ian bailey extradition

GM228

cobhguy28 wrote: »

How does this have anything to do with Baileys case.

It doesn't, see the last paragraph of my post two posts up.

FishOnABike

BornToKill wrote: »

Reprimanded first and then their guilt evaluated? Is that even constitutional?

It seems to be in France ;-))

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/a-23-year-investigation-what-next-for-the-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-murder-case-1.4123633

The libel trial also heard from now-deceased Guardian Paris correspondent, Paul Webster that he received a phone call in mid-February 1997 from a man who introduced himself as Ian Bailey and, in the course of the conversation, he said he knew Toscan du Plantier quite well as an acquaintance.

That was just Bailey blowing his mouth off trying to impress the Guardian journalist, probably though it would help with him a story

This IT link also says

In the note Thomas recorded how they were travelling towards Dunmanus after 2pm on December 23rd to check out Cassidy’s report of a murder when they encountered “a non-local woman sitting in a car near the bend and Ian goes to talk with her as she looks lost and we often help people”.

“He says when he got back into the car that it is a French journalist who is over to investigate a murder of a French woman and (he) wondered how she had been so quick to hear the news and get here too,” wrote Ms Thomas before describing how they continued on and met Foster in her car.

I have never heard this before about a french journalist being there. Anyone know about that?

tdf7187

I think it was alleged that Bailey was fitted up because he was (1) an outsider from England (2) viewed as eccentric.

Anyone familiar with the 'Beast of Jersey' case? In Jersey in the 1960s and early 1970s, there had been a bunch of rapes and attempted rapes on teenagers and young adult women. I read the book by Joan Paisnel about the case. She records that some witnesses claimed to have encountered the perp, citing a fella with an Irish accent - the Irish then being recent immigrants to the island. A local eccentric Alphonse Le Gastelois was accused by of being the perp, and went into exile on a neighbouring island.

It turned out that it was a local and respected Jersey man from a family with roots in Jersey for hundreds of years that was responsible - her own husband. I think she comments on his eccentric behaviour which she tolerated behind closed doors, but was genuinely shocked when he turned out to be the perp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Paisnel

I suppose the point I am making and why I think there might be parallels to the Bailey case is that Paisnel wasn't an outsider, and though his wife found him to be eccentric behind closed doors, in public he had a good reputation and was viewed as a sound Jersey man and so on. Le Gastelois, not Paisnel, was viewed as the local eccentric, and it was the former that was falsely accused and fitted-up, basically, before the police discovered damning evidence linking the crimes to Paisnel.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

If Bailey was not liked as they say why was he invited back to people's houses and why would he want to socialise playing music with all the locals who say they did not like him.


It must be strange place where people who do not like people invite them to their homes

chicorytip

tdf7187 wrote: »

I think it was alleged that Bailey was fitted up because he was (1) an outsider from England (2) viewed as eccentric.

Anyone familiar with the 'Beast of Jersey' case? In Jersey in the 1960s and early 1970s, there had been a bunch of rapes and attempted rapes on teenagers and young adult women. I read the book by Joan Paisnel about the case. She records that some witnesses claimed to have encountered the perp, citing a fella with an Irish accent - the Irish then being recent immigrants to the island. A local eccentric Alphonse Le Gastelois was accused by of being the perp, and went into exile on a neighbouring island.

It turned out that it was a local and respected Jersey man from a family with roots in Jersey for hundreds of years that was responsible - her own husband. I think she comments on his eccentric behaviour which she tolerated behind closed doors, but was genuinely shocked when he turned out to be the perp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Paisnel

I suppose the point I am making and why I think there might be parallels to the Bailey case is that Paisnel wasn't an outsider, and though his wife found him to be eccentric behind closed doors, in public he had a good reputation and was viewed as a sound Jersey man and so on. Le Gastelois, not Paisnel, was viewed as the local eccentric, and it was the former that was falsely accused and fitted-up, basically, before the police discovered damning evidence linking the crimes to Paisnel.

I don't think he was "fitted up" at all. I think he did it. There were too many inconsistencies in his and Jules Thomas 'statements to Gardai and others at the time that lead me to believe he was lying. The fact that no forensic evidence linking him to the crime was discovered at the scene is of no major significance. Bear in mind, Sophie's body lay uncovered for almost twelve hours before the alarm was raised and Gardai arrived. The culprit could easily have returned to the scene and removed any incriminating evidence. Bailey's then residence - where he still currently lives - is 2.5 km from the DuPlantier home at Dreenane. In twenty three years not one single new lead or shred of evidence has emerged to link anybody other than Bailey to the killing. It must be enormously stressfull for both he and Thomas to maintain this facade of innocence for so long.
Eventually one or the other of them will crack and the truth will emerge.

chicorytip

chicorytip wrote: »

I don't think he was "fitted up" at all. I think he did it. There were too many inconsistencies in his and Jules Thomas 'statements to Gardai and others at the time that lead me to believe he was lying. The fact that no forensic evidence linking him to the crime was discovered at the scene is of no major significance. Bear in mind, Sophie's body lay uncovered for almost twelve hours before the alarm was raised and Gardai arrived. The culprit could easily have returned to the scene and removed any incriminating evidence. Bailey's then residence - where he still currently lives - is 2.5 km from the DuPlantier home at Dreenane. In twenty three years not one single new lead or shred of evidence has emerged to link anybody other than Bailey to the killing. It must be enormously stressfull for both he and Thomas to maintain this facade of innocence for so long.
Eventually one or the other of them will crack and the truth will emerge.

There was a ton of evidence found including blood and hair. Bailey freely gave DNA samples and there was no match. Apparently there was alien DNA found at the scene according to Bailey when he saw the French evidence.

