Judgement day for Maria Bailey.

ohnonotgmail

BattleCorp wrote: »

I don't disagree that it looks like she may have lied about the extent of her injuries, but once again, us thinking that isn't proof.


.

the burden of proof is on her not those she is fraudulently claiming against.

1874

givyjoe wrote: »

Luckily we're not in a courtroom, so let's not beat around the bush. She clearly lied about her the extent of her injuries, if she had any at all. If she hadn't of completely shot herself in the foot, one way such a claim would be thrown out of secret of footage of the claimant engaging in activities, which disprove the injuries they claim to suffer, e.g. crutches required after an accident, yet filmed playing football. We clearly don't need that in this example as Bailey (monumentally) stupidly posted on social media about her marathon escapades making it impossible for her to have actually suffered the injuries she claimed.

This is why she obviously dropped the case when she further hung herself out to dry live on radio, not the supposed abuse she received. Her dropping the case due to abuse is almost as unbelievable as her claim in the first place.

As for legal standard, do you mean in a criminal case prosecuting her for insurance fraud?

I agree with you and the posters that point at what seems to me to be the obvious frivolity of her case,
But out of curiosity, what were the extent of her injuries that she was claiming? I dont know, I'm curious, because I listened to the piece of her on the radio, and she was explaining away as much as possible and didn't want to be cornered on anything. In my opinion, if there was a genuine injury she could point to it, other than her ar$e was sore and her pride injured after stupidly falling off a swing while claiming to be out for a few drinks but not having touched a drop (which I further doubt).
Did she ever highlight how she suffered physically or medically? what exactly were her injuries and was it commensurate with the cost and level of treatment she undertook/requested/insisted upon?

BattleCorp

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the burden of proof is on her not those she is fraudulently claiming against.

All speculation here but I'd think she submitted medical reports that would have said she was injured. That's her proof.

It's up to the defence to rebut those proofs. Sadly, they'll never get the chance.

Here's my honest thinking.

The hotel were in trouble on the liability side. Bailey was probably in in danger of a s.26 if she continued with the 'I'm in bits' argument.

I think Bailey would have won her case but with significant contributory negligence. All speculation of course.

ohnonotgmail

BattleCorp wrote: »

All speculation here but I'd think she submitted medical reports that would have said she was injured. That's her proof.

It's up to the defence to rebut those proofs. Sadly, they'll never get the chance.

Here's my honest thinking.

The hotel were in trouble on the liability side. Bailey was probably in in danger of a s.26 if she continued with the 'I'm in bits' argument.

I think Bailey would have won her case but with significant contributory negligence. All speculation of course.

and that proof can be rebutted by her participating in an athletic event very soon afterwards with little difference to her performance.

BattleCorp

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and that proof can be rebutted by her participating in an athletic event very soon afterwards with little difference to her performance.

The athletic performance was three weeks after the incident. It's possible to be injured for 2.5 weeks and then be able to run on the third week.

Although unlikely, it's possible that she was injured, ran the race and aggravated the injury.

Both of those are arguable points if this had reached the courtroom.

And yes, all points that could trip Bailey up too.

beakerjoe

BattleCorp wrote: »

The athletic performance was three weeks after the incident. It's possible to be injured for 2.5 weeks and then be able to run on the third week.

Although unlikely, it's possible that she was injured, ran the race and aggravated the injury.

Both of those are arguable points if this had reached the courtroom.

And yes, all points that could trip Bailey up too.

But should someone be submitting a claim based off 2 weeks of injury.

An injury that heals in 2 weeks is not significant enough to be claiming.

Long term injurys, yes.... 2 weeks, no

givyjoe

BattleCorp wrote: »

The athletic performance was three weeks after the incident. It's possible to be injured for 2.5 weeks and then be able to run on the third week.

Although unlikely, it's possible that she was injured, ran the race and aggravated the injury.

Both of those are arguable points if this had reached the courtroom.

And yes, all points that could trip Bailey up too.

