Ian Bailey being extradited to France

MayoAreMagic

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

In fairness, just because a guard lets a pubs have late drinks doesnt mean they arent going to treat a brutal murder seriously. The two instances are worlds apart.

You missed the point with your 'a guard'.

tibruit

The only real evidence that the guards coerced Marie Farrell is provided by Marie Farrell. At the end of the day, she initially contacted the gardai and identified Bailey close to the murder scene. But she later withdrew her statements. Put yourself in her shoes. You`ve identified a killer. You`re reading all sorts of mad stuff about him in the papers including that his hands were scratched and bruised. The gardai are dragging their feet.

So you have a guy that you believe bludgeoned a woman to death, who has assaulted his partner at least three times, he knows that you`re the witness and four months after you`ve made your statements he`s still walking around the village, sometimes drunk.

He approaches her in the pub. Next day comes into her shop demanding she retract her statement. When she doesn`t he later approaches her again and says he needs to decide what his next move is going to be. On another occasion he said to her.."there was no blood on me that night, you saw no blood on me". This is not what you`d say if you were never there to begin with. The woman must have been seriously traumatised and it`s no wonder she eventually withdrew what she initially said.

fritzelly

Murder suspect harrassing witnesses, can you provide a link to this, would be very interesting or was it all made up

tdf7187

IAMAMORON wrote: »

We will never know what happened that poor women, but I would not trust the French legal system, at all.

Would agree. Numerous unsolved murders and disappearances there, including of several Irish people (Google "Shane McCartan Corbieres" for an example).

The former DPP took to the airwaves a few years' back more or less in defence of Bailey, which is a highly unusual move. Now the High Court have seemingly ignored that and gone ahead to approve the moves to extradite Bailey.

tdf7187

Possibly a strange co-incidence, at least one hopes.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/ian-bailey-libel-action-witness-dies-969863.html

Padre_Pio

fritzelly wrote: »

Murder suspect harrassing witnesses, can you provide a link to this, would be very interesting or was it all made up

Wasn't there another layer on this, where she was trying to record Bailey threatening her and the tape player "broke"?

tibruit

https://magill.ie/archive/falsely-fingering-sophies-killer

Sardonicat

tibruit wrote: »

The only real evidence that the guards coerced Marie Farrell is provided by Marie Farrell. At the end of the day, she initially contacted the gardai and identified Bailey close to the murder scene. But she later withdrew her statements. Put yourself in her shoes. You`ve identified a killer. You`re reading all sorts of mad stuff about him in the papers including that his hands were scratched and bruised. The gardai are dragging their feet.

So you have a guy that you believe bludgeoned a woman to death, who has assaulted his partner at least three times, he knows that you`re the witness and four months after you`ve made your statements he`s still walking around the village, sometimes drunk.

He approaches her in the pub. Next day comes into her shop demanding she retract her statement. When she doesn`t he later approaches her again and says he needs to decide what his next move is going to be. On another occasion he said to her.."there was no blood on me that night, you saw no blood on me". This is not what you`d say if you were never there to begin with. The woman must have been seriously traumatised and it`s no wonder she eventually withdrew what she initially said.

Marie Farnell has publicly stated all of that is untrue. She is a fantasist who was exploited by the guards to try and put Bailey in the frame.

tibruit

Sardonicat wrote: »

Marie Farnell has publicly stated all of that is untrue. She is a fantasist who was exploited by the guards to try and put Bailey in the frame.

She may well have been. On the other hand she may have been frustrated that he hadn`t been charged, was living in fear of him because he knew she was the witness that put him at the scene and so said she had been coerced and withdrew her statements.

Sardonicat

Sardonicat wrote: »

Marie Farnell has publicly stated all of that is untrue. She is a fantasist who was exploited by the guards to try and put Bailey in the frame.

