A Dream of Death Read online

  Mr Bailey denied, once again, that he had told Malachi Reed that he had killed the French woman by smashing her head. He denied that he had effectively admitted the crime to Helen Callanan, a former deputy editor and news editor of the Sunday Tribune newspaper. He again insisted that his comment to Ms Callanan was dark humour. Seventeen years later, he acknowledged that his remark to the news editor in early 1997 was a ‘very regrettable black joke’. The journalist once again insisted that he had been merely repeating what was being said about him locally and that at no stage had he ever made any admissions about the case – he had always protested his innocence and had had his life effectively destroyed through being wrongly associated with the investigation.

  Mr Bailey acknowledged that he had said to her, ‘Of course, yes, I killed her to resurrect my career as a journalist.’ Ms Callanan was so taken aback by the remark she immediately reported it to gardaí. When Ms Callanan took the stand, she explained that she regarded the comment made to her as a ‘confession’ and had felt compelled to inform gardaí. However, Mr Duggan challenged her interpretation of the remark. In testy exchanges, Mr Duggan queried her motivation. ‘You are trying to blacken him,’ he argued to the former news editor. The remark visibly annoyed her.

  ‘I am not trying to blacken him. I am telling you I did not take it as black humour. I did not find it humorous. We were not having any conversation that was jocular,’ Ms Callanan responded. That conversation between Mr Bailey and Ms Callanan marked the last time he ever worked for the Sunday paper.

  Mr Bailey again denied ever making admissions about any involvement in the death of Sophie to Ritchie and Rose Shelly, who had been socialising with him and Ms Thomas one New Year’s Eve. He said he had merely been repeating to them what others in west Cork were saying about him. The journalist was also adamant he had never met Sophie Toscan du Plantier and had never had any dealings with her, though he acknowledged that he may have seen her in the distance once while working on a local property.

  In a forensic cross-examination, some of his claims were tackled. Mr Bailey was adamant that he was never properly cautioned when he was first arrested. However, he acknowledged he was mistaken about that claim when confronted with an entry in his own diary that indicated he had in fact been read his rights by arresting officers.

  While giving evidence during the first month of the hearing, Jules Thomas told the High Court how deeply shocked she was when she was arrested by gardaí. She now believed it was a cynical garda ploy to use her to exert maximum pressure on her partner. The artist also highlighted how she immediately took issue with some aspects of her statement, going so far as to get a solicitor to write to gardaí challenging parts of it.

  Once again, major emphasis was placed on the incidents of domestic violence that Ms Thomas had endured at the hands of Mr Bailey. Two attacks, in 1996 and 2001, were outlined in detail to the jury. As she had been during the libel hearing, Ms Thomas was frank about what she endured. ‘There is no excuse for violence,’ she said. When pressed further about her view of her partner’s behaviour towards her, Ms Thomas replied, ‘I was pretty disgusted with his behaviour, really. It was appalling.’

  Her daughter Saffron also offered evidence. Saffron, who was 17 years old when her mother first met Mr Bailey, said life at Liscaha was happy and content up until Christmas 1996. She insisted that on 22 December Mr Bailey had been helping to kill and pluck turkeys before going into a nearby woodland to cut a tree-top to use for their Christmas decorations. She said that he must have sustained scratches while doing so. She confirmed she was aware of domestic violence incidents her mother had suffered at the hands of Mr Bailey. Mother and daughter had discussed the incidents, but Saffron said that, those incidents aside, she believed that her mother and Mr Bailey enjoyed a good relationship.

  Saffron became distraught when she was asked to outline the events surrounding the first arrest of Mr Bailey on 10 February 1997, when her mother had also been detained. She said their entire family was left devastated. Since the arrest, she said, her mother had not enjoyed a decent night of sleep and had been ‘overwhelmed’. She started to weep as she outlined the level of ostracisation the family had suffered within the west Cork community as a result of the arrest. She said that Mr Bailey had also changed since he had been living under never-ending pressure as a result of garda actions since 1997. Saffron confirmed that she, along with her sisters, had been questioned a number of times by gardaí in connection with the case. Two officers, she said, had given her ‘the creeps’ when they visited the family’s Liscaha home, and she claimed they had been fawning all over her teenage sister, Virginia.

