Gemma O'Doherty and Sophie Toscan du Plantier

Deusexmachina

chicorytip wrote: »

Bailey was named as the chief suspect for very compelling reasons. He had a known propensity to behave violently toward women, he admitted to committing the crime in an unguarded comment made to his neighbour and there were serious doubts about alibis both he and his partner provided regarding his whereabouts at the time the killing took place. This talk of conspiracies is utter hogwash. The investigation, or parts of it, was handled incompetently, yes. The most significant outcome of all is that in the intervening twenty one years no other suspect has been identified. Make of that what you will.

These are not 'very compelling reasons'.

For there to be anything like a compelling case against him, there would need to be:

• a motive
• a proven connection between her and Bailey
• dna evidence
• other material evidence (blood on his clothes, scratch marks etc
• reliable witnesses

None of these exist. You cant go accusing someone of murder (or rather sneakingly insinuating it) on the basis that he has admitted himself and his partner have fought in the past, that he cannot substantiate his alibi (a generally difficult thing to do), a very suspect 'confession' to a neighbour which he completely denies and the fact that the cops have not caught anyone (hardly unusual given the track record on AGS).

I do not like conspiracy theories - and that includes the horrible torture of this poor man for over 20 years based on little more than conjecture and idle gossip (and possibly a distrust of the English foreigner in small town Ireland).

Its extremely unfair and frankly shameful.

hatrickpatrick

I find it ridiculously frustrating that GSOC aren't allowed to talk about the balance of probabilities in their reports. There's no direct proof of a cover up, sure, because all of the potential evidence of a cover up could also be potential evidence of incompetence. But surely when you put all the f*ck-ups together - that one specific page detailing how Bailey became a suspect just happening to have been destroyed (IE, literally ripped out of the log book), the loss of the gate, the apparent obstruction of the enquiry - surely all of these factors together point to, on the balance of probabilities, an attempt by AGS to obstruct the course of justice in this case?

GSOC should be allowed to say this loud and clear without fear of repercussions, political or otherwise. It's very clear from this and from other investigations that GSOC feels hamstrung by a requirement for them to prove everything absolutely beyond reasonable doubt before they can make any comment on something, and it really hurts their ability to call a spade a spade IMO.

I'm guessing that this fear of talking on the balance of probabilities stems from the utter sh!t show they faced when they discovered that the security of their offices had been deliberately compromised in 2014 and had the temerity to suggest that the most likely actor with something to gain and with the resources to pull off such an operation would have been AGS. The media, government, and Gardai immediately tore them to shreds. It's probably no surprise that since then, they've tended to assemble hard evidence of corruption, but in their report say "we can't absolutely prove it", just in case the minister decides to jump down their f*cking throats for doing their job, like Shatter did.

Whole situation is a clusterf*ck to be honest. GSOC needs a much, much more robust legislative basis which would isolate them from political intimidation, and allow them to their jobs without having to look over their shoulders the whole time for anything that politicians or the media could use to attack them. It's clearly impossible for them to call these instances out otherwise.

This is very similar to the case of Kieran Boylan from a few years back - GSOC stated in their report that AGS had deliberately, repeatedly and explicitly obstructed them from accessing the files they needed to review in order to find out what the hell went on in the case, but still had to report that they found no evidence of a cover up - because AGS blocked them from reviewing such evidence. A case like that should have allowed GSOC to legally compel AGS to furnish them with the documents they requested, and make it a criminal offence for AGS to refuse to comply with such an order. That's just one example - the whole framework of GSOC seems to be designed to let the government say "we have people overseeing the Gardai" while the actual people working at GSOC are prevented and obstructed from doing their jobs at every turn, and nobody sees that happening and says "hang on, this isn't how it's supposed to work, we have to fix this".

A cynical man would suggest that this is deliberate, and suits the government just fine. Go figure.

Creol1

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

In fairness though if she has published anything that's untrue or implicated a person in anything they can prove they weren't involved with, wouldn't she have been sued for liable by now?
It's not that difficult to secure a conviction over here, the onus is on the writer to prove they published factually correct information.

One of the aspects of the Mary Boyle case she always emphasises is the suggestion that a Fianna Fáil politician ordered a cover-up. She never named the politician while he was alive then when he died she named Cllr Seán McEnniff as the politician in question.

As the old saying goes, you can't libel the dead.

mynamejeff

Creol1 wrote: »

As the old saying goes, you can't libel the dead.

no

but you can make unsubstantiated allegations against those who cant defend themselves cant you

RobertKK

I simply believe when people who work in the media are too friendly with politicians, it becomes a conflict of interests when reporting stuff, which aids cover ups because they don't want to dig up dirt on their 'crew'.

Sycamore Tree

mynamejeff wrote: »

ya the do

it was ian bailey ..... didnt you know that

Not a notion and you know it. If they had any decent evidence, he would have been jailed long ago. They couldn't even jail him with the evidence they made up.

