Thatâs not interesting bro.
im actually lost as to whatâs going on,
what is Ian trying to do here?
he was never convicted so he is still an innocent man, is his point that his life was ruined since the cops made these allegations and now he is looking for damages?
are the state then trying to prove his life was not ruined OR are they trying to prove by cross examination that they had reason to suspect him and didnt ruin his life⌠in essence its like he is on trial, not the state
[QUOTE=âmickee321, post: 1047510, member: 367â]im actually lost as to whatâs going on,
what is Ian trying to do here?
he was never convicted so he is still an innocent man, is his point that his life was ruined since the cops made these allegations and now he is looking for damages?
are the state then trying to prove his life was not ruined OR are they trying to prove by cross examination that they had reason to suspect him and didnt ruin his life⌠in essence it like he is on trial, not the state[/QUOTE]
Itâs a very curious dynamic. Heâs taking a case for wrongful arrest, which from my amateur reading of the law means that he basically needs to prove that he shouldnât have even been a suspect. Which kind of puts him on trial alright, and I would imagine that as the plaintiff he needs to prove his case. Given that he seemed to be going around West Cork telling all and sundry that he did it, seems like a tough case for him alright.
As far as I know he âtoldâ two people. One of whom was his newspaper editor who questioned him if he was involved and to which he replied mockingly âyeah I did it to get something to write aboutâ. The other instance was a similar mocking situation.
Also I think he was arrested before any of these âconfessionsâ. The fact that the guards but pressure on a witness to say she saw him when she never did is the slightly bigger issue I think.
[QUOTE=âfarmerinthecity, post: 1047518, member: 24â]As far as I know he âtoldâ two people. One of whom was his newspaper editor who questioned him if he was involved and to which he replied mockingly âyeah I did it to get something to write aboutâ. The other instance was a similar mocking situation.
Also I think he was arrested before any of these âconfessionsâ. The fact that the guards but pressure on a witness to say she saw him when she never did is the slightly bigger issue I think.[/QUOTE]
There seems have been more than two people he said that to.
There was the young lad he gave a lift to and also another couple made a statement that he told them in a pub that he did it.
[QUOTE=âfarmerinthecity, post: 1047518, member: 24â]As far as I know he âtoldâ two people. One of whom was his newspaper editor who questioned him if he was involved and to which he replied mockingly âyeah I did it to get something to write aboutâ. The other instance was a similar mocking situation.
Also I think he was arrested before any of these âconfessionsâ. The fact that the guards but pressure on a witness to say she saw him when she never did is the slightly bigger issue I think.[/QUOTE]
Iâd say he has a clear case on them trying to pin it on him, but it would seem they had plenty of reason to suspect him in the first place, including his history of violence towards his partner. The fact that he conceded that himself on national radio is relevant to the case too.
On drivetime tonight they were talking about a fella from the north who gave a statement to the cops about an encounter he had with Ian in a Schull pub in april 97, yer man was there with his wife and was talking to a couple who in the end turned out to be Ian and his girlfriend⌠yer man from Belfast starts talking about the murder of Du Plantier as part of the conversation and he noted that Ian turned to him and said in a menacing tone â shur donât you know I did itââŚand then laughed out loud, yer man gave a sworn statement to the cops⌠Ian denies it ever happened
[QUOTE=âfarmerinthecity, post: 1047518, member: 24â]As far as I know he âtoldâ two people. One of whom was his newspaper editor who questioned him if he was involved and to which he replied mockingly âyeah I did it to get something to write aboutâ. The other instance was a similar mocking situation.
Also I think he was arrested before any of these âconfessionsâ. The fact that the guards but pressure on a witness to say she saw him when she never did is the slightly bigger issue I think.[/QUOTE]
The Kerrigan article seems to have influenced you a lot mate
The guy is a fucking joker.
Did he shag her though?
Innocent but eccentric
[QUOTE=âfarmerinthecity, post: 1047518, member: 24â]As far as I know he âtoldâ two people. One of whom was his newspaper editor who questioned him if he was involved and to which he replied mockingly âyeah I did it to get something to write aboutâ. The other instance was a similar mocking situation.
[/QUOTE]
The editor of the newspaper didnât seem to interpret Baileys comments as being made in a mocking or joking contextâŚshe seemed to think there was a need to report what she had heard to the Guards. Ditto with the neighbours son, whom he told he had bashed Du Plantiers head in with a rock.
You would imagine if the comments had been made in mocking or joking manner they would have been interpreted as sameâŚespecially by a newspaper editor/fellow journalist. It seems quite convenient for Bailey now to claim thatâs the context in which the comments were made.
most likely
The more I read about it, the more Iâd say their is fair a chance he is guilty. He is at best a convicted woman beater, with some serious mental issues.
The guards definitely had fair reason to suspect him.
I imagine however the real point of the case is yet to come out which is that the guards, happy they had their man, proceeded to frame him.
[QUOTE=âJulio Geordio, post: 1047671, member: 332â]The more I read about it, the more Iâd say their is fair a chance he is guilty. He is at best a convicted woman beater, with some serious mental issues.
The guards definitely had fair reason to suspect him.
I imagine however the real point of the case is yet to come out which is that the guards, happy they had their man, proceeded to frame him.[/QUOTE]
Is the case more based around his second arrest than his first arrest?
Could they agree that they were right to suspect him the first time, but that they had no grounds to arrest him the second time? Or does he have to prove they never had any business in suspecting him at all?
Was there ever any other suspect?
[QUOTE=âTreatyStones, post: 1047672, member: 1786â]Is the case more based around his second arrest than his first arrest?
Could they agree that they were right to suspect him the first time, but that they had no grounds to arrest him the second time? Or does he have to prove they never had any business in suspecting him at all?[/QUOTE]
The only logic I can see to whole thing is he is merely using this case as a platform for the truth to come out.
He was accused of something yet there was no trial, so it denied him the opportunity to clear his name.
The fact that Guards coerced a witness into making a statement implicating him wouldnât really seem to fall under âunlawful arrestâ, but maybe it is covered under that. If it is he surely canât lose the case.
kevin mul
1 Like
lord lantern of jaysus !.. pack your bagsâŚyouâre out of hereâŚ