  Saffron said the two officers had insisted to her they believed Mr Bailey had committed the murder of the French woman and warned her that her mother was now in danger. She said that the evidence offered by her and her sisters was never taken seriously by gardaí – and that the three sisters were treated as stupid by detectives. She claimed that detectives would later adopt a more intimidating approach to the sisters in their further dealings with them.

  Saffron said that, by 2003, in the aftermath of the Circuit Court libel action, the treatment of her family had been ‘absolutely outrageous’, with unceasing attention from the media on them and their family home.

  Former British Army soldier Martin Graham made for a remarkable witness. He had not featured in the 2003 libel hearing but was now a key element of Mr Bailey’s case. Since his discharge from the British Army 20 years before, Mr Graham had been based in west Cork. He lived a bohemian lifestyle, often fuelled by drug and alcohol use. He claimed he was approached by a garda in 1997 and offered both cannabis and cash if he would assist police in securing incriminating statements against Mr Bailey, with whom he had been on casual terms.

  The former soldier first met Mr Bailey in an artist’s home in Skibbereen, where the journalist had gone to stay in the wake of his release following his February 1997 arrest. Mr Graham said that Mr Bailey was very distraught and emotional at the time and he felt very sorry for him. Within days, the occupants of the house, including himself, were contacted by gardaí and queried about anything Mr Bailey may have said during his time in the house.

  ‘I was constantly being pressed by the police to suggest there was a link between Ian Bailey and Sophie Toscan du Plantier, but I didn’t know of any, just what they told me. I just thought it was crazy,’ he said. Mr Graham said a garda suggested to him that he ‘befriend’ Mr Bailey and do what he could to ‘loosen his tongue’.

  Mr Graham – who warned that he was worried about being perceived to be a ‘rat’ or informer – claimed that, to assist in this process, a garda offered to supply him with cash, new clothing and drugs, the latter comprising ‘seven ounces of high quality Lebanese flat press’.

  One of the meetings between Mr Graham and two detectives working on the du Plantier murder case took place, somewhat bizarrely, at a west Cork Marian shrine. Later, he said, he received the cannabis in a garda evidence bag and was asked to attend a Kilcrohane music festival where, it was believed, Mr Bailey would be among those in attendance.

  ‘It was ridiculous,’ Mr Graham said, commenting that he came to believe that gardaí were ‘stupid’ if they had believed giving him cash for drink and drugs would help solve the case. Mr Graham, who had joined the British Army aged just 16, acknowledged during cross-examination that he had once lived in a campsite within a west Cork stone circle and had obtained casual work from a local ladies’ commune, one of the many ‘alternative’ communities that had been established in west Cork and that had contributed so much to the bohemian reputation of the area. He also agreed that since leaving the army, he had experienced great difficulty in settling into civilian life.

  Even though Mr Graham was a fascinating witness, the High Court hearing – just like the Cork Circuit Court libel action before it – suddenly began to revolve around Marie Farrell. The former west Cork shopkeeper, who had since relocated to her native Longford, was a core str
ategic element of Mr Bailey’s case.

  Her claims about making statements to the 2003 libel hearing under garda duress had been hugely damaging to An Garda Síochána. The High Court action would now hear precisely what she had seen on 23 December 1996 at Kealfadda Bridge – and why she had given evidence at Cork Circuit Court that she had later recanted.

  Mrs Farrell was called to offer evidence in December, just two weeks before the High Court suspended its hearings for the Christmas break. Her evidence was nothing short of extraordinary. She claimed a garda had exposed himself to her, that another garda had stripped naked in front of her and asked for sex, that gardaí had put her under unrelenting pressure to support an incriminating statement that undermined Mr Bailey’s key alibi – and had threatened her with arrest if she did not comply.