Hurrache

RobertKK wrote: »

I simply believe when people who work in the media are too friendly with politicians, it becomes a conflict of interests when reporting stuff, which aids cover ups because they don't want to dig up dirt on their 'crew'.

So what's the solution, boycott any event in which any politician attends, no matter the party in case they ever go into government, as well as refuse to talk with anyone who has political aspirations in their life? Even cats and dogs can be friends.

AndrewJRenko

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Example last week she put up a bit about TUSLA. We have 2 US residebt board members in TUSLA, last year we paid 6000 on flights back and forwards for them for meetings. Over 6000 was spent on an overnight stay in a hotel. 31,000 was awarded to one employee in expenses.
While we have small kids left in homes with abusers because no one has gotten around to investigating due to lack of resources and kids staying in B&Bs without an adult because there's no Foster care provision.
Why the hell is that not in our newspapers and on our TV?

Link to the post that contains evidence of her claims
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=613108245734845&id=100011070254271

These aren't TUSLA board members or TUSLA expense accounts. The problems arose in YAP - one of the many independent services funded by TULSA.

And the audit findings were well covered by the media at the time, as evidenced by the Examiner article linked to by Gemma.

Silentcorner

Creol1 wrote: »

Some of her views and theories are off the wall. She recently had a tweet accusing the Irish Times of treason for publishing property advertisements and overheating the property market.

However, when you look at what happened to Maurice McCabe or Sam Smyth you are left with the conclusion that you have to be a bit crazy to stand up to the powers that be.

The Irish Times in particular has a vested interest in a booming property market, and continue to cover property in that celtic tiger type of narrative... it has the most valuable readership (particularly in Dublin, the most lucrative property market)

This country has one of the most dysfunctional property markets in the OECD for the last 20 years imo, which puts pressure on all of us who wish to buy/rent a home.

The media make huge money from property adverts. Revenue in Irish media is decreasing by about 15% per annum, they need a property boom to replace that revenue.

Her issue I believe was the editorials they place, pimping up interest in properties.

Irish media has always washed its hands of its responsibilities to its readers, while the word treason is a bit strong, their behaviour makes a mockery of their "newspaper of record" narrative.

Muahahaha

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's just one example - the whole framework of GSOC seems to be designed to let the government say "we have people overseeing the Gardai" while the actual people working at GSOC are prevented and obstructed from doing their jobs at every turn, and nobody sees that happening and says "hang on, this isn't how it's supposed to work, we have to fix this".

A cynical man would suggest that this is deliberate, and suits the government just fine. Go figure.

Its not just GSOC Patrick, look at pretty much any oversight body or regulator in Ireland and you will find the same pattern emerging- organisations that are poorly funded by government and lack teeth to do their job. Just off the top of my head

Energy Regulator- all they ever do is rubberstamp ESB demands to increase our bills. Irish households and business pay some of the highest energy rates anywhere in the EU. Never a word about the ESB reducing their cost base, instead they just get the taxpayer to stump up
Comreg- another rubberstamp for price increases, we have some of the highest broadband and mobile phones rates anywhere in the EU
Insurance regulator- not a jot out of them about us paying through the nose for car insurance. They failed to regulate Quinn and Setanta and now we are all paying for their cock ups via levies on our premiums which again are some of the highest in the EU
Legal Industry- self regulated by the Law Society and Kings Inns. Ireland has some of the highest legal fees within the EU, the 2011 Legal Services bill was supposed to address that (under direction of the IMF) but instead the Law Society and Kings Inns tabled over 200 amendments to the legislation and watered it down so we still have high legal fees, as a judge remarked recently justice in Ireland is only for the very rich or the very poor
Banking Regulator- need I say more on this. Except to say that their record fine issued stands at 50,000, the bankers are laughing at them
HIQA- another strawman of an organisation, was never properly funded, constantly at war with the HSE
TULSA- as above
Property regulator- another body with no teeth, in fact you have more consumer rights in Ireland buying a Mars bar than you do a house

It goes on and on and it happens because FFG want it that way. Neo-liberalism economics demands light or no touch regulation and that is what we are getting. And when it all goes to pot Govt. can just point to the regulator and lay the blame there when the reality is Govt. set them up to fail in the first place.

hatrickpatrick

Muahahaha wrote: »

Its not just GSOC Patrick, look at pretty much any oversight body or regulator in Ireland and you will find the same pattern emerging- organisations that are poorly funded by government and lack teeth to do their job. Just off the top of my head

