Gardaí criticised over Ian Bailey investigation

hullaballoo

Well, more than just criticised. Story in the Independent here: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/how-dpp-demolished-garda-case-on-bailey-3037829.html

Independent wrote:

By Ralph Riegel and Dearbhail McDonald
Friday March 02 2012
THE Director of Public Prosecutions demolished the garda case against Ian Bailey, the self-confessed suspect for the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier.

The full details of a damning critique by officials in the DPP's office of the gardai's investigation into her death are disclosed for the first time today. This follows yesterday's unanimous Supreme Court decision that Mr Bailey should not be extradited to France to be questioned as part of a murder investigation.

The review -- completed in 2001 -- found:

- No evidence linking him to the crime, including a chronic lack of forensic evidence against the Englishman.

- Serious concerns over garda practices, including an overdependence on unreliable witnesses.

- A garda fixation with aspects of Mr Bailey's personal life -- and with a possible sexual motive to the murder.

- Gardai ignored instructions not to arrest Mr Bailey's partner Jules Thomas on suspicion of aiding and abetting the murder.

The DPP repeatedly refused to prosecute Mr Bailey, detailing in the 2001 report the "unsafe practices" that some gardai engaged in during the high-profile murder inquiry. These included claims that at least one garda offered cash, clothes and drugs to a vulnerable drug abuser in exchange for information about Mr Bailey.

The approach of some of the gardai seems to have been intended to elicit a particular response from witnesses, according to the report.

Ms Thomas' original arrest and questioning on suspicion of the murder was deemed unlawful by the country's top prosecutor.

The new material included claims that senior gardai tried to put political pressure on the DPP's office to prosecute -- despite the fact that the evidence did not support a prosecution. These claims were described as "dramatic and shocking" by the Supreme Court yesterday.

Pressure

And Supreme Court judge Adrian Hardiman said it was open to the new DPP Claire Loftus to decide what criminal charges, if any, should be brought against the unnamed gardai who tried to apply political pressure on the DPP to bring about a murder prosecution.

Ian Bailey (54) said he was relieved by the Supreme Court ruling -- but described the last 15 years as "hell".

He accused the gardai of going door-to-door during the investigation saying to people: "Be in absolutely no doubt, he did it."

"This put fear in a lot of people's hearts and a lot of people chose to believe it," he said.

He described the last 15 years of his life as an "absolutely unbelievable period" for him and his partner Jules Thomas.

He told TV3 he was still coming to terms with yesterday's Supreme Court judgment which he described as a "great relief".

He said the attempt by the French authorities to extradite him to France was "a very frightening experience".

The Supreme Court ruling will not halt the ongoing French investigation into the death of Sophie Toscan du Plantier (39) -- and Mr Bailey now faces the prospect of a possible trial in absentia.

The French European Arrest Warrant (EAW) remains valid and in operation -- and Mr Bailey faces the prospect of a renewed extradition bid if he travels to another jurisdiction.

Sophie's family last night admitted they were "shocked and frustrated" by the Supreme Court decision.

"Time is our enemy now because of the age of Sophie's parents and their long wait for justice," family solicitor Alain Spilliaert said. Sophie's parents, Georges (87) and Marguerite Bouniol (85), were informed of the Irish legal ruling at their Paris home -- and were said to be "very upset" by the setback.

The landmark legal ruling has now cleared the way for three major actions to proceed -- a High Court lawsuit against the State by both Mr Bailey and his partner, Jules Thomas; a probe into alleged garda misbehaviour by the Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) and a possible public inquiry into the dramatic revelations during the extradition hearing.

The five judges, led by Chief Justice Mrs Justice Susan Denham, unanimously overturned an earlier High Court decision and ruled Mr Bailey should not be surrendered to France.

The court ruled that no decision to put Mr Bailey on trial had been taken by the French authorities. Such a decision is required under Irish law to allow someone to be extradited.

Mr Bailey was awarded the costs of the High Court and Supreme Court hearings.

Speaking to TV3 last night he detailed his first arrest on the night of December 13, 1996 after Sophie's body was found.

He said he was placed in a room and repeatedly told "you killed her, you did it" without ever being given an explanation as to why he was a suspect. "I had 12 hours of total accusation and 'you killed her, you did it, you did it, you did it'. This was repeated to me time and time again and there was no attempt to actually investigate as far as I could see," he said.

