Gemma O'Doherty and Sophie Toscan du Plantier

professore

fryup wrote: »

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

There would be forensic evidence of this???

Edgware

professore wrote: »

There would be forensic evidence of this???

Did they check out the grassy knoll?

chicorytip

professore wrote:

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.

professore wrote:

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

DNA and other evidence could have been destroyed during the twenty four hour period that had elapsed before the arrival at the scene of the state pathologist. The local gardai - stationed at Bantry, I presume - may have been unsure as to what the correct procedures were in relation to preservation of evidence etc. After all, they were dealing with an unprecedented event and the resources and expertise available to them, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the discovery of the body, were clearly inadequate.
Still, after twenty two years of investigation and speculation, no compelling evidence has been discovered that links any other suspects to the killing.

Silentcorner

chicorytip wrote: »

DNA and other evidence could have been destroyed during the twenty four hour period that had elapsed before the arrival at the scene of the state pathologist. The local gardai - stationed at Bantry, I presume - may have been unsure as to what the correct procedures were in relation to preservation of evidence etc. After all, they were dealing with an unprecedented event and the resources and expertise available to them, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the discovery of the body, were clearly inadequate.
Still, after twenty two years of investigation and speculation, no compelling evidence has been discovered that links any other suspects to the killing.

Well a bloody gate would have been laced with DNA pointing to the person responsible.

But there are none so blind as those that do not want to see!

mynamejeff

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well a bloody gate would have been laced with DNA pointing to the person responsible.

But there are none so blind as those that do not want to see!

er ? would the blood on the gate not belong to the victim of the violent murder ?

bailey had a few scrapes on his hands , hardly gona splatter all over the countryside would it ?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ian-bailey-had-scratches-on-hands-court-told-1.2083177

also good to see any one who disagrees with the conspiracy nuts is a garda and part of the cover up :D:D:D

Silentcorner

mynamejeff wrote: »

er ? would the blood on the gate not belong to the victim of the violent murder ?

bailey had a few scrapes on his hands , hardly gona splatter all over the countryside would it ?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ian-bailey-had-scratches-on-hands-court-told-1.2083177

also good to see any one who disagrees with the conspiracy nuts is a garda and part of the cover up :D:D:D

Ok, stay with me here...if there was blood all over the gate, it could very well have been SDPs blood, indicating she found herself in contact with the gate...which would present the opportunity to see what other forensic evidence the gate would reveal, fingerprints, DNA, etc as blood on the gate would suggest contact with at least one of the participants in the incident.

But we will never know, because the gate has gone missing, that gate could either have incriminated Ian Bailey and nailed his guilt (meaning there would have been no merit in forcing a "witness" to lie, or bribe another witness to lie) or proved his innocence...it would be highly unlikely that SDP would come into contact with the gate and the murderer didn't also.

I love that you think that anyone who is not buying the completely farcical Gardai/GSOC narrative is nuts...I mean, that attitude to power has served us well hasn't it...

dense

chicorytip wrote: »

Still, after twenty two years of investigation and speculation, no compelling evidence has been discovered that links any other suspects to the killing.

Anything of interest has been lost whilst in the possession of the Gardai.


It wouldn't be the first time that "interesting things" have been lost by the Gardai either.


https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/death-of-senior-garda-linked-to-lost-abuse-files-26232819.html

mynamejeff

Silentcorner wrote: »

Ok, stay with me here...if there was blood all over the gate, it could very well have been SDPs blood, indicating she found herself in contact with the gate...which would present the opportunity to see what other forensic evidence the gate would reveal, fingerprints, DNA, etc as blood on the gate would suggest contact with at least one of the participants in the incident.

But we will never know, because the gate has gone missing, that gate could either have incriminated Ian Bailey and nailed his guilt (meaning there would have been no merit in forcing a "witness" to lie, or bribe another witness to lie) or proved his innocence...it would be highly unlikely that SDP would come into contact with the gate and the murderer didn't also.

