Ian Bailey RIP - threadbans in OP
Comments
-
Yeah I posted an Irish Tines article a few pages back- there’s dozens of hours of video footage handed to Gardai recently of this festival over a number of years in the 90s- they’re studying it now to see if they can see both Bailey and Sophie together - at this stage I’d really doubt it as they’d be only itching to tell the public of their big find
0 -
Unlike the French trial, where written statements are accepted and in one case the mother of a witness was allowed to give his statement, in Ireland these witnesses would be cross examined and most if not all would be torn apart by a good lawyer. There's a very good reason why written statements by witnesses to Gardaí are not allowed except in unusual circumstances. Hence the DPP's reluctance to charge Ian Bailey
3 -
What meeting with Sophie?? The Gardai are currently trawling hours of video to find ANY evidence of it. Maybe give them all call with the info you have, save them a good few man hours.
3 -
Article for you in today's Sunday times by your likeminded friend Michael Sheridan.
You'll let us know what you think of it now.
0 -
Just read it online now- my god is this what journalists are reduced to- in the absence of hard facts getting psychologists to interpret drawings without having actually assessed or interviewed Bailey?
This thread and the posts on it is practically scientific when compared to that nonsense - it’s clear even journalists now are looking to score points and to get that “breakthrough” moment.
It looks like every scrap of paper owned by Bailey- every poem, ever picture created by him is now going to be interpreted adnauseum
Jayzuz😀
4 -
Advertisement
-
In way if anything IB has done he certainly has destroyed the profession he once excelled in . Maybe this what his intentions were all along. He didn't commit murder but led media in frenzy. And if he wasn't good enough anymore to write for them..he made sure to keep them writing about him..in way he has ended up warping the media newspapers even further...they are desperate to pin it on him...and goes show how bad some of the journalism is..they need to take Look at themselves and realise they are no more different than guards..going with same story following one suspect...and try write same story differently.
2 -
Anyone have more detail on the statements from Jules Thomas's daughter which implies that Bailey and Jules knew about the murder sooner than they've stated and sooner than they should have known? It's possible that Jules had some involvement and that is why she lied for Bailey and can't tell the truth even today.
1 -
When I listened to the West Cork podcast for the third time I finished it thinking that Jules knew more than she let on.
Just something about things she said on the podcast and the way she defended Bailey left me with that feeling.
I may be completely wrong of course.
1 -
I got that feeling too. Why didn't she leave him after his incidents with her daughter? It just seems very strange. Her daughter made this statement in 1996:
…after that I spoke with my Mum possibly 11 or 12 to ask her for a lift…..…she said on the phone there had been a murder
Jules and Bailey have stated they didn't know about the murder till later. 1:40 I believe.
2 -
Bailey lied about his whereabouts at the time of the murder, lied about when he knew of the murder and it seems he lied about not having met Sophie.
Then we have the barely believable Christmas tree scraping his arms story and the turkey attacking him. A witness says he lied about when he had the fire at the back of his house.
That's a lot of lies for a supposedly innocent man. Then of course we have the history of violence and him actually stating he killed her a number of times. And then some are shocked that he remains the main suspect!
1 -
Advertisement
-
You are making multiple statements of fact there in a gish gallop of dubious claims. This is just a re-hash of what was covered in the DPP report, and rejected as the basis for a prosecution.
There is no clear proof he met Sophie, a few people who either aren't sure of a brief introduction once, and a few people "remembering" things years later. We have one photographer who claimed he saw Bailey and Sophie at a festival together then came out with some BS about confusing Sophie and the actress playing her in a reconstruction!
HE never actually stated he killed her, he made sarcastic remarks to people. After one of these so called confessions, the lad in question continued to take a lift from Bailey which says it all. Again, all of this was examined by the DPP.
He had a bonfire, the witness in question doesn't know when the bonfire started as they were out of the country, so how can they prove Bailey lied?
