The Kerry Babies Case

Stepping Stone

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Less chance of a stitch up with DNA this time around.




Because of bull-headed people like Gerry O'Carroll, who's stll intent on making a fool of himself.


My own feeling (re the Baby John case) is that Gardai are pretty sure of the circumstances at this stage and are trying to flush somebody out. Just a hunch but I find it interesting that they themselves seem to have brought this to the forefront again despite the damnation they knew they'd be facing.

It was never locally accepted that Joanne Hayes had anything to do with it. I doubt that the local Gardaí ever thought that either, but the Murder Squad took the case and that was that. Read anything about Gerry O’Carroll and think about how he would be about taking on board the evidence that local Gardaí would have brought forward that it had to be local. He is delusional!

Look at the area that the body was found, tides, currents, etc can only point to a local dumping.

Reading between the lines, they know which family they are looking for. Heavy hints have been dropped about the powerful person in that family having died and the murder being weak and powerless as long as they were alive. I doubt that there will be a prosecution because I suspect that the person who stabbed a baby 28 Times is now dead. Think about what sort of person that must have be. Wouldn’t you live in fear of this person it was your parent? No wonder it was kept entirely quiet.

1984 was a different time and Joanne Hayes suffered for that but whoever murdered that baby would probably be capable of murder today. Stabbing anything 28 Times is pretty crazy. Other babies were smothered, but stabbing that many times...it wasn’t the first time that they were violent or took a life (animal life is what I mean).

SeaFields

Reading between the lines I suspect the gardai know a lot more than they said when the case was reopened (and I say that ignoring the "investigation" in the 80s).

Someone a lot more knowledgeable than me on DNA analysis might comment but I believe they don't exactly need the mother, father or sibling of baby John to submit a sample. A few very distant family members on either side and they will start progressing to identifying where the poor little lad came from. If the gardai don't have a fair idea already.

Ralf and Florian

MrJones1973 wrote: »

Im curious why this case has been reopened now ? It was established 33 years ago that joanne hayes was not the mother ? The Dna sample only reaffirmed this. 33 years is a long time to leave this case on a shelf .

The killer of Nancy Smyth in Kilkenny was convicted recently after 30 years. Its not unusual for cold cases to be reopened after 20, 30 or more years.

Odhinn

Odhinn wrote: »

The hayes family, and certainly joanne hayes. were certainly beaten.

You are saying it again, but what are you offering as evidence this happened? You repeatings it doesn't count as true.

tayto lover

Ralf and Florian wrote: »

The killer of Nancy Smyth in Kilkenny was convicted recently after 30 years. Its not unusual for cold cases to be reopened after 20, 30 or more years.

I read a case in the newspaper a few years ago about an ex-soldier being convicted on DNA evidence of a murder in the Curragh many years before too. There was no such thing as the DNA process at the time but some garda insisted on evidence from the victim being kept.

brooke 2

Stepping Stone wrote: »

It was never locally accepted that Joanne Hayes had anything to do with it. I doubt that the local Gardaí ever thought that either, but the Murder Squad took the case and that was that. Read anything about Gerry O’Carroll and think about how he would be about taking on board the evidence that local Gardaí would have brought forward that it had to be local. He is delusional!

Look at the area that the body was found, tides, currents, etc can only point to a local dumping.

Reading between the lines, they know which family they are looking for. Heavy hints have been dropped about the powerful person in that family having died and the murder being weak and powerless as long as they were alive. I doubt that there will be a prosecution because I suspect that the person who stabbed a baby 28 Times is now dead. Think about what sort of person that must have be. Wouldn’t you live in fear of this person it was your parent? No wonder it was kept entirely quiet.

1984 was a different time and Joanne Hayes suffered for that but whoever murdered that baby would probably be capable of murder today. Stabbing anything 28 Times is pretty crazy. Other babies were smothered, but stabbing that many times...it wasn’t the first time that they were violent or took a life (animal life is what I mean).

I totally agree with your theory that this may not have been the first time the murderer took a life. The mother could have lived in fear of that person. Not alone was the baby stabbed 25/28 times, but his neck was also broken, which would lead one to believe that this could have been a person who had killed farm animals.