But she's a fantasist, she has said any amount of things over the years!
Firstly she was hiding her extra marital affair, then she was coerced by Ian Bailey, then she was coerced by Gardai.
It's gonna be hard to believe anything she says.

Padre_Pio

tibruit wrote: »

She may well have been. On the other hand she may have been frustrated that he hadn`t been charged, was living in fear of him because he knew she was the witness that put him at the scene and so said she had been coerced and withdrew her statements.

That's a stretch though. If I remember, it was years before she recanted her statements, which were already unreliable according to the DPP.

Even if she was being truthful, and thats a big if, Bailey had nothing to fear from her.

Sardonicat

tibruit wrote: »

She may well have been. On the other hand she may have been frustrated that he hadn`t been charged, was living in fear of him because he knew she was the witness that put him at the scene and so said she had been coerced and withdrew her statements.

Ms Farrell claims she saw Ian Bailey on the road near the crime scene in wee small hours of the night of the murder. She made this claim, initially, by phone to the guards more than once, refusing to give her full name. The guards eventually tracked her dowm for a statement. She claims she was returning from an illicit tryst that night and did not want her husband to find out. She refused to name the man she was having the affair with or where they met. She refused to do so at the libel trial, running away from the witness box when pressed on the matter. She claims this man is now dead but still refuses to name him. Read between the lines here.

tibruit

bubblypop wrote: »

But she's a fantasist, she has said any amount of things over the years!
Firstly she was hiding her extra marital affair, then she was coerced by Ian Bailey, then she was coerced by Gardai.
It's gonna be hard to believe anything she says.

She was certainly trying to hide a marital affair initially and this is why I think she told the truth at the outset. If the revelation of the affair was the result of making the statement, then surely the statement was true. Otherwise why make a statement at all?

Sardonicat

bubblypop wrote: »

But she's a fantasist, she has said any amount of things over the years!
Firstly she was hiding her extra marital affair, then she was coerced by Ian Bailey, then she was coerced by Gardai.
It's gonna be hard to believe anything she says.

She most definitely is a fantasist. If you listen to her last segment on the West Cork podcast, she inadvertently admits she made the initial phone call to the guards for a bit of excitement and drama.

Sardonicat

tibruit wrote: »

She was certainly trying to hide a marital affair initially and this is why I think she told the truth at the outset. If the revelation of the affair was the result of making the statement, then surely the statement was true. Otherwise why make a statement at all?

There was no marital affair. I don't think anyone still believes this. The woman is unstable and got herself caught up in the guards' agenda and couldn't find a way out.

Sardonicat

tibruit wrote: »

She was certainly trying to hide a marital affair initially and this is why I think she told the truth at the outset. If the revelation of the affair was the result of making the statement, then surely the statement was true. Otherwise why make a statement at all?

She never wanted to make a statement. She made an anonymous allegation over the phone and the guards tracked her down.

tibruit

Sardonicat wrote: »

She never wanted to make a statement. She made an anonymous allegation over the phone and the guards tracked her down.

Sure that`s the point I`m making. She first made two statements. One in her own name where she said Sophie Du Plantier was in her shop and she noticed a guy across the street. The statement about seeing Bailey on the road that night was initially anonymous because her husband thought she was somewhere else.

tibruit

Sardonicat wrote: »

There was no marital affair. I don't think anyone still believes this. The woman is unstable and got herself caught up in the guards' agenda and couldn't find a way out.

I would argue that there probably was an affair, The story about the old boyfriend was made up because she didn`t want to reveal who it really was. Once you`re caught out and then Bailey is still out on the street, you feel threatened, you withdraw everything and suddenly either you`re a fantasist or the guards have an agenda, when in reality you were just telling the truth to begin with.

Sardonicat

tibruit wrote: »

Sure that`s the point I`m making. She first made two statements. One in her own name where she said Sophie Du Plantier was in her shop and she noticed a guy across the street. The statement about seeing Bailey on the road that night was initially anonymous because her husband thought she was somewhere else.