Energy Regulator- all they ever do is rubberstamp ESB demands to increase our bills. Irish households and business pay some of the highest energy rates anywhere in the EU. Never a word about the ESB reducing their cost base, instead they just get the taxpayer to stump up
Comreg- another rubberstamp for price increases, we have some of the highest broadband and mobile phones rates anywhere in the EU
Insurance regulator- not a jot out of them about us paying through the nose for car insurance. They failed to regulate Quinn and Setanta and now we are all paying for their cock ups via levies on our premiums which again are some of the highest in the EU
Legal Industry- self regulated by the Law Society and Kings Inns. Ireland has some of the highest legal fees within the EU, the 2011 Legal Services bill was supposed to address that (under direction of the IMF) but instead the Law Society and Kings Inns tabled over 200 amendments to the legislation and watered it down so we still have high legal fees, as a judge remarked recently justice in Ireland is only for the very rich or the very poor
Banking Regulator- need I say more on this. Except to say that their record fine issued stands at 50,000, the bankers are laughing at them
HIQA- another strawman of an organisation, was never properly funded, constantly at war with the HSE
TULSA- as above
Property regulator- another body with no teeth, in fact you have more consumer rights in Ireland buying a Mars bar than you do a house

It goes on and on and it happens because FFG want it that way. Neo-liberalism economics demands light or no touch regulation and that is what we are getting. And when it all goes to pot Govt. can just point to the regulator and lay the blame there when the reality is Govt. set them up to fail in the first place.

It's really frustrating. I'm a little biased here as I know one or two people working in some of these bodies, but in my experience a lot of them genuinely do want to make a difference and stop corruption from happening, they just find themselves hamstrung by weak legislation and a total lack of support - even outright hostility - from the government departments which are supposed to be the superiors of these state organisations, and yet always end up taking their side against the oversight body when they're alleged to have done something wrong.

And then, as you say, "it's all the regulator's fault" as soon as something goes tits up and the government is being asked difficult questions. :mad:

Muahahaha

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's really frustrating. I'm a little biased here as I know one or two people working in some of these bodies, but in my experience a lot of them genuinely do want to make a difference and stop corruption from happening, they just find themselves hamstrung by weak legislation and a total lack of support - even outright hostility - from the government departments which are supposed to be the superiors of these state organisations, and yet always end up taking their side against the oversight body when they're alleged to have done something wrong.

And then, as you say, "it's all the regulator's fault" as soon as something goes tits up and the government is being asked difficult questions. :mad:

Yeah thats the nub of the issue, the staff who regulate want to do their job but the Govt of the day does everything they can to make these bodies ineffectual and basically a box ticking exercise. If fact none of these regulatory bodies would even be operational if it were left to our own politicians- it was only because EU directives came down ordering us to regulate industry that they actually exist.

Ive got a good friend working in the Comptroller & Auditor Generals office- he absolutely loves the work as hes an accounting nerd and he gets to audit all sorts of public bodies from the army to universities and hospitals. But Im told although the work is interesting there is little to no job satisfaction as time and time again his reports end up on a Ministers desk pointing out wastage of taxpayers money but nothing ever gets done about it. He often wonders why he bothers. That sort of feeling in endemic amongst staff in these bodies who just want to do their job and make a difference.

_Whimsical_

Gemma's latest post on the Sophie case concerns more worrying behaviour by Gardai with relation to the investigation as taken from the GSOC report into the case.

When the jobs book of the investigation was looked at they discovered several pages missing some cut out with scissors, some torn by hand leaving stubs, some pages glued together and several important files missing. Ian Bailey was identified as a suspect early in the investigation and is mentioned early in book 2 but the subsequent pages after his name appears were removed from the book. I assume this means that the context of the suspicion surrounding him was taken from the book. GSOC concluded this aspect was of "grave concern".

And yet no missdoing on behalf of Gardai, no corruption, Ian Bailey to be tried in France on the same evidence collected by Gardai.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=627746340937702&id=100011070254271

mynamejeff

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Gemma's latest post on the Sophie case concerns more worrying behaviour by Gardai with relation to the investigation as taken from the GSOC report into the case.

When the jobs book of the investigation was looked at they discovered several pages missing some cut out with scissors, some torn by hand leaving stubs, some pages glued together and several important files missing. Ian Bailey was identified as a suspect early in the investigation and is mentioned early in book 2 but the subsequent pages after his name appears were removed from the book. I assume this means that the context of the suspicion surrounding him was taken from the book. GSOC concluded this aspect was of "grave concern".

And yet no missdoing on behalf of Gardai, no corruption, Ian Bailey to be tried in France on the same evidence collected by Gardai.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=627746340937702&id=100011070254271

this is one of the problems with people who dont know what they are talking about being believed when they make accusations

the jobs book wouldn't even contain that kind of information
the jobs book is simply a list of jobs , who was given them and when they are competed

its not a part of the investigation file its just a investigative tool .

almostover

mynamejeff wrote: »

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Gemma's latest post on the Sophie case concerns more worrying behaviour by Gardai with relation to the investigation as taken from the GSOC report into the case.

