Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Kerry Babies Case
Comments
-
whisky_galore wrote: »What was really weird was the repeated smashing of the Cahirciveen baby's gravestone.
What kind of sick fcuk goes out of their way to do that?
The same kind that would repeatedly stab a defenceless newborn?0 -
jimmycrackcorm wrote: »Yes the Guards screwed up the investigation, but there's very little said about this: "Hayes had already delivered her child – a baby boy who had died during or after his birth on the farm. She told gardaí this, explaining that after the labour she panicked and returned to the farmhouse. A day later, she returned to the spot to find the baby’s body. She put the remains in a paper bag and then a plastic bag before placing them in a pond elsewhere on the 65-acre farm."
I know well it was another era regarding unmarried mothers. But abandoning a defenceless baby like that is a cruel action. It might be excused by post-natal depression for example, yet she is now lauded and entitled to compensation?
Horrible Post!0 -
Was it ever ascertained how her own baby died or if it was stillborn?jimmycrackcorm wrote: »Yes the Guards screwed up the investigation, but there's very little said about this: "Hayes had already delivered her child – a baby boy who had died during or after his birth on the farm. She told gardaí this, explaining that after the labour she panicked and returned to the farmhouse. A day later, she returned to the spot to find the baby’s body. She put the remains in a paper bag and then a plastic bag before placing them in a pond elsewhere on the 65-acre farm."
I know well it was another era regarding unmarried mothers. But abandoning a defenceless baby like that is a cruel action. It might be excused by post-natal depression for example, yet she is now lauded and entitled to compensation?
Joanne Hayes' baby, buried on her farm, was not found until at least a week (or maybe two) after it was buried, so it would have decomposed somewhat. The pathologist at the time wasn't able to say for certain whether it had ever "achieved a separate existence" ie whether or not it was born alive or how it had died. There was no physical evidence to suggest any sort of physical attack with a knife or blunt instrument on that baby.
It died shortly after it was born. That's all we know. OK, so the family did not adhere to the bureaucratic details of registering a birth (and immediate death) but that is hardly the same as launching a frenzied assault with a breadknife on a newborn baby, is it?
Cruelty, you say?
The scandal of this case is that the cops were so keen to conclude the investigation into the death of a newborn baby whose body had been found with multiple stab wounds that they jumped to conclusions when they encountered another young woman who had clearly given birth, albeit in irregular circumstances, to a completely different baby in the same county at around the same time.
The possibility of a coincidence didn't enter their heads. When she told them the truth about her baby, they didn't believe her. (granted she had earlier lied about being pregnant at all but not for any malicious reasons).
Then, after they had concocted statements clearly referring to the baby found on the beach, only to find that scientific evidence proved she and her acknowledged lover could NOT have been the parents of that baby they jumped through hoops trying to develop bizarre theories which squared the circle between the known facts (scientifically verified) and the nonsensical statements.
The tribunal was supposed to find out how those statements were obtained, given that they were false.
The police defence case was that they were true.
Hence the lunacy of "heteropaternal superfecundation", despite there being no evidence or even suspicion among local people of another partner, and the "Azores baby" which is the unprovable theory that there was in fact a THIRD baby, the twin of Joanne Hayes' baby, but bearing identical stab wounds to the Caherciveen baby and wrapped up in identical Gouldings fertiliser bags (mentioned in the statements) which was stabbed and dumped in the sea by the family and was still bobbing around near the Azores.
Could happen. :rolleyes:
But no evidence, apart from the statements which were clearly bogus.0 -
It has been determined via DNA that the beach baby was not Joanne's.
I suspect that they are also fairly sure of the identity of the parent/s of that baby, but due to passage of time/lost evidence/social status of parents, it has been parked?0 -
Johnthemanager wrote: »Horrible Post!
True, her actions were a result of the Church and society. Not a million years earlier in late 40's, an unwed girl in childbirth, not a million miles from her was refused by Tralee hospital and I believe died after making the Journey to Killarney.
