Michael Martin Launches Book.

chicorytip

Is it appropriate for the Tanaiste to be doing this in light of the current cold case review into the case and the fact that the author Senan Moloney is biased against Bailey and has stated previously that he believes Bailey killed Sophie?

Also, Martin's comments at the launch seem to be an attempt to undermine the office and independence of the DPP.https://x.com/MichealMartinTD/status/1834287675253162196?t=SpTfTGnEuVZXuamESIxk8g&s=19

SafeSurfer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058368777/michael-martin-launches-book

Should we be surprised about politicians undermining the independence of the DPP? Every politician in the Dail recently gave a victim a standing ovation while calling on the DPP to appeal the sentence of her attacker.

Boggles

Not only is he trashing our own justice system he is championing the French one, which basically amounted to little more than a show trial.

Silly rabbit.

JP Liz V1

I hope Frank Buttimer comes after MM for slander even though Ian Bailey is dead

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122611565#Comment_122611565

You can't slander the dead iirc

Archduke Franz Ferdinand

martins comments are out of order. The DPP found there wasn’t sufficient evidence to bring Bailey to trial. Regardless of suspicion founded or unfounded, having hard evidence is fundamental requirement. We were also correct (given the lack of evidence) to send him to stand trial in France. Anyway, whether the man was guilty or not, he’s now dead and we will never know for definite.

tibruit

Maybe he is privy to what the conclusions of the cold case review team are going to be.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122611747#Comment_122611747

Draw a line under it and blame the dead fella?

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122611747#Comment_122611747

Not really his determination to make on the credibility of it though and completely inappropriate for him to launch the book.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122611768#Comment_122611768

Personally I have no doubt that the dead fella did it but I am a bit surprised that Martin would say what he said. He is usually a bit more guarded than that.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122611777#Comment_122611777

I disagree on both counts. The DPP isn`t infallible. Some of his conclusions about this case have been undermined in the intervening years.

Seth Brundle

Reading quotes from MM on the Journal website, it does seem like MM knows sweet FA about the case and has an opinion formed by what we all were fed in the media (OMG, I sound like a conspiracy theorist!). There was no evidence which is why multiple DPPs rejected the wishes of AGS to prosecute bailey.

He said this was despite the fact that “the evidence against the main suspect was broad and deep”.

Martin described Bailey as a “violent man” who “had no respect for others”.

While Martin remarked that “no one expects that any justice system can operate without errors” he further said: “When you look at the details of this case and the scale of the evidence, it is very, very hard to understand why this evidence was not put before a jury. 

“It is hard to understand why the system was so convinced by its interpretations of legal principles that it effectively threw its hands in the air and gave up.

“The fact that we have absolute independence in our judicial system, that no external pressure can be applied on independent prosecutors and judges is a great strength which we should value. 

“And at the same time, we can admit that this system failed Sophie Toscan du Plantier. We can ask for a proper review of whether decisions were reasonable which blocked a murder trial or which would have predetermined its outcome.”

I would agree with him that we as a nation failed Sophie (just not for the reasons MM thinks)!

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122611792#Comment_122611792

The evidence against Bailey is broad and deep and he certainly was a violent man. If you believe he didn`t do it then you are a conspiracy theorist because you have to believe that multiple gardaí and multiple witnesses concocted a narrative to pin it all on the English fella. A conspiracy of gargantuan proportions.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122611811#Comment_122611811

That is incorrect - there is absolutely no evidence that Bailey did it - if you somehow are aware of some evidence then please let us all know.

You could also let the DPP's office know because multiple DPP's rejected the evidence and made the unprecedented stop of publicly criticising the file put forwards by AGS…

https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/30/

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122611768#Comment_122611768

I reckon that’s exactly what the report is going to say - Garda incompetence throughout the investigation is precisely why we are where we are today - but that won’t be mentioned in the latest report - a complete whitewash- Sophie deserves much better.

JP Liz V1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122611596#Comment_122611596

Well I hope Ian's solicitor can come after MM for something, did he voice any opinion on the matter when Ian was alive?

Any opinion from MM on Aisling Murphy's murder and her killer and his family cover up for example, her poor partner was silenced with his statement

MM should concentrate on the current shower of dimwits in government and actually for once do some good for Ireland instead of sucking up to the French and talking of the dead who can't respond

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122611791#Comment_122611791

The DPP isn`t infallible

No one suggested there were.