Except this isn't what she claimed herself!! She could have, but didn't make this claim.. she just spluttered nonsense about it not being that good a time! She was incapable of clarifying the most basic of points, e.g. what was in her hand at the time she fell. Honestly, it beggars the amount of benefit of the doubt you are willing to give this woman.

beakerjoe

beakerjoe wrote: »

She ran a race..... when "injured", proving she wasnt injured at all. Thats the proof.

Seriously beaker, ‘seriously injured’ !

:P

BattleCorp

BattleCorp wrote: »

One other thing of note. She ran a race 3 weeks after the incident. Who's to say she wasn't injured for 2.5 weeks and then recovered enough to run a race. Something like that wouldn't be a bar on putting in a claim.

She says in her most recent interview that she still has ‘serious injuries’. Hadn’t gone into detail though.

And she’s not short of a few bob so can afford to go for treatment on her ‘serious injury’ as often as she likes.

McMurphy

givyjoe wrote: »

Except this isn't what she claimed herself!! She could have, but didn't make this claim.. she just spluttered nonsense about it not being that good a time! She was incapable of clarifying the most basic of points, e.g. what was in her hand at the time she fell. Honestly, it beggars the amount of benefit of the doubt you are willing to give this woman.

Didn't she say that would have been for a judge to adjudicate?

She must have been full to the back of her throat with Chardonnay to need a judge to adjudicate whether or not she was holding something (,other than the ropes of the swing) in her hands while on a swing.

I dare say she's absolutely fckin fuming now she just didn't go ahead with the claim. The cynic in me thinks she only dropped it to try and appease her party colleagues and save her own political career.

After the most recent backlash, my guess she can forget about relying on either now for sure.

BattleCorp

beakerjoe wrote: »

But should someone be submitting a claim based off 2 weeks of injury.

An injury that heals in 2 weeks is not significant enough to be claiming.

Long term injurys, yes.... 2 weeks, no

Absolutely it's allowed legally. Like I've said earlier in this thread, I've seen people submit claims after being absent for three days from work. And that claim was successful. Unfortunately I've seen more than a few claims in our business for accidents where people were off work for only a week or two.

PIAB regularly give between €15k and €20k for accidents where people are out of work for a week or two.

I'm not making this up. I'm not a legal professional but I manage personal injury claims on behalf of my employer so I see these things regularly.

James Brown

BattleCorp wrote: »

I fully acknowledge it looks bad for Bailey........but that's not proof to a legal standard.

Doesn't matter. Win or lose the case won't change the facts and peoples opinion on them. The Judge doesn't rule who you should vote for.
There's many a crooked politician never seen the inside of a cell, doesn't mean they weren't/aren't crooked.

BattleCorp

givyjoe wrote: »

Except this isn't what she claimed herself!! She could have, but didn't make this claim.. she just spluttered nonsense about it not being that good a time! She was incapable of clarifying the most basic of points, e.g. what was in her hand at the time she fell. Honestly, it beggars the amount of benefit of the doubt you are willing to give this woman.

Yep, that's why I said she shot herself in both feet and in both knees.

It may look like I'm supporting Bailey's claim but I'm really not. I'm just saying what I see happening regularly when I deal with personal injury claims. It's too easy to get handy money nowadays. Personal responsibility seems to be out the window.

BattleCorp

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

She says in her most recent interview that she still has ‘serious injuries’. Hadn’t gone into detail though.

And she’s not short of a few bob so can afford to go for treatment on her ‘serious injury’ as often as she likes.

She's full of sh1te in my opinion but that's only my opinion. No argument there.

HBC08

BattleCorp wrote: »

What I'm learning here is that an awful lot of people don't understand how the laws work when it comes to personal injury claims.

This isn't a defence of Bailey by the way, I'm just stating how things work.

Bailey had a very winnable case against the hotel and here's why.

1. The hotel had a swing in a place where people who consume drink are likely to be. You mightn't think this is a big thing but I think most people on here would think that a person with drink shouldn't be using a swing. Do most people agree with that? And if the average person thinks that, then an accident involving that swing is very foreseeable. And if it's foreseeable, then the hotel should have done something about it, i.e. removed it. In other words, the hotel left a health and safety hazard for drunk people there and did nothing about it. Sounds stupid, but that's the way the law works.

