Ian Bailey being extradited to France

GM228

FishOnABike wrote: »

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.

Article 9 is the guiding principle of an International Agreement, only what is actually written into domestic law however counts and has the force of law, the non bis in idem provision is covered under S17 of the Extraction Act 1965 as amended:-

Extradition shall not be granted if final judgment has been passed in the State or, in accordance with the law of a third country, in that third country, upon the person claimed in respect of the offence for which extradition is requested.

It only applies when there is a final judgement here on the matter.

The provision relating to proceedings like in Article 9 was originally in the 1965 Act, but removed from law when the Act was amended by the European Arrest Warrant (Application to Third Countries and Amendment) and Extradition (Amendment) Act 2012.

BarryD2

Padre_Pio wrote: »

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.

Think of what you're saying... the French are a civilised western European country with a history of respect for individual rights. We are both members of the EU. The fact that their justice system differs from ours does not imply that ours is somehow better.

We're not talking about some state run by a crackpot dictator who makes up the law as they go along. We need to have faith in the French judicial system, just as we'd hope they'd have faith in ours.

FrancieBrady

BarryD2 wrote: »

Think of what you're saying... the French are a civilised western European country with a history of respect for individual rights. We are both members of the EU. The fact that their justice system differs from ours does not imply that ours is somehow better.

We're not talking about some state run by a crackpot dictator who makes up the law as they go along. We need to have faith in the French judicial system, just as we'd hope they'd have faith in ours.

They found him guilty on evidence our DPP believed wasn't fit to be even scrutinised in a trial.

Think about that for a minute.

SteM

BarryD2 wrote: »

We need to have faith in the French judicial system, just as we'd hope they'd have faith in ours.

But they don't have faith in ours. Ours has decreed that there is not sufficient evidence to try him. Theirs has found him guilty and sentenced him without him even being in the country.

Padre_Pio

BarryD2 wrote: »

Think of what you're saying... the French are a civilised western European country with a history of respect for individual rights. We are both members of the EU. The fact that their justice system differs from ours does not imply that ours is somehow better.

We're not talking about some state run by a crackpot dictator who makes up the law as they go along. We need to have faith in the French judicial system, just as we'd hope they'd have faith in ours.

As was already explained, the viability of evidence, from when it's gathered to when it's presented to the court is different in France to Ireland.

In Ireland, evidence is gathered by Gardai and they give it, good and bad, to the DPP to scrutinise and say whether it's ok.
In France evidence is gathered and scrutinised by the police and an examining magistrate, and when it gets to their equivalent of the DPP it's assumed that whatever is there is bulletproof.

That's the difference. Our dodgy evidence was given to the French who took it as gospel and convicted him in a day. The systems are incompatible.

Mellor

fritzelly wrote: »

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

Presumption of innocence is not the same as being tried and found legally not guilty.
That’s what a lot of people are missing.

Anastasia_ wrote: »

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

I used the phrase found innocent as that’s what the previous poster used. The correct phase would be not guilty. I didn’t think that needed clarifying. But maybe it did.
There’s a staggering difference between not being tried and found not guilty.
Also, the accused is presumed innocent until found guilty. That does not remotely mean they are innocent. Similarly the DPP electing to not press charges is not an endorsement of innocence.

Again I’m not making a statement on whether Ian Bailey is guilty. Just on people making definitive claims based on the DPP’s inaction. Many murderers are never charged due to a lack of evidence. Doesn’t make them innocent.

TheChizler

Mellor wrote: »

Again I’m not making a statement on whether Ian Bailey is guilty. Just on people making definitive claims based on the DPP’s inaction. Many murderers are never charged due to a lack of evidence. Doesn’t make them innocent.

I think they were just saying he is innocent in the eyes of the law, no need to take more meaning from the words than was intended.

Mellor

TheChizler wrote: »

I think they were just saying he is innocent in the eyes of the law, no need to take more meaning from the words than was intended.

No doubt some are saying that, which is fine. It's correct. But look at the posts I actually quoted. For example;

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

Aquitted. Re-tried. I can only assume that they intended what they said.

I'm not twisting the meaning of those words. It is clear and straight forward. It simply did not happen.

FrancieBrady

Mellor wrote: »

Presumption of innocence is not the same as being tried and found legally not guilty.
That’s what a lot of people are missing.


I used the phrase found innocent as that’s what the previous poster used. The correct phase would be not guilty. I didn’t think that needed clarifying. But maybe it did.
There’s a staggering difference between not being tried and found not guilty.
Also, the accused is presumed innocent until found guilty. That does not remotely mean they are innocent. Similarly the DPP electing to not press charges is not an endorsement of innocence.

Again I’m not making a statement on whether Ian Bailey is guilty. Just on people making definitive claims based on the DPP’s inaction. Many murderers are never charged due to a lack of evidence. Doesn’t make them innocent.