But the case was investigated with such incompetence, absolutely no way any DPP would test it in court.

batman75

It is never wise for a politician to undermine the DPP. Whilst Michael undoubtedly has many talents he ain't a legal expert. I'm sure the DPP wanted to convict someone for Sophie's murder as much as the general public would. However his job is to assess evidence and on the basis recommend or reject a prosecution.

I would have more admiration for Michael if he respected the DPP's office. You could argue it's a slur against both the DPP at the time and Ian Bailey. Their definitely seems to have been an official attempt to pin the murder on Bailey. There is an argument that Bailey subsequent words and actions didn't help his own cause. However that in of itself doesn't make him culpable for a murder that the DPP deemed was not prosecutable against Bailey.

chicorytip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122611818#Comment_122611818

This Senan Moloney fellah is a spoofer of the highest order. He somehow became convinced of Bailey's guilt based on interviews he conducted with him but offers no new evidence or insights to support his contention.

chicorytip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122611967#Comment_122611967

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2024/0913/1469957-bailey-solicitor/

Day Lewin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122611811#Comment_122611811

What does the "broad and deep evidence" consist of, please?

I have an interest in this case and I don't know of any concrete evidence whatsoever. There's actually none.

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122611747#Comment_122611747

MM doesn't have nor should he have access to the investigation files

BagofWeed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122612609#Comment_122612609

But but the guards think he did it !! And that's more than likely it. I don't think he is actually as stupid as he comes across, I think he is shrewd and actually has little or no real empathy in him.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122612631#Comment_122612631

AGS have had almost three decades in which to get him. They have damaged evidence to try and get him. They have had people make up claims about Bailey that night. As things currently stant there is not one iota of evidence that places Bailey at the scene. There is not a shred of DNA found either on bailey or Sophie that links the two. There is no plausible motive. There is absolutely nothing. And yet the gardai are confident that he did it? There is no reason for them to think so and if they had it, why did they not include it in their submissions to the DPP?

I'd also add that Garda murder investigation team were also confident that Joanne Hayes killed baby John - something she and her family even confessed to (before retracting them along with claims of assaults by the murder squad).
The gardai were also confident when they solved the Sallins train robbery, again making use of forced confessions to get convictions which were subsequently overturned.
The gardai also were confident that the were about to get the men who killed Una Lynskey near Rathoath - they even ignored claims made by witnesses of a middle aged man and instead targeted three young men. The actions of the gardai led to relations of Una kidnapping and murder one of the three innocent men.

As a nation, we look at the miscarriages carried out by the English police against Irish (Birmingham Six, etc.) and yet we have plenty on our own doorstep which MM our Tanaiste will say nothing about! Why people parrot the unsubstantiated nonsense spread by AGs through the media is beyond me!

Boggles

The Gardaí haven't a scooby doo who did it, now or back then.

They were under pressure to catch someone so they a threw dart, hit a name and tried to reverse engineer the evidence.

I can only imagine Martin had a few glasses of wine at the book launch, because it was monumentally stupid to say what he did. Particularly when it is still very much a live investigation.

What would be more fitting for the poor woman's memory would be if the likes of Maloney stopped profiteering on her brutal murder especially with grand claims of "Final Verdict". 🙄

paddyisreal

Amazing how Martin never commented when bailey was alive over the last 28 years. Unbelievable comments to undermine our justice system, DPP, supreme courts and to promote a kangaroo court in france. Stupid behaviour from Martin of the highest order.

Raichų

surprised that MM was silly enough to say such a thing. Not that what he said was that terribly out of order but he must have known it was going to come around and bite him.

batman75

It was completely out of order for him to say what he said. No serving politician should cast aspersions on the office of the DPP. As others have said MM stayed schtum while Bailey was alive. His ire, if he is genuinely vexed about the case should be directed at the Gardai who made a balls of the investigation to the point where the DPP criticised their case against Bailey.

If your looking to prosecute a case it's very simple. You need one or a combination of three things.

1. DNA
2. Video footage
3. Reliable/plausible eye witnesses

The DPP conculuded that the Gardai had none of the three. For MM, the Tanaiste of our country to cast aspersions on the good name of the both the DPP and Ian Bailey is out of order.