I love that you think that anyone who is not buying the completely farcical Gardai/GSOC narrative is nuts...I mean, that attitude to power has served us well hasn't it...

think you need to read back up the thread a little bit serpico .

might help you with your condescending issues :P

ya coz gemma o doherty is a totally impartial honest and sane source of truthful and honest information and is not in anyway a raving lunatic

Silentcorner

mynamejeff wrote: »

think you need to read back up the thread a little bit serpico .

might help you with your condescending issues :P

ya coz gemma o doherty is a totally impartial honest and sane source of truthful and honest information and is not in anyway a raving lunatic

Never mind Gemma O'Doherty if that is your will.

The gate disappeared! How in Gods name can that happen, unless it was by design.

Read the sham of a report from GSOC, who took six years to complete it...it reminds me of another certain tribunal, which declared Bertie Ahern wasn't corrupt, but "didn't truthfully explain" his finances.

My tone is simply reflecting yours, I am no expert, it wasn't that long ago that I would have swallowed everything that was presented to me in media and Irish politics...I had to learn the hard way.

Birneybau

blackwhite wrote: »

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.

Well, she's thrown her hat in the ring for the Presidential election and all her mad followers (cult) are already talking on Twitter about her shaking things up. These people don't seem to realise the role of the Irish president. But how and ever...

dense

Birneybau wrote: »

Well, she's thrown her hat in the ring for the Presidential election and all her mad followers (cult) are already talking on Twitter about her shaking things up. These people don't seem to realise the role of the Irish president. But how and ever...

The role can be a bit more than waffling poetry and the previous incumbents were shît hot about social justice and feminism.


She won't get a nomination, but if she did I'd vote for her.

Birneybau

dense wrote: »

Birneybau wrote: »

Well, she's thrown her hat in the ring for the Presidential election and all her mad followers (cult) are already talking on Twitter about her shaking things up. These people don't seem to realise the role of the Irish president. But how and ever...

The role can be a bit more than waffling poetry and the previous incumbents were shît hot about social justice and feminism.


She won't get a nomination, but if she did I'd vote for her.

Self publicity. If she wanted change she should run for T.D.

Are Am Eye

President O'Doherty......she'd out rank the Garda Commissioner. And the
Minister for Justice. Just the dream of it must really get her juices going.

Edgware

dense wrote: »

The role can be a bit more than waffling poetry and the previous incumbents were shît hot about social justice and feminism.


She won't get a nomination, but if she did I'd vote for her.

I'd give her one as well

dense

Birneybau wrote: »

Self publicity. If she wanted change she should run for T.D.

Yeah, maybe I'll vote for that nice man Mr Duffy instead then......

Edgware

dense wrote: »

Yeah, maybe I'll vote for that nice man Mr Duffy instead then......

Dont make up your mind until you see who the diesel launderers come up with.
Would Slab be out in time to give it a lash?

JohnnyFlash

Dafter she is getting.

badtoro

Rubberchikken wrote: »

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.

Some time back a relation was collided with and run off the road by a local. Gardaí came out, inspected the scene, vehicles, took statements etc. I asked them before they left what they thought had happened, they told me the other driver had been driving too fast. In their report they entirely blamed my relation for the crash.

The solicitor acting on my relations behalf told us how Gardaí from that station behaved differently to Gardaí from other stations in the county, in his experience. That they would come out and take sides, rather than do the job they were meant to do in those circumstances.

Small **** grows into big ****.

Hurrache

It's a win-win for her really. Doesn't get a nomination, it's the government behind the scenes making it so, doesn't get coverage, it's a the state and DOB media conspiracy against her. Fodder for her masses.

emo72

Hope she gets a nomination. I'll vote for her. No doubt there will be an attempt to belittle her.

humberklog

emo72 wrote: »

Hope she gets a nomination. I'll vote for her. No doubt there will be an attempt to belittle her.

The presidential campaign is more often than not a pretty dirty fight where the majority of runners get dunked in the river while strapped to the cucking stool.

She will have to address some of the issues she has raised and raised against her such as a Donegal connection to Maddy McCann's disappearance, her perceived anti-vax stance, allegations of transphobia against her.

For all the good work she does she also pushes some fairly flakey conspiratorial agendas too and she seldom backs these stories up with hard evidence/facts.

She won't be able to simply "block" an interviewer on TV or radio that asks her to back up her claims. Something she regularly does on Twitter.