You are therefore 'not innocent' of her murder.

That's the logic of what you are saying.

Mellor

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are therefore 'not innocent' of her murder.

That's the logic of what you are saying.

On what planet am 'not innocent' of her murder.
What I state is a fact, the above is just derogatory nonsense.


Being acquitted and not being ever charged are not the same. You clearly don't understand the difference if the above is your conclusion.

Rows Grower

Mellor wrote: »

Presumption of innocence is not the same as being tried and found legally not guilty.
That’s what a lot of people are missing.


I used the phrase found innocent as that’s what the previous poster used. The correct phase would be not guilty. I didn’t think that needed clarifying. But maybe it did.
There’s a staggering difference between not being tried and found not guilty.
Also, the accused is presumed innocent until found guilty. That does not remotely mean they are innocent. Similarly the DPP electing to not press charges is not an endorsement of innocence.

Again I’m not making a statement on whether Ian Bailey is guilty. Just on people making definitive claims based on the DPP’s inaction. Many murderers are never charged due to a lack of evidence. Doesn’t make them innocent.

This is the very point you don't seem to understand.

finbar10

Last year Gene Kerrigan had a very good article in the Indo listing out many of the numerous deficiencies in the Garda investigation: suspect files going missing, an entire blood-spattered gate being "mislaid" somewhere, sections of pages seemingly carefully cut out of Garda jobs books etc.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/lost-five-files-139-statements-and-one-gate-37185350.html

FrancieBrady

Mellor wrote: »

On what planet am 'not innocent' of her murder.
What I state is a fact, the above is just derogatory nonsense.


Being acquitted and not being ever charged are not the same. You clearly don't understand the difference if the above is your conclusion.

What I state is also a fact using your logic.You are 'not innocent' of her murder as I am not or as everyone in the country is 'not innocent'.

If I 'suspect' you, that is enough to claim for the rest of my life and yours that even if I can't find evidence to back my allegation - you are not necessarily innocent.

Mellor

Rows Grower wrote: »

This is the very point you don't seem to understand.

If you think there’s no difference, then I’m not sure how to help you.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What I state is also a fact using your logic.You are 'not innocent' of her murder as I am not or as everyone in the country is 'not innocent'.

Something is either a fact or it’s not. There’s no such thing as “fact using your logic”.

What you claim is not a fact in any form.
There’s no such thing as being “not innocent” legally. I’m not sure where you are getting these terms from.

Being “acquitted” has a very clear legal definition. He was not acquitted, dispute the claim previous. The fact you are arguing with that is baffling.

Skid X

finbar10 wrote: »

Last year Gene Kerrigan had a very good article in the Indo listing out many of the numerous deficiencies in the Garda investigation: suspect files going missing, an entire blood-spattered gate being "mislaid" somewhere, sections of pages seemingly carefully cut out of Garda jobs books etc.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/lost-five-files-139-statements-and-one-gate-37185350.html

That is jaw-dropping

A complete stitch up, and not even a well executed one.

BattleCorp

I had always (incorrectly) assumed that the justice systems across the EU would be broadly similar with a similar standard of proof required but after seeing Bailey convicted in his absence in a sham trial with sham evidence makes me glad that I've never been accused of a crime in France.

bullpost

BattleCorp wrote: »

I had always (incorrectly) assumed that the justice systems across the EU would be broadly similar with a similar standard of proof required but after seeing Bailey convicted in his absence in a sham trial with sham evidence makes me glad that I've never been accused of a crime in France.

France not the worst by a long shot. Spain and others worse.

Muahahaha

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.

Padre_Pio wrote: »

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.

Interesting that Marie Farrel said she saw a man in a beret, something typically worn by French people and not something you could buy in a clothes shop in Ireland in 1995. I remember reading before that Sophie had a huge bust up with her husband and they were estranged. She came to west Cork alone at Chrismas to get away from it all. However despite most murder victims knowing their murderer her husband was never interviewed by Gardai. The du Plantier family are very wealthy so the husband would have had a lot to gain financially.

GM228

Muahahaha wrote: »

The du Plantier family are very wealthy so the husband would have had a lot to gain financially.

The du Plantier family was her husband's (Daniel Toscan du Plantier) family, not her family (Bouniol was her family name), and he was a very wealthy movie producer. It is alleged he had a high insurance policy on her but I'm not sure if that is true, Bailey himself suggested Daniel Toscan had motive for her murder a few years ago.

Muahahaha

GM228 wrote: »

The du Plantier family was her husband's (Daniel Toscan du Plantier) family, not her family (Bouniol was her family name), and he was a very wealthy movie producer. It is alleged he had a high insurance policy on her but I'm not sure if that is true, Bailey himself suggested Daniel Toscan had motive for her murder a few years ago.