When the jobs book of the investigation was looked at they discovered several pages missing some cut out with scissors, some torn by hand leaving stubs, some pages glued together and several important files missing. Ian Bailey was identified as a suspect early in the investigation and is mentioned early in book 2 but the subsequent pages after his name appears were removed from the book. I assume this means that the context of the suspicion surrounding him was taken from the book. GSOC concluded this aspect was of "grave concern".

And yet no missdoing on behalf of Gardai, no corruption, Ian Bailey to be tried in France on the same evidence collected by Gardai.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=627746340937702&id=100011070254271

this is one of the problems with people who dont know what they are talking about being believed when they make accusations

the jobs book wouldn't even contain that kind of information
the jobs book is simply a list of jobs , who was given them and when they are competed

its not a part of the investigation file its just a investigative tool .

Why was it altered then? If the contents are as innocuous as you describe what would be the motive to remove pages?

Silentcorner

mynamejeff wrote: »

this is one of the problems with people who dont know what they are talking about being believed when they make accusations

the jobs book wouldn't even contain that kind of information
the jobs book is simply a list of jobs , who was given them and when they are competed

its not a part of the investigation file its just a investigative tool .

So, all that missing information would be in the file that was sent to the DPP?

And her allegations of 31k paid in expenses, that means damn all really.

I had a job a few years ago where I received large expenses.

- I was working and travelling practically 24/7
- I had to provide receipts for every expense down to the penny.

hatrickpatrick

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I assume this means that the context of the suspicion surrounding him was taken from the book. GSOC concluded this aspect was of "grave concern".

And yet no missdoing on behalf of Gardai, no corruption, Ian Bailey to be tried in France on the same evidence collected by Gardai.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. That's not absolute proof of corruption, but GSOC is never going to literally find a superintendent's fingerprints on the scissors used to destroy that log book - and they should feel perfectly comfortable and confident that they can say "look, it's blindingly obvious to anyone that there's about a 90% probability of a deliberate cover-up and attempt to pervert the course of justice here", without the whole establishment tearing them to shreds over it.

mynamejeff

almostover wrote: »

Why was it altered then? If the contents are as innocuous as you describe what would be the motive to remove pages?

what would be the reason to preserve them as exhibits ?

A jobs book is akin to a note book to remind investigators of stuff not a exhibit

the point is that as usual Gemmas allegations have no basis in evidence and dont hold water

mynamejeff

Silentcorner wrote: »

So, all that missing information would be in the file that was sent to the DPP?

i doubt it , why would it be ?

what is the missing information ? as i said it wouldnt be in that log book any way ?

as usual this hack picks something she dont understand and uses it to throw around allegations without any actual proof

almostover

mynamejeff wrote: »

almostover wrote: »

Why was it altered then? If the contents are as innocuous as you describe what would be the motive to remove pages?

what would be the reason to preserve them as exhibits ?

A jobs book is akin to a note book to remind investigators of stuff not a exhibit

the point is that as usual Gemmas allegations have no basis in evidence and dont hold water

Bad record keeping and destruction of records points to a very low level of professionalism. Losing a five bar farm gate with blood spatter from a murder scene is grossly negligent at best. Like how do you lose a gate which was taken in as an exhibit of evidence?

mynamejeff

almostover wrote: »

Bad record keeping and destruction of records points to a very low level of professionalism. Losing a five bar farm gate with blood spatter from a murder scene is grossly negligent at best. Like how do you lose a gate which was taken in as an exhibit of evidence?

agreed

but then again what kind of professionalism are you gona get in west cork in 1996 ?

Silentcorner

mynamejeff wrote: »

i doubt it , why would it be ?

what is the missing information ? as i said it wouldnt be in that log book any way ?

as usual this hack picks something she dont understand and uses it to throw around allegations without any actual proof

So, when the cops send a file to the DPP, they just name a suspect and aren't expected to explain why they suspect him?

If there was a cover up, where would the proof be?

_Whimsical_

mynamejeff wrote: »

this is one of the problems with people who dont know what they are talking about being believed when they make accusations

the jobs book wouldn't even contain that kind of information
the jobs book is simply a list of jobs , who was given them and when they are competed

its not a part of the investigation file its just a investigative tool .

But you would imagine GSOC know what they're talking about?

The direct quote used is from their report. It's in the photo's of those pages on the link. They found removal of information to be of grave concern.

Silentcorner

We don't do accountability in this state at all....for which we the citizens pay a huge price.

If you are an honest hard working Garda, Public/Civil Servant etc it must be a depressing place to work.

We stumble from one debacle to the next...when will it end.

mynamejeff

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

But you would imagine GSOC know what they're talking about?