2. It could have been argued that the swing was defective. After the Bailey incident the hotel put non-slip tape on the swing. It could be argued that the swing was too slippy, thus the addition of the non-slip tape. Again, you might not think this is a big thing but it would be argued to death in court and would probably gain some traction (no pun intended).

3. A weak point in Bailey's case would be that she could be held partially to blame, i.e. contributory negligence. It's claimed that she was holding something in both hands. If this is true (and according to reports it is), then she would have been criticised for not holding on properly but that doesn't absolve the hotel from their responsibilities in 1 and 2 above. If she won her case and was found to be partially to blame, she might lose a percentage of her award but she wouldn't have lost it all.

Claiming she wasn't trained in the use of the swing is a bit ridiculous but the aim of the legal team is to throw enough sh1t at the hotel and hope some of it sticks.

4. Most people on here suspect Bailey is lying or exaggerating her claim. I suspect that too but I can't say that for sure. Yes, she ran a race 3 weeks after the incident but that isn't proof that she wasn't injured in the incident. What we think doesn't count. It's what is written in her medical reports that count. And we aren't privvy to them. Not many of us are doctors and even less of us are psychic doctors who know Bailey's medical condition following the incident.

5. People are saying that she lied in her Affidavit when she said she couldn't run for three months. It's a serious offence to tell lies or exaggerate a claim in court and a claim can be dismissed under s.26. This inconsistency between her running and her Affidavit isn't proof that she lied. It looks like it but it could have been an error. In reality she couldn't run for three weeks. It could easily be claimed that it was a typing error, three months typed instead of three weeks. I doubt that's what happened but it's easy to amend Affidavits in court. While it looks bad, it isn't proof that she was lying. It would have been great to see that inconsistency tested in court but seeing as it never got to court, it can't be proved to be a lie.

So, while it may look to many that Bailey is lying, there's actually very little almost zero proof that she was. People can suspect all they like, but that's not proof.

6. Anyone thinking that Bailey should be done for fraud doesn't understand how high the bar is for a fraud conviction and as much as Bailey sickens most of us, she doesn't come remotely close to reaching that standard.

This is a very boards thing.
Somebody who has a good knowledge/real life experience of how a certain things works (in this case personal injury claims in ireland) is shouted down because "she ran a 10k" ,"sure even a 4 year old uses both hands on a swing" etc
Therefore in their opinion she doesn't have a case and that's it.
The same people would be better off aquainting themselves with the reality of the ridiculous laws in this country and directing their anger towards that.

Obviously (in my opinion anyway) Bailey is a fraud and a terrible person, the fact that our system facilitates her and other scumbags is the issue.
If for example there were real penalties for insurance fraud and frivolous claims then this whole culture would die out in a few years.

beakerjoe

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

She says in her most recent interview that she still has ‘serious injuries’. Hadn’t gone into detail though.

And she’s not short of a few bob so can afford to go for treatment on her ‘serious injury’ as often as she likes.

Like if Im "seriously injured from an incident, and making a legal claim, Im not running a 10k in 3 weeks.

Serious injuries' don't go away in 3 weeks.

beakerjoe

HBC08 wrote: »

The same people would be better off aquainting themselves with the reality of the ridiculous laws in this country and directing their anger towards that.

Obviously (in my opinion anyway) Bailey is a fraud and a terrible person, the fact that our system facilitates her and other scumbags is the issue.
If for example there were real penalties for insurance fraud and frivolous claims then this whole culture would die out in a few years.

Just because our country has ridiculous laws that allow fraud to continue, doesn't give MB a free pass to exploit those laws.

She is as much to blame as the system.

James Brown

beakerjoe wrote: »

Just because our country has ridiculous laws that allow fraud to continue, doesn't give MB a free pass to exploit those laws.

She is as much to blame as the system.

Her party had a hand in creating and allowing the system.

beakerjoe

BattleCorp wrote: »

Absolutely it's allowed legally. Like I've said earlier in this thread, I've seen people submit claims after being absent for three days from work. And that claim was successful. Unfortunately I've seen more than a few claims in our business for accidents where people were off work for only a week or two.