Its strange that the husband was never considered as a suspect, I mean over 90% of murder victims are related to their murderer in some way. Whatever about motive you would have thought the Gardai would at least of confirmed if he was in the country at the time or not and ruled him out. Instead they fixated on Bailey at an early stage and never seemed to consider any other possibilities. I think everyone knows at this stage that the investigation was an absolute clusterfcuk from the get go so it makes me wonder if they completely overlooked the most obvious person.

GM228

Muahahaha wrote: »

Its strange that the husband was never considered as a suspect, I mean over 90% of murder victims are related to their murderer in some way. Whatever about motive you would have thought the Gardai would at least of confirmed if he was in the country at the time or not and ruled him out. Instead they fixated on Bailey at an early stage and never seemed to consider any other possibilities. I think everyone knows at this stage that the investigation was an absolute clusterfcuk from the get go so it makes me wonder if they completely overlooked the most obvious person.

I seem to recall it was confirmed he was in France at the time and (I could be wrong on this part) having an affair with the woman he is now married to. He gave a Police statement in France and was contacted (in France) by the Irish authorities just hours after her body was discovered.

That is no to say he didn't have an involvement in her death, but, to suggest such would be just another baseless conspiracy.

Dia_Anseo_Aris

Ian Bailey has his own YouTube channel.

Search in YouTube Ian Bailey Poetry

The comments below his video are frankly libellous given they know Ian Bailey will be reading them

GM228

BattleCorp wrote: »

after seeing Bailey convicted in his absence in a sham trial with sham evidence

If he is extradited he will have a chance to rebut the evidence upon a re-trial in France.

Padre_Pio

GM228 wrote: »

If he is extradited he will have a chance to rebut the evidence upon a re-trial in France.

It should never come to that.

JP Liz V1

How was he found not guilty in the country of the crime but guilty in the victim's home country?

GM228

Padre_Pio wrote: »

It should never come to that.

Agreed.

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

How was he found not guilty in the country of the crime but guilty in the victim's home country?

He was never found not guilty here as he was never tried here.

TheChizler

Funny little comment on the bottom of Daniel Toscan's Wikipedia page:

His third wife was Sophie Toscan du Plantier, victim of a solved murder settled in May 2019 where Ian Bailey was convicted.[1]

ScrubsfanChris

BDI wrote: »

I knew he was guilty because they played the evil music.

SugarBlues78

I think the theory that a notorious bent cop was behind it, and that 5 of his garda friends are covering it up is complete and utter nonsense. There's not a sane human on this earth that would be able to keep a secret like that about their friend, after a few pints some evening, let alone a whole 5 of the police force.

SugarBlues78

Bailey may be innocent for sure, but there are some fishy details in the story that make you think twice about everything. Sophie receives a phone call in France from a journalist in Ireland, wanting to meet up with her when she returns. Very credible eye witnesses say Bailey absolutely had met and spoke to Sophie, despite Bailey denying this. Some locals who knew Bailey, are of the belief that Sophie is the type he would have obsessed about, desperate for her to appreciate him as an artist. The forensic experts have established that Sophie was friends with whomever she let into her house late that night, that whoever went to her house had no intention of killing her. That it was all very cosy and perhaps flirty with food being shared and 2 kitchen chairs close together and facing each other. The visitor would have been wearing gloves and a hat to stay warm from the chilly night, meaning less chance of evidence being left. Something was said, and in the spur of the moment, the visitor went berserk. Bailey has beaten his Welsh partner to a pulp on numerous occasions proving that he is capable of anything when drinking, and we know Bailey had been in the pub earlier that night with his Welsh partner. It is also known that Bailey often ended up back in any houses that were continuing drinking after pub hours. Then Bailey had the scratches on his hands the next day etc. I don't know if the eyewitness account that he was burning stuff in his garden the day after the night of the murder is credible or not.

Yes there's a small chance it was a jealous ex lover from France, but Sophie would have recognized him in the town had an ex lover been in town, as it's a tiny village and any known visitors to the town would be recognized easy enough. And that also goes against what the forensics are saying, that whoever visited on the night she was killed had absolutely no intention of killing her. It was very much a spur of the moment thing where the wrong thing got said and someone went berserk. Anyways Sophie's son is 1000% convinced it was Bailey. I mean if someone kills your mother, then you're not just going to go around pointing the finger at someone based on dodgy shoddy evidence. Her son would have studied this case for many years. Has visited Cork many times and would have become friends with all the neighbors in the area, and would have heard many credible accounts from locals close to both Bailey and Sophie who would have shared their thoughts on the whole thing.

But without concrete evidence, this is a case that will almost always remain an unsolved mystery.