LynnGrace

tayto lover wrote: »

I read a case in the newspaper a few years ago about an ex-soldier being convicted on DNA evidence of a murder in the Curragh many years beforetoo. There was no such thing as the DNA process at the time but some garda insisted on evidence from the victim being kept.

This case;

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/former-soldier-sentenced-to-life-for-murder-of-kildare-woman-1.1103512

tayto lover

LynnGrace wrote: »

This case;

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/former-soldier-sentenced-to-life-for-murder-of-kildare-woman-1.1103512

Yes that's the one. Thanks.

Odhinn

MrJones1973 wrote: »

Im curious why this case has been reopened now ? It was established 33 years ago that joanne hayes was not the mother ? The Dna sample only reaffirmed this. 33 years is a long time to leave this case on a shelf .

Given the choice between reputational damage and "you", "you" will lose nearly all of the time, in everything between willingness to deal with the problem, re-open a case, take evidence, spend money, time and so on, let alone apologise. If she'd actually been convicted, it may never have been dealt with even if she was released on appeal. It's terrifying, really, but here we are.

twowheelsonly

tayto lover wrote: »

I read a case in the newspaper a few years ago about an ex-soldier being convicted on DNA evidence of a murder in the Curragh many years before too. There was no such thing as the DNA process at the time but some garda insisted on evidence from the victim being kept.

LynnGrace wrote: »

This case;

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/former-soldier-sentenced-to-life-for-murder-of-kildare-woman-1.1103512

I was in there for a quite a few days of that case - the first in this country where DNA was used to convict someone.
Whilst Crerar maintained his innocence throughout he had 'the look' of a guilty man who was resigned to his fate.
DNA evidence is probably the greatest ever advancement in detecting and prosecuting acts of crime. If there is DNA evidence then it's practically indisputable and it can save you from prosecution and false convictions as much as convict you.

Odhinn

Deleted User wrote: »

You are saying it again, but what are you offering as evidence this happened? You repeatings it doesn't count as true.

It matches various cases where that kind of thing has happened, the family testified that it happened at the time, there has never been an explanation for how they confessed (all of them) to a remarkably similar story with details they could not have known.

Odhinn

twowheelsonly wrote: »

I was in there for a quite a few days of that case - the first in this country where DNA was used to convict someone.
Whilst Crerar maintained his innocence throughout he had 'the look' of a guilty man who was resigned to his fate.
DNA evidence is probably the greatest ever advancement in detecting and prosecuting acts of crime. If there is DNA evidence then it's practically indisputable and it can save you from prosecution and false convictions as much as convict you.

Yep. Unless
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/

There was one incident where the lab technician deliberately corrupted samples, as she believed the 'nice' police people when they said certain parties were guilty. Can't find the link at the mo.

tayto lover

twowheelsonly wrote: »

I was in there for a quite a few days of that case - the first in this country where DNA was used to convict someone.
Whilst Crerar maintained his innocence throughout he had 'the look' of a guilty man who was resigned to his fate.
DNA evidence is probably the greatest ever advancement in detecting and prosecuting acts of crime. If there is DNA evidence then it's practically indisputable and it can save you from prosecution and false convictions as much as convict you.

Yes it seems to be foolproof.
It has led to the convictions of many murderers who thought they had got away with it. I couldn't find any cases where anyone successfully challenged it either and as you say it can help to find a suspect innocent too.

volchitsa

I havent seen this mentioned on the thread, but there was also a suggestion that the Cahirciveen may not have been murdered either, and that the "stab" wounds could have been made by seagulls.
I think given the terrible police work that seems to have been done here, that's a serious possibility.

volchitsa

I havent seen this mentioned on the thread, but there was also a suggestion that the Cahirciveen may not have been murdered either, and that the "stab" wounds could have been made by seagulls.
I think given the terrible police work that seems to have been done here, that's a serious possibility.

volchitsa

I havent seen this mentioned on the thread, but there was also a suggestion that the Cahirciveen may not have been murdered either, and that the "stab" wounds could have been made by seagulls.
I think given the terrible police work that seems to have been done here, that's a serious possibility.

Seth Brundle

volchitsa wrote: »

I havent seen this mentioned on the thread, but ...

volchitsa wrote: »

I havent seen this mentioned on the thread, but ...

volchitsa wrote: »

I havent seen this mentioned on the thread, but ...

