The Kerry Babies Case

[Matlock]

It was a glib "answer" as well you know

No, it was the factual answer.

I never said you said any of it - are you really that unfamiliar with the import of "as though"?

Yes, I am familiar with it as something you do to infer things that I have never said.

Do you know of any other high profile case in the history of the state where the Gardai so openly said that they were confident in the evidence that they had linking the suspects where the DPP dithered/delayed so long?

Why does the profile of the case matter?

So you accept there's at least the chance that Justice is being denied here. Not a good look for the DPP and the whole offices of Law and Order in this state given the previous history of the case is it?

This point presupposes that it the DPP has the capacity to issue directions here and is simply choosing not to. I have no idea why you have decided this.

 

[omar]

Nobody suggesting she should, or even could Omar. But the whole "I'm in the know and you little people wouldn't really understand the intricacies of it all and why the DPP is right to delay for well over a year on this" attitude is amusing.

I'd suggest you direct your frustration at the people involved, rather than a solicitor/truck driver with nothing to do with the case or the DPP. That's just my opinion though.

If you want to continue to vent though, feel free...

 

[Matlock]

Nobody suggesting she should, or even could Omar. But the whole "I'm in the know and you little people wouldn't really understand the intricacies of it all and why the DPP is right to delay for well over a year on this" attitude is amusing.

Again, I never said any of this.

If you bothered to read my posts rather than just making shit up, you would see that I said to JBS yesterday that I have no idea what the delay is.

 

[Matlock]

The silence now around what has been such a prominent case is notable. Since the DNA fanfare and arrest a year ago there must have been another twist in this sorry tail since.

The DNA seemed like it should crack the case, in that if they know who baby John's parents are then surely they could find out from them what happened, but that has not happened. There have been no confessions etc.

I would guess that there is an issue around connecting the parents to the death. This is pure conjecture on my part, but something like "we gave the baby to Mr X who said he could arrange for a private adoption in America. We have lived the last 40 years assuming that was the case, until this DNA result. We had no idea that baby John was our baby, and Mr X is long dead."

Now, you or I might find it very suspicious. We might think that surely if a dead baby was found a few weeks after your baby had supposedly been spirited off to America that it might occur to you that that was your baby. Would that be enough for a murder charge though? Probably not.

Again, this is in no way based on anything I have heard or read or anything. Pure speculation.

 

[JimmyBarrySmurph]

The DNA seemed like it should crack the case, in that if they know who baby John's parents are then surely they could find out from them what happened, but that has not happened. There have been no confessions etc.

I would guess that there is an issue around connecting the parents to the death. This is pure conjecture on my part, but something like "we gave the baby to Mr X who said he could arrange for a private adoption in America. We have lived the last 40 years assuming that was the case, until this DNA result. We had no idea that baby John was our baby, and Mr X is long dead."

Now, you or I might find it very suspicious. We might think that surely if a dead baby was found a few weeks after your baby had supposedly been spirited off to America that it might occur to you that that was your baby. Would that be enough for a murder charge though? Probably not.

Again, this is in no way based on anything I have heard or read or anything. Pure speculation.

Exactly.. And we could spend another year speculating.
Ireland was an entirely different place back then. A new born baby to an unmarried mother was not welcome in many family homes.

 

[Yermon]

No, it was the factual answer.

Glib and factual are not mutually exclusive. Even you should know that.

Yes, I am familiar with it as something you do to infer things that I have never said.

And yet again you pretend that I claimed you'd said it, which of course we both know I did not.

Why does the profile of the case matter?

Do you really think a very high-profile case that was all over the media for months and saw people wrongfully and very publicly humiliated and prosecuted and led to a public apology from the state, should have no bearing whatsoever on a timely clearing up of the case by the DPP when actual evidence is subsequently found?

Are you unfamiliar with the principal "Justice must be done, and be seen to be done?"

This point presupposes that it the DPP has the capacity to issue directions here and is simply choosing not to. I have no idea why you have decided this.

For someone who gets very precious about such things here you are inferring something I never said. Funny that. One of your "Don't do what I do, do what I say" habits

 

[Yermon]

Again, I never said any of this.

If you bothered to read my posts rather than just making shit up, you would see that I said to JBS yesterday that I have no idea what the delay is.

And yet again, I never said you said that. But your posts portray that attitude.

And your "I never said any of this" is a pretty transparent device you continuously use to deflect.

 

[Matlock]

Glib and factual are not mutually exclusive. Even you should know that.



And yet again you pretend that I claimed you'd said it, which of course we both know I did not.



Do you really think a very high-profile case that was all over the media for months and saw people wrongfully and very publicly humiliated and prosecuted and led to a public apology from the state, should have no bearing whatsoever on a timely clearing up of the case by the DPP when actual evidence is subsequently found?

You seem to think that the DPP can just magic up directions. Why have you decided this?

Are you unfamiliar with the principal "Justice must be done, and be seen to be done?"



For someone who gets very precious about such things here you are inferring something I never said. Funny that. One of your "Don't do what I do, do what I say" habits

You have decided to use this case to have yet another rant at me. I have given you factual answers. You insist on taking offence, because of your silly vendetta against me. It is beyond boring.

 

[Matlock]

And yet again, I never said you said that. But your posts portray that attitude.

And your "I never said any of this" is a pretty transparent device you continuously use to deflect.

No, that's just something you have decided because of the massive chip on your shoulder.

 

[Yermon]

The DNA seemed like it should crack the case, in that if they know who baby John's parents are then surely they could find out from them what happened, but that has not happened. There have been no confessions etc.

I would guess that there is an issue around connecting the parents to the death. This is pure conjecture on my part, but something like "we gave the baby to Mr X who said he could arrange for a private adoption in America. We have lived the last 40 years assuming that was the case, until this DNA result. We had no idea that baby John was our baby, and Mr X is long dead."

Now, you or I might find it very suspicious. We might think that surely if a dead baby was found a few weeks after your baby had supposedly been spirited off to America that it might occur to you that that was your baby. Would that be enough for a murder charge though? Probably not.

Again, this is in no way based on anything I have heard or read or anything. Pure speculation.

Let's take your theory at face value and that is their defense, why would the DPP not bring this very high profile case to court, and if he couldn't get a conviction against either/both biological parent, he could at least establish the facts against Mr X and it would be widely known what went on and the blame would be put squarely at the door of the guilty party, and a case that has very much been a major stain on the record of the Justice Department in this state could at long last have some closure.

Or is it the case, for various crimes, anyone could use the excuse it wasn't me that actually did it, but someone long-since dead (that Mr X got up to all sorts)? And that the entire legal system could fall further into disrepute?

Murder charge at this stage - very probably not. But at this stage neither parent has gone to prison for a day. Someone did kill Baby John and to date, over 40 years later, the only people that have been punished by our legal system were totally innocent of the crime. Not even blood (and subsequently) DNA evidence against Joanne Hayes, but prosecute her for murder. DNA evidence against Mr A and Ms B but let it go on and on. That is not justice being done and being seen to be done.