Apologies for the wall of text, I'll fix it later from a PC. [Fixed.]


I think this is pretty shocking but not very surprising. I imagine more details will come out in the near future.

hardCopy

hullaballoo wrote: »

Well, more than just criticised. Story in the Independent here: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/how-dpp-demolished-garda-case-on-bailey-3037829.html

Apologies for the wall of text, I'll fix it later from a PC.


I think this is pretty shocking but not very surprising. I imagine more details will come out in the near future.

I really can't understand why the man has been hounded for so long over this. Seems to be pure vindictiveness from local cops.

SEPT 23 1989

Poor Wiggum

deandean

This is gonna cost us.

Rawhead

Before this descends into another Garda bashing thread here is my two cents.
It has a lot of similarites with the McBrearty case in Donegal.

Murder in quiet rural area.

Huge pressure comes on local Gardai to solve case from management and politicians.

Gardai settle on suspect be it for genuine or personal reasons.

Name of suspect is "leaked to press" and splashed all over papers. (the Gardai have the same unhealthy relationship with the press in Ireland similar to the UK)

Suspect "A" now guilty and case begins to be built around him, this leads to all other avenues of investigation being closed so less chance of real culprit being caught.

Suspect "A" is convicted and then has conviction overturned, gets massive payout and tribunal set up,

or

Suspect "A" cannot be tried because of insufficient evidence but he will be demonised for life by local press and Gardai because "we know the bastard did it". It's even better if the suspect is a foreigner.

Biggins

I was listening to a lengthy discussion last night on this matter - and an interview with Bailey.
It sounds like (if the DPP is to be believed - and I have no reason not to) that there was some right bullying going on for certain by particular investigators.

At least 15 points where very wrong things was done. Actual laws being broken by the Gardi investigating.
This will mean a big payout eventually - BUT - it will be interesting to see if the government will investigate this matter and by what method, or as some suspect, they will hold a limited investigation and the culprits that broke the laws themselves getting off in time.

Meanwhile the French in their arrogance, are going ahead it appears to try and hold a trial for the man accused by them, in his absence, even though as we now know, the evidence was 'cooked'* and/or invented!

* Example:
One woman gave a statement that she saw a THIN man, 5 foot 2 crossing a bridge shortly after the murder.
She was forced to change her statement to say it was in fact Bailey and that the man was much higher in height.
(Bailey was at the time, having breakfast at home with friends! Bailey is much bigger and much more well built. The phrase "built like a schithouse" comes to mind.)
They showed her a video of Bailey at one stage and told her, to tell them that it was him she saw!

What was done by investigating officers - who according to the DPP, CLEARLY broke the law a good few times, repeatedly was and still is shocking.

Gunmonkey

Ugh, reading Baileys description of his interrogation sounded like the Gardai were trying to emulate a trite TV cop show:

"Ya did it, didnt ya?"
"Give it up Bailey!"
"We have evidence of a human seen fleeing the seen....your a little bit human yourself aren't ya, Bailey?"
"Oh, you have witnesses that say you were elsewhere at the time of the killing....sounds like accomplices to me!"
"Eating toast for breakfast....I hear a lot of murderers over the years have eaten toast.......very coincidental"
"Alright...I confess, I did it....and I would have got away with it if it wasn't for you meddling Gardai"


Oh well, can hope the dodgy elements who mucked up this investigation are rooted out and some serious disciplinary actions handed dow....

a probe into alleged garda misbehaviour by the Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission (GSOC)

...ugh.......nevermind.

hardCopy

Rawhead wrote: »

Suspect "A" cannot be tried because of insufficient evidence but he will be demonised for life by local press and Gardai because "we know the bastard did it". It's even better if the suspect is a foreigner.

This seems to have been the prevalent attitude for years. It now looks to be based on zilch.

ebixa82

Gardai are just as corrupt as any other police force the world for higher level corruption.

Needless to say they don't go round accepting bribes for drink driving etc.

As is often the case they chose Bailey as the chief suspect then decided to build the case around him, helped along by the sensationalist media.

This man's life has been ruined. Not that it will make any difference to his quality of life but I hope he gets a massive payout and some cops get sacked.

Biggins

ebixa82 wrote: »

Gardai are just as corrupt as any other police force the world for higher level corruption.

Needless to say they don't go round accepting bribes for drink driving etc.