I've seen it mentioned a few times

tayto lover

volchitsa wrote: »

I havent seen this mentioned on the thread, but there was also a suggestion that the Cahirciveen may not have been murdered either, and that the "stab" wounds could have been made by seagulls.
I think given the terrible police work that seems to have been done here, that's a serious possibility.

So did the birds carry it out to the beach and why wasn't it reported missing?

volchitsa

kbannon wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

I havent seen this mentioned on the thread, but ...

volchitsa wrote: »

I havent seen this mentioned on the thread, but ...

volchitsa wrote: »

I havent seen this mentioned on the thread, but ...

I've seen it mentioned a few times

Oops. I didnt notice. :ermm:

Pawwed Rig

volchitsa wrote: »

I havent seen this mentioned on the thread, but there was also a suggestion that the Cahirciveen may not have been murdered either, and that the "stab" wounds could have been made by seagulls.
I think given the terrible police work that seems to have been done here, that's a serious possibility.

I would have thought a pathologist could tell the difference between stab wounds and seagulls

volchitsa

tayto lover wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

I havent seen this mentioned on the thread, but there was also a suggestion that the Cahirciveen may not have been murdered either, and that the "stab" wounds could have been made by seagulls.
I think given the terrible police work that seems to have been done here, that's a serious possibility.

So did the birds carry it out to the beech and why wasn't it reported missing?

No that wasn't the point, it was claimed at the time I think that it was relatively common to dispose of dead or stillborn babies which wouldn't have been given a burial in consecrated grounds, especiallly illegitimate ones.
Even infanticide was not infrequent in many places at the time, not just Ireland. So perhaps I should have said that Baby John might not have been killed in such a gruesome way. But you're right that he may still have been killed.

volchitsa

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

I havent seen this mentioned on the thread, but there was also a suggestion that the Cahirciveen may not have been murdered either, and that the "stab" wounds could have been made by seagulls.
I think given the terrible police work that seems to have been done here, that's a serious possibility.

I would have thought a pathologist could tell the difference between stab wounds and seagulls

Depends what they're looking for doesnt it? Remember the Dingo Baby case in Australia where the mother was found guilty of killing the child, but in fact her story was true? And I think it was actually a pathologist or other expert who said it could have been seagulls, he couldnt be sure.

Ralf and Florian

twowheelsonly wrote: »

I was in there for a quite a few days of that case - the first in this country where DNA was used to convict someone.
Whilst Crerar maintained his innocence throughout he had 'the look' of a guilty man who was resigned to his fate.
DNA evidence is probably the greatest ever advancement in detecting and prosecuting acts of crime. If there is DNA evidence then it's practically indisputable and it can save you from prosecution and false convictions as much as convict you.

The Crerar case wasn't the first to be solved by DNA in Ireland. It was first used in the below case.


https://presspack.rte.ie/2005/07/09/cracking-crime-7/

twowheelsonly

Odhinn wrote: »

Yep. Unless
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/

There was one incident where the lab technician deliberately corrupted samples, as she believed the 'nice' police people when they said certain parties were guilty. Can't find the link at the mo.

Great read there...

Like any science there's sure to be flaws but at least 99.999% of them will be human error rather than human opinion /hunch / imagination that was evident with the Kerry babies case.

Interestingly, in the first quoted case in that article the guy who was initially convicted by the DNA evidence was also exonerated by it, as have been many others. Excellent article though and does highlight the potential flaws - which is also good !!

Ralf and Florian wrote: »

The Crerar case wasn't the first to be solved by DNA in Ireland. It was first used in the below case.


https://presspack.rte.ie/2005/07/09/cracking-crime-7/

I always thought it was - perhaps it was the first 'cold-case' to use DNA for a conviction ? Was definitely first at something regarding DNA anyway !!

Ralf and Florian

'

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Great read there...

Like any science there's sure to be flaws but at least 99.999% of them will be human error rather than human opinion /hunch / imagination that was evident with the Kerry babies case.

Interestingly, in the first quoted case in that article the guy who was initially convicted by the DNA evidence was also exonerated by it, as have been many others. Excellent article though and does highlight the potential flaws - which is also good !!



