Yes I think your right.
I'm very interested in the Alfie/Leo weed business tho. This involved Garda receiving backhanders for turning a blind eye. Lots of corruption. Sophie reported goings on to the Gardaí......
The first independent source I found stating Alfie Lyons is dead. Seems a bit at odds with what someone who claimed to know him was saying though. He previously lived in the US not London.
And he had a penchant for languages. I wonder what he was up to Stateside that he'd acquire Russian?
Yes, I always thought it was a place people went to for a quiet life. Pottery, growing veg, things like that.
It sound like Reservoir Dogs. Christ on a bike.
Very good research. But I think the guy tweeting might not know of the first husband and is referring to the 2nd then, as he is clearly hinting at a child porn ring involving certain individuals in later tweets.
There seems to be so much stuff going on down in West Cork. Everyone in relation to this case has personal intermingled toxic relationships and have created enemies of each other over the years.
No, that was her second husband. Her first husband was called Michael Oliver, he was jailed for attacking none other than Bill Fuller with a knife. So that's the part of the tweet solved.... Still researching this.....
The judge heard all of this, Marie Farrell 2.0 was the 'star witness' for IB and the court heard all of her allegations that gardai pressured her into changing statements, changing her description, pressured her to make false accusations of intimidation etc. This was all put to the jury because the judge decided it was not statute barred as it affected an ongoing murder inquiry. The jury did not believe her.
She claimed the gardai put her under pressure to falsely report witness intimidation from Ian Bailey. She made 17 complaints over a period of time. So you'd have to imagine the gardai at some point saying 'thanks for making those five false complaints of intimidation, that's a great help, would you mind making another 10 or 12 false complaints and getting your solicitor to write to IB demanding he stop harassing you?'.
Christ, we now have people trying to start rumours of cocaine use involved.
There was not even the slightest suspicion of cocaine in any aspect of the case.
Can stupidity be banned from this thread
But this was before it was found out that the gardai had got mf to change the height of the person she saw from average height to "very tall".
If all information known now was known then, the judge may have taken a very different view.
Bailey's alcohol-fuelled incidents of domestic violence were life-threatening on at least one occasion according to his own notes he kept, but
"One of the country’s leading ER specialists says cocaine is synonymous with grotesque violence.
Dr. Chris Luke, Adjunct Senior Lecturer in Public Health in University College Cork, is calling for drug screening of suspects in all violent crimes, particularly murders.
...
"While he said the three main drugs linked to violence are alcohol, cocaine and benzodiazepines, cocaine is the drug most linked to shocking levels of violence.
“Without a shadow of a doubt if you’re working in an Emergency Department, the drug that is associated most commonly with extreme violence is cocaine.”
irish mirror 2020 cocaine-use-synonymous-grotesque-violence
You might misunderstand me, I'm not saying there is any certain proof he is guilty, my point has been that the two basic assumptions I am arguing against are wrong. These are that IB was framed by the gardai, knowing he was innocent, or that the gardai were complicit in a conspiracy to help the 'real' murderer get away with it.
I can only say I totally agree with Judge Hedigan in 2015, who heard all the evidence, the defence arguments, the Bandon tapes, the MF car-crash etc.:
I may say that not only are they barred (IB's allegations that he was framed by a corrupt garda investigation, unlawfully arrested etc.) but having heard all the evidence I think they would also likely have been withdrawn from the jury on the basis that no jury, properly instructed, could reasonably find that the Garda did not have reasonable suspicion upon which they could base a lawful arrest. The grounds for suspicion in both arrests were so strong that had the Garda not arrested Ian Bailey, they would have been derelict in their duty.
It should be noted that these arrests were based on suspicion grounded on numerous reasons other than the statements of Marie Farrell, each of which together or separately would, in my judgement, give grounds for reasonable suspicion of involvement in the offence in question and thus, reasonable grounds for arrest.
My position all along has been that the opinions and dismissals by the posters of the Boards Television forum, sometimes based on false assumptions, unfamiliarity with the facts and bias from conspiracy-angled articles does not come anywhere close to 'discrediting' the opinions of Judge Hedigan quoted above, Judge Moran on the reliability and credibility of witnesses and GSOC on the question of garda corruption. People have convinced themselves it does, that's fine but I am obviously not taking that seriously.
Just to add, you've said you hope I never get selected for jury duty, well we've people here who consider a Gemma O'Doherty piece as a solid case for IB being 'stitched up' and you've not made a similar comment for people like that or those accusing Alfie Lyons because he smoked weed and lived next door.
I'm not sure this makes sense. She is a witness, neither she nor the man she was with were suspected of any crime. How can they compel her other than charging her for trying to pervert the course of justice, which would defeat her value as a witness even more than her refusing to name the man she was allegedly with? I'm not sure it would even progress as a charge, for that the gardai would surely have to have established the man she was with had in fact seen and remembered someone walking along the road in the middle of the night.
There's no evidence the gardai pressured her to give a false name? That's what she claimed in the high court but she seems to have accepted this made no sense in the context of the garda actually spending quite some time trying to identify the man off his own efforts.
Who ya trying to convince Moonunit LOL
Great Post!! Says it all!!
Of course you are aware the French trial was ridiculous right.....?