It's obvious to the dogs in the street that there was no other man that she was meeting that night. She was threatened with contempt of court and she, literally, got up out of the witness box and ran out of the building crying when asked to supply his name . She couldn't because she made him up. If this man is dead, why does she need to protect him? It's blatant nonsense.

tibruit

Sardonicat wrote: »

It's obvious to the dogs in the street that there was no other man that she was meeting that night. She was threatened with contempt of court and she, literally, got up out of the witness box and ran out of the building crying when asked to supply his name . She couldn't because she made him up. If this man is dead, why does she need to protect him? It's blatant nonsense.

Because he`s not dead.

Sardonicat

tibruit wrote: »

Because he`s not dead.

Well, obviously. He was never born!

tibruit

Look at a statement she made months later where she said Bailey confronted her and said "you saw no blood on me". Is her statement truth or a lie? If Bailey really said those words to her then he is admitting that he was at the bridge and she saw him. If he really wasn`t at the bridge he had no need to say "there was no blood on me". The blood is inconsequential to whether he was at the bridge or not.

If her statement is invented, why would she or a coercing garda attribute those words to Bailey? Again the main point is whether he was there and not the blood. I think the statement is true and in a moment of weakness, Bailey did say that and it might be also true. She doesn`t have the wherewithall to make that up.

tibruit

Sardonicat wrote: »

She most definitely is a fantasist. If you listen to her last segment on the West Cork podcast, she inadvertently admits she made the initial phone call to the guards for a bit of excitement and drama.

This proves nothing. Once she has withdrawn her initial statements. she has to go with the fantasist line, in particular with the anonymous phonecall. There can be only two reasons for the anonymous call....its either the truth or she`s doing it for the craic.

Raconteuse

leath_dub wrote: »

He's a very dodgy character, an acknowledged abuser of women.

Aye, now I don't know whether he killed her, but the people here saying we can't say for definite that he killed her, we shouldn't let a podcast make up our minds... the very same can be said about those stating as fact that he *didn't* kill her, yet the same people aren't taking issue with that. We simply don't know. But we can have our opinions.

I don't agree with this approach by the French judiciary though.

MrAbyss wrote: »

She was probably murdered by some slack-jawed yokel bogballer who had an inter-parish match that Sunday and the 'real GAA men' called in a favour so he could play.

She probably wasn't.

debok

How did the guards lose the gate on the lane where she was killed? Gate had blood and other evidence possibly in it. Like gates are big not easy to lose. I think whether bailey did it or not the guards tryed to stitch him up .They might have believed he was guilty but ****ed up the investigation because of bias towards their belief if his guilt. Personally I think it had something to do with France.

generalgerry

Marie Farrell should be completely ignored at this stage. Through her lies, whether coerced or not, she has done so much damage to the chance of any possible determination of the truth that she should no longer be even interviewed about the case. She should be absolutely ashamed of herself.

generalgerry

Sardonicat wrote: »

There was no marital affair. I don't think anyone still believes this. The woman is unstable and got herself caught up in the guards' agenda and couldn't find a way out.

I heard her speak about this on the West Cork podcast, and I was left with the impression that this too was a fabrication and that the "factory worker" that she had the affair with probably did not exist.

corner of hells

generalgerry wrote: »

Marie Farrell should be completely ignored at this stage. Through her lies, whether coerced or not, she has done so much damage to the chance of any possible determination of the truth that she should no longer be even interviewed about the case. She should be absolutely ashamed of herself.

We should probably extradite her to France too.

Dia_Anseo

When I heard that the Irish High courts are enforcing this Extradition warrant spear headed by the French authorities, it brought all the memories back of Thierry Henry handball in the 2010 world cup, another example how the French think (and succeed) in getting poor Paddy so what they please!

Rows Grower

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/ralph-riegel-ian-bailey-warrant-could-set-paris-and-dublin-on-a-diplomatic-collision-course-38791425.html