I always thought it was - perhaps it was the first 'cold-case' to use DNA for a conviction ? Was definitely first at something regarding DNA anyway !!

It was certainly the first cold case murder to be solved in Ireland as far as I'm aware.

julyjane

Totally hypothetical question here but can a DNA sample show whether parents are likely to be related or not?

Sounds off the wall but a child born to unrelated parents will have DNA similarities with both and they will be different? I was never much good at science but there's all sorts of DNA testing now that we can supposedly get online for small money which claims to tell us of our origins from just a saliva sample. Wasn't there a DNA project involving some members of the travelling community to see if they were really unique?

Snickers Man

Day Lewin wrote: »

The main purpose of the investigation was to find out who committed the brutal murder of the baby found on a beach.
Keep yer eyes on the prize.
This would have been true in any country of the world.
Glib soundbite blamings of "Irishness" "the church" the state" etc are only distracting clich

The guards naturally looked for someone who had recently given birth with no child to show for it, and they found one: naturally they had to look into that: it would have been grossly negligent NOT to.

They should then have dropped that angle when it clearly wasn't her.

........
Unfortunately it looks as if having found a nearly-fit, they insisted on stopping there and cramming it on, trying to make it fit.
Did they ever really look elsewhere after that?

And that's the core of the scandal: that the police, having made a serious mistake, were unable or unwilling to redress it and instead insisted they had done no wrong. And at least one of the main Garda players is STILL saying that their fantastic concoctions could be true, despite the fact that modern forensic evidence now categorically rules it out.

Being as nice as possible to the Gardai, you can see how a mistake might plausibly have been made. They were looking for the mother of a murdered baby, they heard of a young woman who had gone into hospital, clearly having recently given birth to a child in highly irregular circumstances; local knowledge had it that she was engaged in a long-term affair with a married man and already had a child by him. They were perfectly right to investigate her further.

And when the family, under questioning, first denied that she had ever been pregnant, which the cops knew was untrue, you could understand why this might only have reinforced their belief that they had the right person, and all they had to do was get her to confess. Which they did.

But then when the weight of evidence, forensic and otherwise, showed that she had had nothing to do with the murdered baby the police couldn't accept their shortcomings, admit they took shortcuts and had come close to convicting an innocent family.

Instead they blustered, bull****ted, and persevered with a bizarre set of theories which were ridiculous at the time and have been reinforced as such with new developments in science.

Of course had they done so, careers might have been damaged. Top detectives in Miami Vice suits might have found themselves back on traffic duty and some important convictions of serious criminals and "subversives" whose activities were the more usual focus of these detectives attention might have been overturned.

So instead we had the spectacle of the police and judiciary holding themselves up to ridicule and contempt in the way they brutally went out to destroy the life of a quiet, unassuming, overawed young country girl who had done nothing wrong except make an unfortunate choice in her romantic life. There but for the grace of God (and maybe Tinder and other internet dating sites) go a lot of us.

The surviving policemen owe that family an apology for what they did to them. Even now.

Odhinn

Snickers Man wrote: »

Of course had they done so, careers might have been damaged. Top detectives in Miami Vice suits might have found themselves back on traffic duty and some important convictions of serious criminals and "subversives" whose activities were the more usual focus of these detectives attention might have been overturned.

So instead we had the spectacle of the police and judiciary holding themselves up to ridicule and contempt in the way they brutally went out to destroy the life of a quiet, unassuming, overawed young country girl who had done nothing wrong except make an unfortunate choice in her romantic life. There but for the grace of God (and maybe Tinder and other internet dating sites) go a lot of us.

.

Indeed. And who knows how many others have gone that way. Justified by making dots join and "well you know her brother was....", "ye know the father was....", "they used hang around with...." as opposed to evidence.

Odhinn

Odhinn wrote: »

It matches various cases where that kind of thing has happened, the family testified that it happened at the time, there has never been an explanation for how they confessed (all of them) to a remarkably similar story with details they could not have known.

So, nothing but your allegations then.

Odhinn

Deleted User wrote: »

So, nothing but your allegations then.

And that of others that have looked at the case. But all is well, because your alternative explanation is.................?