Annasopra

She is against choice in pregnancy, vaccinations and trans rights. On that basis its a definite no for President from me.

seamus

Like Gerard Craughwell, she's going to discover that outside of a tiny group of people on social media, nobody knows who she is or why they should care, and she'll slink back into the shadows claiming that there's a political elite keeping the race all sewn up.

emo72

If we are looking for a candidate who has never made a mistake, never had an opinion that was unpopular with some people, and is untouchable, well, we could be waiting a long time.

Benildus

https://twitter.com/davemcginn_ie/status/1031254555336630272

I hope she gets a nomination so her crackpot opinions can be absolutely eviscerated in debates where she won't be able to block or mute people.

She's a nutjob.

Hurrache

emo72 wrote: »

If we are looking for a candidate who has never made a mistake, never had an opinion that was unpopular with some people, and is untouchable, well, we could be waiting a long time.

I'd just be happy to have one that knows the requirements, limitations and responsibilities of the role.

Annasopra

emo72 wrote: »

If we are looking for a candidate who has never made a mistake, never had an opinion that was unpopular with some people, and is untouchable, well, we could be waiting a long time.

We could but GO'D is not Presidential material. She is a conspiracy theorist who likes the sound of her own voice!

Edgware

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

We could but GO'D is not Presidential material. She is a conspiracy theorist who likes the sound of her own voice!

She should fit in well so with the rest of the Bozos

batgoat

dense wrote: »

The role can be a bit more than waffling poetry and the previous incumbents were shît hot about social justice and feminism.


She won't get a nomination, but if she did I'd vote for her.

emo72 wrote: »

If we are looking for a candidate who has never made a mistake, never had an opinion that was unpopular with some people, and is untouchable, well, we could be waiting a long time.

This is what she currently is posting day to day, she comes across as either very gullible or manipulative and playing to a specific audience.

Edgware

Let's see can she link Denis O Brien with the upper window in the Texas Book Depository first before we elect her

Kermit.de.frog

I see Jim Corr is supporting O'Doherty for President and he's in to mad stuff.

So what's her beef? What's her issue?

Two lines or less

Ipso

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I see Jim Corr is supporting O'Doherty for President and he's in to mad stuff.

So what's her beef? What's her issue?

Two lines or less

Started of with legitimate questions on dodgy cases, went too far down the rabbit hole.

Kermit.de.frog

Ipso wrote: »

Started of with legitimate questions on dodgy cases, went too far down the rabbit hole.

Rabbit hole.

Ok that'll do.

archer22

How the phuck do you lose a gate

Spanish Eyes

Presidential candidates are deluding themselves if they think their stance on anything will follow through if elected.

They have to stay schtum, wear nice clothes, speak well, represent our country with dignity.

Honestly I just don't understand Prez candidates saying I stand for this and that. They are NOT allowed to voice political opinions.

But I suppose they can convene the Council of State, or refer Bills to the Supreme Court. Only if they are repugnant to the Constitution though AFAIK.

Should be just a list system and no canvassing. Ok naive of me for sure, apols.

TomOnBoard

archer22 wrote: »

How the phuck do you lose a gate

With an angle grinder followed by a deep hole in the ground...

dense

archer22 wrote: »

How the phuck do you lose a gate

Deliberately, just like the pages of the station book which were removed, which GSOC found fit to shrug it's shoulders about.


No explanation for either has been forthcoming, and, that's okay apparently.

dense

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

We could but GO'D is not Presidential material. She is a conspiracy theorist who likes the sound of her own voice!

They ALL like the sound of their own voices.


And you'd have to be a bit mad to actually want to be President, right?

Spanish Eyes

dense wrote: »

They ALL like the sound of their own voices.


And you'd have to be a bit mad to actually want to be President, right?

Well, there is a female previous incumbent who is sounding a tad unhinged at the moment. Hint, big gathering this weekend.:)

dense

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Well, there is a female previous incumbent who is sounding a tad unhinged at the moment. Hint, big gathering this weekend.:)

Precisely.


And the other female one doesn't shuffle the full pack at all times either.

batgoat

dense wrote: »

Precisely.


And the other female one doesn't shuffle the full pack at all times either.

See, you're describing McAleese and Robinson as mentally unwell because you disagree with them on certain topics. The difference here is, O'Doherty is often claiming unfounded conspiracies. Eg Hpv vaccine. It's very different to a former President criticising the church failure to protect children.

