Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119687540#Comment_119687540

I believe "The car seen speeding away from the scene" story originally came from Gemma O' Doherty.

It was part of her randy, bent, Bantry Gard did it, campaign.

The car was on the Kealfada road over a mile from the scene and could have come from anywhere, "speeding away from the scene" is a bit of poetic licence by Gemma.

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119687890#Comment_119687890

So, in summary - no one here believes the central guarda line that he was seen at Kealfadda Bridge on his way home. That's pretty damming on the cops.

But that hasn't been the central Garda line for over 20 years.

elacsap

I've been asking over the last number of posts - is this the garda position - nobody said otherwise

Then I tested its credibility.

Anyway, what is the central garda position so?

elacsap

Also, when pre 2002, did this occur?

Ms Robini

You don’t like the theory that the turkey that attacked Bailey (let’s be fair to the fowl as well as the foul - ‘allegedly’ attacked) may have committed the murder? Why? Is it because it’s a bit far fetched? But sure if a horse could lift a concrete block, couldn’t a turkey - if they were really riled up - also manage it, like in a fit of blind rage? Maybe said turkey was a bit pissed - it was Christmas and Christmas is a notoriously hard time for these birds… I mean come on, be reasonable, it may not be probable but you’d agree it’s possible that a depressed, self-loathing, vulnerable and intoxicated turkey could have done it… You’d say that is possibly even more likely to be the case than say a depressed, self-loathing, vulnerable and intoxicated animal of the two-legged variety. I mean, if IKB was attacked by a turkey, couldn’t that same fowl creature be the killer… We know he was in the vicinity… so opportunity: tick; we know he had form (look what the bold thing did to Ian’s forehead/hairline)… I don’t know - maybe the turkey did it. Discuss.

Back on planet earth, all the available evidence points one way - and that is not to the freezer aisle in Tesco - it all points to Ian Bailey. Should further evidence come to light which supports that reasonable suspicion, we can all anticipate that charges will be brought (against Mr Bailey, not Mr Bird).

elacsap

By "this", I mean, when did the guards adopt the alternative to the Kealfadda Bridge hypothesis? The pre-2002 comes from it being not their position for over 20 years.

nc6000

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119688268#Comment_119688268

I think the turkey was already dead and ready for the oven by the time of the murder. 🤔

Ms Robini

Ah I see ok; so that would be the reason to rule out the turkey with the known history of violence… Tis back to An Capall dána so I suppose. Or the deceased Garda. Or the hired hitman… Anyway sure slowly slowly catchy monkey (and of course not ruling out that it ‘could’ have been an actual primate… sure anything is possible (including that Ian Bailey did it - another possibility… could even say probability… and remains to be seen if it could also be said ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’)

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119687890#Comment_119687890

I don`t think the Kealfada sighting damages the Gardaí. The reality is that it opened up the entire investigation. When Jules was confronted by the fact that there was a witness who put Bailey at Kealfada Bridge that night, the truth started to flow.

Bailey had lied on his questionnaire. Not only had he not been in bed all night like he had said, but she didn`t see him again until the following morning. She indicated that he had it in his head to go up to Alfie Lyons house and even asked her to come with him. In the morning she saw a "bloodied" scratch on his forehead that she hadn`t noticed the night before.

When Bailey was told that Jules was singing like a canary, he too became more forthcoming. Yes, he had got out of bed. Not only that, but he had left the house and gone down the road to the studio in the dark. If it wasn`t for Kealfada we would probably know none of this.

elacsap

I agree with all this apart from the first line.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119688458#Comment_119688458

Jules disputes what was written in her statement. Jules says her statement was 'doctored' and altered by the gardai.