Caused a church boycott, close to Listowel at the time.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30862904.html0 -
Advertisement
-
Not a single iota of new evidence but the slate is wiped clean by a political decision and we now have no idea what actually happened to the two babies who died.As part of the settlement, the family also secured declarations from the court that all findings or wrongdoing made against them by the tribunal into the case, that took place between late 1984 to mid-1985, were unfounded and incorrect.
In that case, Alan Shatter shouldn't settle for less than five million. The Kerry Babies Tribunal was a model of transparency and due process compared to the Guerin report, a blatant stitch-up, at least in terms of the political ends for which it was used. Shatter suffered enormously because of that injustice and, unlike the Hayes family, he was not the author of his own misfortunate - he didn't lie to the Gardai or conceal the birth of a baby. He lost his position as Minister for Justice and he was made to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court where he won his case convincingly. He got a mealy-mouthed apology and, until this week, the Guerin Report was left on the record in the Library of the Houses of the Oireachtas, where he had served for decades before being shafted by his own party.
Somehow, no one is rallying to his cause. On the contrary, people still believe the lies Guerin spread about Shatter's treatment of Maurice McCabe. Is Shatter the wrong party, the wrong gender, the wrong class, or the wrong religion?
You say whataboutism? I say precedent, fairness and logical consistency.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/alan-shatter-wants-taoiseach-to-apologise-fully-for-damage-done-by-guerin-report-1.44410000 -
Not a single iota of new evidence but the slate is wiped clean by a political decision and we now have no idea what actually happened to the two babies who died.
In that case, Alan Shatter shouldn't settle for less than five million. The Kerry Babies Tribunal was a model of transparency and due process compared to the Guerin report, a blatant stitch-up, at least in terms of the political ends for which it was used. Shatter suffered enormously because of that injustice and, unlike the Hayes family, he was not the author of his own misfortunate - he didn't lie to the Gardai or conceal the birth of a baby. He lost his position as Minister for Justice and he was made to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court where he won his case convincingly. He got a mealy-mouthed apology and, until this week, the Guerin Report was left on the record in the Library of the Houses of the Oireachtas, where he had served for decades before being shafted by his own party.
Somehow, no one is rallying to his cause. On the contrary, people still believe the lies Guerin spread about Shatter's treatment of Maurice McCabe. Is Shatter the wrong party, the wrong gender, the wrong class, or the wrong religion?
You say whataboutism? I say precedent, fairness and logical consistency.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/alan-shatter-wants-taoiseach-to-apologise-fully-for-damage-done-by-guerin-report-1.4441000
A young woman in her 20s was vilified by the court of public opinion (and still is being by posters such as yourself), subjected to reams of media articles and speculation (still is), accused of committing a heinous crime without a shred of evidence, treated so appallingly by the Gardaí it required a Tribunal - and now, 36 years later the State is compensating her and her family for what the forces of the State brought to her door but to you the treatment , unjust though it might have been, meted out to a highly paid politician was worse.
A politician who himself used his position to vilify a political opponent via the public broadcaster using information acquired from the Gardaí, and retired on a nice pension pot, had the wherewithal to take the State to the Supreme court and fight his case.
If people wonder what 1984 was like for women in this country your posts give an excellent indication.
The 'slate' as you put it, was wiped by the failure of the State and it's agents to conduct a proper investigation 36 years ago but to instead allow a witchhunt against a young woman.
A witchhunt you are determined to continue.0 -
It has been determined via DNA that the beach baby was not Joanne's.
I suspect that they are also fairly sure of the identity of the parent/s of that baby, but due to passage of time/lost evidence/social status of parents, it has been parked?
Why would have been parked as you say if they know the parents of baby John?
He was murdered so they have questions to answer if their identity is known.0 -
Galwayguy35 wrote: »Why would have been parked as you say if they know the parents of baby John?
He was murdered so they have questions to answer if their identity is known.
mow they could trace relatives, parents if they kept samples with ancestry0 -
If DNA can tell it is not Joanne"s, then it can tell whose it is.Galwayguy35 wrote: »Why would have been parked as you say if they know the parents of baby John?
He was murdered so they have questions to answer if their identity is known.