As is often the case they chose Bailey as the chief suspect then decided to build the case around him, helped along by the sensationalist media.

This man's life has been ruined. Not that it will make any difference to his quality of life but I hope he gets a massive payout and some cops get sacked.

I agree entirely what you say - however some not just need to be sacked but charged (I'm sure you might agree).
They tampered with witness statements, bullied/intimidated, pressurised people (court related officials) to bring charges (illegal in itself and was explained last night), falsified statements, etc...

I have the highest of respect for the every day working Garda - but the few rotten apples need to be routed out if only for their actions been seen NOT to be got away with and thus, others think they can do similar at some stage!

steddyeddy

I no longer can say the gardai are a professional force. I used to defend them here but I like to see evidence for professionalisim and I havent seen it yet.

hardCopy

steddyeddy wrote: »

I no longer can say the gardai are a professional force. I used to defend them here but I like to see evidence for professionalisim and I havent seen it yet.

I've often defended them on here, I still wouldn't write them off but this case and the individuals involved have a serious case to answer. This was malicious.

steddyeddy

hardCopy wrote: »

I've often defended them on here, I still wouldn't write them off but this case and the individuals involved have a serious case to answer. This was malicious.

Well theres people in the gaurds who "lost" files on child abuse, who sold cocaine, who rigged evidence and now this. I would still have respect for them if not for the fact that most of those guilty of these crimes are still in the gaurds and considered "professionals".

Gophur

ebixa82 wrote: »

Gardai are just as corrupt as any other police force the world for higher level corruption.

Needless to say they don't go round accepting bribes for drink driving etc.

As is often the case they chose Bailey as the chief suspect then decided to build the case around him, helped along by the sensationalist media.

This man's life has been ruined. Not that it will make any difference to his quality of life but I hope he gets a massive payout and some cops get sacked.

Are you saying Bailey did not kill Ms Toscan du Plantier?

Son Of A Vidic

I have no doubt such disturbing Gardai behaviour is only the tip of the iceberg. There are good cops and bad cops like any other country. Just as long as we don't put the Gardaí up on any pedestals, because they certainly don't deserve it.

amacachi

ebixa82 wrote: »

Gardai are just as corrupt as any other police force the world for higher level corruption.

Needless to say they don't go round accepting bribes for drink driving etc.

As is often the case they chose Bailey as the chief suspect then decided to build the case around him, helped along by the sensationalist media.

This man's life has been ruined. Not that it will make any difference to his quality of life but I hope he gets a massive payout and some cops get sacked.

It reminds me of the Madeleine McCann case. The Brits painted the Portuguese cops as bumbling buffoons and completely unprofessional. While much of it may have been true it was dont against a backdrop of how things should've and apparently would've been done had it been a British investigation.
Ya always here about how backwards the whole system is in mediterranean countries etc. etc. with the implication that such things don't happen here.

mikom

Still, at least Baileys driver-side window is still intact....

44leto

I always assumed this chap was guilty, the reason for my assumption was the media, but now I think it is possible he is innocent.

Biggins

44leto wrote: »

I always assumed this chap was guilty, the reason for my assumption was the media, but now I think it is possible he is innocent.

One media reported actually wrote a piece about what Bailey was thinking at the time of the murder and what the dead girl was actually thinking as she was being murdered!
Journalism at its very worst.

Bailey is now going back to the courts (we can assume to sue their asses off!).
He spoke last night of about 15+ cases he is looking at for damages alone for such bad stuff that was printed.
He has already won at least three taken so far.

Ellis Dee

The fundamental problem with the Gardai - apart from the fact that a lot of them are craw-thumping, thick-as-pigshit and bullying yokels - is a serious lack of real, effective oversight. That has changed, but only a little, in the past few years since the appointment of the Garda Ombudsman, and it is nowhere near enough. Just look at the stuff they did in Donegal; years later, the cringing coward who framed an innocent man has not faced justice. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I hope Mr. Bailey and his partner Ms. Thomas take the State for a telephone number sum, even though it will mean the innocent taxpayer having to pay for the crimes of thugs in blue uniforms. Nothing could repay them for the past 15 years of stress, and a future when Mr. Bailey could be snatched by the French from anywhere if he leaves Ireland - or indeed even from here. France is, after all, the country that sent its people to bomb a Greenpeace boat in New Zealand and murdered an innocent photographer in that operation. :eek:

If the unfortunate Ms. Toscan du Plantier had been a waitress instead of belonging to a wealthy and influential family, no one in France (and probably not in Ireland either) would have given a merde about her.:D

I have always thought that the French should put Inspector Closeau on the case and start looking for the real killer a lot closer to home - because a cover up is what the persecution and scapegoating of Ian Bailey is probably intended to achieve.:cool:

amacachi

Ellis Dee wrote: »

a serious lack of real, effective oversight.

