The Kerry Babies Case

[SoundMan]

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.

And once again I never said what you accused me of saying. I don't have an agenda here either.

I think poor RebelBOK's vision might be impaired from the black-eye his punch-bag gave him in an unprovoked attack

 

[RebelBOK]

And once again I never said what you accused me of saying. I don't have an agenda here either.

I think poor RebelBOK's vision might be impaired from the black-eye his punch-bag gave him in an unprovoked attack

Soundy I'm not getting into one of these smart arse, name calling, winky emoji back and forths with you.

Matlock never accused you of saying anything, she suggested you have your own narrative based on the fact that when she pointed out there was "no proof of anything yet", you accused her of holding a view that "the judiciary and guards are always right".
That's quite a jump to make.

Your whole tirade about not discussing anything without all the facts is just a conversation you are having in your own head because literally no one here has said anything to that effect.
All that has been pointed out here is that there is a difference between fact and speculation.

 

[Matlock]

And once again I never said what you accused me of saying. I don't have an agenda here either.

I think poor RebelBOK's vision might be impaired from the black-eye his punch-bag gave him in an unprovoked attack

Do you think that putting a winking face at the end of an insult somehow makes it less insulting?

Because fyi, it doesn't.

 

[Matlock]

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

Nobody insisted that. Not me. Not anyone else.

This entire thing is taking place only in your head.

What I (and others) have suggested is that you stop presenting your opinion as if it is fact. That's all.

 

[doppellanger]

At least two people would have known that young mother was pregnant and then no longer was. They now seem (through their lawyer) to accept they were the parents of baby john. They stayed quiet for 40 years. Are you seriously trying to tell us they both, independent of each other, decided to say nothing about the baby, in the hope that the other wouldn't say anything either. For 40 odd years!


You're writing a script of "no matter what happened the gardai and judicial system is always right" irrespective of what logic points to. That's precisely what was done back in the day to Joanne Hayes and her family and others. And what compounded the absolute disgrace that was the Kerry Baby's case.

This is a good example of speculation presented as fact. It is possible, probably even likely, that the father of the baby knew that the girl was pregnant.

It's also possible that he did not know. That happens quite a lot. Maybe after the fact he was made aware and pressured to marry her or move in together.

Maybe they broke up and took it up again later.

Maybe it was a summer romance, and they took it up again the next year.

Maybe he was away in boarding school.

I don't know, I'm just speculating but I think I'm making it clear I'm speculating and not presenting my assumptions as definite conclusions.

Nothing at all wrong with speculating, as long as you're not presenting it as fact.

 

[TheOutdoorThreadmill]

Your whole tirade about not discussing anything without all the facts is just a conversation you are having in your own head

That’s his stock and trade and it will go on for pages especially so when he is wrong, he just digs deeper.

 

[SoundMan]

Soundy I'm not getting into one of these smart arse, name calling, winky emoji back and forths with you.

Matlock never accused you of saying anything, she suggested you have your own narrative based on the fact that when she pointed out there was "no proof of anything yet", you accused her of holding a view that "the judiciary and guards are always right".
That's quite a jump to make.

Your whole tirade about not discussing anything without all the facts is just a conversation you are having in your own head because literally no one here has said anything to that effect.
All that has been pointed out here is that there is a difference between fact and speculation.

I was trying to lighten the mood after you accused me, in the wrong, of trying to use Matlock as a punchbag.
You, like her, like to dish out the "smart arse, name calling" but come over all precious when ye get some of it back.
A friendly suggestion given for free is that If you can't hack don't try dish it out.

Matlock didn't suggest (as you claim), she stated (I thought you and she were getting very fussy about what is and isn't fact) I was running a narrative while you claim I made quite a jump to say she had been running any narrative.

It's as plain as a pikestaff from her posts on PROC in general that she doesn't like any criticism of the judiciary and while I grant you she didn't explicitly say it on this thread, she has previously said that people who claim that our courts are courts of law rather than courts of justice are wrong and probably have something to hide (I'm paraphrasing).

And now you accuse me of indulging in a "whole tirade". For someone who wants "just the facts ma'am" you seem rather given to pejorative terms.

We ALL know there's a difference between fact and speculation. The point you and she keep missing is the facts, that were claimed to be facts previously, have turned out not to be factual. So who is the final arbiter of when we can take something as fact? And should we all just stop commenting on a case where not all the facts are known - even 39 years on.

