The Kerry Babies Case

[SoundMan]

You are the only one with an obvious agenda here Soundy_y, you are clearly using Mattie as a punching bag for your obvious dissatisfaction with the judiciary system.

At no point over the course of your discussion has Matlock proclaimed, as you said, "no matter what happened the gardai and judicial system is always right".

What she said was "No proof of a conspiracy to cover up as yet" which is true, there is no proof of anything yet.
To which you responded with what you perceive as proof by saying "They now seem (through their lawyer) to accept they were the parents of baby john."
They "SEEM to accept", does that sound factual or speculative to you?

The only point she has consistently made is that until the full facts of the case are revealed, it is all speculation.

Two points.
1 Their solicitor, and as far as I know it's the one guy who is representing both but feel free to correct that if I have it wrong, has said that proof of parenthood doesn't mean proof of guilt of killing Baby John. That's why I said they seem to accept through their lawyer. If you think that their lawyer would in real life come out with such a statement when neither is a parent of Baby John that's fine. I'd be surprised that he would and thus felt entitled to post that they "seem to accept".

2 The point I made was we were previously given to believe "the full facts of the case (were) revealed" - a High Court judge considered them for nearly 3 months and came to an utterly incorrect conclusion. So even that was, as it turns out, speculation by him. And incorrect speculation at that! Would you have us all wait until these full facts come out, or until subsequent full facts come out before we are entitled to comment on a discussion page, rather than what yon Judge did in real life which adversely affected an already traumatised JH and her family?

As for the accusation of my using Matlock as a punchbag - your knicker-wetting aside, she was the one who initiated the angst with me on this thread trying to claim I was somehow running with some agenda, when quite clearly she has a well rehearsed agenda of her own.

Not sure what kind of punchbags you use but I've yet to hear of a punchbag that initiated the "blows"

 

[Matlock]

Two points.
1 Their solicitor, and as far as I know it's the one guy who is representing both but feel free to correct that if I have it wrong, has said that proof of parenthood doesn't mean proof of guilt of killing Baby John. That's why I said they seem to accept through their lawyer. If you think that their lawyer would in real life come out with such a statement when neither is a parent of Baby John that's fine. I'd be surprised that he would and thus felt entitled to post that they "seem to accept".

2 The point I made was we were previously given to believe "the full facts of the case (were) revealed" - a High Court judge considered them for nearly 3 months and came to an utterly incorrect conclusion. So even that was, as it turns out, speculation by him. And incorrect speculation at that! Would you have us all wait until these full facts come out, or until subsequent full facts come out before we are entitled to comment on a discussion page, rather than what yon Judge did in real life which adversely affected an already traumatised JH and her family?

As for the accusation of my using Matlock as a punchbag - your knicker-wetting aside, she was the one who initiated the angst with me on this thread trying to claim I was somehow running with some agenda, when quite clearly she has a well rehearsed agenda of her own.

Not sure what kind of punchbags you use but I've yet to hear of a punchbag that initiated the "blows"

Nope. I was just pointing out to you (as Rebelbok did) that you are presenting things as fact, then they are opinion.

 

[RebelBOK]

Two points.
1 Their solicitor, and as far as I know it's the one guy who is representing both but feel free to correct that if I have it wrong, has said that proof of parenthood doesn't mean proof of guilt of killing Baby John. That's why I said they seem to accept through their lawyer. If you think that their lawyer would in real life come out with such a statement when neither is a parent of Baby John that's fine. I'd be surprised that he would and thus felt entitled to post that they "seem to accept".

2 The point I made was we were previously given to believe "the full facts of the case (were) revealed" - a High Court judge considered them for nearly 3 months and came to an utterly incorrect conclusion. So even that was, as it turns out, speculation by him. And incorrect speculation at that! Would you have us all wait until these full facts come out, or until subsequent full facts come out before we are entitled to comment on a discussion page, rather than what yon Judge did in real life which adversely affected an already traumatised JH and her family?

As for the accusation of my using Matlock as a punchbag - your knicker-wetting aside, she was the one who initiated the angst with me on this thread trying to claim I was somehow running with some agenda, when quite clearly she has a well rehearsed agenda of her own.

Not sure what kind of punchbags you use but I've yet to hear of a punchbag that initiated the "blows"

You can comment on a discussion page until your hearts content, no problem with that at all.