The direct quote used is from their report. It's in the photo's of those pages on the link. They found removal of information to be of grave concern.

would you ? have you seen the shambolic way they operate ?

they spent millions investigating the wifi signal from the costa coffee across the street ffs

messed up the prosecution and stone cold slam dunk crime
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/court-told-that-garda%C3%AD-entered-flat-without-warrant-1.609510

and force a prosecution in a case where gardai do thier jobs correctly

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/dpp-withdraws-assault-charges-against-garda%C3%AD-1.1646198

_Whimsical_

mynamejeff wrote: »

would you ? have you seen the shambolic way they operate ?

they spent millions investigating the wifi signal from the costa coffee across the street ffs

messed up the prosecution and stone cold slam dunk crime
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/court-told-that-garda%C3%AD-entered-flat-without-warrant-1.609510

and force a prosecution in a case where gardai do thier jobs correctly

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/dpp-withdraws-assault-charges-against-garda%C3%AD-1.1646198

I agree they are a shambles.

However I think that they would know the difference between a notebook with a list of appointments that happened to be missing a page and something more important to the context of the case. I don't imagine they'd be gravely concerned over a list of innocuous dates and places, people spoken to.

I fully accept that in saying this I'm surmising and filling in blanks but I imagine there could be things even in the sort of notebook you describe that would be of relevance. For example meetings with Marie Farrel in order to coerce her into giving a false statement.

I know someone who was a victim of a crime several years ago and at the time Gardai encouraged, even pressured, her to exaggerate certain elements of the crime in order to give them enough leverage to put a dangerous person behind bars rather than let them walk free. It was put to her very strongly that she was being naive in her view of the incident and had not realised the level of peril she had been in. She was told the person was very dangerous and had been under watch for sometime waiting for him to slip up but there was nothing they could do until he did. Now he had, they wanted to make the strongest case possible in order to take their chance to put him away before he did something worse. That was left to rest on her shoulders. A few words from her about her fear of greater threat than she had actually felt were all that was needed from her.

It well may have been true that he was dangerous and necessary to put him away by any means, I'm sure sometimes it is.

There must have been entries into a diary style notebook somewhere though of calls to the house about the thrust of the strategy being used with my friend. The same could easily have been true in this case, that entries to such a book would reveal a strategy.

hatrickpatrick

mynamejeff wrote: »

what would be the reason to preserve them as exhibits ?

A jobs book is akin to a note book to remind investigators of stuff not a exhibit

the point is that as usual Gemmas allegations have no basis in evidence and dont hold water

Why would someone rip a page out of a log book? And don't you find it a massive coincidence that the missing page just *happens* to be the page which might have shown whether the investigation into Bailey was based on frivolous suspicion?

Like, there's only so much coincidence I'm willing to believe anymore when it comes to AGS. Just like it was a "coincidence" that all those phones went missing relating to McCabe, and it was a "coincidence" that Tulsa screwed up his file, and it was a "coincidence" that the security experts GSOC hired to investigate bugging allegations were stalked in the airport by people taking their photographs... Want me to go on? I can think of about a dozen "coincidences" which weirdly all seem to be in favour of AGS. There haven't been any "coincidences" which cast them in a bad light or accidentally destroy evidence which might have exonerated them in a case. Funny old thing, life, isn't it?

hatrickpatrick

mynamejeff wrote: »

they spent millions investigating the wifi signal from the costa coffee across the street ffs

Read the Cooke report. That wifi signal was connecting to a communications console in the GSOC office which it shouldn't have been able to, and then someone just happened to wipe all the logs from the device literally as Verrimus, the security company, were trying to download the log. They literally watched it being cleared in real time as soon as they attempted to access it.

Again, "no proof of any wrongdoing" but a f*ckload of weird coincidences.

railer201

Ipso wrote: »

How do you lose a gate?

Interesting question, especially a 5 bar gate - surely you'd hear it jangle if you dropped it or something.

anthonyjmaher

Two main problems with everything that Gemma does.

1) She has a huge chip on her shoulder against certain groups, like the Guards, and this colours everything she writes - this makes it hard to treat her journalism as objective.

2) A huge amount of her work is cloaked in statements like "it is alleged", "it is known" etc etc For a professional journalist her threshold for truth seems to be much lower than most other journalists.

Deusexmachina

anthonyjmaher wrote: »

Two main problems with everything that Gemma does.

1) She has a huge chip on her shoulder against certain groups, like the Guards, and this colours everything she writes - this makes it hard to treat her journalism as objective.

2) A huge amount of her work is cloaked in statements like "it is alleged", "it is known" etc etc For a professional journalist her threshold for truth seems to be much lower than most other journalists.

However, that does not mean there is nothing sinister in the Garda handling of this case and the dispicable treatment of Ian Bailey.

By all means shoot the messenger (and you have a point) but let's not forget about the (at best) ineptitude, cynicism and vindictiveness of our State Police in this case.

solid_crook

anthonyjmaher wrote: »

Two main problems with everything that Gemma does.

1) She has a huge chip on her shoulder against certain groups, like the Guards, and this colours everything she writes - this makes it hard to treat her journalism as objective.