  Her time in the witness box proved sensational. Central to Mrs Farrell’s evidence was her statement that she had seen seeing someone walking on the road at Kealfadda Bridge outside Schull in the early hours of 23 December 1996. Mrs Farrell had been driving home that night after having met with an unnamed man earlier in the evening.

  State counsel Paul O’Higgins demanded to know the identity of the person Mrs Farrell had been with. He argued that this individual could potentially shed vital light on the matters at hand. But Mrs Farrell bluntly refused to publicly name the person. She said that the man was not her husband and she wanted him to remain anonymous.

  Mr Justice Hedigan intervened and directed that the witness should answer the question put to her by counsel. The judge said the case ranked as one of the most serious to come before the High Court and there was an obligation on all witnesses to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the witness box. ‘Now answer the question,’ he directed her.

  Mrs Farrell refused – and promptly walked out of the witness box. ‘I am not going to tell you that. I am going. I am having nothing more to do with this,’ she said.

  There was consternation in court as legal teams, journalists, other witnesses and members of the public alike struggled to take in what had just happened. Journalists rushed to file stories on the development while legal teams consulted over what would happen next.

  A short time later, a contrite Mrs Farrell was back in the witness box. Mr Justice Hedigan resumed proceedings with a stern warning to her that no further walk-outs would be tolerated by the court. Mr O’Higgins again pressed her to tell the jury who she was with that night.

  Mrs Farrell then offered to write the name of the individual on a piece of paper that could be shown to the judge and jury but would be kept from journalists and those in the public gallery. When asked by Mr O’Higgins what all the secrecy was about, she replied, ‘I didn’t want to make things difficult at home.’ Mrs Farrell insisted that no one knew of the identity of the person beyond that individual himself.

  The defence team vehemently objected to the witness being allowed to write the name on a piece of paper – effectively adopting a special position while in the witness box. Mr O’Higgins pointed out it was a public trial and other witnesses would have to give difficult evidence in public. Mr Justice Hedigan agreed and told Mrs Farrell to give the name in public as the court would not sanction such ‘secret’ evidence. The judge said the jury represented the citizens of Ireland and, as such, needed to be publicly told the truth.

  Mrs Farrell then identified the individual as John Reilly. It emerged that Mr Reilly was from Longford but had been deceased for almost 14 years. Mr O’Higgins challenged the evidence and pointed out to Mrs Farrell that she had previously given a garda the name of another individual, a Longford musician called Oliver Croghan. She rejected this and claimed the garda had come up with the other name himself. It was also put to her in cross-examination that she had offered gardaí fragments of information which had led them to suspect another individual until their investigations had found it could not have been him.

  ‘So you stormed out of court because you might have to name the 14-years-or-more deceased man who was not very important to you?’ Mr O’Higgins challenged her.

  Mrs Farrell was adamant the individual was John Reilly, whom she had known growing up. She said she could not remember his exact address but knew he had passed away a number of years ago. ‘I stormed out of court because I am here voluntarily. But it feels to me like this is turning into a personal assault on my private life. I am finding this very, very difficult. I am telling the truth. I am gaining nothing by being here – only more personal aggravation, so I am not telling lies,’ Mrs Farrell argued.

  Mrs Farrell insisted that Mr Reilly was not an invention, but she refused to divulge any more information about him. ‘If I knew any more, I would tell you. I don’t want to be here any longer than I have to.’ When pressed by Mr O’Higgins about who she told gardaí she was with that December evening, she said she had lied in 2002 when she said the man was named Oliver Croghan.

  Mrs Farrell also denied that she had revelled in the publicity surrounding her after the 2003 libel trial. She acknowledged she had posed for a photograph for a newspaper with her children as she believed it would keep the gardaí happy. She also insisted she was paid €150 for one particular media interview, not €1,500 as suggested in court.

