namloc1980 wrote: » No of course it isn't.
Woody79 wrote: » In irish criminal law maybe your correct. If irish population where merely truth seekers (irish civil case) then he is guilty given the various court cases in ireland and france. I disagree, his sins are between him and god. If people think he is guilty thats their choice. OJ Simpson was found not guilty in court of law. Doesnt mean the truth was found in that case. Civil case later found him guilty and eventually ****ty things happened to him (karma). Ian Baileys case is similar. He may not be found guilty in irish court of law but karma will see to him in the end. He is homeless. Cant leave ireland. Dispised by many. The truth comes out eventually. The hack of him arguing it was a fair fight between him and Jules that left her with black eye and stitches in her mouth. Him of six feet three inches.OJ Simpson used to beat the **** out of his wife too before he killed her. Maybe we are too tolerant in ireland tbh.
ShamNNspace wrote: » There you go, putting words on the page that I didn't write and missing the point by a country mile,and heading off on a tangent to boot, you see it matters not one jot what either of us thinks of IBs character, fact of the matter is there is nothing that would stand up in a court of law in Ireland that would convict this man of this murder, im not saying he is innocent or guilty but I won't be joining in any lynchmob and yes the country is full of those types unfortunately most of them are this side of the prison walls
Woody79 wrote: » So hospitalising a woman months before isnt strong evidence given he was sophies neighbour? A violent man towards woman.
Yurt! wrote: » Ultimately this is it. Bailey, to put it plainly will not be winning any personality contests and his violence towards Thomas will be to his eternal shame. With that said, there's simply nothing to tie him to this murder that would move the DPP, and that's because they know a jury simply cannot convict with what's on offer. I'll be straight up - I wouldn't be willing to convict with what we know. There's so much layered f*ckery with this case, that there's more than reasonable doubt at play here; there's lots of it. Bailey's sins, whatever they may be, are between him and God.
[Deleted User] wrote: » So you think the country is full of men that hospitilise women needing stitches in their mouth and pass it off as it takes two to tango in IBs words. Not sure of what circles you mix in to say country is full of these. Prisons are full of these types definitely Boards is not an irish court of law but i agree with the french on the law of probability he is guilty. I also think he is a scumbag with no redeeming features. Most abusive men who beat the **** out of women to the point of hospitilisation or death have many other personality problems. Ian Bailey is one of lifes losers and takes that out on women.
[Deleted User] wrote: » The french found him guilty. He hospitalised his partner months earlier and passed off as a fair fight between two adults. I think hes guilty as do alot of other people in ireland. Why would you tell a 14 year old lad in a car i smashed a womans skull in with a block. All evidence pointing to him. I dont really care that he has never been convicted. Hes paying the price now anyhow. Karma.
Woody79 wrote: » So hospitalising a woman months before isnt strong evidence given he was sophies neighbour?
Padre_Pio wrote: » It doesn't matter a jot what people say or think. The DPP never ever brought a case against him. It never even went to trial. They have nothing only circumstances, and he said, she said nonsense. The Gardai well and truly f*cked this up and Bailey lives with it. We live in a civil society. This sort of parochial witch hunting belongs in the last century.
Ultimate Gowlbag wrote: » That's it so,prepare the noose!
Woody79 wrote: » The french found him guilty. I think hes guilty as do alot of other people in ireland. .
[Deleted User] wrote: » . The french court case was essentially a civil case here (law of probability). Is he guilty of crime or innocent of crime on law of probability? Guilty. I feel sorry for the villagers of schull. I think he is in for rough time ahead in ireland. Good enough for him given what he did. A failure of a man with a large ego.
ShamNNspace wrote: » A vile and disgusting man, a violent man, a failure, a man with a large ego... the country's full of em, still doesn't prove he committed this particular crime. There is no evidence that he burned any incriminating items in that fire, tis a common sight out the country to see the smoke rising from a backyard fire matter of fact according to Jules the Gardai took possession of his long black coat and found nothing, So far fwis there's nothing of any significance to connect him to this crime... Sometimes if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's still not a duck no matter how much the Gardai want us to see it as a duck
marklazarcovic wrote: » that may very well have been the intention though. to not look like a hired hit.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Just watched NF doc. Guilty as sin. A vile and disgusting man. Im glad Jules finally threw him out. A very violent man who left his partner hospitalised from his abuse months earlier. He burnt all incriminating evidence before police searched house. The french court case was essentially a civil case here (law of probability). Is he guilty of crime or innocent of crime on law of probability? Guilty. I feel sorry for the villagers of schull. I think he is in for rough time ahead in ireland. Good enough for him given what he did. A failure of a man with a large ego.
Yurt! wrote: » She's either barking mad or hiding something.
FAILSAFE 00 wrote: » https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/uncle-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-24408601 Jesus, it seems she's a bit like Bailey. Loves the attention.
However, according to the Sunday Independent, Ms Farrell now believes she can identify the man as someone known to Ms Toscan Du Plantier’s deceased husband Daniel.
The_Honeybadger wrote: » If he did it then Jules almost certainly knew from the off and was complicit in covering it up and standing by him. I don’t believe that he could have kept it from her. She also has a lot to answer for if that’s the case, as much as I feel for her having the misfortune to meet him in the first place.
FrankN1 wrote: » Also cutting a tree down on the 22nd or 23rd...not very likely.
FrankN1 wrote: » Innocent by the court of law to date doesn't mean innocent. It means it hasn't been proven without doubt. In the laws of probability, it points to him.
The_Honeybadger wrote: » Yeah binged it this evening and thinking the same. I thought it was more factual than the JS Documentary. I reckon he did actually know Sophie, or at least had met her, talked about the project mentioned in the documentary etc. He was infatuated with her, went to her house that night drunk, his advances were rebuffed and he subsequently just lost it. His history of violence after taking a drink would lend credence to this theory. If that is the case then he got extremely lucky in the aftermath with everything that happened with the state pathologist, Gardai not preserving the scene or moving the body etc. Crazy story altogether. The Marie Farrell factor is completely bizarre and I’ve no idea what to make of her at all. I think that anything she says should be disregarded, I just don’t believe a word she says.
bb12 wrote: » after watching the NF doc I think I'm leaning more towards IB now. The scratches on his head and arms are pretty telling. he tries to explain it away by saying he was cutting down the top of a pine tree for christmas and got the scatches when climbing it to cut off the top...but pine tees don't have needles that would scratch you...also if you were up a tree in december you'd be wearing a jacket with long sleeves because of the cold, so even less likely to get any scratches from softer pine as opposed to wrestling with someone in a briars bush...also his explanation of how killing a turkey caused the scratch on his forehead doesn't gel with me...and interestingly he says that sophie's house was 2 or 3 km away but only about 1 mile as the crow flies.
Padre_Pio wrote: » Ian Bailey is an innocent man. People can have suspicions and doubts all they want, but he's innocent until the DPP being a case against him and an Irish court finds him guilty. Honestly, part of me feels sorry for him. Even if he didn't do it, but plead guilty, knowing our courts, he'd be out of prison 10 years ago and free to get on with his life.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/cc5c49cbcd8338fb80f9b4941d6b358e.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e68aa2b0e039b12ade8384a2f42841c6.svg)