I was just pointing out that Matlock has at no stage tried to exonerate the judge or the guards of responsibility or fault like you are trying to proclaim.

Anyway she's more capable of fighting her own corner than I and tbh as a dad to two young kids some of the details being described in here are a bit more than I can take.

I'm off to wash my knickers.

 

[dennisfallen]

No needle. Report from Gene Kerrigan Indo 2009.

“The baby had been alive for perhaps 24 hours when someone killed him. During that time, he was washed but not fed. The baby's neck was broken, but that wasn't fatal. There were 28 knife wounds, most of them shallow, hesitation wounds, in which the knife was pulled back at the last second. Mostly wounds to the neck. Then the fatal wounds in which the knife was plunged four times into the heart. One might conclude that the killing happened in a mixture of desperation, depression and frenzy. It's not known to this day who did it”

No needle. A needle was used to murder Cynthia Owens baby in Dalkey allegedly. That’s maybe where the confusion arises.

Christ, the poor child. Imagine living with that on your conscience all these years. I can't imagine inflicting that level of violence (or any violence whatsoever) on a poor defenceless and helpless baby.

 

[Matlock]

No needle. Report from Gene Kerrigan Indo 2009.

“The baby had been alive for perhaps 24 hours when someone killed him. During that time, he was washed but not fed. The baby's neck was broken, but that wasn't fatal. There were 28 knife wounds, most of them shallow, hesitation wounds, in which the knife was pulled back at the last second. Mostly wounds to the neck. Then the fatal wounds in which the knife was plunged four times into the heart. One might conclude that the killing happened in a mixture of desperation, depression and frenzy. It's not known to this day who did it”

No needle. A needle was used to murder Cynthia Owens baby in Dalkey allegedly. That’s maybe where the confusion arises.

Maybe so. Thanks for that.

 

[SoundMan]

You can comment on a discussion page until your hearts content, no problem with that at all.

I was just pointing out that Matlock has at no stage tried to exonerate the judge or the guards of responsibility or fault like you are trying to proclaim.

Anyway she's more capable of fighting her own corner than I and tbh as a dad to two young kids some of the details being described in here are a bit more than I can take.

I'm off to wash my knickers.

Thanks

I was pointing out that Matlock accused me of running with an agenda when her own well practiced agenda was very evident and you got all precious on her behalf.

 

[Pooman]

some of the details being described in here are a bit more than I can take.

I'm off to wash my knickers.

Agreed.

 

[Matlock]

Thanks

I was pointing out that Matlock accused me of running with an agenda when her own well practiced agenda was very evident and you got all precious on her behalf.

No.

Once again, I never said what you accused me of saying. I don't have an agenda here.

I can see that, RebelBOK can see it. Everyone can see it, apart from you.

 

[JimmyBarrySmurph]

Christ, the poor child. Imagine living with that on your conscience all these years. I can't imagine inflicting that level of violence (or any violence whatsoever) on a poor defenceless and helpless baby.

Unfortunately it’s a thing.. mentioned earlier here.. infanticide. It’s a lot more common now than we can imagine.
It was very common historically, but let’s not look at our own history.

 

[SoundMan]

Nope. I was just pointing out to you (as Rebelbok did) that you are presenting things as fact, then they are opinion.

I was pointing out to you that what are taken to be the facts can and frequently do change. Unless of course you think that the High Court judge had all of the facts, even those that are about to emerge, and still made a thundering @rse of it all.

What are "all the facts of the case" today, may not be "all the facts of the case" tomorrow.

And if you insist that nobody post or comment until all of the facts are definitively known to be all of the facts then you're an even more self-absorbed weirdo than you first appears.

The concept of "Breaking News" may be alien to you. It happens in developing stories. People comment on the information they have to date. They tend not to stay completely shtum until every last fact is known. Because if they did, there never would have been a Kerry Baby case in the first place given that, as we now know, all of the actual facts of the case weren't known

So what's it to be, nobody should comment or post about what is known so far because they aren't all the facts associated with the case, or you do in your "wisdom" consent to people commenting on a local talk page (which asks for people to post their opinions) without "all of the facts" being fully and irrefutably known?

Could make for a rather quiet PROC while we await your imprimatur