I doubt any law abiding citizen would ever consider such a farce as justice right?
Sir.... I am not a defence lawyer by any stretch of the imagination...
But even I, could rip your allegations apart one by one..
And would have great fun doing so..
I don't know you, and too be fair, you come across as an educated person. You have a grasp of the events that occurred on the night of the murder. We differ on a lot of things, but neither of us know what exactly happened that terrible night. It's all speculation on our parts.
But.... Put yourself in the shoes of Baileys chief defence lawyer.. Go down through each and every bullet point allegation that you have cited as evidence to Baileys guilt...
As an educated man / woman... Could you not defend each and ever allegation with ease... ?? Remember, this is in a court of law where a man can be incarcerated for the rest of his life based on your defence.
Hearsay, Horse sh*t and absolute nonsense..
I hope you never get selected for Jury Service Sir.
Or the Gardai establish he doesnt exist and undermine their own pliable witness...
If he does exist then perhaps they already knew who he was but didnt want to embarass one of their own. They had no qualms about breaching MFs anonymity. They couldnt care less about the anonymity of some random guy either.
Surely they could have made an effort to compel her to name this man? That story sounds like complete hogwash. A man came down from Longford to deepest west Cork, probably a 6-7hr drive back then to canoodle MF in the middle of the night? And then the Guards play a cat and mouse chase with MF using a fake name and take a trip up to Longford on the back of a description of a car that he drove, that he might not even drive anymore? Surely the Guards pressuring MF to give a false name, if true, is evidence of their bungling of the investigation?
It was followed up, this was covered in the High Court. MF claimed that a named detective told her to make up a name. When she was cross examined though it was established that she had given the detective a loose description of the man, the ‘fact’ that she knew him when she lived in Longford and the car he drove. The detective had in fact gone to Longford and had tried to track him down based on what she had said. When asked why he would do that when she said it was him that suggested she fabricate a name, she said she couldn’t explain it.
All of which is circumstantial evidence which would be of limited value in a murder prosecution. A view shared by the DPP. IB cannot be placed at or near the scene of the murder, there is no evidence of him present at the murder scene and no apparent motive. Whether you belive he did it or not based on the circumstantial evidence is immaterial. There isn't enough evidence to even bring him to trial for this murder.
P.S. on the balance of probability I think IB did do the crime. But we don't convict people for murder on the balance of probability. What annoys me most is how poorly the Gardai handled the investigation. Sofies family deserve justice and it is the Gardai who's poor handling of the case denied them the chance of it.
It's absolutely unbelievable that this person was never identified and questioned. He could have either been a key witness given her potential sighting of a person at the bridge or alternatively he could have been a key suspect. But no, God forbid his family might find out he was playing away from home!
It's inexplicable and inexcusable that the man with whom Marie Farrell purported to be travelling with when she sighted IB at KF Bridge on the night of the murder has never been questioned. Surely this should have been considered to have been of the utmost importance to the investigation by the Guards? A witness came forward with a testimony that appeared to implicate IB surely that Guards should have made an effort to corroborate this evidence with testimony from the mystery man in the car? Did he too see IB? Or was his recollection of the KF bridge sighting different? Maybe Marie Farrell was with Stevie Wonder that night and that's why the Guards didn't follow up
Come on I think you know the answer - There is no evidence whatsoever that Ian Bailey is the murderer.
The French trial was a complete joke - a waste of time for all concerned including Sophies poor family.
As if the trial in France was anything than a farce.
But if thats your view, I guess you would have advised newspapers not to settle and instead accuse Bailey of being the murderer? They only have to prove it beyond balance of probabilities, not reasonable doubt.
But nope they settled...
You cited an argument from authority then roll out this hypocrisy.
You 'know' the DPP was wrong.
But you sneered at other posters for knowing better than proper authorities such as GSOC or the libel trial?
Three times the DPP looked at the evidence and concluded Bailey didnt have a case to answer.
The DPP being the proper body in this state for assessing evidence to bring someone to trial.
GSOC and the libel trial were not trying Bailey for murder and in fact the newspapers pointedly settled out of court with Bailey on any hint of him being the actual murderer.
Also, their subtly spun phrase is in fact a concession that he did indeed question them.
Isn't language great Sgt. Ted?
I can't answer that for you, that is for the DPP to decide. He has been charged and convicted in France, if the posters on this thread were advising him he would have offered a defence and won easily.
A high court jury ruled on this and rejected it. I do agree there are very clear and well documented cases of garda abuse of the system and corrupt practices but this case has been put under the public microscope like no other and no evidence for 'framing' Bailey has emerged. That's not my opinion, that is the conclusion of both GSOC and the high court.
I have very little confidence in the GSOC report which cites missing evidence, deceased and uncoperative Gardai and expects us to believe it would have been able to discover Garda malpractice unless they were foolish enough not to cover their tracks.
The DPP is the only state party in this that heard no witnesses, saw no cross-examinations and had no ability or requirement to hear any contrary legal argument whatsoever. No one has yet put forward any clear case for either Judge Moran, Judge Hedigan, the high court jury or GSOC being factually incorrect yet we know the DPP report is factually incorrect in several instances.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c2d01dc58c93157b55e4469cba109cf9.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bd89cdce15309a6ec2dff928c865017a.svg)