  However, the shopkeeper then found herself being given a formal warning about perjury from Mr Justice Hedigan. In one of her first statements to gardaí in 1997, Mrs Farrell alleged that Mr Bailey had threatened her after meeting her in her Schull shop and that the journalist had told her he was aware of her previous address in London. Mrs Farrell also intimated that Mr Bailey said he was aware of difficulties she had experienced with the UK’s Department of Social Services (DSS). In evidence to the High Court, she insisted that this statement was not true. She insisted that the allegations of the threat from Mr Bailey were fabricated at the behest of a garda. Mrs Farrell insisted she had never been in trouble with the DSS in the UK and that, although she had been investigated after a complaint was made against her, she had been fully exonerated after the allegation was found to be without foundation.

  Mr O’Higgins put it to Mrs Farrell that she had just told a ‘barefaced lie’ to the judge and jury. The defence counsel then requested that a video recording of a statement Mrs Farrell previously made to GSOC be played for Mr Justice Hedigan and the jury. The recording was of an interview in which Mrs Farrell told GSOC officials she had had to leave London and return to Ireland because she owed €32,000 (£27,000) to the DSS after claiming both income support and rent support when resident in the UK, despite not being entitled to do so.

  A visibly flustered Mrs Farrell explained that she had been confused. She insisted that her evidence to the High Court was the truth and that she had been confused between fact and fiction in the GSOC interview. The shopkeeper said she could offer no explanation for how she had got so mixed up. However, she was adamant that what she had told the High Court was the truth – and she said that State solicitors could check with the UK authorities, if they wished, to verify her story.

  Mr O’Higgins said it was apparent that Mrs Farrell was prepared to say virtually anything if it suited her purpose at that point in time. He argued that the two absolutely contradictory statements about her dealings with the DSS were evidence that the jury had been told a barefaced lie. Mr Justice Hedigan interjected to warn Mrs Farrell about perjury and the penalties for not telling the truth under oath. When Mrs Farrell apologised and attempted to explain herself, the judge advised her to think about matters overnight and give careful consideration to the evidence she would offer the following day.

  Mrs Farrell’s evidence continued to be nothing short of astonishing. She would also claim that, while she was looking after a holiday home in west Cork, Detective Garda Jim Fitzgerald had stripped naked and suggested having sex. When asked what she had told him, Mrs Farrell replied, ‘I told him to get the fuck out.’ Mr O’Higgins put it to her that such claims were absolutely ‘incredible’. The allegation was vehemently denied by the detective, wh
o would claim it had been fabricated by Mrs Farrell because she wrongly blamed him for an incident between her son and a Garda Traffic Corps unit.

  Mrs Farrell’s retort was that ‘everything that happened down there [in west Cork] was wholly incredible.’ Although pressed repeatedly over the incredible story she was relating, the shopkeeper insisted, ‘I am not a liar.’

  ***

  The evidence offered by three key legal officials may have been less sensational than Mrs Farrell’s headline-grabbing testimony, but it was no less important to the High Court hearing. The three officials were former Director of Public Prosecutions Eamonn Barnes; a senior legal officer in the DPP’s office, Robert Sheehan; and State solicitor for west Cork Malachy Boohig.

  Mr Boohig was the first of the trio to offer evidence. His testimony focused on how unhappy gardaí were with the decision by the DPP in early 1997 not to formally charge Mr Bailey. The west Cork solicitor told the hearing he had been driving home when he received a phone call from Chief Superintendent Dermot Dwyer, who asked him to attend a meeting in Bandon Garda Station at his convenience.

  The solicitor said that he met Dwyer and Detective Superintendent Seán Camon, who had since passed away. ‘It was clear that gardaí were unhappy that the director had opted not to charge Mr Bailey at that point,’ he explained. Mr Boohig said the garda view was that a charge was appropriate. He also said that they suggested that this message could be brought to the DPP’s attention.