He did cut down a tree and kill turkeys just before the murder, or are you trying to claim they didn't happen? Actions which could lead to scratches and cuts, and multiple witnesses attest to seeing scratches on him before the murder. We have further multiple witnesses whose descriptions of the scratches do not tally with the Garda view of them as being caused at the scene. If he was scratched at the scene, how is there no trace of him found there - as the DPP points out. So what you consider "barely believable", the DPP's office considered as:
Bailey’s explanation for the scratches is plausible, consistent and is supported by other direct and credible evidence.
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
2 -
He lied about his whereabouts at the time of the murder - Fact.
He lied about only knowing about the murder at 1:40pm - Fact
It seems he lied about having met Sophie - A number of people have stated that he did meet her. Bailey said he met her to a producer for Sheridan's documentary
The Christmas tree and turkey attacking him is barely believable - this story is only backed up by those who may have interest in lying
Bailey said the fire was in early December, the witness says it was after the murder in December - Fact - Who's lying?
He did say he killed her, to boost his career - Fact
So can you tell me what I posted that wasn't true?
1 -
I might lie too if the police had a fake witness like Marie Farrell trying to place me at the scene of the crime in a fit up. And in this case, the accusation of a lie requires a specific standard of evidence, just because you change your story is not definite proof of a lie. Bailey could have forgotten, or mis-remembered due to alcohol. So no "fact". It is not positive proof.
There is no clear proof he met Sophie, as I said in my previous post. A number of people whose claims are dodgy for one reason or another said it. Bailey may have very briefly met Sophie when gardening, he may even have forgotten that or not considered it as 'knowing' her when asked by the Guards. Regardless, there's no evidence to suggest there was any sort of relationship such that Bailey could expect to be received at 3am or whatever time the Guards are trying to put him there at.
The DPP looked at this supposed knowledge of the murder, and again, did not find Bailey knew before he was supposed to. So again no fact. And even if Bailey did know before it was "public", the news was spreading around the local area on the grapevine. It is not positive proof.
Bailey said the fire was in early December. What exactly did the witness say about the bonfire? Did the witness see him starting and lighting the bonfire, or just that she observed one.
Are you seriously trying to claim that the story about cutting down the trees and killing the turkey is made up? Separate to whether they were the source of the scratches? You've made no attempt with the DPP's assessment of the scratches, just repeated the same claim "barely believable", so that's entirely discredited. So again, no facts there.
It is not true state it is supported only by those with an interest in lying, if you look at the witnesses cited in the DPP supporting the idea that the scratches happened before the murder and healed up quickly after that.
To frame what Bailey says as he killed her, that is dressing it up as if it was some sort sort of admission, as opposed to an joking or sarcastic remark in the course of another conversation.
A piece of isolated "factual" information can be presented out of context, in a dubious claim.
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
2 -
Dunno, she might have enjoyed being actively self-sufficient and taking an interest. She may even have turned off the supply at that point when leaving for France?
0 -
and I always thought one of the most telling pointers if true ,was his premonition the night before the murder ,predicting something awful would happen that night,
3 -
Theres reports from that night in the area of dogs inc. wolfhounds reacting strangely and barking... at a time when Bailey was in the pub or in way home.
And an almost full moon.
I would say a lot of people had 'premonitions' that night on hearing such disturbances.
Post edited by odyssey06 on"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
0 -
I thought I replied to this, are posts going missing on this thread?
At least you've admitted that Bailey was lying. It's a start. Your defence of Bailey seems to amount to claiming that everyone else apart from Bailey was either mistaken or lying but Bailey only lied when he admitted to killing Sophie and when he felt he was being framed. That really isn't much of a defence. Neighbours, Gardaí, forensic experts, numerous witnesses, numerous testimonies all lead us to Bailey. It's conspiracy theory madness to try to claim they all conspired to frame Bailey.
Was Jules Thomas's daughter trying to frame Bailey when she made the below statement?