Matlock stated as though it was a fact rather than her mere speculation that I was running with some agenda. Other than seeing the wrong doers brought to justice I've no other agenda on this thread but as previously pointed out there were a number of wrongdoings involved in this overall Kerry Baby case.

Baby John was killed and his body discarded.
JH and her family were vilified, intimidated, and coerced into admission of a crime they couldn't possibly have committed
Gardai involved in the case closed ranks and refused to accept any wrongdoing was caused by them
A High Court judge investigated the facts that were known at the time and came to the conclusion that the Gardai did no wrong.

 

[SoundMan]

This is a good example of speculation presented as fact. It is possible, probably even likely, that the father of the baby knew that the girl was pregnant.
It's also possible that he did not know. That happens quite a lot. Maybe after the fact he was made aware and pressured to marry her or move in together.
Maybe they broke up and took it up again later.
Maybe it was a summer romance, and they took it up again the next year.
Maybe he was away in boarding school.
I don't know, I'm just speculating but I think I'm making it clear I'm speculating and not presenting my assumptions as definite conclusions.

Nothing at all wrong with speculating, as long as you're not presenting it as fact.

And where exactly did I present it as fact what I said that you've an issue with? Is it that there was more than just the young mother of Baby John involved in covering up what had actually happened to him?

Well that being the case you're effectively accusing the young mother of having stabbed the infant, snapped its neck, and (presumably) thrown it into the tide to wash up elsewhere, and having done all of that had the mental fortitude to tell nobody else about any of it, not even that she had been pregnant, for the last 40 years.

I think on the balance of probability I think it the scenario I put forward that there was more than just the young mother involved in one or more aspect is more plausible tbh.


And as I've previously stated NONE of us here on PROC know ALL of the facts, so by that standard we are ALL of us, speculating. It usually goes without saying.

 

[RebelBOK]

I was trying to lighten the mood after you accused me, in the wrong, of trying to use Matlock as a punchbag.
You, like her, like to dish out the "smart arse, name calling" but come over all precious when ye get some of it back.
A friendly suggestion given for free is that If you can't hack don't try dish it out.

Matlock didn't suggest (as you claim), she stated (I thought you and she were getting very fussy about what is and isn't fact) I was running a narrative while you claim I made quite a jump to say she had been running any narrative.

It's as plain as a pikestaff from her posts on PROC in general that she doesn't like any criticism of the judiciary and while I grant you she didn't explicitly say it on this thread, she has previously said that people who claim that our courts are courts of law rather than courts of justice are wrong and probably have something to hide (I'm paraphrasing).

And now you accuse me of indulging in a "whole tirade". For someone who wants "just the facts ma'am" you seem rather given to pejorative terms.

We ALL know there's a difference between fact and speculation. The point you and she keep missing is the facts, that were claimed to be facts previously, have turned out not to be factual. So who is the final arbiter of when we can take something as fact? And should we all just stop commenting on a case where not all the facts are known - even 39 years on.

Matlock stated as though it was a fact rather than her mere speculation that I was running with some agenda. Other than seeing the wrong doers brought to justice I've no other agenda on this thread but as previously pointed out there were a number of wrongdoings involved in this overall Kerry Baby case.

Baby John was killed and his body discarded.
JH and her family were vilified, intimidated, and coerced into admission of a crime they couldn't possibly have committed
Gardai involved in the case closed ranks and refused to accept any wrongdoing was caused by them
A High Court judge investigated the facts that were known at the time and came to the conclusion that the Gardai did no wrong.

I give up, you win.

The subject matter of this thread is too tragic for this pettiness.

 

[doppellanger]

And where exactly did I present it as fact what I said that you've an issue with? Is it that there was more than just the young mother of Baby John involved in covering up what had actually happened to him?

Well that being the case you're effectively accusing the young mother of having stabbed the infant, snapped its neck, and (presumably) thrown it into the tide to wash up elsewhere, and having done all of that had the mental fortitude to tell nobody else about any of it, not even that she had been pregnant, for the last 40 years.

I think on the balance of probability I think it the scenario I put forward that there was more than just the young mother involved in one or more aspect is more plausible tbh.


And as I've previously stated NONE of us here on PROC know ALL of the facts, so by that standard we are ALL of us, speculating. It usually goes without saying.

sure, on the balance of probability, it's certainly plausible. It's still speculation and if you don't present it as such then your arguments, such as they are, will lose credibility.

Maybe also try using more succinct (shorter) arguments as I don't really know what most of your reams of verbiage are about.