PIAB regularly give between €15k and €20k for accidents where people are out of work for a week or two.

I'm not making this up. I'm not a legal professional but I manage personal injury claims on behalf of my employer so I see these things regularly.

Ive no problem people claiming 1 day.... 2 days.... 2 weeks...

Its the claiming and then going on a 10k.

1874

beakerjoe wrote: »

Like if Im "seriously injured from an incident, and making a legal claim, Im not running a 10k in 3 weeks.
Serious injuries' don't go away in 3 weeks.

Unless she was carted off by an ambulance and they had to take her off on a back board or a stretcher, then imo she wasn't seriously injured,
She bruised her ar$e by the sounds of it, her ego was dented and she probably/likely had a few (Unless they are teetotal, I'm highly suspicious of her claim she was at one place, didnt touch a drop, then another, and was only holding a beer (allegedly one) and reaching for a bottle of wine being held by her friend as I recal, but she said her friends camera on the radio, but she needs a judge to adjudicate on what she must know (she was as sober as a judge herself by her own claim).


All in all, she sounds like a chancer and everyone knows it, she thought she'd get away with it with no song and dance, and supposedly she has form for this.

Padre_Pio

beakerjoe wrote: »

Just because our country has ridiculous laws that allow fraud to continue, doesn't give MB a free pass to exploit those laws.

She is as much to blame as the system.

Personally, I think if a system is broken then it'll only get fixed by people exploiting it.

MB has really brought compo culture into the spotlight. If there's some action to limit the abuse of our court system, then it's worth her taking the p*ss

Suckit

If there was a black market for CCTV footage, that video would surely be up in high bids.. :pac:

BingCrosbee

The sad thing about her obnoxious behaviour and dishonesty is that she will never shake it off and wherever she goes this episode will follow her and people will point the finger and laugh at her. No amount of regret will change the public perception of her ridiculous claim and daddy is not around to protect her.

1874

BingCrosbee wrote: »

The sad thing about her obnoxious behaviour and dishonesty is that she will never shake it off and wherever she goes this episode will follow her and people will point the finger and laugh at her. No amount of regret will change the public perception of her ridiculous claim and daddy is not around to protect her.

Did you hear the radio interview?, she has a neck on her like a jockeys you know whats, these kind of people are oblivious to their own behaviour, like Leo said, something something cheats us all or some such shoite they dont believe in, its ok for them to point at the little people

fantaiscool

BingCrosbee wrote: »

The sad thing about her obnoxious behaviour and dishonesty is that she will never shake it off and wherever she goes this episode will follow her and people will point the finger and laugh at her. No amount of regret will change the public perception of her ridiculous claim and daddy is not around to protect her.

That's how it should be.

Sultan of Bling

Suckit wrote:

If there was a black market for CCTV footage, that video would surely be up in high bids..

You're not wrong there.

Maybe Maria should agree to allow it to be released in the public domain and we can all make a judgement on it.

Who knows, we may even see josepha

McMurphy

Suckit wrote: »

If there was a black market for CCTV footage, that video would surely be up in high bids.. :pac:

You're welcome.

FrancieBrady

Suckit wrote: »

If there was a black market for CCTV footage, that video would surely be up in high bids.. :pac:

I'd say the hotel destroyed it, because the temptation to release it as she keeps on playing the victim would be too tempting.

Markcheese

fantaiscool wrote: »

That's how it should be.

Yup , politicians live and die by public opinion , we've had bigger crooks who smiled their way through their shenanigans and we as a people lapped it up ..
But Maria by her choice of words and tone after the event has made herself unelectable ...as such her political career is over ... if she'd still been electable any party would have agonized over booting her ,for fear of creating another healy ray or lowry type ...

Rothko

BingCrosbee wrote: »

The sad thing about her obnoxious behaviour and dishonesty is that she will never shake it off and wherever she goes this episode will follow her and people will point the finger and laugh at her. No amount of regret will change the public perception of her ridiculous claim and daddy is not around to protect her.

Nothing sad about that.