…after that I spoke with my Mum possibly 11 or 12 to ask her for a lift…..…she said on the phone there had been a murder
Bailey claimed he only knew about the murder at 1.40pm. That's a major lie to be telling, especially after you've lied about your whereabouts the night of the murder and where there's huge doubt over your story of never having met the victim.
2 -
I thought I replied also...
And in this case, the accusation of a lie requires a specific standard of evidence, just because you change your story is not definite proof of a lie. Bailey could have forgotten, or mis-remembered due to alcohol. So no "fact".
So nowhere do I "admit" Bailey lied, merely listed it as a possibility.
As for the alleged statement by the daughter, I have not seen this confirmed by any reputable source, and I would also be dubious about a statement made a decade later.
What do you call Guards tampering with evidence, caught discussing on tape putting pressure on another Guard to alter a witness statement (a witness statement subsequently 'lost')?
If not a conspiracy?
The DPP report documents how the Guards created an environment of hysteria about Bailey in the local community.
Many of the witnesses cited about Bailey's alleged knowledge of Sophie are either unsure or commenting years later - so yes, strong possibility to be mistaken in such an environment, or when memory is relied upon years later.
Look at the number of mistakes made by Marie Farrell's testimony.
Look at the hysterical reaction of local Bill Fuller on the thought he glimpsed Bailey across a field.
These are not reliable witnesses.
What forensic experts lead us to Bailey? The ones that found no trace of him at the crime scene? The ones that found male DNA on Sophie's boot that was not Baileys?
There's numerous witnesses and testimony supporting Bailey's versions of events too.
So you say Bailey doesn't have "much of a defence", and yet the DPP report accepted Bailey's version of events on numerous counts. You may still disagree with that assessment, but it demonstrably is a valid defence.
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
0 -
Yes, that always seemed strange and it was Jules who made a statement about it. I was just looking up her statement but I found this excellent post about a number of different statements with both Jules and Bailey changing their stories:
"So I have been researching this "premonition" or "feeling of foreboding" that Bailey allegedly had on Hunt's Hill. Here is the result:
During her arrest on 10th Feb 1997, Jules talked about Ian stopping on Hunt's Hill on the night of the murder and looking out across the bay: "Ian got back in the car and said he had a bad feeling about something." She signed this statement.
During his arrest on 10th Feb 1997, Ian Bailey signed a Garda note of the interview which stated: “I had a premonition something was going to happen.” When they asked him more about this, he replied, "I won't put it any further. I don't want to." (Nick Foster). In court, in 2014, Ian agreed he signed this note. (Irish Times 14 Nov 2014) (Irish Independent 14 Nov 2014)
From the DPP report: "Jules Thomas makes "reference to Bailey stating that he had a feeling that something bad was going to happen. This would have been about 12.45am on 23 December 1996." (The DPP is estimating this time himself).
In court, in 2003, Bailey "admitted stopping his car on a mountain road which overlooks the area where Sophie was killed on December 22 and having "a feeling.""Yes, I did have a feeling. But it was a feeling rather than a premonition. I think they were trying to make it out to be more than it was," he added." (Irish Independent 12 Dec 2003)
In court, in 2007, Ian "vehemently denied having told a West Cork friend, Yvonne Ungerer, that he had had a dark premonition as he drove home from Schull on the night of December 22. He denied having said to her: "These premonitions usually come true."" (Irish Independent Feb 16 2007)
In 2014, Jules denied telling gardai Mr Bailey said to her, when they stopped at Hunt's Hill near Schull sometime earlier that night on their way home, he had a feeling something bad was going to happen. That was "absolute invention", she said. Asked about garda notes recording she had said Mr Bailey asked her at Hunt's Hill was that "Alfie's house" over there, before saying there's a light on, she claimed Mr Bailey had not said that and a note by gardai recording she had said that Mr Bailey had said he was going over there later was "pure invention". She said It was not possible to see the house of Alfie Lyons from Hunt’s Hill as there were no lights and it was dark. (Irish Independent Nov 29 2014)((Irish Examiner Nov 29 2014)
From Philip Boucher-Hayes' interview with Ian Bailey in 2016 on RTE Radio 1:
Boucher-Hayes: "On the night of the murder, after leaving the pub, you went to a place called Hunt's Hill and while looking at Sophie Toscan du Plantier's house, you expressed a sense of foreboding. Did that happen?"