I do not know why it is being pursued.0 -
Advertisement
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »A young woman in her 20s was vilified by the court of public opinion (and still is being by posters such as yourself), subjected to reams of media articles and speculation (still is), accused of committing a heinous crime without a shred of evidence, treated so appallingly by the Gardaí it required a Tribunal - and now, 36 years later the State is compensating her and her family for what the forces of the State brought to her door but to you the treatment , unjust though it might have been, meted out to a highly paid politician was worse.
A politician who himself used his position to vilify a political opponent via the public broadcaster using information acquired from the Gardaí, and retired on a nice pension pot, had the wherewithal to take the State to the Supreme court and fight his case.
If people wonder what 1984 was like for women in this country your posts give an excellent indication.
The 'slate' as you put it, was wiped by the failure of the State and it's agents to conduct a proper investigation 36 years ago but to instead allow a witchhunt against a young woman.
A witchhunt you are determined to continue.
I refer you to the findings of the Tribunal itself which were produced by a leading Judge after hearing evidence under oath from everyone involved and based on his detailed analysis of the facts.
As I said repeatedly, the whole business is a mess from beginning to end but the Tribunal got it right. It criticised the Gardai for their investigative failings but it found that the Gardai had not beaten any witnesses. Are the false allegations by the Hayes brothers against named Gardai now to be believed? (and, again, the Garda's "superfecundation" theory is nonsense and was dismissed by the Tribunal)
Contrary to your stereotypical vision of Kerry in 1984 - and unlike Kerry in 1954 - no one bothered this young single mother who continued to live a normal life and to work for the local authority until she concealed the birth of her second child and the family lied to the Gardai about it although everyone knew a baby's body had washed up in Cahersiveen, brutally murdered.0 -
-
Call me Al wrote: »So many of the young women nowadays don't realise how dramatically life has changed for women. Kerry babies is only 36 years ago.
It was an alternate reality to anything they might accept nowadays.
It was indeed a totally different world that many here are too young to even imagine.
Even for us old ones who are not Irish.
And why oh why did the women and girls get all the blame and aggression and punishment? Unless biology too was different in those days, every illegitimate baby had a father. Who got off scot free from any involvement or responsibility.0 -
Johnthemanager wrote: »Horrible Post!
There was a lot horrible about the whole situation but just because there are aspects that dont agree with peoples agenda doesnt mean they shouldnt be raised. If the birth had taken place in a maternity hospital the baby would have immediate access to the best ante natal care. Whatever type of beliefs and pressures were on the poor girl that prevented her and her family from doing so we will never understand. We would hope that society has changed for the better.
I recall the criticism when the Unmarried Mothers Allowance ( What a title!) was introduced in 1973 by Brendan Corish of the Labour Party. The usual suspects objected. Most of the progressive social legislation has been introduced because of E.E.C ( now E.U.) membership. Ironic seeing that parties such as Labour, Sinn Fein and the broad left were so anti E.E.C. and campaigned agaibst membership0 -
They are still getting off. Taxpayers are footing the bills while men who cant use a condom wont paid family support and there seems to be no urgency by Govetnment to make them.It was indeed a totally different world that many here are too young to even imagine.
Even for us old ones who are not Irish.
And why oh why did the women and girls get all the blame and aggression and punishment? Unless biology too was different in those days, every illegitimate baby had a father. Who got off scot free from any involvement or responsibility.0 -
-
There was a lot horrible about the whole situation but just because there are aspects that dont agree with peoples agenda doesnt mean they shouldnt be raised. If the birth had taken place in a maternity hospital the baby would have immediate access to the best ante natal care. Whatever type of beliefs and pressures were on the poor girl that prevented her and her family from doing so we will never understand. We would hope that society has changed for the better.
I recall the criticism when the Unmarried Mothers Allowance ( What a title!) was introduced in 1973 by Brendan Corish of the Labour Party. The usual suspects objected. Most of the progressive social legislation has been introduced because of E.E.C ( now E.U.) membership. Ironic seeing that parties such as Labour, Sinn Fein and the broad left were so anti E.E.C. and campaigned agaibst membership
Indeed. Ireland in 1984 was very different from Ireland in the 1950s, especially for single mothers and Joanne Hayes was an example. She already had a baby and continued her life undisturbed including a job with the local authority.
