Ian Bailey being extradited to France

Ipso

Sardonicat wrote: »

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.

Has Frank Spencer accounted for his whereabouts that night?

Raconteuse

whisky_galore wrote: »

Do tell.

Crikey.

Beating his partner!

TallyRand

Padre_Pio wrote: »

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.

If I was running the country a lot of decent people would not be afflicted as they are now and crime rates would plummet 😉

Btw, what sentence would you wish an evil serial women beater should get?

TallyRand

Raconteuse wrote: »

Crikey.

Beating his partner!

And the scratch marks, disappearing in the middle of the night........the keystone cops didn’t just have a “just blame the Brit fella” moment, they knew as anyone who delves into the Circumstantial evidence as well as having a good read of a profiling author like John Douglas, Bailey made every type of move I’ve read from those books.

fritzelly

TallyRand wrote: »

And the scratch marks, disappearing in the middle of the night........the keystone cops didn’t just have a “just blame the Brit fella” moment, they knew as anyone who delves into the Circumstantial evidence as well as having a good read of a profiling author like John Douglas, Bailey made every type of move I’ve read from those books.

Watching too much Criminal Minds - types with mindsets like you would have many an innocent person locked up when innocent on the off chance they might be guilty

TallyRand

fritzelly wrote: »

Watching too much Criminal Minds - types with mindsets like you would have many an innocent person locked up when innocent on the off chance they might be guilty

Never watched criminal minds in my life but ho hum. Can anyone point out one good reason / alibi that proves I have this “mindset” you mention? This fella is no Richard Kimble

fritzelly

TallyRand wrote: »

Never watched criminal minds in my life but ho hum. Can anyone point out one good reason / alibi that proves I have this “mindset” you mention? This fella is no Richard Kimble

The very "proof" you use as evidence of his guilt even tho it has been disproven - but it's easier to gloss over those rebuttal posts and counter where have I this mindset forgetting what you have already said

Mellor

threeball wrote: »

Innocent man according to our system.

He was never found to be guilty, but that's not the same as being found to be innocent.

bcklschaps wrote: »

The discussion here is that a man aquitted of an alleged crime committed here in Ireland can be re-tried in absentia

He wasn't aquitted.

GM228 wrote: »

The DPP concluded no conviction was warranted as no evidence supported such.

The DPP don't decide whether a conviction is warranted. That for the courts.
The DPP decided they didn't have the evidence to chase a conviction.


I've no opinion on whether he is guilty or innocent. But there's a lot of people conflating not being charged with being aquitted or found innocent. Not remotely the same.

fritzelly

Mellor wrote: »

I've no opinion on whether he is guilty or innocent. But there's a lot of people conflating not being charged with being aquitted or found innocent. Not remotely the same.

Damned if you're guilty, damned if you're innocent
Unless you are tried in a court of law and found guilty then you are innocent - regardless of what some people think

The concept of presumption of innocence is fundamental to the Irish legal system and is internationally recognised as an essential safeguard.

Dia_Anseo_Aris

There's only one winner in this case and that's Frank Buttimer, solicitor to Ian Bailey. Mr Buttimer is one of the highest paid free legal aid solicitors in Ireland.

Can anyone hazard a guess what this case has cost us the taxpayer over the 23 years?

bcklschaps

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

That post is the very epitome of stupidity. Thank God you are washing toilets and not in any position of influence.

Anastasia_

Mellor wrote: »

He was never found to be guilty, but that's not the same as being found to be innocent.


He wasn't aquitted.



The DPP don't decide whether a conviction is warranted. That for the courts.
The DPP decided they didn't have the evidence to chase a conviction.


I've no opinion on whether he is guilty or innocent. But there's a lot of people conflating not being charged with being aquitted or found innocent. Not remotely the same.

No one is ever 'found innocent'. If you haven't been even been charged with something then you are, legally, innocent.

FishOnABike

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

Perhaps you might volunteer yourself for a life term in prison if you have no objection in principle to the odd innocent person being locked up.

Rows Grower

bcklschaps wrote: »

That post is the very epitome of stupidity. Thank God you are washing toilets and not in any position of influence.

Never underestimate the importance of a properly cleaned toilet.

elefant

whisky_galore wrote: »

Do tell.