Spanish Eyes

batgoat wrote: »

See, you're describing McAleese and Robinson as mentally unwell because you disagree with them on certain topics. The difference here is, O'Doherty is often claiming unfounded conspiracies. Eg Hpv vaccine. It's very different to a former President criticising the church failure to protect children.

Pity she didn't say anything while Prez. Oh I forgot, she was muzzled and couldn't make any comment at all. What's the point of canvassing for Prez based on your views if you cannot say anything about it for at least seven years.

And she voluntarily went to Rome to study Theology and Canon Law when her Prez term ended. Now in fairness if you hate the CC that much why would you do this? Ammunition or what?

But I think McAleese's rant has more to do with publicity for her son getting a nomination for FF in either Council or Dáil elections upcoming. Maybe. No I am sure of it.

dense

batgoat wrote: »

See, you're describing McAleese and Robinson as mentally unwell because you disagree with them on certain topics. The difference here is, O'Doherty is often claiming unfounded conspiracies. Eg Hpv vaccine. It's very different to a former President criticising the church failure to protect children.

Where has O'Doherty made claims about HPV vaccine?


I don't twitter or facebook, so I haven't seen them.


I did a search and found she reposted something from the BMJ lately about an urgent investigation into a previous safety review of vaccines.

A Cochrane review that gave the all-clear to vaccines designed to prevent cervical cancer did not include all the relevant trials and ignored possible sources of bias, a new analysis has found.

https://mobile.twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1027824534811017217


https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3472.full


What's her own position or view on the safety of the vaccine?

Creol1

dense wrote: »

Where has O'Doherty made claims about HPV vaccine?


I don't twitter or facebook, so I haven't seen them.


I did a search and found she reposted something from the BMJ lately about an urgent investigation into a previous safety review of vaccines.








https://mobile.twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1027824534811017217


https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3472.full


What's her own position or view on the safety of the vaccine?

She outlined what her position was a day or so ago in a lengthy post on FB in which she sought to rebut some of the claims made about her.

dense

Creol1 wrote: »

She outlined what her position was a day or so ago in a lengthy post on FB in which she sought to rebut some of the claims made about her.

But where has she personally said she's against the HPV vaccination?


Directed more at the poster who.said she is?


Is she?

For Forks Sake

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

But I suppose they can convene the Council of State, or refer Bills to the Supreme Court. Only if they are repugnant to the Constitution though AFAIK.

Should be just a list system and no canvassing. Ok naive of me for sure, apols.

eh about that, O'Doherty would seem to be a one-woman constitutional crisis in the making: https://twitter.com/oconnellhugh/status/1031853176432087040

Any TD, Senator or county councillor who gives her their backing deserves to have serious questions asked of their judgment.
And then beaten around the head with a copy of the constitution.

Creol1

For Forks Sake wrote: »

eh about that, O'Doherty would seem to be a one-woman constitutional crisis in the making: https://twitter.com/oconnellhugh/status/1031853176432087040

Any TD, Senator or county councillor who gives her their backing deserves to have serious questions asked of their judgment.
And then beaten around the head with a copy of the constitution.

I saw that. I tried to find the interview on the radio's site but couldn't. Does anyone have a link?

Spanish Eyes

I wonder should Prez candidates ( and all others too) be forbidden to post on FB or Twitter during the campaign?

OK I am sure you are going to say to me that this would be unconstitutional or something to do with freedom of expression. But honestly. So much shyte on those two platforms. I wouldn't open an alert myself!

So where do they get publicity then? The old style way. Get out there and have a rally. Ya hup.

I'm joking here FWIW.

blackwhite

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I wonder should Prez candidates ( and all others too) be forbidden to post on FB or Twitter during the campaign?

OK I am sure you are going to say to me that this would be unconstitutional or something to do with freedom of expression. But honestly. So much shyte on those two platforms. I wouldn't open an alert myself!

So where do they get publicity then? The old style way. Get out there and have a rally. Ya hup.

I'm joking here FWIW.

I’d imagine their advisors would certainly be in favour of it.

But for the general public - it’s probably a good thing for a potential candidate to be able to out themselves as having a tendency to believe every crackpot theory that’s offered to them, and for them to show off their utter disregard for the constitution, before they get within a sniff of the office.