Just on that, if there were a completely honest cop who reports a popular co-worker for corruption or serious dereliction of duties which would happen first? The one making the report gets driven out of the force or the one who was reported would face a sanction other than paid leave?

Biggins

Aye, they put his partner Ms. Thomas right through hell too. They apparently terrorised her into submission!
Disgraceful in itself and she too is heading to the Irish courts for further justice against certain people and the press.

I have to say fair play to the DPP for standing up and coming out, having done the research and exposed what the hell has being going on.
I'm sure to get to some truths against a possible tide of non-willingness by certain Gardi to help, their task was indeed not easy.
Still they managed to get there - so credit to them for that alone!

Sadly for the Du Plantier family, their original quest goes on as to finding their daughters killer.
They have an Irish nations sympathy and I hope some day they will find answers, a person and peace.

Calhoun

Biggins wrote: »

Meanwhile the French in their arrogance, are going ahead it appears to try and hold a trial for the man accused by them, in his absence, even though as we now know, the evidence was 'cooked'* and/or invented!

Can the French even legally try him? considering the offense took place outside of their respective jurisdiction. I was under the impression one of the reasons he won yesterday was for this very point.

amacachi

Calhoun wrote: »

Can the French even legally try him? considering the offense took place outside of their respective jurisdiction. I was under the impression one of the reasons he won yesterday was for this very point.

The French claim jurisdiction over anything where one of their citizens is a victim wherever it happens in the world. It's up to individual countries and probably on a case-by-case basis as to whether or not to accept France's jurisdiction.
Given that France traditionally are easy to make extradite people (rightly so IMO) I see no reason for anyone else to bow to them except in exceptional circumstances that I can't think of right now.

Anywhoodle

Biggins wrote: »

Bailey is now going back to the courts (we can assume to sue their asses off!).
He spoke last night of about 15+ cases he is looking at for damages alone for such bad stuff that was printed.
He has already won at least three taken so far.

Bailey spoke about potentially 're-opening' some of the cases he lost in the past.. Can someone explain to me on what grounds he'd be aiming to do that? Been reading about the failed libel actions here --> http://www.simonmcaleese.com/asp/article.asp?objectid=1061&Mode=0&RecordID=190 and can't see how recent developments impact on the successful defences raised by the newspapers? It remains that Bailey has a history of violence and can he still not be said to have been the 'chief suspect' in the case..? What's changed?

Biggins

Anywhoodle wrote: »

Bailey spoke about potentially 're-opening' some of the cases he lost in the past.. Can someone explain to me on what grounds he'd be aiming to do that? Been reading about the failed libel actions here --> http://www.simonmcaleese.com/asp/article.asp?objectid=1061&Mode=0&RecordID=190 and can't see how recent developments impact on the successful defences raised by the newspapers? It remains accurate that Bailey has a horrendous history of violence against women and he can still be said to have been the 'chief suspect' in the case.. What's changed?

He won 3+ cases already in this new light.
The others he spoke of were also lost based on whats now seen as false evidence.
There is precedent where others cases won on false evidence, have been taken back to the courts and the matters put right.
This is what he hopes to do and give the utter outstanding weight of stuff that the investigators did wrong and actual law breaking themselves, I think he will win every one of those re-opening cases.
I'd be shocked given the evidence, even DPP evidence (state government evidence) he now has, that a court would not see he should have won in the first place.

You say he has a horrendous history of violence against women - you base this accusation on what?
REMEMBER - any statements of that time taken by the investigating inspectors now CANNOT be trusted!
Be careful here, what you type (or already said) also is liable via boards.ie!

It does NOT remain accurate that Bailey has a horrendous history of violence against women.

Chucky the tree

44leto wrote: »

I always assumed this chap was guilty, the reason for my assumption was the media, but now I think it is possible he is innocent.

No he's still guilty imo. The Garda just made a complete bollox of it from start to finish.