2) A huge amount of her work is cloaked in statements like "it is alleged", "it is known" etc etc For a professional journalist her threshold for truth seems to be much lower than most other journalists.

the " chip on your shoulder " jibe is a hoary old chest nut used by dullards who think certain groups should never be criticized

journalists have to use language like " its alleged " , they all do it both on tv and in print media , nothing unusual there

solid_crook

Deusexmachina wrote: »

However, that does not mean there is nothing sinister in the Garda handling of this case and the dispicable treatment of Ian Bailey.

By all means shoot the messenger (and you have a point) but let's not forget about the (at best) ineptitude, cynicism and vindictiveness of our State Police in this case.

the guards stitch ( or attempt to stitch ) up people on a regular basis , most are not big headline stories like the ian bailey one however

i once spent four hours in a cell for buying a can of coke , guy who had a multi year grudge against me ( because i refused to concede a public laneway was his in an attempted land grab and thus undermined the status of his residence which he later sold ) but who had connections to AGS high up accused me of making a threatening gesture against him outside the same corner shop , i never even saw the guy on the day as he was in one corner of the shop when i entered and left before i got to the counter , he implied i tailed him in my car all the way to town , unfortunately for him i came from another town and had receipts from a pharmacy to support my story , no charges were brought but the interview was sent to the DPP , complete waste of garda resources spent indulging a liar who happened to play golf with some assh0le chief superintendent and the local rank and file were forced to take part in a circus , the same liar for ten years drove a northern reg car and never taxed any of this two cars , guards ignored it all

thats but a tiny example of corruption

Rubberchikken

She may have a chip on her shoulder about the gardai but tbh anyone with a functioning brain would have to question the honesty and integrity of an organisation that has never convinced me personally that corruption isnt running rife through it.

In rural areas they probably always were the final word on anything and everything. Ireland is very small. The gardai are all trained in one place with probably the same attitudes that were passed on from the very start - you're the police - your word is final - plus whatever crap they also feed them.

This sense of superiority and finality goes to the heads of not very bright people and gives them ideas. When these people think they are the law and above it this type of stuff happens.
Things will never change.

dense

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Read the Cooke report. That wifi signal was connecting to a communications console in the GSOC office which it shouldn't have been able to, and then someone just happened to wipe all the logs from the device literally as Verrimus, the security company, were trying to download the log. They literally watched it being cleared in real time as soon as they attempted to access it.

Again, "no proof of any wrongdoing" but a f*ckload of weird coincidences.

Who is that someone suspected to be?


Or a member of?


And what were they wiping that required wiping?


A garda? I didn't read the report.



There should be a sticky list on boards of all the garda controversies!

mynamejeff

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Read the Cooke report. That wifi signal was connecting to a communications console in the GSOC office which it shouldn't have been able to, and then someone just happened to wipe all the logs from the device literally as Verrimus, the security company, were trying to download the log. They literally watched it being cleared in real time as soon as they attempted to access it.

Again, "no proof of any wrongdoing" but a f*ckload of weird coincidences.

Have you read the cooke report ? coz i have
from the conclusion

" it is clear that the evidence does not support the proposition that actual surveillance of the kind asserted in the Sunday Times article took place and much less that it was carried out by members of the Garda Síochána. "



hardly relevant to this thread though is it .

AndrewJRenko

Deusexmachina wrote: »

However, that does not mean there is nothing sinister in the Garda handling of this case and the dispicable treatment of Ian Bailey.

By all means shoot the messenger (and you have a point) but let's not forget about the (at best) ineptitude, cynicism and vindictiveness of our State Police in this case.

Absolutely - ineptitude, cynicism and vindictiveness in this case - but that doesn't mean that there is ineptitude, cynicism and vindictiveness in EVERY case, as Gemma seems to think.


Most Gardai are decent folks - you know that one or two Gardai that you know personally, in your circle of family or friends? Most Gardai are like yer man, decent folks, working hard enough in a difficult role to do what they can to protect us. At times, they have to deal with the worst elements of society - the worst people, the worst situations - far more frequently than the rest of us. Most of the time they do it well.


Yes, they do screw up, and the recent tribunal showed some worrying institutional issues, but they're not all bad all the time.

hatrickpatrick

mynamejeff wrote: »

Have you read the cooke report ? coz i have
from the conclusion

" it is clear that the evidence does not support the proposition that actual surveillance of the kind asserted in the Sunday Times article took place and much less that it was carried out by members of the Garda Síochána. "

Indeed, the Sunday Times report was full of sensationalism. However, if you look past the conclusion of the report, you come across gems such as

Mr [redacted] then described the work done on his third visit on 19th November for the special operation which had been set up by the Investigating Officers. He described this as a “sting operation to draw out the user” which he had suggested. The objective was to monitor the false information meeting set up by the officers for any unauthorised surveillance activity and if any such activity was detected to identify and locate the devices being used. The work also involved examining and disassembling the AMX panel consoles to see if there were any signs of their being used by way of attack. He was accompanied on this visit by two other Verrimus operatives and Mr [Redacted]