Ms Robini

Is that credible, though, when we know, for example, that Jules Thomas also sought to put pressure on her daughter to change her statement regarding both Thomas and Bailey being out of the house on the morning of 23 December 1996? It is very easy to say “That’s not what I said; the guards altered my statement.” But it is harder to prove that. To the best of my knowledge, Jules Thomas has claimed the statement was not her statement but failed to prove that… Dermot Dwyer, who at the time was a senior member of the guards with an unblemished record of about 30 years service at that stage, recounted being present during Jules Thomas detention and questioning and has given evidence that at no time was any part of the lady’s statement altered or fabricated… So you have a person dominated and influenced by Bailey, i.e. a lady known to have been violently assaulted by Bailey on multiple occasions, some of which resulted in injuries requiring hospital treatment, and who is known to have exerted pressure on her daughter to change her statement, saying one thing… and you have a distinguished senior member of the Gardaí saying something absolutely to the contrary. It seems clear that Dermot Dwyer’s evidence is by far the more credible and reliable.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119688812#Comment_119688812

She didn`t have much choice. Bailey sued the Gardaí in 2014 and there wouldn`t have been much point if Jules didn`t contradict a number of elements of her statement. Bookies have a saying "The application of money always makes the horse run faster".

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119688918#Comment_119688918

Jules had the power to get Bailey out of her life and her daughter's life for good. She had good reason to want rid of him. Fear wouldnt have stopped her as he would be gone out of her life and be behind bars - all she had to say is yes he left the house and came back covered in blood. She didnt do this though as I believe she is an honest person and she truly knows Bailey did not commit this murder. She no longer is Baileys partner and after 26 years still stands by him.

Also given the Gardai shenanigans in this case it is not unthinkable that the Gardai did alter her statement - is it?

Dermot Dwyer is not credible at all in my view. To me he is a man who would stop at nothing to convict Bailey. He came across as a very sly and conniving person in the documentaries. He is an example of the typical dodgy old school member of the gardai which was around in the 80's and 90's. A horrible individual in my opinion who just wanted the glory of a conviction at Baileys expense.

Ms Robini

There is nothing to support that view of Dermot Dwyer, though. The man has an entirely unblemished career among the highest level of the police force in his over 30 years of service. He is held in high regard by all who have served with him. And he has a reputation as one of the best and brightest murder detectives.

People who have been viciously assaulted by an intimate partner, as Jules Thomas was numerous times by Bailey, can be under that person’s control and influence for a long, long time. They can with time and with support extricate themselves but it is not easy as I’m sure anyone could understand…

I know what you mean in that she comes across as a person who still has some good in them. My impression of the lady for many years was that she was afraid/in fear and that she was dominated by her partner, Ian Bailey. Maybe not every second of every day but in many ways and over a long period of time…

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119688268#Comment_119688268

You don’t like the theory that the turkey that attacked Bailey (let’s be fair to the fowl as well as the foul - ‘allegedly’ attacked) may have committed the murder

Did the turkey ever beat up it's turkey wife?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119688918#Comment_119688918

Jules also changed her story regarding Bailey saying he had a feeling something was going on. In court she denied this but she says it on RTE The Du Plantier Case

She no longer is Baileys partner and after 26 years still stands by him.

she has no chioce as to implicate him now would be to implicate herself in covering for him ..if she did.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119689292#Comment_119689292

"all she had to say is yes he left the house and came back covered in blood."

Bailey wouldn`t have gone back to the house covered in blood when he had the studio. She was never going to say that.

"she truly knows that Bailey did not commit this murder"

She can`t truly know. She just believes his bullshit, as you choose to do.

"it is not unthinkable that the Gardaí did alter her statement"

This all arose during the court case in 2014. Sections of her statement were read out to the court and she denied she said some of it. On the premonition on Hunt`s Hill her statement reads...

"I stayed in the car and Ian got out for a few minutes. He asked me to get out and I refused as it was too cold. Ian got back in and said he had a bad feeling about something going to happen."

Jules told the court.."No. He didn`t say he had a bad feeling about anything about to happen."

She was asked by counsel if the Gardaí invented this and she replied..."I believe so".

Three years later she was interviewed by Philip Boucher Hayes. She told him that when they were on Hunt`s Hill...."he had a funny feeling that something was going on. It was very strange. Something is going on somewhere."