Biggins

Chucky the tree wrote: »

No he's still guilty imo. The Garda just made a complete bollox of it from start to finish.

Fair enough - thats an opinion but remember, he was actually elsewhere at the time of the murder and the DPP even states this in their report!

Hard to murder a woman in a forest somewhere when your actually sitting down with a number of friends at a kitchen table eating breakfast!

Anywhoodle

Biggins wrote: »

He won 3+ cases.
The others he spoke of were lost based on whats now seen as false evidence.
There is precedent where others cases won on false evidence, have been taken back to the courts and the matters put right.
This is what he hopes to do and give the utter outstanding weight of stuff that the investigators did wrong and actual law breaking themselves, I think he will win every one of those re-opening cases.
I'd be shocked given the evidence, even DPP evidence he now has, that a court would not see he should have won in the first place.

Yeah, but I'm asking which cases did he lose which involved claims based upon false evidence? From what I can see, he lost cases against papers that merely claimed he had a history of violence and which referred to him as the chief suspect in the case.. That's what I'm confused about..

You say he has a horrendous history of violence against women - you base this accusation on what?
Be careful here, what you type (or already said) also is liable via boards.ie!

He has a history of domestic violence- it's not a claim that he disputes. He has a conviction for assault causing harm to his partner. I'd refer you to the link I cited. The matter was central to many of the libel cases.. Judge Peter Moran concluded that: “I personally have no hesitation in describing Mr. Bailey as a violent man and the newspapers were justified in describing him as being violent towards women”. The domestic violence issue was also acknowledged by the DPP in its review of the case.

Biggins

Anywhoodle wrote: »

Yeah, but I'm asking which cases did he lose which involved claims based upon false evidence? From what I can see, he lost cases against papers that merely claimed he had a history of violence against women and which referred to him as the chief suspect in the case.. That's what I'm confused about..

He has a history of domestic violence- it's not a claim that he disputes. He has a conviction for assault causing harm to his partner. I'd refer you to the link I cited. The matter was central to many of the libel cases.. Judge Peter Moran concluded that: “I personally have no hesitation in describing Mr. Bailey as a violent man and the newspapers were justified in describing him as being violent towards women”. The domestic violence issue was also acknowledged by the DPP in its review of the case.

You say that "horrendous history of violence against women."
To be accurate - he has a history of taking his temper out on one woman, not a "horrendous history... ...against women."
One person (not many) that in all honesty we will never probably know the full circumstances of.

The papers that he's now readdressing stated (I believe) that he was the murderer - printed that he had a history of attacking women in numbers and remember the case that you refer to was supplied evidence from the very people that now stand accused of inventing evidence, tainting it and trying to get others (and they did successfully sometimes) to state what they wanted the court to hear only and it being wrong!

Now, don't get me wrong - I do not know if he is guilty or innocent - but such was the total lies, illegal actions and fcuk-ups by the investigation officers, we might never know now!

Chucky the tree

Biggins wrote: »

Fair enough - thats an opinion but remember, he was actually elsewhere at the time of the murder and the DPP even states this in their report!

Hard to murder a woman in a forest somewhere when your actually sitting down with a number of friends at a kitchen table eating breakfast!

Do you have a link to that?

Anywhoodle

Biggins wrote: »

You say that "horrendous history of violence against women."
To be accurate - he has a history of taking his temper out on one woman, not a "horrendous history... ...against women."
One person (not many) that in all honesty we will never probably know the full circumstances of.

I never said 'many'! Nor did I claim anything about the circumstances.. Have edited my posts for the sake of clarity.. However, I merely reiterated the point of view expressed by Judge Moran- not seeing anything contentious in that..

The papers that he's now readdressing stated (I believe) that he was the murderer - printed that he had a history of attacking women in numbers and remember the case that you refer to was supplied evidence for the very people that now stand accused of inventing evidence, tainting it and trying to get others (and they did successfully sometimes) to state what they wanted the court to hear only and it being wrong!

My understanding was that all of the papers found not liable, did not claim that he was the murderer.. I dunno, I guess we'll just wait and see what the grounds for re-opening these cases are..

Biggins

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Do you have a link to that?

Trying to find a copy of the full report but in the meantime, it was stated last night by Vincent Brown having read the report, referred to in the report by him and also stated by Bailey additionally as to how he won already some cases.