The holding of a tribunal was itself a sign of a changing Ireland. The Garda Commissioner had held an internal inquiry about this fiasco of this investigation but in Ireland of the 1980s the issue was not swept under the carpet.
The daughter of Mr. Justice Kevin Lynch answered his critics when he was not around to defend himself.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/kerry-babies-judge-was-not-a-pitiless-illiberal-misogynist-1.3386617
I hope Ms. Justice Leonie Reynolds blushes at the facile declaration she issued this week without hearing a single witness, obliterating the findings of a superior jurist who devoted long months to find the truth. She learned from her Dad how to deal with Tribunals.0 -
Indeed. Ireland in 1984 was very different from Ireland in the 1950s, especially for single mothers and Joanne Hayes was an example. She already had a baby and continued her life undisturbed including a job with the local authority.
The holding of a tribunal was itself a sign of a changing Ireland. The Garda Commissioner had held an internal inquiry about this fiasco of this investigation but in Ireland of the 1980s the issue was not swept under the carpet.
The daughter of Mr. Justice Kevin Lynch answered his critics when he was not around to defend himself.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/kerry-babies-judge-was-not-a-pitiless-illiberal-misogynist-1.3386617
I hope Ms. Justice Leonie Reynolds blushes at the facile declaration she issued this week, obliterating the findings of a superior jurist who devoted long months to find the truth. She learned from her Dad how to deal with Tribunals.
Wow!!0 -
Mod:
Ok back on topic folks, nasty post and responses deleted.0 -
Is it considered nasty to point out the behaviour of the Hayes family in the illegal concealment of the birth and subsequent death of her baby.
Did anyone ever face criminal sanction for this? If not, why not?
This is not to say that the family were not treated appallingly in relation to the link to the death of the other infant.0 -
Advertisement
-
Is it considered nasty to point out the behaviour of the Hayes family in the illegal concealment of the birth and subsequent death of her baby.
Did anyone ever face criminal sanction for this? If not, why not?
This is not to say that the family were not treated appallingly in relation to the link to the death of the other infant.
Could it be argued they were really old fashioned??....as burying unborn babies in killens went on till the 70s near my fathers homeplace (idk when church restrictions ended on burying unbaptised babies?)
Still see odd bunchs of flowers appear there,sad to think in a few years,noone will remember these0 -
"burying unborn babies" How did that work?[Deleted User] wrote: »Could it be argued they were really old fashioned??....as burying unborn babies in killens went on till the 70s near my fathers homeplace (idk when church restrictions ended on burying unbaptised babies?)
Still see odd bunchs of flowers appear there,sad to think in a few years,noone will remember these0 -
I refer you to the findings of the Tribunal itself which were produced by a leading Judge after hearing evidence under oath from everyone involved and based on his detailed analysis of the facts.
As I said repeatedly, the whole business is a mess from beginning to end but the Tribunal got it right. It criticised the Gardai for their investigative failings but it found that the Gardai had not beaten any witnesses. Are the false allegations by the Hayes brothers against named Gardai now to be believed? (and, again, the Garda's "superfecundation" theory is nonsense and was dismissed by the Tribunal)
Contrary to your stereotypical vision of Kerry in 1984 - and unlike Kerry in 1954 - no one bothered this young single mother who continued to live a normal life and to work for the local authority until she concealed the birth of her second child and the family lied to the Gardai about it although everyone knew a baby's body had washed up in Cahersiveen, brutally murdered.
And I refer you once again to the fact that Joanne Hayes has not been charged, tried, or convicted of any crime in relation to the death of her child.
Or indeed convicted of any crime whatsoever.
