Xander10 wrote: » "She says that she noticed the fire on 26 December 1996. After a period of four months her recollection could easily be in error as to the date." Recalling a key date in Ireland, such as St Stephen's Day, incorrectly, I think is very unlikely. So the DPP is leaning incorrectly on that one.
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » No, They analysed, forensically dissected and comprehensively demolished every single facet of the case presented by the Gardai. Line by line. Not only that, they heavily criticised the approach and methods used by the Gardai to in their attempts to achieve the required outcomes. Its right here in black and white: https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/
MoonUnit75 wrote: » As above, the same investigation played out under cross-examination in Bailey’s libel case and stood up to scrutiny. The DPP was completely wrong IMO to disregard and discredit every single witness except the accused and those close to him.
dublin49 wrote: » dont agree.as moonunit above correctly points out all the witnesses prevailed in libel actions and their evidence was deemed credible and Bailey found in a court of law to be a man of violence,
OwlsZat wrote: » I've read the link and I disagree with the findings I find the DPP didn't take the case because so much of the GARDA work was unlawful/amateur. Not because IB isn't guilty.
OwlsZat wrote: » I've read the link and I disagree with the findings/summary they are making. The main reason for not taking the case I can see. Is Jules testimony was unlawful meaning it couldn't be used in court to show IB was lying about his movements the night of the murder. This is huge tbh. The very night of the murder and we can prove you mis-remembered your movements. Also very interesting how Jules talks of IB being a different person when drunk on Whiskey. He was fresh off a big bender the previous day where he slept on a pals couch. Then went at it again the day of the murder. In the summary also explains about soaking shorts used while killing turkeys. Nothing about the Italian student who was staying with IB and the large winter coat she saw soaking beside the shower.... I also don't agree with the logic of burning a mattress right outside your own back door either. Total nonsense. Makes me wonder was IB naked under his winter coat and gloves when he called to the house to suggest a bit of giggy giggy. She said no thanks nd he lost the plot chasing her around and ultimately ending her with a hatchet which was never found. Maybe thrown in the lake? He was certainly careful about destroying all other evidence. I find the DPP didn't take the case because so much of the GARDA work was unlawful/amateur. Not because IB isn't guilty.
dublin49 wrote: » I agree with this,dress it up as insufficient evidence rather than let it go to court and be thrown out on a procedural issue.
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » No Bailey's case against the newspapers did not represent a vindication of the "witness" statements as per the book of evidence. And the DPP are, without question, the gold standard when it comes to the assessment of evidence. Professionals, fine legal minds. They didn't disregard anything.....And there was no hesitation or uncertainty in their explanations. They saw no evidence that would convict Bailey or justify a murder charge. Because there simply was none.
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » OK, but their conclusion was not that procedural issues jeopardised the case. It was: "A prosecution against Bailey is not warranted by the evidence" And I agree with that.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » Judge Moran actually heard the witnesses who made statements giving testimony under cross examination and did not agree with the DPP’s assessment of their credibility.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » This surely isn’t a serious post? The DPP, who never spoke to any of the witnesses, is better able to assess evidence and statements than a judge who saw the witnesses being cross examined on their statements in court? If that was true we don’t actually need a court system at all. Judge Moran actually heard the witnesses who made statements giving testimony under cross examination and did not agree with the DPP’s assessment of their credibility.
OwlsZat wrote: » Thanks for this fact.
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » Judge Moran was not deciding on the guilt or innocence of Bailey or on the weight of the evidence against him. He was deciding on whether or not the newspapers concerned libelled Bailey. Baily's case was that the papers had portrayed him as the murderer of STDP. It was the papers that were on trial. And as the presiding judge stressed....this is not a murder trial and the burden of proof is different.
dublin49 wrote: » true ,OJ lost the civil one and we all know how innocent he was.
Darc19 wrote: » The superintendent comes across as a bit of an eejit. Untrustworthy would be my impression. It's been proven that the gardai were utterly incompetent in the investigation, yet listening to him you'd think they were brilliant.
c.p.w.g.w wrote: » The black coat thing is amazing... He said numerous times, IB burnt the black coat... yet there is AGS documentation that AGS seized the coat in IB studio and it was tested and no DNA was found on it... And losing a 10ft steel gate, absolutely laughable
MoonUnit75 wrote: » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= Judge Moran gave his assessment of the witnesses called by the paper’s legal teams during his judgement, the main witnesses the gardai included in their file for the DPP. Judge Moran describes why he found them credible and reliable. Therefore, the DPP’s position that these witnesses would not be credible in court was not upheld by Judge Moran. It doesn’t matter what the ‘burden of proof’ is, there was a golden opportunity for Bailey’s team to discredit these witnesses during cross-examination, as the DPP did in the report, and this didn’t transpire in court. The opposite happened.
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » He was filmed wearing the (or at least a) black coat on Christmas morning, at the Christmas day swim in Schull Harbour.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » Is the ‘only one coat’ thing mandatory in West Cork, something like the one-child policy in China?
FileNotFound wrote: » Didn't the gardai take and test the coat and then like the gate lost the evidence that didn't support their case? Then the gardai were caught for pressuring witnesses and using drugs to get others on side. How'd the Netflix show frame it? Imagine they did the usual pick a side and ignore all inconvenient info?
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » The Netflix doc was presented not as an investigation into an unsolved murder, but as a case of a guilty man not being charged.
OwlsZat wrote: » Makes me wonder was IB naked under his winter coat and gloves when he called to the house to suggest a bit of giggy giggy.
c.p.w.g.w wrote: » Listen he have had numerous black trench coats...but the Superintendent said he burnt the coat (which no evidence to support his position), while not mentioning the cost they seized... The carry on from AGS tainted the case IMO
FileNotFound wrote: » Coat was seized, tested and lost like other evidence that didn't make the man guilty. Gardai were a shambles. If Bailey was guilty the gardai destroyed all chance we could ever say it really. Sad for the family but reality is what it is.