He arrived at the scene of the crime exceptionally quickly, witnesses have stated they were present when he was introduced to the victim previously but he denies having known her at all, he had injuries to his arms and face the day after the murder that he didn't have previously, he 'jokingly' admitted to locals about murdering the victim, both him and his wife claimed he was accounted for all night when the murder happened but later admitted to being unaccounted for as he went off for a wander, he has previously committed violence against women on more than one occasion.

In addition to all of these coincidences, he continued to write news stories about the investigation while being the prime suspect himself, without disclosing to the newspaper that he was writing about himself. He placed himself into the middle of things too.

There are lots of little pieces that point to him. None of these mean that he is guilty of course, but it's a lot more than him being targeted just because people think he's odd.

GM228

If anyone is interested in reading the official 2001 DPP report they can download it here.

elefant

elefant wrote: »

He arrived at the scene of the crime exceptionally quickly, witnesses have stated they were present when he was introduced to the victim previously but he denies having known her at all, he had injuries to his arms and face the day after the murder that he didn't have previously, he 'jokingly' admitted to locals about murdering the victim, both him and his wife claimed he was accounted for all night when the murder happened but later admitted to being unaccounted for as he went off for a wander, he has previously committed violence against women on more than one occasion.

In addition to all of these coincidences, he continued to write news stories about the investigation while being the prime suspect himself, without disclosing to the newspaper that he was writing about himself. He placed himself into the middle of things too.

There are lots of little pieces that point to him. None of these mean that he is guilty of course, but it's a lot more than him being targeted just because people think he's odd.

Theres a big difference between being introduced to someone and knowing someone.

"He was very quickly on the scene" compared to what? The hour it took the guards to get there.

All circumstancial evidence.

Padre_Pio

elefant wrote: »

He arrived at the scene of the crime exceptionally quickly, witnesses have stated they were present when he was introduced to the victim previously but he denies having known her at all, he had injuries to his arms and face the day after the murder that he didn't have previously, he 'jokingly' admitted to locals about murdering the victim, both him and his wife claimed he was accounted for all night when the murder happened but later admitted to being unaccounted for as he went off for a wander, he has previously committed violence against women on more than one occasion.

In addition to all of these coincidences, he continued to write news stories about the investigation while being the prime suspect himself, without disclosing to the newspaper that he was writing about himself. He placed himself into the middle of things too.

There are lots of little pieces that point to him. None of these mean that he is guilty of course, but it's a lot more than him being targeted just because people think he's odd.

One witness says he introduced them in passing months before, but he's not sure.

He had injuries, but they were not consistent with an assault. They were never photographed either.

The admissions were dismissed as he was drunk at the time and there's no context to them. Reminds me of this scene: https://youtu.be/5PZonyefBW4

He can account for his actions, he just doesn't have a second witness for them, but him saying "I was down in the shed writing all night" doesn't mean he murdered someone.

He had a history of fighting and beating his partner three times I think, again that doesn't mean murderer.

I think he's an arrogant prick who put himself in this situation for a bit of attention, limelight and to restart his journalism career, but I don't think any evidence points to him murdering a woman he barely knew. Sophie has her own weird story too which explains why she was in Cork, alone on Christmas.

FrancieBrady

Always fascinating to see the amount of people who will convict on foot of an allegation alone, a suspicion, or because they don't like the look/sound of/ nationality/ethnicity of someone.

elefant

Padre_Pio wrote: »

One witness says he introduced them in passing months before, but he's not sure.

He had injuries, but they were not consistent with an assault. They were never photographed either.

The admissions were dismissed as he was drunk at the time and there's no context to them. Reminds me of this scene: https://youtu.be/5PZonyefBW4

He can account for his actions, he just doesn't have a second witness for them, but him saying "I was down in the shed writing all night" doesn't mean he murdered someone.

He had a history of fighting and beating his partner three times I think, again that doesn't mean murderer.

I think he's an arrogant prick who put himself in this situation for a bit of attention, limelight and to restart his journalism career, but I don't think any evidence points to him murdering a woman he barely knew. Sophie has her own weird story too which explains why she was in Cork, alone on Christmas.

Absolutely, I totally agree. I don't think anything in the case demonstrates he's definitely a murderer or that there's evidence to even bring him to trial. And certainly not that he should be extradited to face whatever 'justice' the French courts think they would be delivering.

I also don't think it's fair to say he has only been targeted because he's odd, and not a local GAA playing sort.

seamus

We're now into the realms of obscure legal argument on this. Whether anyone believes he did or didn't do it is kind of irrelevant.