Blah blah about my views of Kerry in 1984 all you like - while knowing nothing about me and claim the Tribunal stated x, y,z but that doesn't change the facts that you are here, on this forum, stating catagrically that Joanne Hayes was directly responsible for the death of her child -an extremely serious allegation - so you either take the evidence you have to the authorities and wait for a subsequent trail or retract your allegations.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Could it be argued they were really old fashioned??....as burying unborn babies in killens went on till the 70s near my fathers homeplace (idk when church restrictions ended on burying unbaptised babies?)
Still see odd bunchs of flowers appear there,sad to think in a few years,noone will remember these
I suppose that could be their thinking. However the manner in which they disposed of the body can't have been perceived as within the law - even by the most lay of laymen.
I just think this element of the story is often overlooked. I can certainly understand why the family wouldn't want it raised.
Anyways, the whole saga is just very sad.0 -
Mod:
Thread moved to Current Affairs. Getting a bit heavy for AH in my opinion.
Reminder to read the local charter before posting.0 -
I do remember this case as I was a teenager at the time.
I remember my parents speaking at home with great compassion for the babies and for Joanne Hayes in this case, and also, separately, for Ann Lovett.
I also remember a neighbour at the same time who got pregnant at 15-16 and brought her child up in her parents' home without any big fuss whatsoever. A small, rural place.
We were no beacon of progressiveness, but this awful story tells much more about attitudes in that part of Ireland than it does about Ireland.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »And I refer you once again to the fact that Joanne Hayes has not been charged, tried, or convicted of any crime in relation to the death of her child.
Or indeed convicted of any crime whatsoever.
Blah blah about my views of Kerry in 1984 all you like - while knowing nothing about me and claim the Tribunal stated x, y,z but that doesn't change the facts that you are here, on this forum, stating catagrically that Joanne Hayes was directly responsible for the death of her child -an extremely serious allegation - so you either take the evidence you have to the authorities and wait for a subsequent trail or retract your allegations.
I thought misogyny in Kerry in 1984 was the central issue for posters here but when challenged you shift ground.
I repeat again, I rely on the findings of the Tribunal, despite the bogus Court declaration this week which renounced the Tribunal without hearing a single witness.
You say I can’t make accusations unless someone is convicted of a crime in a court of law. Let’s hear your defence of Charlie Haughey, for example, against the many criminal charges made against him but never proven in a criminal court (despite the findings of the McCracken Tribunal).
But I believe Joanne Hayes (i.e. what she told the psychiatrist) and Mr. Justice Kevin Lynch, who lambasted the Gardai but found there was no physical coercion of the Hayes brothers.
This week’s bogus Court declaration dismissing the Tribunal left unanswered the central issue in this case: what happened the two babies? The Tribunal established that Joanne Hayes was not the mother of the Cahersiveen baby but she smothered her own baby and concealed its birth with her family’s help.
Now they are millionaires because our politicians have magic money and the media have long been invested in their story, but the truth can’t be bought.0 -
The reality is nobody except Joanne Hayes herself knows what happened that night, questions like was the baby born in the house or the field and was he born alive will unfortunately never be answered.
It was wrong to try to pin the murder of John on her and she deserves to be compensated for that but there are still a lot of unanswered questions about what went on during her own babies birth.0 -
I thought misogyny in Kerry in 1984 was the central issue for posters here but when challenged you shift ground.
I repeat again, I rely on the findings of the Tribunal, despite the bogus Court declaration this week which renounced the Tribunal without hearing a single witness.
You say I can’t make accusations unless someone is convicted of a crime in a court of law. Let’s hear your defence of Charlie Haughey, for example, against the many criminal charges made against him but never proven in a criminal court (despite the findings of the McCracken Tribunal).
But I believe Joanne Hayes (i.e. what she told the psychiatrist) and Mr. Justice Kevin Lynch, who lambasted the Gardai but found there was no physical coercion of the Hayes brothers.
This week’s bogus Court declaration dismissing the Tribunal left unanswered the central issue in this case: what happened the two babies? The Tribunal established that Joanne Hayes was not the mother of the Cahersiveen baby but she smothered her own baby and concealed its birth with her family’s help.
Now they are millionaires because our politicians have magic money and the media have long been invested in their story, but the truth can’t be bought.
