Ian Bailey being extradited to France

Sardonicat

BarryD2 wrote: »

Yes so? The French are a civilised race, they have a justice system, we are both members of the EU. We should trust them to assess the evidence too and if he's innocent then he's little to fear. Would clear his name, though it might end his notoriety.

They've already found him guilty in abstentia on evidence the DPP here threw out

GM228

BarryD2 wrote: »

Yes so? The French are a civilised race, they have a justice system, we are both members of the EU. We should trust them to assess the evidence too and if he's innocent then he's little to fear. Would clear his name, though it might end his notoriety.

They convicted him with uncorroborated and circumstantial evidence with no witnesses (bar one) meaning no cross examination despite there being corroborated evidence showing he didn't do it, the French trial admitted there was no scientific evidence and simply relied on witness statements which have been debunked long ago, the one witness they did call was a psychiatrist who gave his opinion of Bailey despite him never having met or spoke to Bailey....yea I trust them.

Oh and they also ordered he pay €115,000 to Fonds de Garantie over funds it provided to her family for her murder.

Mango Joe

Fann Linn wrote: »

Why? Was he found guilty of anything here?

If you are at all familiar with the abysmally poor police work involved and have heard the telephone recordings of the type of absolute amadán that carried out the investigation then you would know that this means absolutely nothing.

If those Morons were on the Graham Dwyer case he'd probably be the President of Ireland right now.

Anastasia_

GM228 wrote: »

Correct, he stayed at a friend's house and has an alibi from four people to confirm that, the one person who says she saw a man matching his description near the scene later confirmed part of her evidence was a lie.

He was at home the night of the murder. The night he has an alibi for is the night before the night of the murder, after which a witness (I think Marie Farrell again) claimed she saw him as she was on her way to Cork early in the morning.

If I'm right in saying that the above was Marie Farrell, then she claims to have seen him 3 times over that weekend, which reeks of someone just wanting to stick their nose in.

Brock Turnpike

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.

Absolutely. And her radio show on Today FM is an absolute disgrace.

BarryD2

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Great to see such an attitude alive and well in the 3rd millennium. :rolleyes:

Well I wouldn't be getting my knickers in a twist over Ian Bailey. And I dare say that if you took a wee sample of most ordinary Irish people, they couldn't give a fig about him either. Can't understand why some make him into a great cause celebre.

Sardonicat

Anastasia_ wrote: »

He was at home the night of the murder. The night he has an alibi for is the night before the night of the murder, after which a witness (I think Marie Farrell again) claimed she saw him as she was on her way to Cork early in the morning.

If I'm right in saying that the above was Marie Farrell, then she claims to have seen him 3 times over that weekend, which reeks of someone just wanting to stick their nose in.

In her original anonymous call she claimed she saw a man in a beret. She didn't identify him as Ian Bailey until the guards suggested it. A man wearing a beret walking the roads on the night a French woman was murdered. Imagine that! I'm surprised she didn't say he was wearing a string of onions round his neck, as well. It would be laughable if the consequences weren't so dire.

Padre_Pio

BarryD2 wrote: »

Yes so? The French are a civilised race, they have a justice system, we are both members of the EU. We should trust them to assess the evidence too and if he's innocent then he's little to fear. Would clear his name, though it might end his notoriety.

Their justice system is different from ours (as explained in the link above) and completely incompatible as far as admissable evidence is concerned.

Evidence the DPP viewed as useless and circumstantial was taken as gospel by the French, because that's what their system demand.

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

Correct, he stayed at a friend's house and has an alibi from four people to confirm that, the one person who says she saw a man matching his description near the scene later confirmed part of her evidence was a lie.

But, he did leave that house that night also, I think he said that himself on the podcast. Also, u think everyone there was quite drunk.
Not saying he murdered her though!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

dekbhoy wrote: »

Bailey comes across as a bit of a weirdo and without looking into the case i assumed he was guilty based on the way he conducts himself etc.

Wow, how incredibly dangerous.

BarryD2

BarryD2 wrote: »

Well I wouldn't be getting my knickers in a twist over Ian Bailey. And I dare say that if you took a wee sample of most ordinary Irish people, they couldn't give a fig about him either. Can't understand why some make him into a great cause celebre.

Most ordinary Irish people would be very worried about the chances of being extradited to a different country, who convicted you in your absence of a crime, committed here.
Especially if there was not enough evidence to charge you in this country

BarryD2

BarryD2 wrote: »

Can't understand why some make him into a great cause celebre.

Maybe if you knew anything about the case your attitude might be different.

IAMAMORON

BarryD2 wrote: »

Well I wouldn't be getting my knickers in a twist over Ian Bailey. And I dare say that if you took a wee sample of most ordinary Irish people, they couldn't give a fig about him either. Can't understand why some make him into a great cause celebre.

Why do you care?

White lighting

A copper done it Bailey is innocent

ZeroThreat

I watched Papillon and am therefore against this.

whisky_galore

BarryD2 wrote: »

Well I wouldn't be getting my knickers in a twist over Ian Bailey. And I dare say that if you took a wee sample of most ordinary Irish people, they couldn't give a fig about him either. Can't understand why some make him into a great cause celebre.