Bailey: "No it didn't. We went home over Hunt's Hill where we stopped momentarily to have a look at the lights over the bay..."
Boucher-Hayes: "And the sense of foreboding?"
Bailey: "No. I don't know where that came from."
Boucher-Hayes: "But you didn't have any sense of anything ominous about to happen? You didn't say anything to your partner [Jules] about it?"
Bailey: "No. I didn't."
Ian was interviewed on RTE Radio's Drivetime on 8 Aug 2016:
Interviewer: On the night of the murder, you and Jules were driving home from the pub and you stopped the car at a place called Hunt's Hill. Now the arrest warrant says, and I'm quoting, At that moment Ian showed her the house where Sophie lived and said that he had a premonition that something bad would occur there. Did you-?
Bailey: No No, I mean, that's a total fiction. That's a completely made up statement. We did stop on the way back, briefly. The bit about the premonition and the pointing out of the house is a total and absolute fiction.
In RTE's "The du Plantier Case" Documentary broadcast on 24 July 2017, Jules said: "...it was around midnight - 12:30 before we thought of coming back. Ian went and got the car and we drove on home. He said at some stage, he had a funny feeling that something was going on. It was very strange - something's going on somewhere."
So, basically, Ian and Jules are very clearly lying now. They are claiming the gardai concocted these statements in order to frame Ian, but it is obvious they actually did make these statements."
It's very suspicious that both Jules and Bailey changed their stories.
2 -
Ok, so your defence is that everyone else apart from Bailey lied except when he admitted killing Sophie, he was lying then. That really is a shocking defence.
Jules Thomas actually really struggled getting her stories straight:
I think boards.ie has a conspiracy forum, you should go there to post about this theory of yours involving a huge number of people.
Forensic experts noted suspicious items Bailey burnt in the fire outside his house in late December 1996. Bill Fuller reacted as he did because Bailey had just told him how he had killed Sophie. What way would you react?
There's no evidence for anyone at the scene so that's not a defence for Bailey. There's just never been enough evidence to convict him while he was alive. That doesn't mean that he is rightly the leading suspect given everything we know.
2 -
Advertisement
-
Isnt part of that from the statement Jules disowned... and was then "lost"?
So what was actually said and what was made out to be said has gotten hopelessly confused. And the Guards had a role in that with their concoctions too.
A vague funny feeling (likely due to dogs going beserk) is far from a premonition about a specific location.
And the bit about pointing out the house seems like total fiction as according to someone who checked it out... you couldnt see the house from that point even if you wanted to, given the distance and orientation of the houses.
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
0 -
You're now claiming that the previously infallible DPP were in on the conspiracy? That's mad.
Jules signed the statement. She and Bailey changed their stories. That's very suspicious. What does Jules know and for what reason has she protected Bailey?
2 -
There is no such claim anywhere in my posts about the DPP - either that they are infallible or involved in a conspiracy. You were the one who introduced both phrases into this discussion.
And it is a matter of public record that Jules disowned that statement - because she states that what she signed was not the text the Guards then used. That Guards are recorded on the Bandon tapes discussing the need for Jules statement to be altered. That witness statement by Jules was lost and the Garda Jobs Book tampered with by the deliberate removal of pages from it. Suspicious much?
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
0 -
Here's the part with reference to the DPP:
From the DPP report: "Jules Thomas makes "reference to Bailey stating that he had a feeling that something bad was going to happen. This would have been about 12.45am on 23 December 1996." (The DPP is estimating this time himself).
Are you disputing something from the DPP?
Jules seems to have changed her story quite a bit. What does she have to hide?
2 -
The DPP is going on what the Guards submitted. That is not actually something from the DPP.
