dead, but she still expresses hope that it is not so, and without a body she will not let go of that hope ....... and I for one would not place any blame on her for that.

Of course if one were of a mind one could read something very sinister into that refusal ....

her insistence that she isnt dead and doenst want a coroners inquest until she herself has passed away is stopping us from getting anywhere .. theres a very good chance that the person we believe responsible will die before her

Sorry for her feelings but why does she not want as much probing as possible into what happened that day?

I would argue that would be the more natural incliniation of a parent

Paul Pott

I made this point on another thread and I'll make it here too. Most people would agree Gemma has gone mad as a box of frogs and I know she's always been the kind of person who would fall out with her own shadow but her work on the Mary Boyle case was pretty spot on and it was rather bizarre that she got no mainstream support whatsoever for her effort, bearing in mind it was long before she became obsessed with immigrants, chemtrails etc

oranbhoy67

Paul Pott wrote: »

I made this point on another thread and I'll make it here too. Most people would agree Gemma has gone mad as a box of frogs and I know she's always been the kind of person who would fall out with her own shadow but her work on the Mary Boyle case was pretty spot on and it was rather bizarre that she got no mainstream support whatsoever for her effort, bearing in mind it was long before she became obsessed with immigrants, chemtrails etc

fair point

only thing I can really think of is that even though she hadnt expressed her rascist homophobic views either privatley to us and certainly not publicly she was a real nasty person to deal with on just a personal level.

And the rest of the Irish media made it clear to us they were no fan of her. at all

When she went after the indo after being made redundant she got zero support from within the industry

it IS a ****ty thing that this IMO seemed to make the media ignore what she brought out in the documentary.. especially for us stuck in the middle and youd hope the media could rise above it..

and im not Gemmas biggest fan ( understatemnet of the year ) but after the documentary she released footage of Retired Sgt Collins, clearly, in one cut in a conversation in her car,where he stated that Sean McEniff rang the station and that after that the main suspect was not to be touched




so far very little interest from the Irish media in the Republic as well on this but early days yet, I was meant to speak to a couple of reporters today but the unfortunate incident of the body being found in Ballymun understandably took up their time today.

Seth Brundle

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

and im not Gemmas biggest fan ( understatemnet of the year ) but after the documentary she released footage of Retired Sgt Collins, clearly, in one cut in a conversation in her car,where he stated that Sean McEniff rang the station and that after that the main suspect was not to be touched

Has McEniff's estate had their day in court against GOD?
https://www.thejournal.ie/estate-of-sean-mceniff-defamation-case-gemma-odoherty-4563818-Mar2019/

Muahahaha

Brief mention of the Mary Boyle case on Joe Duffy there about 2pm. Topic was graves that had been vandalised but not sure how Mary slotted into this as I was on the phone and didnt catch it all.

Paul Pott

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

fair point

only thing I can really think of is that even though she hadnt expressed her rascist homophobic views either privatley to us and certainly not publicly she was a real nasty person to deal with on just a personal level.

And the rest of the Irish media made it clear to us they were no fan of her. at all

When she went after the indo after being made redundant she got zero support from within the industry

it IS a ****ty thing that this IMO seemed to make the media ignore what she brought out in the documentary.. especially for us stuck in the middle and youd hope the media could rise above it..

and im not Gemmas biggest fan ( understatemnet of the year ) but after the documentary she released footage of Retired Sgt Collins, clearly, in one cut in a conversation in her car,where he stated that Sean McEniff rang the station and that after that the main suspect was not to be touched




so far very little interest from the Irish media in the Republic as well on this but early days yet, I was meant to speak to a couple of reporters today but the unfortunate incident of the body being found in Ballymun understandably took up their time today.

I think the mainstream medias claim that they didn't touch the story because they don't like Gemma is total nonsense, it also doesn't explain why Barry Cummins is happy to run with the frankly insane theory that Robert Black was responsible.

I listened to the podcast, it was well made & an interesting enough listen.
No real detail in it though.
If anything it made me very sympathetic to Mrs Boyle, who I guess, up to now I probably had certain ideas about her & the case.

On the point of AGS being involved, it's obvious why they are not. I don't understand why they made such a big thing out of it, like there is some conspiracy, when clearly it is an open investigation.

g6fdyotp5nj2l7

bubblypop wrote:

when clearly it is an open investigation.

Seems to me it's open in name only I don't see any evidence of much investigating going on.

tayto lover

The answer lies within the family for sure.
A stranger didn’t suddenly arrive out of the blue and take Mary. How would they even know she was there?
Whoever owned the car/van that was parked in the spot where the sniffer dogs lost the trail is the person who knows exactly what happened.
Was that person interviewed or arrested? That’s what needed to be done at the time.
The media are not going to solve this no matter how often they tell the story.
The truth lies within and always has.

oranbhoy67

bubblypop wrote: »

I listened to the podcast, it was well made & an interesting enough listen.
No real detail in it though.
If anything it made me very sympathetic to Mrs Boyle, who I guess, up to now I probably had certain ideas about her & the case.

On the point of AGS being involved, it's obvious why they are not. I don't understand why they made such a big thing out of it, like there is some conspiracy, when clearly it is an open investigation.

what years were you in Templemore?

oranbhoy67

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

what years were you in Templemore?

What difference does that make?

oranbhoy67

bubblypop wrote: »

What difference does that make?

it makes a Huge difference if you are or were a Garda as you have been defending the indefensible with them here