The truth about the Shergar kidnapping

[second_glance]

Or so says this reporter. Warning: he did NOT get an easy death.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...idnapping.html

[Ballerina]

Heartbreaking!

[sweettalk]

that horse was worth so much money, they just gave up and killed him? and couldnt produce a body? sure, why not.

[Catalina]

that horse was worth so much money, they just gave up and killed him? and couldnt produce a body? sure, why not.

The IRA operated on the terrorist principle. They weren't known to back down, and they had no hesitation about taking lives, young, old, humans, or apparently animals.

[Slewfan2]

Or so says this reporter. Warning: he did NOT get an easy death.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...idnapping.html

I think I'm going to be sick.....

[serenassong]

I didn't even want to read this, and I didn't. I can only imagine, and getting sick myself from it. Horrible what happened.

[Northerly]

This wasn't the first time the IRA engaged in this sort of disgraceful behaviour that resulted in horses being hurt and killed. Seven of the Queen's horses were killed after they detonated a nail bomb in the street during the daily changing of the guard in 1982.

[Flanders]

I remember reading the story when it first came out. Its very very sad if that is what happened.

[Horse's Rear]

That story is one that many have thought for some time, and it certainly could be true. But it's hard to find anything in the article to make it seem any more plausible. They cite one "source" who they do not identify, and who they make no effort to establish credibility for. His account says that the horse was killed by "two men," which would seem to mean that if his details are accurate, he would be one of the two. The account offers no information about the second killer, and explicitly says that this source has no knowledge of how the horse was disposed of. Which means to believe this anonymous account, you have to accept that two men walked into the stall and killed him, and one of those then left and the other disposed of the horse single-handedly. I am certainly willing to believe that the horse died in some fashion like this, but this particular account seems to have more holes than substance.

[Catalina]

That story is one that many have thought for some time, and it certainly could be true. But it's hard to find anything in the article to make it seem any more plausible. They cite one "source" who they do not identify, and who they make no effort to establish credibility for. His account says that the horse was killed by "two men," which would seem to mean that if his details are accurate, he would be one of the two. The account offers no information about the second killer, and explicitly says that this source has no knowledge of how the horse was disposed of. Which means to believe this anonymous account, you have to accept that two men walked into the stall and killed him, and one of those then left and the other disposed of the horse single-handedly. I am certainly willing to believe that the horse died in some fashion like this, but this particular account seems to have more holes than substance.

I agree that the account has a lot of holes, but still could be accurate as far as it goes. The source could have been somehow associated with where the horse was kept until his death, complicit or related to someone complicit. Possibly someone who never imagined they would kill the horse, or someone who was blackmailed into playing along, or undoubtedly a ton of other options. Did "the source" know more than is in the article? I would think so. Did the source know the shooters? If participating of their own free will, probably. If coerced and then left to deal with the body that they couldn't afford to have found on their property, not necessarily.

[Horse's Rear]

Could be. Or could be many other things. What is "new" in that article is a story that the reporter was told by an unnamed "source" without corroboration. The story that the horse was machine-gunned was a popular supposition at the time; and I don't see anything in the article that provides a basis for making this retelling of that narrative any more (or less) plausible than that hypothesis was then.

[Catalina]

Could be. Or could be many other things. What is "new" in that article is a story that the reporter was told by an unnamed "source" without corroboration. The story that the horse was machine-gunned was a popular supposition at the time; and I don't see anything in the article that provides a basis for making this retelling of that narrative any more (or less) plausible than that hypothesis was then.

Correct. Not to overlook the article is a rehash of 2008 news.

[LifeAtZen]

Correct. Not to overlook the article is a rehash of 2008 news.

That's because it is from 2008. If you look under the title of the article, you'll see the date it was posted.

[Private Thoughts]

I always loved Shergar. He was such a lovely boy and so talented.

[RIPBarbaro]

What I really found strange is that 'the source' could/would not identify where the horse was buried? He would have an idea wouldn't he? Why the secrecy if he did know?

Very very sad. Pains me to read about how he died. Would rather not believe it and still think that Shergar is happily galloping around somewhere. The power of denial.