Here is a help in the meanwhile:

5. Marie Farrell

Marie Farrell made a series of statements which placed a thinly built man about 5ft 10in tall outside her shop on December 21, 1996; walking on an unlit road with his hands in his head on December 23, 1996 at about 3am; and thumbing a lift at around 7.15am on the morning of December 22, 1996.

The DPP said that Bailey is over 6ft 2in tall and of a strong and powerful build; that a reliable identification on an unlit country road was "unlikely" and that Bailey was having breakfast at a friend's house when Farrell reported him thumbing a lift.

Farrell, a married woman, later admitted lying to gardai to cover up a love affair -- the DPP said her potential as a witness was "diminished".

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/dearbhail-mcdonald-and-ralph-riegel-ten-reasons-why-the-dpp-refused-to-prosecute-ian-bailey-3037843.html

The full version:

An internal review into the garda investigation of the Sophie Toscan du Plantier case, carried out by the DPP’s office, outlined 10 key reasons why the DPP refused to prosecute Ian Bailey. Dearbhail McDonald and Ralph Riegel report

1. Lack of forensic evidence

GARDAI claimed Bailey was the murderer and was scratched on his hands and arms by briars during the struggle.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) said if the attack was frenzied, the assailant would have been expected to leave traces of blood, skin, clothing fibres, or hair, at the scene.

No such evidence was found, and Bailey's voluntary provision of fingerprints and a blood specimen "is objectively indicative of innocence".

2. Bailey's alleged prior knowledge of Sophie Toscan du Plantier

Gardai claimed that Bailey knew Sophie Toscan du Plantier and said that Bailey reported he had seen the Frenchwoman in Schull on the Saturday before she died.

The DPP said that Bailey steadfastly maintained he did not know Ms du Plantier on a personal basis and, although he said he had seen her 18 months before her death, denied he met her on the Saturday before she died.

He said that the garda contention that Bailey was untruthful and evasive regarding his knowledge of Ms du Plantier was "not supported by convincing evidence".

3. Garda warnings about the threat posed to the community by Ian Bailey

Gardai warned the DPP on February 26, 1997 that Bailey be charged immediately with murder as there was "every possibility he will kill again", or would imminently attack witnesses living close to him.

Locals were also warned of the threat posed by Bailey.

The DPP said the initial garda report provided evidence of the "hysteria" in relation to Bailey following his portrayal as a ruthless and unrestrained killer.

This, combined with a consistent flow of information to the media, was bound to create a climate in which witnesses became suggestible.

4. Bailey's 'inconsistent' responses to garda questioning

Gardai claimed that Bailey lied about leaving Jules's house on the night of the murder and alleged he was at Kealfadda Bridge at 3am on December 23, 1996.

The DPP said that Bailey's version of events could not be properly rebutted and anything said during his detention may not have been used in court as it was gleaned from Jules Thomas's "unlawful detention".

The DPP also said that it was interesting to note that, in the context of Bailey's home, Kealfadda is not on the way to, or from, Ms du Plantier's house.

5. Marie Farrell

Marie Farrell made a series of statements which placed a thinly built man about 5ft 10in tall outside her shop on December 21, 1996; walking on an unlit road with his hands in his head on December 23, 1996 at about 3am; and thumbing a lift at around 7.15am on the morning of December 22, 1996.

The DPP said that Bailey is over 6ft 2in tall and of a strong and powerful build; that a reliable identification on an unlit country road was "unlikely" and that Bailey was having breakfast at a friend's house when Farrell reported him thumbing a lift.

Farrell, a married woman, later admitted lying to gardai to cover up a love affair -- the DPP said her potential as a witness was "diminished".

6. Gardai's relationship with certain witnesses

Farrell, whose alias was "Fiona", was managed by a detective.

This detective is alleged to:

- Have given cash, clothes and hash to Martin Graham -- a destitute drug abuser -- in order to obtain incriminating evidence against Bailey.

- Elicited incriminating observations from Thomas during her "unlawful detention".

- Took a statement from a man waiting sentence on a serious harm conviction who was "anxious to please the gardai".

The DPP said that gardai must have been aware that Graham might fabricate evidence to secure rewards.

Of taped conversations between gardai and Graham offering rewards and private conversations, the DPP said that "such investigative practices are clearly unsafe to say the least".