What he is certainly guilty of is being a misfit in the locality and a rather unlikable sort.

I'll bet if he was from a "well respected family", a bitta craic down the pub and maybe pucked a ball around a field in his time, attitudes would be different.

BattleCorp

BarryD2 wrote: »

Yes so? The French are a civilised race, they have a justice system, we are both members of the EU. We should trust them to assess the evidence too and if he's innocent then he's little to fear. Would clear his name, though it might end his notoriety.

You do realise that he has already been tried in France, found guilty and sentenced to 25 years in jail so whether or not he is innocent, he has everything to fear.

The French convicted him using sh1te evidence that even the Gardai said was sh1te. So sh1te that they couldn't even find enough evidence to bring him to trial let alone achieve a conviction.

I don't know if Bailey did the murder, but I do know that the French trial was an absolute sham so while I don't give two figs about Bailey, I wouldn't be sending him to France to face French .........ahem.......justice.

Raconteuse

whisky_galore wrote: »

What he is certainly guilty of is being a misfit in the locality and a rather unlikable sort.

I'll bet if he was from a "well respected family", a bitta craic down the pub and maybe pucked a ball around a field in his time, attitudes would be different.

Yeah the poor woman beater.

Arghus

I'll check back in a few days to see if anyone - like finbar10 yesterday - who actually has a clue about the law, the extradition process or the case itself has posted anything with some actual knowledge in it.

TallyRand

Bizarre so many rush to his defense, he did it.
Admitted doing it even! Serial woman beater, grandiose narcissism complex, scratch marks (be excuse) and got up in the middle of night for an unknown amount of time!

Hope he gets done, enough if not good enough for DPP, it’s actually quite clear he did it if you look at the aggregate circumstantial evidence, Pity the cops were complete goons as they also knew he did it but totally wrecked it by planting witnesses to boost their jokeshop investigation

Horrible and strange person, to rub it in he lauds the attention from what I gather. Poor woman battered by the woman battering animal

TallyRand

Just to add to above, hypothetically if your sister / gf was murdered and you knew stone cold Mr X killed that person but sufficient evidence wasn’t available to prosecute would you be worried about the legal system restraints if somehow there was another way / state that could get him done? I wouldn’t

Dia_Anseo

What if Ian Bailey is reading this?

GM228

TallyRand wrote: »

he did it.
Admitted doing it even!

No he didn't, yes he made a few "sarcastic responses" as the DPP put it, but, they acknowledged there was never any admission.

Raconteuse

Don't know that he did it but "oh he's only a suspect because he's odd" - eh no.

Padre_Pio

TallyRand wrote: »

Just to add to above, hypothetically if your sister / gf was murdered and you knew stone cold Mr X killed that person but sufficient evidence wasn’t available to prosecute would you be worried about the legal system restraints if somehow there was another way / state that could get him done? I wouldn’t

That's the law we live in.

There must be evidence behind all reasonable doubt to convict.
The DPP didn't think there was enough evidence to even bring it to trial, so where does that leave us?

Is the system broken because people want Bailey to be guilty?
Or is it working because it's better to have a dangerous man on the loose than an innocent man in jail?

whisky_galore

Raconteuse wrote: »

Yeah the poor woman beater.

Not saying he isn't, but does he need to be stitched up for murder on account of that?

TallyRand

Padre_Pio wrote: »

That's the law we live in.

There must be evidence behind all reasonable doubt to convict.
The DPP didn't think there was enough evidence to even bring it to trial, so where does that leave us?

Is the system broken because people want Bailey to be guilty?
Or is it working because it's better to have a dangerous man on the loose than an innocent man in jail?

I’d take the odd “innocent” read women beating weirdo locked up versus dangerous men on the loose personally. Not like any sentence in Ireland reflects the crime or are you perfectly happy with the legal system and sentencing in this country?

Must be plenty of people happy OJ Simpson got off because there wasn’t enough evidence in the jury’s eyes

Padre_Pio

TallyRand wrote: »

I’d take the odd “innocent” read women beating weirdo locked up versus dangerous men on the loose personally. Not like any sentence in Ireland reflects the crime or are you perfectly happy with the legal system and sentencing in this country?

Must be plenty of people happy OJ Simpson got off because there wasn’t enough evidence in the jury’s eyes

Well it's a good thing you're not running the country, or people guilty of one crime would be stitched up for another.

I'm far from happy with the legal system and sentencing, but the fact the DPP couldn't even bring the case to court says enough about the quality of evidence, unless Bailey is some criminal Mastermind who covered his tracks.

Raconteuse

whisky_galore wrote: »

Not saying he isn't, but does he need to be stitched up for murder on account of that?

I didn't even remotely imply that. I don't know whether he did it, and he has a right to due process, which I don't think this development by French authorities is.

However, you said people only suspect him because he's odd, whereas there's a lot more to him than just being odd.

whisky_galore

Raconteuse wrote: »

I didn't even remotely imply that. I don't know whether he did it, and he has a right to due process, which I don't think this development by French authorities is.

However, you said people only suspect him because he's odd, whereas there's a lot more to him than just being odd.

Do tell.