I agree with some of the above. The central questions - what happened the two babies is being lost in the mire. Obviously difficult situations led to these terrible outcomes but there are other (legal) ways & means to deal with difficult situations that weren't taken.
What happened to those two infants was criminal, in both cases. Has anyone been held accountable for those crimes?0 -
Advertisement
-
Not a single iota of new evidence but the slate is wiped clean by a political decision and we now have no idea what actually happened to the two babies who died.
So far as I know, the "new evidence" which was not available in 1985 is the DNA analysis which proves that Joanne Hayes had nothing to do with the baby whose stabbed body was found in Caherciveen. The forensic evidence available in 1984/85, based on blood typing, merely ruled out Joanne Hayes and her acknowledged lover from being his parents together. It did not, in itself rule out the possibility that Joanne Hayes could have been its mother with another man but as she was pregnant at the time by a known partner, that should have excluded the possibility that she was also pregnant with somebody else's child.
Or so you might think!
It left open the remote possibility of heteropaternal superfecundation which the police chose to exploit without a scintilla of corroborating evidence. That has now been irrefutably debunked.
As for the "now we'll never know" piece: what do we need to know?
We know how the Caherciveen baby died. We still don't know, or at least the public at large does not know, who his parents were or who killed him. I concede that it would be most difficult to find out that information after all these years, unless one or both parents came forward and submitted to a DNA test.
We also know, pretty much, what happened to Joanne Hayes' baby. He died during or shortly after childbirth. There is no evidence of any maltreatment or physical assault on him. The presumption, in the absence of any incriminating evidence, must be that he died of natural causes.I refer you to the findings of the Tribunal itself which were produced by a leading Judge after hearing evidence under oath from everyone involved and based on his detailed analysis of the facts.
As I said repeatedly....the Tribunal got it right.
Are you for real???
The Tribunal was supposed to find out how an entire family gave detailed statements that were proved, by a combination of forensic evidence, local testimony and basic common sense, to be untrue. What the Judge did, after permitting a prolonged and, even by the standards of adversarial cross-examination which is the basis of our trial system, excessive and unnecessary interrogation of a young woman about the most intimate details of her personal life, was to cherry-pick elements of the statements and accept them as true while discounting the more far-fetched ones.
No, she didn't stab her baby, he said, but she did choke it to death. Where was the evidence for that?
No the brothers didn't throw the dead baby into the sea but they were just about to drive to the coast to do so when they changed their minds and had it buried on the farm. Huh?
Quite how the judge decided that some parts of the statements were true while others were false and what criteria he used (in the absence of ANY corroborating evidence) to distinguish between them is a mystery and something only he could have answered. In fact he did make a subsequent statement to Magill magazine, who had criticised his findings, in which he basically said he was right and they were wrong and they had better watch themselves if they didn't want to end up in court defending a slander on the learned judge's peerless reputation.
The correct thing to do would have been to dismiss the statements as bogus, which they clearly were and to demand of the Gardai how they came to extract such confessions which came close to causing a major miscarriage of justice, have held the force up to ridicule and suspicion and, by the way, cost the state millions in terms of legal costs and now compensation to the Hayes family.
For which, I reiterate, I do not begrudge them a penny.
Contrary to your stereotypical vision of Kerry in 1984 - and unlike Kerry in 1954 - no one bothered this young single mother who continued to live a normal life and to work for the local authority until she concealed the birth of her second child and the family lied to the Gardai about it although everyone knew a baby's body had washed up in Cahersiveen, brutally murdered.
Well that much is true. She received enormous support from the people of her area, many of whom were conservative, devoutly religious and upright people. They were Christian enough to know the difference between common human frailties (like falling in love with a married man) and murder.
Certainly, the Tribunal attracted protests from strident feminists, outraged at the treatment of a woman at the hands of an "all male court", and who paraded and placarded noisily outside the courthouse. But there were also several others, memorably described by Nell McCafferty as the solid respectable middle-class women of Tralee who went in their Sunday best to the hearings to show support for the Hayes family by their calm and dignified presence.
I believe that support endures to this day.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhOsdEpRLTU
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement