Gardaí criticised over Ian Bailey investigation

Anywhoodle · 02-03-2012 06:14PM

Biggins wrote: »

You say that "horrendous history of violence against women."
To be accurate - he has a history of taking his temper out on one woman, not a "horrendous history... ...against women."
One person (not many) that in all honesty we will never probably know the full circumstances of.

I never said 'many'! Nor did I claim anything about the circumstances.. Have edited my posts for the sake of clarity.. However, I merely reiterated the point of view expressed by Judge Moran- not seeing anything contentious in that..

The papers that he's now readdressing stated (I believe) that he was the murderer - printed that he had a history of attacking women in numbers and remember the case that you refer to was supplied evidence for the very people that now stand accused of inventing evidence, tainting it and trying to get others (and they did successfully sometimes) to state what they wanted the court to hear only and it being wrong!

My understanding was that all of the papers found not liable, did not claim that he was the murderer.. I dunno, I guess we'll just wait and see what the grounds for re-opening these cases are..

Biggins · 02-03-2012 06:18PM

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Do you have a link to that?

Trying to find a copy of the full report but in the meantime, it was stated last night by Vincent Brown having read the report, referred to in the report by him and also stated by Bailey additionally as to how he won already some cases.

Here is a help in the meanwhile:

5. Marie Farrell

Marie Farrell made a series of statements which placed a thinly built man about 5ft 10in tall outside her shop on December 21, 1996; walking on an unlit road with his hands in his head on December 23, 1996 at about 3am; and thumbing a lift at around 7.15am on the morning of December 22, 1996.

The DPP said that Bailey is over 6ft 2in tall and of a strong and powerful build; that a reliable identification on an unlit country road was "unlikely" and that Bailey was having breakfast at a friend's house when Farrell reported him thumbing a lift.

Farrell, a married woman, later admitted lying to gardai to cover up a love affair -- the DPP said her potential as a witness was "diminished".

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/dearbhail-mcdonald-and-ralph-riegel-ten-reasons-why-the-dpp-refused-to-prosecute-ian-bailey-3037843.html

The full version:

An internal review into the garda investigation of the Sophie Toscan du Plantier case, carried out by the DPP’s office, outlined 10 key reasons why the DPP refused to prosecute Ian Bailey. Dearbhail McDonald and Ralph Riegel report

1. Lack of forensic evidence

GARDAI claimed Bailey was the murderer and was scratched on his hands and arms by briars during the struggle.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) said if the attack was frenzied, the assailant would have been expected to leave traces of blood, skin, clothing fibres, or hair, at the scene.

No such evidence was found, and Bailey's voluntary provision of fingerprints and a blood specimen "is objectively indicative of innocence".

2. Bailey's alleged prior knowledge of Sophie Toscan du Plantier

Gardai claimed that Bailey knew Sophie Toscan du Plantier and said that Bailey reported he had seen the Frenchwoman in Schull on the Saturday before she died.

The DPP said that Bailey steadfastly maintained he did not know Ms du Plantier on a personal basis and, although he said he had seen her 18 months before her death, denied he met her on the Saturday before she died.

He said that the garda contention that Bailey was untruthful and evasive regarding his knowledge of Ms du Plantier was "not supported by convincing evidence".

3. Garda warnings about the threat posed to the community by Ian Bailey

Gardai warned the DPP on February 26, 1997 that Bailey be charged immediately with murder as there was "every possibility he will kill again", or would imminently attack witnesses living close to him.

Locals were also warned of the threat posed by Bailey.

The DPP said the initial garda report provided evidence of the "hysteria" in relation to Bailey following his portrayal as a ruthless and unrestrained killer.

This, combined with a consistent flow of information to the media, was bound to create a climate in which witnesses became suggestible.

4. Bailey's 'inconsistent' responses to garda questioning

Gardai claimed that Bailey lied about leaving Jules's house on the night of the murder and alleged he was at Kealfadda Bridge at 3am on December 23, 1996.

The DPP said that Bailey's version of events could not be properly rebutted and anything said during his detention may not have been used in court as it was gleaned from Jules Thomas's "unlawful detention".

The DPP also said that it was interesting to note that, in the context of Bailey's home, Kealfadda is not on the way to, or from, Ms du Plantier's house.

5. Marie Farrell

Marie Farrell made a series of statements which placed a thinly built man about 5ft 10in tall outside her shop on December 21, 1996; walking on an unlit road with his hands in his head on December 23, 1996 at about 3am; and thumbing a lift at around 7.15am on the morning of December 22, 1996.

The DPP said that Bailey is over 6ft 2in tall and of a strong and powerful build; that a reliable identification on an unlit country road was "unlikely" and that Bailey was having breakfast at a friend's house when Farrell reported him thumbing a lift.

Farrell, a married woman, later admitted lying to gardai to cover up a love affair -- the DPP said her potential as a witness was "diminished".

6. Gardai's relationship with certain witnesses

Farrell, whose alias was "Fiona", was managed by a detective.

This detective is alleged to:

- Have given cash, clothes and hash to Martin Graham -- a destitute drug abuser -- in order to obtain incriminating evidence against Bailey.

- Elicited incriminating observations from Thomas during her "unlawful detention".

- Took a statement from a man waiting sentence on a serious harm conviction who was "anxious to please the gardai".

The DPP said that gardai must have been aware that Graham might fabricate evidence to secure rewards.

Of taped conversations between gardai and Graham offering rewards and private conversations, the DPP said that "such investigative practices are clearly unsafe to say the least".

7. The scratches

Gardai said Bailey scratched his arms and hands as he murdered Ms du Plantier.

Bailey said he received the scratches by climbing up a 20ft tree with a bow saw in his hand to cut branches, and also by killing turkeys.

A dermatologist who examined Bailey five days after the murder said that she did not notice any marks or injuries to his face or hands.

The DPP said there was no "sharp thorn" damage to Bailey's clothes; that gardai did not submit to his office statements taken during the investigation which showed that two plucked and beheaded turkeys were lying on tea towels on Thomas's bathroom floor the day after the murder, and witnesses did not notice any scratches on Bailey.

The DPP said that Bailey's explanation for the scratches is "plausible, consistent and is supported by other direct and credible evidence".

8. Knowledge of injuries on Sophie's body

Several people -- including gardai, a doctor, a priest and neighbours -- saw Ms du Plantier's body on the morning of December 23, 1996 -- and a substantial amount of gossip occurred in the area and the media about the cause of her death.

The DPP said that incriminating weight could not be attached to Bailey mentioning to a witness weeks after the murder that Ms du Plantier had sustained a serious finger injury.

9. The investigation by gardai

The DPP was critical of the way gardai discussed the case with certain witnesses, including Martin Graham. The DPP said the approach of some of the gardai seem to have been intended to elicit a particular response from witnesses "who are in effect exhorted" to take a particular line in order to avoid further loss of life.

Other evidence was highly suspect; taken two years after the murder, taken in direct contradiction to earlier information and was inadmissible against Bailey because it was hearsay evidence.

10. Domestic violence and sexual motive

Domestic violence

Jules Thomas admitted that she had received a bad beating from Bailey, which did not require her going to hospital.

The DPP said "unfortunately" domestic violence was not uncommon.

The DPP said the brutal murder of Ms du Plantier, who had some 50 wounds, was uncommon and was not similar to Thomas's domestic violence incident.

Sexual motive

The DPP disputed gardai's claims that Bailey killed Ms du Plantier after she turned down his sexual advances.

"In fact there is no evidence of a sexual motive in this case," said the DPP, who noted that Ms du Plantier was clothed, with her boots laced up and there was no evidence of sexual interference.

"References in the Garda Report to a sexual motive are pure speculation".

steddyeddy · 02-03-2012 06:29PM

http://www.tv3.ie/shows.php?request=tonightwithvincentbrowne

Interview with Ian bailey.

Chucky the tree · 02-03-2012 06:30PM

Your claims about being hard to murder a women in the forest while eating breakfast is what I wanted clarfied. She was murdered in the evening, not the morning. Obviously Bailey was having breakfast the following morning which just means he was the guy thumbing the lift. Pretty sure he has no alibi for the time of the murder.

Biggins · 02-03-2012 06:30PM

On TV3 news now by the way...

Biggins · 02-03-2012 06:35PM

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Your claims about being hard to murder a women in the forest while eating breakfast is what I wanted clarfied. She was murdered in the evening, not the morning. Obviously Bailey was having breakfast the following morning which just means he was the guy thumbing the lift. Pretty sure he has no alibi for the time of the murder.

Again, as regards the time of her death, its now held to be untrustworthy as the investigation officers were found to have altered evidence and pressurised others to alter evidence to fit their case against Bailey.
Apparently now (for reasons I do not know why) the DPP believes that Bailey was at a kitchen table at the time of her murder.
What they know and what they have not released to the public, I suspect is being held back in case of any future possible case against someone.

monkeybutter · 02-03-2012 06:37PM

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Your claims about being hard to murder a women in the forest while eating breakfast is what I wanted clarfied. She was murdered in the evening, not the morning. Obviously Bailey was having breakfast the following morning which just means he was the guy thumbing the lift. Pretty sure he has no alibi for the time of the murder.

Chucky where were you at the time of the murder?

The reality here is the coppers that were invloved are well retired by this stage (would have been detective grade at the time) and nothing will come of this.

steddyeddy · 02-03-2012 06:41PM

Will there be sackings over this or revoking of pension rights?

Chucky the tree · 02-03-2012 06:44PM

Biggins wrote: »

Again, as regards the time of her death, its now held to be untrustworthy as the investigation officers were found to have altered evidence and pressurised others to alter evidence to fit their case against Bailey.
Apparently now (for reasons I do not know why) the DPP believes that Bailey was at a kitchen table at the time of her murder.
What they know and what they have not released to the public, I suspect is being held back in case of any future possible case against someone.

Where the link to the DPP thinking the death was in the morning? Also that's quite a claim, that either the Gardai froze the body possibly, or else the state pathologist delibrately lied and was pressured into lying.

steddyeddy · 02-03-2012 06:47PM

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Where the link to the DPP thinking the death was in the morning? Also that's quite a claim, that either the Gardai froze the body possibly, or else the state pathologist delibrately lied and was pressured into lying.

You see the thing about this is that wheter or not he is or isnt guilty is nearly irelevant. The gaurds wrecked any chance of prosecution and as regards lying I wouldnt be surprised.

Teyla Emmagan · 02-03-2012 06:52PM

This has been a complete cock up from start to finish. Without a doubt, one of the darkest hours for the Gardai. They bungled this so badly from the very start that even if he had literally been caught red handed they wouldn't have managed to get a conviction to stick. Complete and utter unprofessionalism.

I don't know if Ian Bailey is guilty or innocent, but he will get a humongous payout now either way. If he's innocent he certainly deserves it, but either way the Guards have desperate egg on their faces and will hopefully have learnt a massive lesson. Which you and I will be paying for.

Biggins · 02-03-2012 06:55PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

You see the thing about this is that wheter or not he is or isnt guilty is nearly irelevant. The gaurds wrecked any chance of prosecution and as regards lying I wouldnt be surprised.

Thats just it exactly.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Where the link to the DPP thinking the death was in the morning? Also that's quite a claim, that either the Gardai froze the body possibly, or else the state pathologist delibrately lied and was pressured into lying.

Time of murder v's Bailey breakfast is in the TV3 report alone - besides apparently the report also.
The Independent write-up is a summary by the way.
If we are to believe what Vincent Brown states himself (and Bailey), its in the report also besides the paper referring to it in passing.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Will there be sackings over this or revoking of pension rights?

Was thinking about that very thing last night.
As at the time they were earning those pension rights, they were breaking a number of serious laws themselves!
...So IF the state tried to pursue them (some hope!), using the CAB laws, in theory they could go after their money gained during that time alone.

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

This has been a complete cock up from start to finish. Without a doubt, one of the darkest hours for the Gardai. They bungled this so badly from the very start that even if he had literally been caught red handed they wouldn't have managed to get a conviction to stick. Complete and utter unprofessionalism.

I don't know if Ian Bailey is guilty or innocent, but he will get a humongous payout now either way. If he's innocent he certainly deserves it, but either way the Guards have desperate egg on their faces and will hopefully have learnt a massive lesson. Which you and I will be paying for.

...And probably a book deal too eventually?
Maybe a film also?

Cardinal Richelieu · 02-03-2012 06:58PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Will there be sackings over this or revoking of pension rights?

Has that ever happen in the past in the Garda?

steddyeddy · 02-03-2012 07:19PM

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Has that ever happen in the past in the Garda?

No but if they want repsect they should cop on and do it now.

micropig · 02-03-2012 07:20PM

Some Gardai think/know they are above the law and are tripping off the power they have. Some abuse their position. It astonishes me in this day an age that some people are so naive to think what a garda says/does must be correct and obeyed immediately.

The Gardai involved in unprofessional behaviour in this case should be sacked, prosecuted and their names made public. They were so hell bent on convicting the man they wanted it to be, they may/may not have let the real killer go free.

Rawhead · 02-03-2012 07:28PM

They tried to take the pension or gratuity off some Guards years ago. The Guards won the case on the basis that it was their money and they had already paid the money.
It would be no different in a private sector job I believe. If you had paid into a private pension scheme and then got sacked you would still be entitled to anything you saved. You cannot be stripped retrospectively of something you have earned.
I don't think it would be fair to start that precedent for any employee.

ItsAWindUp · 02-03-2012 07:44PM

Absolutely disgusting the way they treated him

steddyeddy · 02-03-2012 09:04PM

Rawhead wrote: »

They tried to take the pension or gratuity off some Guards years ago. The Guards won the case on the basis that it was their money and they had already paid the money.
It would be no different in a private sector job I believe. If you had paid into a private pension scheme and then got sacked you would still be entitled to anything you saved. You cannot be stripped retrospectively of something you have earned.
I don't think it would be fair to start that precedent for any employee.

Well some of these peoples actions were illegal. Their pensions should be the least of their worries. Also the training and recruitment processes of the guards should be looked at after this.

Finneen · 02-03-2012 09:37PM

hardCopy wrote: »

I really can't understand why the man has been hounded for so long over this. Seems to be pure vindictiveness from local cops.

Because he's posh, educated, intelligent, upper-middle class, and English!

Rawhead · 02-03-2012 09:41PM

Finneen wrote: »

Because he's posh, educated, intelligent, upper-middle class, and English!

Don't forget women beater.

steddyeddy · 02-03-2012 09:50PM

Rawhead wrote: »

Don't forget women beater.

Ill be honest I dont trust word one of the gaurds in relation to this man. Id like for this to be independently analysed before we demonise a man who was bullied black mailed and had his reputation torn to shreds.

john reilly · 02-03-2012 09:55PM

Biggins wrote: »

There you go OP.

I was listening to a lengthy discussion last night on this matter - and an interview with Bailey.
It sounds like (if the DPP is to be believed - and I have no reason not to) that there was some right bullying going on for certain by particular investigators.

At least 15 points where very wrong things was done. Actual laws being broken by the Gardi investigating.
This will mean a big payout eventually - BUT - it will be interesting to see if the government will investigate this matter and by what method, or as some suspect, they will hold a limited investigation and the culprits that broke the laws themselves getting off in time.

Meanwhile the French in their arrogance, are going ahead it appears to try and hold a trial for the man accused by them, in his absence, even though as we now know, the evidence was 'cooked'* and/or invented!

* Example:
One woman gave a statement that she saw a THIN man, 5 foot 2 crossing a bridge shortly after the murder.
She was forced to change her statement to say it was in fact Bailey and that the man was much higher in height.
(Bailey was at the time, having breakfast at home with friends! Bailey is much bigger and much more well built. The phrase "built like a schithouse" comes to mind.)
They showed her a video of Bailey at one stage and told her, to tell them that it was him she saw!

What was done by investigating officers - who according to the DPP, CLEARLY broke the law a good few times, repeatedly was and still is shocking.

with a bit of luck they will find him guilty. save us a ball of money.

john reilly · 02-03-2012 09:58PM

surely the gardai know this sort of behaviour was only acceptable and indeed welcomed in the case of irish republicans

steddyeddy · 02-03-2012 10:03PM

john reilly wrote: »

surely the gardai know this sort of behaviour was only acceptable and indeed welcomed in the case of irish republicans

??

berrypendel · 04-03-2012 04:17PM

ebixa82 wrote: »

Gardai are just as corrupt as any other police force the world for higher level corruption.

Needless to say they don't go round accepting bribes for drink driving etc.

As is often the case they chose Bailey as the chief suspect then decided to build the case around him, helped along by the sensationalist media.

This man's life has been ruined. Not that it will make any difference to his quality of life but I hope he gets a massive payout and some cops get sacked.

at least one i know of did

Biggins · 04-03-2012 04:22PM

john reilly wrote: »

surely the gardai know this sort of behaviour was only acceptable and indeed welcomed in the case of irish republicans

steddyeddy wrote: »

??

No, don't feed it!

berrypendel wrote: »

at least one i know of did

O' well thats them all condemned then ain't it!

lividduck · 04-03-2012 04:23PM

john reilly wrote: »

surely the gardai know this sort of behaviour was only acceptable and indeed welcomed in the case of irish republicans

By irish republicans you mean murdering scum who blew up two little boys in Warrington/Bombed Omagh etc..

berrypendel · 04-03-2012 04:24PM

Biggins wrote: »

No, don't feed it!

O' well thats them all condemned then ain't it !

why would you say that i did not say it

Biggins · 04-03-2012 04:25PM

berrypendel wrote: »

why would you say that i did not say it

Good to hear and be clarified.

berrypendel · 04-03-2012 04:29PM

Biggins wrote: »

Good to hear and be clarified.

ok i stand over my point i know one who did. In one of the tabloids today there is a story that says a suspect killed himself. Thinks its mirror, anyone see it

Gardaí criticised over Ian Bailey investigation

Comments