GerardKeating

chicorytip wrote: »

I don't think he was "fitted up" at all. I think he did it. There were too many inconsistencies in his and Jules Thomas 'statements to Gardai and others at the time that lead me to believe he was lying.

Lying is not proof of anything, reminds me of a quote (admitily fictional) from a TV show.

"Everyone lies, Michael. The innocent lie because they don't want to be blamed for something they didn't do, and the guilty lie because they don't have any other choice."

chicorytip wrote: »

Eventually one or the other of them will crack and the truth will emerge.

If they havent cracked after 20+ yers, they aint going to, either very strong willed or innocent, and sometimes the innocent crack under pressure and admit things they did not do.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

chicorytip wrote: »

I don't think he was "fitted up" at all. I think he did it. There were too many inconsistencies in his and Jules Thomas 'statements to Gardai and others at the time that lead me to believe he was lying. The fact that no forensic evidence linking him to the crime was discovered at the scene is of no major significance. Bear in mind, Sophie's body lay uncovered for almost twelve hours before the alarm was raised and Gardai arrived. The culprit could easily have returned to the scene and removed any incriminating evidence. Bailey's then residence - where he still currently lives - is 2.5 km from the DuPlantier home at Dreenane. In twenty three years not one single new lead or shred of evidence has emerged to link anybody other than Bailey to the killing. It must be enormously stressfull for both he and Thomas to maintain this facade of innocence for so long.
Eventually one or the other of them will crack and the truth will emerge.

How could he go back and clean up without leaving some forensic evidence >if he had left some to clean he would leave some cleaning it.. And he would then freely offer DNA samples after cleaning up. yeah right

There was forensic evidence it did not match Bailey

Carawaystick

Are we allowed say that any english language reportage of the french trial makes me ask whats the francais for kangaroo? or is that O/T

Credit Checker Moose

Kangourou is the word you are looking for.

chicorytip

GerardKeating wrote: »

Lying is not proof of anything, reminds me of a quote (admitily fictional) from a TV show.

"Everyone lies, Michael. The innocent lie because they don't want to be blamed for something they didn't do, and the guilty lie because they don't have any other choice."



If they havent cracked after 20+ yers, they aint going to, either very strong willed or innocent, and sometimes the innocent crack under pressure and admit things they did not do.

Bailey is "strong willed", if you want to call it that although "Sociopathic" would seem a more appropriate description of him. Thomas just seems to be completely dominated and manipulated by him and, of course, is fearful of him so she will do or say whatever he wishes in order to protect him.

BattleCorp

I don't know if Bailey committed the crime or not. But I certainly wouldn't be sending someone off to jail in France for 25 years based on evidence that our own DPP said was sh1te (slightly paraphrasing here) after it was examined 3 times.

How the French were able to convict Bailey on that evidence is beyond me. I'm not exactly filled with admiration for a legal system that works like that.

chicorytip

BattleCorp wrote: »

I don't know if Bailey committed the crime or not. But I certainly wouldn't be sending someone off to jail in France for 25 years based on evidence that our own DPP said was sh1te (slightly paraphrasing here) after it was examined 3 times.

How the French were able to convict Bailey on that evidence is beyond me. I'm not exactly filled with admiration for a legal system that works like that.

Elements of our own judicial system are similar where verdicts can be given on the basis of circumstancial evidence. The Graham Dwyer case is the most notable example of this in recent times. The jury in that case decided to convict him based on circumstancial evidence rather than hard evidence. There were no witnesses at the murder scene when he stabbed Elaine O' Hara to death but the evidence (mobile phone records etc.) overwhelmingly pointed to his guilt. There is no doubting that he killed her and there was no other possible cause of death. I think the overwhelming circumstancial evidence in the DuPlantier case points toward the guilt of Ian Bailey.

champchamp

chicorytip wrote: »

Elements of our own judicial system are similar where verdicts can be given on the basis of circumstancial evidence. The Graham Dwyer case is the most notable example of this in recent times. The jury in that case decided to convict him based on circumstancial evidence rather than hard evidence. There were no witnesses at the murder scene when he stabbed Elaine O' Hara to death but the evidence (mobile phone records etc.) overwhelmingly pointed to his guilt. There is no doubting that he killed her and there was no other possible cause of death. I think the overwhelming circumstancial evidence in the DuPlantier case points toward the guilt of Ian Bailey.

What evidence?

BattleCorp

chicorytip wrote: »

Elements of our own judicial system are similar where verdicts can be given on the basis of circumstancial evidence. The Graham Dwyer case is the most notable example of this in recent times. The jury in that case decided to convict him based on circumstancial evidence rather than hard evidence. There were no witnesses at the murder scene when he stabbed Elaine O' Hara to death but the evidence (mobile phone records etc.) overwhelmingly pointed to his guilt. There is no doubting that he killed her and there was no other possible cause of death. I think the overwhelming circumstancial evidence in the DuPlantier case points toward the guilt of Ian Bailey.

They aren't remotely similar levels of circumstantial evidence. Not even in the same ballpark. There's fcukall circumstantial evidence against Bailey. There's rumour and gossip and the fact that he was an outsider and considered a weirdo but that isn't circumstantial evidence.

There is no 100% link whatsoever between Bailey and Sophie Toscan du Plantier. No proof they ever met. The witness who says he introduced them now isn't sure if he did or didn't introduce them. There's video evidence of Graham Dwyer stabbing Elaine O'Hara during sex so it's proven that it was something he was into. There's also phone evidence against Dwyer. What circumstantial evidence is there that Bailey did it?

Totally different levels of evidence.