So clearly not invented by the Gardaí to falsify her statement. She signed her statement. She had legal representation. All that happened here is that the Gardaí convinced her that Bailey was the killer and she became truthful. Then she went home and Bailey convinced her he was innocent.

"Dermot Dwyer is not credible at all in my view"

I don`t know him but I saw nothing in his interviews that questions his credibilty. There is no glory in knowingly convicting an innocent man. Maybe you could present something that supports what you have said about him.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119689849#Comment_119689849

Three years later she was interviewed by Philip Boucher Hayes. She told him that when they were on Hunt`s Hill...."he had a funny feeling that something was going on. It was very strange. Something is going on somewhere."

Correct i have just watched it

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119688268#Comment_119688268

Bailey didn't need to offer an explanation, a turkey or something else. As his DNA was nowhere at the murder site, he could not have gotten the scratches there anyway. Thus it's totally irrelevant.

Ms Robini

Ian Bailey is a suspect, he had fresh scratches on his arms after the murder - as a murder suspect, he did need to explain where he was at the time of the murder and explain the scratch marks. That DNA evidence may not have been gathered at that stage is not exculpatory in that it does not mean that the suspect did not commit the murder. Saying there was no DNA evidence at the scene AND if the scratches had been inflicted at the scene then such evidence would have been gathered is flawed - that is not logically true. A sample of the brambles near the body were tested for DNA but the test that was done at the time did not have the capacity to analyse the quantity of DNA present on the exhibit. Advances in DNA may yet yield other results.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119706488#Comment_119706488

No dna found. Does not mean it wasn't there.

Agent Coulson

.......

Wrong thread.

oceanman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119707127#Comment_119707127

i would say giving the savage and frenzied nature of the murder there must have been dna left at the scene, just none of it Baileys.

Ms Robini

Exactly

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119706992#Comment_119706992

Suppose there was a fight between victim and murderer, and the victim would have defended herself and scratched the murderer with her nails, then the murderer's DNA would be under the fingernails of the victim.

However in this case this hasn't happened, or at least the Guards were unable or incompetent to connect victim to murderer via DNA evidence or DNA was deliberately tampered with. Apparently DNA evidence was sent to the UK for further testing, and nothing was found.

Bailey volunteered his DNA early on, to be eliminated and still the Guards were not able to connect him to the murder site.

Yes, this doesn't exclude him, it also doesn't prove that he wasn't there as well, however in terms of DNA it clearly doesn't connect him to the murder site.

In this light, if I was Bailey I would maintain even not to give any explanation about any scratches, whether it's cutting down trees or killing a turkey for Christmas. It's the Guard who have to find evidence to connect Bailey to the crime, not Bailey looking for explanations why he wasn't there or didn't do it.

sekiro

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119687890#Comment_119687890

It appears to be a common feature of these popular true crime mysteries that the police or prosecution narrative is obviously false. West Cork, Serial etc. That is what makes these cases so appealing for documentaries etc as nobody can ever know exactly what happened except that the police narrative is wrong. People then wonder how far police and prosecutors would go to get a case resolved.

The French prosecutors seem to have used the Kealfadda Bridge narrative when deciding on their verdict.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119707979#Comment_119707979

What do you expect regarding the narrative that the police prosecution is obviously false?

Giving drugs to transients to get Bailey to talk? Coercing a whiteness? The Bandon Garda station tape recordings?

These points can hardly be dismissed.

elacsap

Agreed Sekiro,

Of note that the poster who claims that this hasn't been the garda position for over 20 years has gone to ground when quizzed about the details of this and what the central garda position actually is. Hmmm.

As a by the by, I note that in his latest tweets, Nick Foster again continues when the insinuation that he knows something. Wink Wink / buy my book. It's actually a funny tweet "thread" where his disciples all go "oh you're so clever, Nick" until one scoundrel asks the elephant in the room question of "didn't you promise the end was nigh a year ago Nick?" Seems like a fair question to me but last time I checked was met with the same response that I got to the questions referred to above. Just saying!!