Who do you blame for the delay in bringing proceedings, which resulted in the statute of limitations being raised? Was it the gardai, the state or Ian Bailey?
You should read Judge Hedigan's judgement on why he was awarding all costs towards the Garda Commissioner etc.:
"From when I first dealt with this case about two years ago in discovery proceedings it was clear to all concerned i.e. the plaintiff, the defendant and the court, that the allegations made against the gardaí were so grave that the fullest possible ventilation of the evidence was required in open court and before a jury. I expressed the view on more than one occasion that I was unreceptive to any argument that anything other than the fullest discovery of documents by both parties but particularly by the defending gardaí should be made.
Thus emerged the Bandon tapes inter alia.
....
I should note in passing that it is incorrect to state that most of the plaintiff’s case was withdrawn from the jury. The opposite is the case. The central plank of the plaintiff’s case was that the gardaí conspired to suborn false statements from Marie Farrell in order to implicate the plaintiff in murder and also intimidate her. This central plank or core of the plaintiff’s case is what went to the jury for their decision."
That must have been what you meant to say to sporina was it? That the jury, if they were still awake, didn't get an opportunity to look at this aspect of the file, it being from 1996, along with LOTS more. Outrageous to think there might have been "grave allegations" against gardai. We got fudge and bullsh*t instead of justice, but you'd have people think it's all been examined. The judge had to reluctantly accept the very late application by the state that so much of this was statute barred. I'm surprised he didn't say something like this application looks more corrupt than the investigation into Bailey.
"The judge queried why an application under the statute was not made earlier, either at the start of the case or at the end of the evidence called on behalf of Mr Bailey, the 37th day of the trial. Mr Bailey’s lawyers also strongly opposed the application, insisting its making at such a late stage after enormous costs had been incurred by both sides amounted to abuse of process. The case involved issues of huge public interest and the jury should determine them, it was argued.
The State argued it was open to it to raise the statute point at any stage, that gardai against whom grave allegations had been made were entitled to have an opportunity to deny them in public and it was necessary to await evidence in the case because certain aspects of the claim were not sufficiently detailed.
In an important ruling on day 62, the judge said it was clear many of the claims were statute barred. The case was initiated in May 2007 and the application of the six year limit meant any aspects of the claim related to events prior to May 1st 2001 could not be pursued. This included the claims for wrongful arrest as both of Mr Bailey’s arrests were in February 1997 and January 1998. The statute point also caught the meeting between west Cork State Solicitor Malachy Boohig and a number of gardai in Bandon garda station in March 1998, in which Mr Boohig alleged he was asked to put pressure on the DPP to charge Mr Bailey. The judge also ruled no case for wrongful arrest had been made out. He said there were several grounds for both arrests which did not relate in any way to statements made by Ms Farrell and it would be “perverse” to find wrongful arrest. Negligence was also not part of the case as the gardai have no duty of care in the context of investigations."
The mention of shoe eyelets, bits of jeans etc. in the bonfire by Eugene Gilligan is in West Cork, episode 7, around 20 minutes or so in. It also includes Delia Jackson talking about the fire definitely occurring around St. Stephen's Day. She was only home in West Cork for the Christmas holidays.
Netflix part 2 41 mins in Detective Gilligan has a mention of boots and clothes not lace eyelets but i am sure lace eyelets are mentioned somewhere in one of the docs https://streamable.com/wv8zpb
Also West Cork https://voca.ro/13tgQG698OR2 and JS doc 3 @19.40 mins in
Initially limited to 'the material relating to Mr Bailey', two years after the investigation by GSOC began and long after the garda file had been delivered to them.
The judge said discovery of the material should be of the initial material within 12 days and the remainder within four weeks. The documents are to be supplied to both sides in the action.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/gsoc-ordered-to-share-documents-with-ian-bailey-1.1959238
You are certain the 20 documents did not contain a report on the garda file? How do you know? The Bandon Tapes were included in the trial despite the Fennelly report not appearing until it was over. The issue was not put to the jury as most of the actions were statute barred, we don't know what was in the files that were not admissible.