Raichų

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122613012#Comment_122613012

well that’s what I mean the comment said in private or something is kind of whatever, politicians can have opinions too, but to say it in his public office capacity was not very bright.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122613029#Comment_122613029

I don't think it'll matter in scheme of things for him. But it doesn't mean it's not inappropriate, particularly when another dpp file is intended to be sent.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122611818#Comment_122611818

1. Bailey was prone to bouts of extreme anger and violence. He assaulted his partner on multiple occasions leaving her with serious injuries. Detached lip, swollen black eyes, hair ripped out, hospitalization.

2. He was a well known night time and early morning walker, usually decked out in Bull McCabe garb although once seen out and about in nothing but his jocks and a cowboy hat.

3. His diary entries revealed his darkness. He wrote that during one of the assaults he wanted to kill his partner. In another entry he expressed a desire to murder someone, anyone. He considered that he might create a list of people that he would murder.

4. He knew Sophie. Minimally he knew who she was, what she was and where she lived. Irish witnesses say he was introduced to her, French witnesses say that Sophie spoke in France about meeting with him. Bailey contradicted all this by saying that he never met her.

5. On the Saturday before the murder, a witness who knew both of them saw Sophie leave the Spar shop in Schull as Bailey stood across the street. Bailey knew Sophie was in Ireland.

6. A number of people described seeing scratches on Bailey`s hands in the days after the murder. Members of his household said he got scratched cutting down a Christmas tree the day before the murder. That night he went to the pub with Jules Thomas, played the bodhrán, drank his pints and whiskeys. Nobody remembered seeing scratches on his hands except for the barman who said he saw a mark on one of his hands. This differs significantly from the scratches that the witnesses described seeing in the days after the murder.

7. In her statement after she was arrested, Jules Thomas said Bailey had a fresh cut on his forehead when she saw him for the first time on the morning after the murder. She did not see a cut on his forehead the day before, nobody else in the household seems to have reported seeing a cut on his forehead the day before because if they had the DPP would have referenced it, nobody in the pub saw it either. Thomas claimed Bailey said that he got the cut from a stick. Bailey later claimed it was from a turkey he killed the day before.

8. Thomas and Bailey stated in a questionnaire that they were both in bed all night on the night of the murder. This was not true.

9. After they were both arrested and questioned separately, they both continued with this lie. However when confronted with the reality that the gardaí had a witness who claimed to have seen Bailey at Kealfada Bridge, Thomas relented and admitted that Bailey had left his bed during the night and she didn`t see him again until the morning. When Bailey was informed of this he admitted he had got up and gone down to the studio in the dark. He therefore got dressed and left the house.

10. Thomas also stated that on the way home from the pub they stopped for a while on Hunt`s Hill and Bailey wondered aloud if his pal Alf Lyons was having a party. He was Sophie`s neighbour and you had to pass within a couple of yards of Sophie`s back door to get to his house.

11. When they got home, Bailey continued to talk about going over to Alf Lyons house and asked Thomas to accompany him. She refused, they both went to bed and she estimates he got up about an hour later. His movements are therefore unaccounted for for several hours after that. Thomas signed her statement in the company of her legal representative.

12. A number of witnesses indicated that Bailey and Thomas were aware the following morning that a woman was found dead locally and that Bailey would be covering the story. However Bailey stated that he was unaware until Eddie Cassidy informed him in a phone call. Phone records showed that the call was made at 1-40pm.

13. Bailey bought bleach on Christmas eve.

14. Neighbours stated that there was bonfire burning at the back of Thomas`s studio over the Christmas period. One of these neighbours was a woman who worked in London and was home for a few days over Christmas. Bailey denied there had been a fire at that time. Thomas seems to have been unaware of it. She also stated in a tv interview that Bailey would never have lit a bonfire because he was a hoarder who never got rid of anything. Nevertheless, when forensics examined the remains of the fire they found that clothing, footwear and bedding had been burned.

15. Bailey confessed his guilt to several people.

omeara1113

What's it called

How to f**k up a country

Heard him the other day saying it wasn't as simple as ringing someone to find out who gave the contract to build the bike shed they seem to think they can do as they want

Jack Daw

xz

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122614054#Comment_122614054

Martin is not releasing a book.

He was speaking at the launch of a book by Sennan Maloney.

Day Lewin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122613968#Comment_122613968

Every single one of those points is hearsay, circumstantial, or extorted from the witness by intimidation. Ms Farrell and Ms Thomas both insist that they were intimidated by Gardaí. Bailey's coat and boots were not missing. There was not one molecule of blood found on or near him or on the vehicle that he used.

