ANALYSIS:Differences between the testimonies of witnesses and those of Ian Bailey and his partner Jules Thomas are central to the issue, writes BARRY ROCHE, Southern Correspondent
THE DECISION by investigating French magistrate, Judge Patrick Gachon, to base his issuing of a European arrest warrant for Ian Bailey on three distinct grounds would suggest that he is focusing on a small number of witnesses who made statements to gardaí.
On the issue of Bailey’s knowledge of the killing, it would seem Judge Gachon is looking at a handful of witnesses who testified at Bailey’s libel action where they contradicted Bailey and his partner Jules Thomas’s testimony about when they learned of the killing.
Toscan du Plantier’s body was found by her neighbour, Shirley Foster just before 10am on December 23rd, 1996 and she alerted gardaí who arrived at the scene at 10.38am but the Frenchwoman’s body was so badly beaten that gardaí took some time to formally identify her.
In fact it wasn’t until 12.30pm when Finbarr Hellen, husband of Josie Hellen, who looked after Toscan du Plantier’s property, arrived at the scene and formally identified the body that gardaí were able to confirm that the murder victim was French.
Bailey during his libel action against several newspapers in 2003 testified repeatedly that the first he knew of the killing was when he received a phonecall from Eddie Cassidy, west Cork reporter for the then Cork Examiner sometime after 1.30pm on December 23rd.
Cassidy in his evidence at the libel action said that he rang Bailey at 1.40pm and told him that the body of a woman, a non-national, had been found somewhere in Toormore but he denied that he had ever said she was French or that she had been murdered.
However, two witnesses called by the papers; market gardener Caroline Leftwick and musician Paul O’Colmain testified that they received phonecalls from Bailey on the morning of December 23rd in which he mentioned the murder of a Frenchwoman.
Leftwick said that Bailey rang at about midday and said he couldn’t come to collect some garlic as there had been a murder in the locality and he had to cover it and when she asked if it was someone she knew, he replied that it was a Frenchwoman.
O’Colmain said that Bailey rang him on the morning of December 23rd to tell him that he couldn’t deliver a turkey because there had been a murder and while he couldn’t be definite about the time, he believed it was around 11.30am.
Bailey told the libel action he couldn’t have mentioned the murder to Leftwick as he didn’t know about it when he rang her while he said that it must have been after Cassidy phoned that he rang O’Colmain because he didn’t know about the murder until then.
A third witness, Jimmy Camier, who runs a vegetable stall in Goleen, told the libel action that Jules Thomas visited him sometime between 10.30am and 11am on December 23rd and mentioned that she had dropped Bailey off as he had to investigate a murder.
Ms Thomas said this happened on December 24th but Camier was adamant it happened on December 23rd while The Irish Times has learned that Thomas’s daughter, Fenella, told gardaí that her mother had gone shopping to Goleen on the morning of December 23rd.
Regarding the scratches Bailey said he sustained while killing three turkeys and cutting down a Christmas tree on the afternoon of Sunday, December 22nd, a statement from at least one witness contradicts this.
In a statement given to gardaí in 1997, a witness said how they saw Bailey in the Galley Bar at about 10.45pm on the night of December 22nd and were sitting quite close to him for around 15 minutes and noted that he had no scratches of any kind on his face.
In regard to Bailey’s whereabouts on the night of December 22nd/December 23rd, the original statement from shopkeeper Marie Farrell was that she saw Bailey at Kealfadda bridge at 3.15am.
Farrell has since retracted that statement, saying she was coerced into making it by gardaí.
However, the Director of Public Prosecutions did not prosecute any gardaí following a review of the Garda handling of the case.
LEGAL DIFFERENCES THE FRENCH AND IRISH SYSTEMS
THE DIFFERENCE between the French and Irish approaches and permitted newspaper coverage to criminal prosecutions was illustrated by the report of Ian Bailey’s appearance before the High Court on Saturday in Le Monde newspaper yesterday.
Under the headline “The presumed murderer of Sophie Toscan du Plantier under judicial control”, a photograph of Mr Bailey arriving at the court is captioned: “Arrested on the night of April 23rd, 2010, the journalist Ian Bailey, suspected many times of the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier, was freed and placed under judicial control”.
The article stated that Mr Bailey gave rise to suspicions by being among the first at the scene of the crime and writing a number of articles containing information that only the investigators and the murderer could have known. It also referred to the evidence of Marie Farrell, who said she saw the journalist near the house of the victim on the night of the murder, but that she later retracted her evidence.
In Ireland the accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and the media are obliged to reflect this in any reporting on a criminal prosecution.
The allegations against Mr Bailey were explored by a lengthy libel action he took against five Irish and British newspaper groups, where he alleged they accused him of the murder. They denied this claim, stating they had claimed only that he was a reasonable suspect.
The action ended in the High Court in 2007 with Mr Bailey withdrawing his claims and receiving a contribution towards his legal costs, but no damages.
- CAROL COULTERLegal Affairs Editor