Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

ian bailey extradition

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Credit Checker Moose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭Credit Checker Moose


    Kangourou is the word you are looking for.


  • Options
    #63
    chicorytip
    Registered Users Posts: 4,096 ✭✭✭chicorytip


    GerardKeating wrote: »
    Lying is not proof of anything, reminds me of a quote (admitily fictional) from a TV show.

    "Everyone lies, Michael. The innocent lie because they don't want to be blamed for something they didn't do, and the guilty lie because they don't have any other choice."



    If they havent cracked after 20+ yers, they aint going to, either very strong willed or innocent, and sometimes the innocent crack under pressure and admit things they did not do.
    Bailey is "strong willed", if you want to call it that although "Sociopathic" would seem a more appropriate description of him. Thomas just seems to be completely dominated and manipulated by him and, of course, is fearful of him so she will do or say whatever he wishes in order to protect him.


  • Options
    #64
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    I don't know if Bailey committed the crime or not. But I certainly wouldn't be sending someone off to jail in France for 25 years based on evidence that our own DPP said was sh1te (slightly paraphrasing here) after it was examined 3 times.

    How the French were able to convict Bailey on that evidence is beyond me. I'm not exactly filled with admiration for a legal system that works like that.


  • Options
    #65
    chicorytip
    Registered Users Posts: 4,096 ✭✭✭chicorytip


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I don't know if Bailey committed the crime or not. But I certainly wouldn't be sending someone off to jail in France for 25 years based on evidence that our own DPP said was sh1te (slightly paraphrasing here) after it was examined 3 times.

    How the French were able to convict Bailey on that evidence is beyond me. I'm not exactly filled with admiration for a legal system that works like that.
    Elements of our own judicial system are similar where verdicts can be given on the basis of circumstancial evidence. The Graham Dwyer case is the most notable example of this in recent times. The jury in that case decided to convict him based on circumstancial evidence rather than hard evidence. There were no witnesses at the murder scene when he stabbed Elaine O' Hara to death but the evidence (mobile phone records etc.) overwhelmingly pointed to his guilt. There is no doubting that he killed her and there was no other possible cause of death. I think the overwhelming circumstancial evidence in the DuPlantier case points toward the guilt of Ian Bailey.


  • Options
    #66
    champchamp
    Registered Users Posts: 221 ✭✭champchamp


    chicorytip wrote: »
    Elements of our own judicial system are similar where verdicts can be given on the basis of circumstancial evidence. The Graham Dwyer case is the most notable example of this in recent times. The jury in that case decided to convict him based on circumstancial evidence rather than hard evidence. There were no witnesses at the murder scene when he stabbed Elaine O' Hara to death but the evidence (mobile phone records etc.) overwhelmingly pointed to his guilt. There is no doubting that he killed her and there was no other possible cause of death. I think the overwhelming circumstancial evidence in the DuPlantier case points toward the guilt of Ian Bailey.

    What evidence?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    chicorytip wrote: »
    Elements of our own judicial system are similar where verdicts can be given on the basis of circumstancial evidence. The Graham Dwyer case is the most notable example of this in recent times. The jury in that case decided to convict him based on circumstancial evidence rather than hard evidence. There were no witnesses at the murder scene when he stabbed Elaine O' Hara to death but the evidence (mobile phone records etc.) overwhelmingly pointed to his guilt. There is no doubting that he killed her and there was no other possible cause of death. I think the overwhelming circumstancial evidence in the DuPlantier case points toward the guilt of Ian Bailey.

    They aren't remotely similar levels of circumstantial evidence. Not even in the same ballpark. There's fcukall circumstantial evidence against Bailey. There's rumour and gossip and the fact that he was an outsider and considered a weirdo but that isn't circumstantial evidence.

    There is no 100% link whatsoever between Bailey and Sophie Toscan du Plantier. No proof they ever met. The witness who says he introduced them now isn't sure if he did or didn't introduce them. There's video evidence of Graham Dwyer stabbing Elaine O'Hara during sex so it's proven that it was something he was into. There's also phone evidence against Dwyer. What circumstantial evidence is there that Bailey did it?

    Totally different levels of evidence.


Advertisement