It's all smoke and mirrors; there is almost no actual forensic evidence and even the time of Sophie's death is an estimate, since her body had lain for 24 hours outdoors in mid-December.

Putting that in front of a jury? "Proof beyond reasonable doubt"?

The same case could have been contrived against a dozen others.

drury..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122614165#Comment_122614165

Who are the dozen other suspects ?

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122611747#Comment_122611747

Which would be even more inappropriate than what he did.

The man has no class.

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122614165#Comment_122614165

You would wonder if there was any evidence that wasn't fabricated, so much was

drury..

They both lied or misremembered the events of the night of the murder

Bailey arrived back to the bedroom that morning with a cut on his face and shortly afterwards visited the murder scene

My assumption is that Bailey told her to lie

All a bit sus among all the other stuff posted a bit back

MM shouldn't have commented like that . Maybe he knows something of the review . Even still.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122613968#Comment_122613968

...all discredited points. So to repeat myself, there is not one iota of evidence pointing the blame at Bailey. While he may have done it, there is nothing to indicate it and the garda approach appears to be one of find a man and gather evidence to get him but nearly thirty years of chasing him and they have the grand sum of nothing.

FFS, nobody even checked if the body was dead so time of death cannot be established. We're not even sure when the attack happened although evidence points more towards the morning rather than nighttime.

I also note that the one woman (and the only one to our knowledge) that he beat up still claims his innocence.

The gardai fecked this case up big time. They pursued a suspect with no evidence. They spread rumour about him. They damaged evidence. They lost evidence. They lied about evidence. They intimidated witnesses and suspects. And we should believe them when they still lead us to believe Bailey did it?

If you think your points are evidence against Bailey then I've a bridge to sell you!

drury..

Theres more than an iota of evidence pointing at bailey

Hes been convicted of her murder in a French court ffs

Anyway the argument will go round in circles.. I'll skip it

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122614316#Comment_122614316

The French trial consisted of reading through a garda file which said it was Bailey and provided evidence, some of which was fabricated or coerced (and since retracted). You already know this so I'm not sure why you continue to defend bad policing.

As for the evidence against Bailey, it has all been discredited. Again you already know this.

Raichų

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122614316#Comment_122614316

ah lad the trial in France was a show trial and nothing more.

For one thing is was held in absentia so the defence wasn’t even there!

happyoutscan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122614316#Comment_122614316

Good. Because if you are going to use that French trial and verdict as proof then you're better off skipping it.

He may or may not have, but there's no solid proof.

As for Martin, probably just trying to deflect away from 'Bike Shed'.

Glenomra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122613968#Comment_122613968

FasFascinating summary. Thanks

drury..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122614533#Comment_122614533

I don't believe for certain that Bailey killed her

Only that he probably did

JP Liz V1

In an interview with the Opinion Line on Cork’s 96FM, Frank Buttimer, solicitor for Ian Bailey, said he could not understand why the Tánaiste opted to weigh in on the case at this juncture.

He described his comments as a "feral attack" on "many of the pillars of the justice of the State"

"I was just saying to someone else there a while ago that it’s almost as if he [Martin] woke up after 28 years of not knowing that something has happened, reads a book, which is pompously titled, quote-unquote, 'The Final Verdict' and says, 'my God, this is dreadful. Why didn't we do something about this?'"

Mr Buttimer said the Tánaiste seemed to fully take on board the contents of the book by Senan Molony, which he feels contains nothing in the way of hard evidence.

RTE News

drury..

It would be interesting to hear if there's any new insights in the book from Garda investigators etc.

Maloney of course is convinced of Bailey's guilt

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122614283#Comment_122614283

Where did you buy the bridge?

JP Liz V1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122615381#Comment_122615381

Are many from the original case now retired? Too embarrassed to talk

batman75

I think in all probability it's unlikely we'll ever know for definite who killed STDP. That ultimately is the subsequent tragedy to the initial horror which was her murder. A French lady comes to stay, on her own, in a holiday home for Christmas against the backdrop of a failed/failing marriage.

In our country she was murdered. The people whom we should have confidence in to investigate her murder made a balls of the investigation. Which is simply shameful. They arguably tried to pin it on Bailey, equally shameful. Whatever you think about him via his words or actions had his right to his good name compromised by agents of the state.

If I were a relative who cared about Bailey I would be furious by MM's comments. The holder of the second highest political office in the land cast aspersions on the good name of someone who can no longer defend himself as he is deceased. Our politician are pure gombeens sometimes.