I'd still be surprised if the court extradites him, but if it does then I trust the judgement of the people who know the law considerably better than I do.

Dakota Dan

Vinnie222 wrote: »

He was on today fm yesterday evening stating that

I listened back to the red fm podcast and what he said was that every Irish citizen is responsible for persecuting Ian. Bailey, Prendeville asked him a second time is that what he meant and he confirmed it, you can listen to it for yourself.
https://mm.aiircdn.com/157/5df8f1e0b59c0.mp3

GM228

seamus wrote: »

I'd still be surprised if the court extradites him

Previously the courts have prevented his extradition on a point of law, however the enactment of the Extradition (European Convention On Extradition) Order 2019 in August to give further effect to the EAW provisions is a game changer as under Article 1 the state now has a legal obligation to extradite.

Article 1 — Obligation to extradite

The Contracting Parties undertake to surrender to each other, subject to the provisions and conditions laid down in this Convention, all persons against whom the competent authorities of the requesting Party are proceeding for an offence or who are wanted by the said authorities for the carrying out of a sentence or detention order.

seamus

GM228 wrote: »

Previously the courts have prevented his extradition on a point of law, however the enactment of the Extradition (European Convention On Extradition) Order 2019 in August to give further effect to the EAW provisions is a game changer as under Article 1 the state now has a legal obligation to extradite.

Article 7 — Place of commission

1. The requested Party may refuse to extradite a person claimed for an offence which is regarded by its law as having been committed in whole or in part in its territory or in a place treated as its territory.

"May" doing some heavy lifting there. I'm also not seeing any specific basis on which the decision is made.

And...

Article 9 — Non bis in idem

Extradition shall not be granted if final judgment has been passed by the competent authorities of the requested Party upon the person claimed in respect of the offence or offences for which extradition is requested. Extradition may be refused if the competent authorities of the requested Party have decided either not to institute or to terminate proceedings in respect of the same offence or offences.

It's interesting that had Bailey been tried in Ireland and found not guilty, he would be legally protected from extradition.

But because the Gardai have chosen not to prosecute, it's up the court.

But that two grounds on which the court can refuse.

IAMAMORON

The more I read the DPP report the more it winds me up.

The DPP was clearly not happy with the evidence against him.

How come the French Courts found him guilty so quickly? Did they have access to different evidence?

Is it possible that they used Garda files which were not submitted to the DPP? How would they be allowed access to state papers and be allowed use them in a foreign jurisdiction?

It stinks of something very rotten.

Ush1

seamus wrote: »

We're now into the realms of obscure legal argument on this. Whether anyone believes he did or didn't do it is kind of irrelevant.

I'd still be surprised if the court extradites him, but if it does then I trust the judgement of the people who know the law considerably better than I do.

Such as the French courts do?

Legal system has always been influenced by publicity and money.

Sardonicat

seamus wrote: »

"May" doing some heavy lifting there. I'm also not seeing any specific basis on which the decision is made.

And...


It's interesting that had Bailey been tried in Ireland and found not guilty, he would be legally protected from extradition.

But because the Gardai have chosen not to prosecute, it's up the court.

But that two grounds on which the court can refuse.

It is not the Gardai who decide if a prosecution goes ahead or not. It's the DPP.

GM228

seamus wrote: »

"May" doing some heavy lifting there. I'm also not seeing any specific basis on which the decision is made.

And...


It's interesting that had Bailey been tried in Ireland and found not guilty, he would be legally protected from extradition.

But because the Gardai have chosen not to prosecute, it's up the court.

But that two grounds on which the court can refuse.

Article 7 is at the discretion of the Minister for Justice, not the Courts and the state support this, Article 9 is limited to a "final order" in domestic legislation meaning there must be a court case here before it applies.

El Weirdo

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

Not exactly William Blackstone, are you?

FishOnABike

GM228 wrote: »

Article 7 is at the discretion of the Minister for Justice, not the Courts and the state support this, Article 9 is limited to a "final order" in domestic legislation meaning there must be a court case here before it applies.

Surely " Extradition may be refused if the competent authorities of the requested Party have decided either not to institute or to terminate proceedings in respect of the same offence or offences." would apply to circumstances where the DPP had decided there was insufficient evidence to institute proceedings.