He probably told her one of the papers had contacted him. She apparently said to James Camier before 11-30...."it`s sad, but that`s his job, to report on these things"
haha, excellent 👍
typical shenanigans from the moonie, found out again
They didn't understand that talking about a murder before anybody knew might be foolish?
And Jules didn't know who was responsible because Ian, when he gave her the cup of coffee, said
"Oh, by the way Jules, that French girl got murdered last night" ;
"OMG Ian, that is the most shocking thing ever to happen in this area, who told you?"
"Oh... I just felt it in my bones."
"Cool."
Keep at it! You are well aware that the full GSOC report wasn't ready for years after.
"James B Dwyer BL, for GSOC, said his client was not in a position to provide all the documentation sought before the full trial in front of a judge and jury begins next month due to limited resources.
Paul O’Higgins SC, for the Garda Commissioner and the State, said the matter could be dealt with if disclosure was initially limited to the material relating to Mr Bailey, Ms Thomas, Ms Farrell and Mr Graham which is unlikely to be more than 20 documents."
Also coat buttons.
Judge Hedigan made a discovery order for GSOC to hand over documentation on their investigation to IB's legal team before and during the trial.
Moonunit is using you to confuse the issue, muddy the waters as usual. You asked why since it is known that a Garda station Jobs Book (Evidence book) was tampered with Bailey hadn't won a court case. This only came to light about 3 years ago after Bailey's court cases. GSOC had grave concerns but mysteriously did not send their findings to the DPP, possibly because it would have been very serious for some Gardai.
Especially in the circumstances of this one. You'd be masively pumped for hours afterward.
Sporina was asking why Bailey didn't win a case where the fact that pages had been cut out of a Jobs Book in Bantry garden station in December 1996 at the specific time Ian Bailey became a suspect. In which court case was this spoken about?
He's in the West Cork podcast as well, Eugene Gilligan. He said there were buttons, eyelets from boots and bits of clothing but nothing that could be directly linked to the murder itself.
I think it was the grey haired guy with glasses. Netflix I think.
Do you know what documentary by any chance? Would be interested to hear what he said
I`d imagine it would be very hard to sleep after committing a murder.
A detective on one of the docs said there were lace eyelets in the fire. So shoes or boots then.
All of them?
Which court case?
They even awarded costs against him. In order to prove corruption you have to show there was some benefit or advantage gained, it's clear the gardai knew their case was circumstancial and so many witnesses were 'close but no cigar', no evidence planted, no witnesses coerced, no brutality or bribing. The witnesses who had claimed this all fell apart under cross examination, even a former DPP and his accusation that the gardai made an improper approach to the state solicitor. There was nothing. Judge Hedigan even remarked that the major issues which were statute barred would have been ruled against him if they hadn't been.
why did Bailey not win the court case then?
If faffing about and submitting thrown together work late is a criteria for a brutal murder, we're going to have to suspect about 95% of the entire workforce and 99% of students.
Gardai combed through the rubble of the fire and found nothing of note, they talk about it on the West Cork podcast.
But even you must admire the constitution of this superman who can be up and rambling about the morning after such events. Or would you be well fit for all that too? How much sleep do you think he got?
Indeed, in the French trial the prosecutor wondered, if IB really was under pressure to get this article written for the next day, what was he doing faffing about cutting down christmas trees, killing turkeys and playing the bodhran in the pub.
May 14 2007 was a Monday when The Mirror were rehashing it, so assumedly it was print in May 13 2007s Mail on Sunday.
And let's not forget that before chasing around that morning after a story he shouldn't have known about, old Iain was working hard the day before getting ready for Christmas then was out drinking that night, went for a late night hike, chased down and battered someone to death with rocks, walked out to kilfeadda Bridge, had a good refreshing wash in the night tide, walked home, did a bit of work on an article and made Jules a coffee.
It says this at the bottom
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bd89cdce15309a6ec2dff928c865017a.svg)