9.55. As already indicated by other witnesses, this special operation did not result in the detection of any surveillance activities. Mr [redacted] did however comment upon the results of Mr [redacted]’s forensic examination of Device 4B. He pointed out that as he had himself seen the device “actually connect” to Bitbuzz, the device should in his view have had a record of that connection in its systems files. He concluded that Device 4B had been cleaned or wiped of that information and expressed the opinion that this could well have been done remotely without the attacker having needed to physically access Device 4B. In his opinion Device 4B showed signs of having been tampered with. Its components had been changed and its systems files had been tampered with. In his statement he said, “A tamper proof seal was broken and other visual signs of human interference were present. Finger smudges around internal screw holes being most of note.” Moreover, it indicated that it had been cleaned or wiped since it had been last detected as connecting to Bitbuzz on 20th October 2013.

As far as being relevant to this thread, I'd argue that it's intimately relevant - it's another example of how the bar for GSOC to say that they have evidence of wrongdoing is far, far, far higher than that of the Gardaí. GSOC have to say things like "we have no proof that wrongdoing occurred because all the dodgy looking stuff *could* have been a series of bizarre coincidences", but the Gardaí obviously don't have to do that when they decide to target a member of the public as a suspect in a case, such as Mr Bailey.

Is this not a glaring example of how the cards are stacked against oversight and in favour of whatever body is supposed to be being overseen? As others have pointed out, this is not unique to GSOC vs the Gardaí, it's endemic across Irish accountability that watchdogs and regulators have to follow much stricter rules and meet far higher standards of evidence before they're allowed to say "we believe that wrongdoing occurred here", than the bodies which are being regulated.

The idea that a relevant page in the log book was deliberately ripped out, on purpose, by somebody with access to that file (AKA, a Garda) and GSOC aren't allowed to say "on the balance of probabilities, this is very obviously likely to be an attempt to obstruct any investigation into the case" is complete and total bullsh!t. GSOC should be able to publicly say what the barking dogs on the street are saying, without fear of reprisal from government or Gardaí - something like that, the deliberate destruction of one specific page which just happens to be extremely relevant to potential wrongdoing has about as much chance of being accidental as a pig's bollocks has of being found orbiting Alpha Centauri. It could be a coincidence / incompetence / the dog ate my log book. It's highly likely to be "we don't want anyone to see what's on this page because it shows that we did something wrong".

How about the missing phones for the Charleton tribunal, and all the bizarre coincidences around that? Clearly also not proof enough that someone in the organisation is deliberately attempting to protect themselves or their colleagues from being exposed as people who have committed breaches of discipline and potentially criminal acts. Obviously. Because Occam's Razor suggests that when potential evidence of wrongdoing is destroyed by the person or body suspected of that wrongdoing, it's obviously more likely to simply have been an innocent mistake than a deliberate act of covering up a scandal. :rolleyes:

GSOC should be allowed to make comments on the balance of probabilities in these cases. The Cooke report is absolutely littered with the same kind of thing - bizarre coincidences and very convenient coincidences for anyone who's trying to cover up a surveillance incident, but no "conclusive evidence" because apparently in order to publicly accuse a government agency of malpractice, you have to satisfy a higher standard of "proof" than you do in a fully judicial criminal trial.

It's moronic.

UsedToWait

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Absolutely - ineptitude, cynicism and vindictiveness in this case - but that doesn't mean that there is ineptitude, cynicism and vindictiveness in EVERY case, as Gemma seems to think.


Most Gardai are decent folks - you know that one or two Gardai that you know personally, in your circle of family or friends? Most Gardai are like yer man, decent folks, working hard enough in a difficult role to do what they can to protect us...

....

Sure there are decent Gardai, but the incontrovertible evidence of recent years is that the institution is rotten from the top down.

The first instinct, always, is to protect itself, protect the politically powerful, cover up, shift blame.

Going as far as to try and besmirch one of its own members with the most odious of crimes?
It doesn't cost them a thought.

So if more journalists start shining a light into cases where the gardai have, at best screwed up, and at worst, well, who knows, it should be applauded.

AndrewJRenko

UsedToWait wrote: »

So if more journalists start shining a light into cases where the gardai have, at best screwed up, and at worst, well, who knows, it should be applauded.

Absolutely, it should be applauded - and Gemma has done some good work.


But she has also crossed a line into conspiracy theorist nonsense from time to time.

hatrickpatrick

UsedToWait wrote: »

Sure there are decent Gardai, but the incontrovertible evidence of recent years is that the institution is rotten from the top down.

This, exactly. The rank and file are not the issue, the issue is several generations of ideologically corrupt and morally bankrupt individuals making up the upper echelons, and obviously therefore having massive influence on who gets promoted and what kind of attitude gets encouraged further down the line.