7. The scratches

Gardai said Bailey scratched his arms and hands as he murdered Ms du Plantier.

Bailey said he received the scratches by climbing up a 20ft tree with a bow saw in his hand to cut branches, and also by killing turkeys.

A dermatologist who examined Bailey five days after the murder said that she did not notice any marks or injuries to his face or hands.

The DPP said there was no "sharp thorn" damage to Bailey's clothes; that gardai did not submit to his office statements taken during the investigation which showed that two plucked and beheaded turkeys were lying on tea towels on Thomas's bathroom floor the day after the murder, and witnesses did not notice any scratches on Bailey.

The DPP said that Bailey's explanation for the scratches is "plausible, consistent and is supported by other direct and credible evidence".

8. Knowledge of injuries on Sophie's body

Several people -- including gardai, a doctor, a priest and neighbours -- saw Ms du Plantier's body on the morning of December 23, 1996 -- and a substantial amount of gossip occurred in the area and the media about the cause of her death.

The DPP said that incriminating weight could not be attached to Bailey mentioning to a witness weeks after the murder that Ms du Plantier had sustained a serious finger injury.

9. The investigation by gardai

The DPP was critical of the way gardai discussed the case with certain witnesses, including Martin Graham. The DPP said the approach of some of the gardai seem to have been intended to elicit a particular response from witnesses "who are in effect exhorted" to take a particular line in order to avoid further loss of life.

Other evidence was highly suspect; taken two years after the murder, taken in direct contradiction to earlier information and was inadmissible against Bailey because it was hearsay evidence.

10. Domestic violence and sexual motive

Domestic violence

Jules Thomas admitted that she had received a bad beating from Bailey, which did not require her going to hospital.

The DPP said "unfortunately" domestic violence was not uncommon.

The DPP said the brutal murder of Ms du Plantier, who had some 50 wounds, was uncommon and was not similar to Thomas's domestic violence incident.

Sexual motive

The DPP disputed gardai's claims that Bailey killed Ms du Plantier after she turned down his sexual advances.

"In fact there is no evidence of a sexual motive in this case," said the DPP, who noted that Ms du Plantier was clothed, with her boots laced up and there was no evidence of sexual interference.

"References in the Garda Report to a sexual motive are pure speculation".

steddyeddy

http://www.tv3.ie/shows.php?request=tonightwithvincentbrowne

Interview with Ian bailey.

Chucky the tree

Your claims about being hard to murder a women in the forest while eating breakfast is what I wanted clarfied. She was murdered in the evening, not the morning. Obviously Bailey was having breakfast the following morning which just means he was the guy thumbing the lift. Pretty sure he has no alibi for the time of the murder.

Biggins

On TV3 news now by the way...

Biggins

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Your claims about being hard to murder a women in the forest while eating breakfast is what I wanted clarfied. She was murdered in the evening, not the morning. Obviously Bailey was having breakfast the following morning which just means he was the guy thumbing the lift. Pretty sure he has no alibi for the time of the murder.

Again, as regards the time of her death, its now held to be untrustworthy as the investigation officers were found to have altered evidence and pressurised others to alter evidence to fit their case against Bailey.
Apparently now (for reasons I do not know why) the DPP believes that Bailey was at a kitchen table at the time of her murder.
What they know and what they have not released to the public, I suspect is being held back in case of any future possible case against someone.

monkeybutter

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Your claims about being hard to murder a women in the forest while eating breakfast is what I wanted clarfied. She was murdered in the evening, not the morning. Obviously Bailey was having breakfast the following morning which just means he was the guy thumbing the lift. Pretty sure he has no alibi for the time of the murder.

Chucky where were you at the time of the murder?

The reality here is the coppers that were invloved are well retired by this stage (would have been detective grade at the time) and nothing will come of this.

steddyeddy

Will there be sackings over this or revoking of pension rights?

Chucky the tree

Biggins wrote: »

Again, as regards the time of her death, its now held to be untrustworthy as the investigation officers were found to have altered evidence and pressurised others to alter evidence to fit their case against Bailey.
Apparently now (for reasons I do not know why) the DPP believes that Bailey was at a kitchen table at the time of her murder.
What they know and what they have not released to the public, I suspect is being held back in case of any future possible case against someone.