I don't think I've ever read a statement from AGSI which didn't make me roll my eyes or get pissed off. Their defensive reaction any time the organisation is rightly called out for wrongdoing says it all. In my view, everyone from superintendent up needs to be replaced. I do realise that there are good people at those levels - I've met several of them in my time - but at this stage, the critical mass is so toxic that unfortunately the decent folks have to be considered collateral damage in the context of repairing our dangerously f*cked up justice system.

It sucks, but I honestly see no other alternative. It's very sad that successive generations of politicians and authorities have allowed it to degenerate to this point.

fryup

wasn't there some bizzare theory doing the rounds years back, that she may have been trampled on by a horse? and tried to staggered back to her house but died from her injuries

as the field next to her holiday home contained horses which she tended to every night

AndrewJRenko

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In my view, everyone from superintendent up needs to be replaced.

WHat would that be - about 400 or 500 people?


Who are we going to replace them with?

Silentcorner

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

WHat would that be - about 400 or 500 people?


Who are we going to replace them with?

Doing nothing isn't an option. Appointing an external Commissioner is useless.

I think we should introduce a Malpractice Amnesty.

12-24 months to clear out, publically, malpractice, without consequences for senior Gardai, after which, we introduce two new concepts.

Firstly, accountability, our laws rightfully protect Gardai on duty, so if you assault an on duty garda you face much stiffer sentencing for doing so, equally, if you are a Garda and break the law, or engage in subversion of the law you face much stiffer sentencing.

Secondly, introduce the Peter Principle for everyone above a certain rank. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

I have no idea whether those two suggestions could be implemented, but like I said, doing nothing is no longer an option.

hatrickpatrick

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

WHat would that be - about 400 or 500 people?


Who are we going to replace them with?

Replace them with good members of the next level down in rank and file, who have good, clean records with regard to the handling of cases, not abusing their authority, not covering up for their mates, etc.

Yes, it would be messy. Yes, some temporary disorganisation would surely result. Yes, nothing about this situation is ideal. But the culture of "we answer to no one and we follow no law except whatever we decide is right" is so pervasive among the AGSI level folk that I honestly feel that clearing out the whole lot of them is the only surefire way to utterly and totally root it out once and for all.

After that, zero tolerance. You ever once physically assault a member of the public, engage in wrongdoing regarding a case, or directly preside over a "coincidence" (IE, you're the named officer in charge of the evidence locker, and crucial evidence disappears under your watch) that's it. No promotion, ever.

Harsh, sure. But we simply cannot afford to have a justice system so rife with corruption anymore.

Remember the whole "it wouldn't be realistic to punish the people responsible for the penalty points saga because there are so many" thing a few months ago? As far as I'm concerned, fire their asses and engage in a massive recruitment drive. The situation is that critical. We cannot afford to let things slide anymore because it's too logistically nightmarish to hit the problem with a sledgehammer and just get it the f*ck out of our policing system. Someone has to take the bull by the horns and ruthlessly, mercilessly and uncompromisingly purge anyone who doesn't see their job as a police officer as a service to the community and to true justice - and nothing other than that.

AndrewJRenko

And she's off again, on her next conspiracy theory - in good company with Jim Corr and other loons;

https://twitter.com/drg1985/status/1027904112455823360

blackwhite

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And she's off again, on her next conspiracy theory - in good company with Jim Corr and other loons;

https://twitter.com/drg1985/status/1027904112455823360

But, but, but, she’s a hero :rolleyes:


Seems like there a certain cadre who, once you’ve a record of attacking ”the establishment” will cheerlead for you no matter how ridiculous you get.

blackwhite

blackwhite wrote: »

But, but, but, she’s a hero :rolleyes:


Seems like there a certain cadre who, once you’ve a record of attacking ”the establishment” will cheerlead for you no matter how ridiculous you get.

Now Now.... She strayed badly from the path of the "Woke" on twitter when she attacked Kitty Holland & The Irish Times.

I think she made a few enemies there :pac::pac:

professore

chicorytip wrote: »

Bailey was named as the chief suspect for very compelling reasons. He had a known propensity to behave violently toward women, he admitted to committing the crime in an unguarded comment made to his neighbour and there were serious doubts about alibis both he and his partner provided regarding his whereabouts at the time the killing took place. This talk of conspiracies is utter hogwash. The investigation, or parts of it, was handled incompetently, yes. The most significant outcome of all is that in the intervening twenty one years no other suspect has been identified. Make of that what you will.

You would be much more convincing if you pointed out all the flaws in her piece - because if you can't, and what she wrote is true, there is no way Bailey is guilty and someone else is being protected. The absence of ANY DNA or fingerprint, clothes fibers etc is just not believable in a messy murder like this. The fact that all the witnesses were as dodgy as hell.

As it stands you sound like a Garda on boards defending the members.