Where the link to the DPP thinking the death was in the morning? Also that's quite a claim, that either the Gardai froze the body possibly, or else the state pathologist delibrately lied and was pressured into lying.

steddyeddy

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Where the link to the DPP thinking the death was in the morning? Also that's quite a claim, that either the Gardai froze the body possibly, or else the state pathologist delibrately lied and was pressured into lying.

You see the thing about this is that wheter or not he is or isnt guilty is nearly irelevant. The gaurds wrecked any chance of prosecution and as regards lying I wouldnt be surprised.

Teyla Emmagan

This has been a complete cock up from start to finish. Without a doubt, one of the darkest hours for the Gardai. They bungled this so badly from the very start that even if he had literally been caught red handed they wouldn't have managed to get a conviction to stick. Complete and utter unprofessionalism.

I don't know if Ian Bailey is guilty or innocent, but he will get a humongous payout now either way. If he's innocent he certainly deserves it, but either way the Guards have desperate egg on their faces and will hopefully have learnt a massive lesson. Which you and I will be paying for.

Biggins

steddyeddy wrote: »

You see the thing about this is that wheter or not he is or isnt guilty is nearly irelevant. The gaurds wrecked any chance of prosecution and as regards lying I wouldnt be surprised.

Thats just it exactly.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Where the link to the DPP thinking the death was in the morning? Also that's quite a claim, that either the Gardai froze the body possibly, or else the state pathologist delibrately lied and was pressured into lying.

Time of murder v's Bailey breakfast is in the TV3 report alone - besides apparently the report also.
The Independent write-up is a summary by the way.
If we are to believe what Vincent Brown states himself (and Bailey), its in the report also besides the paper referring to it in passing.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Will there be sackings over this or revoking of pension rights?

Was thinking about that very thing last night.
As at the time they were earning those pension rights, they were breaking a number of serious laws themselves!
...So IF the state tried to pursue them (some hope!), using the CAB laws, in theory they could go after their money gained during that time alone.

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

This has been a complete cock up from start to finish. Without a doubt, one of the darkest hours for the Gardai. They bungled this so badly from the very start that even if he had literally been caught red handed they wouldn't have managed to get a conviction to stick. Complete and utter unprofessionalism.

I don't know if Ian Bailey is guilty or innocent, but he will get a humongous payout now either way. If he's innocent he certainly deserves it, but either way the Guards have desperate egg on their faces and will hopefully have learnt a massive lesson. Which you and I will be paying for.

...And probably a book deal too eventually?
Maybe a film also?

Cardinal Richelieu

steddyeddy wrote: »

Will there be sackings over this or revoking of pension rights?

Has that ever happen in the past in the Garda?

steddyeddy

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Has that ever happen in the past in the Garda?

No but if they want repsect they should cop on and do it now.

micropig

Some Gardai think/know they are above the law and are tripping off the power they have. Some abuse their position. It astonishes me in this day an age that some people are so naive to think what a garda says/does must be correct and obeyed immediately.

The Gardai involved in unprofessional behaviour in this case should be sacked, prosecuted and their names made public. They were so hell bent on convicting the man they wanted it to be, they may/may not have let the real killer go free.

Rawhead

They tried to take the pension or gratuity off some Guards years ago. The Guards won the case on the basis that it was their money and they had already paid the money.
It would be no different in a private sector job I believe. If you had paid into a private pension scheme and then got sacked you would still be entitled to anything you saved. You cannot be stripped retrospectively of something you have earned.
I don't think it would be fair to start that precedent for any employee.

ItsAWindUp

Absolutely disgusting the way they treated him

steddyeddy

Rawhead wrote: »

They tried to take the pension or gratuity off some Guards years ago. The Guards won the case on the basis that it was their money and they had already paid the money.
It would be no different in a private sector job I believe. If you had paid into a private pension scheme and then got sacked you would still be entitled to anything you saved. You cannot be stripped retrospectively of something you have earned.
I don't think it would be fair to start that precedent for any employee.

Well some of these peoples actions were illegal. Their pensions should be the least of their worries. Also the training and recruitment processes of the guards should be looked at after this.

Finneen

hardCopy wrote: »

I really can't understand why the man has been hounded for so long over this. Seems to be pure vindictiveness from local cops.

Because he's posh, educated, intelligent, upper-middle class, and English!

Rawhead

Finneen wrote: »

Because he's posh, educated, intelligent, upper-middle class, and English!

Don't forget women beater.