So thats a million miles away from claiming they are infallible or part of a conspiracy.
But sure lets read what else the DPP report had to say:
"This was during the time the dogs were unusually alarmed. Such a sense of foreboding is not considered incriminating."
What did the Guard(s) who tampered with the Jobs Book have to hide?
And what was in these 'lost' pieces of evidence:
- The original memo of interview of Jules Thomas following her arrest in 1997.
- An original witness statement from Jules Thomas dated 19 February 1997.
Why are none of the memos of interview that are still available signed by Jules as should have been done at the time?
Did Jules change her story? How much of it was changed for her as she alleges...
As regards her signed statement, in a letter from her solicitor Thomas formally withdrew it:
Ms. Jules Thomas most emphatically will not, if called as a witness for the prosecution, confirm the statement allegedly made in Bandon Garda Station on the 10th day of February 1997. There are several matters in the statement which she claims are not accurate.
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
0 -
I will note there is no record of any items from the bonfire in the evidence submitted against Bailey.
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
0 -
Forensic experts noted suspicious items Bailey burnt in the fire outside his house in late December 1996. Bill Fuller reacted as he did because Bailey had just told him how he had killed Sophie. What way would you react?
1. What forensic experts noted this and what did they note (i.e. source please)?
2. I think you should read more about the Bill Fuller incident!
There's no evidence for anyone at the scene so that's not a defence for Bailey.
erm, it is. You are innocent under the eyes of the law. It isnup to the prosecution to prove his guilt!
There's just never been enough evidence to convict him while he was alive.
There has been no evidence against him at all. Everything AGS had on him* was put forwards in order to secure a trial. In an unprecedented move, the DPPs office twice (two separate DPPs!) tore it to absolute shreds leaving AGS in the very embarrassing position of having absolutely nothing on their only suspect. The DPPs criticism also referred to some of the actions within the area which was designed to lead on potential witnesses.
* I'm making an assumption here as they'd hardly withhold some of their key evidence!
That doesn't mean that he is rightly the leading suspect given everything we know.
We do know that AGS had pinned him as thebleading suspect before muchnif the key "evidence" on him was discovered. Was there an element of target fixation on him which led the investigation down the wrong path?
1 -
The DPP were going by statements submitted. You can continue going down the mad conspiracy route if you want, I won't be entertaining it though. Not everyone was lying apart from Bailey. The Gardaí weren't lying. Jules changed her story.
Now, back to when Jules and Bailey actually knew about the murder. It's well known that many murderers like to go back to the scene of their crime and involve themselves in the investigation. It's thought they do this to see if they slipped up and to see what way the investigation is going. I've found the below which puts serious doubt over when Bailey knew about the murder:
Fenella Thomas
Q. Can you recall the Monday morning after this murder, where were you and the rest of the household?
A. It was Christmas, I took the phone call.
Q. Where was Ian and Jules before their phone call.
A. They were in Goleen. I have a vague recollection of them going, it was about 9 or 10 then I think.
Q. When you got this phone call, what happened then?
A. I just gave Ian the phone, it was the Cassidy guy.
Q. How long were they (Ian and Jules) away from
Dick Cross
“ I have a distinct recollection that he told me he had pictures taken before the Gardai cordoned off the area. I understood him to say he had taken pictures afterwards also.”
Ian Bailey
31.12.96
“Was going to go to Skibbereen in the early afternoon, but Cassidy’s phone call changed that so I was just “pottering” around until that.”
10.02.97
Got up early, made coffee for Jules and brought it to bed. It was about 9.30a.m.-10a.m. went back to bed listened to the Radio. Spoke about what had to be done and we were going to Skibbereen, Co. Cork together, to deliver a turkey and do some shopping. Eddie Cassidy rang at about 2.30 p.m
(Nothing between 10 and the Cassidy call)
10.02.97 Later
Some time after going to bed I got up - Did a bit of writing - the kitchen. I then went down to the studio I am not sure what time it was but it was dark. I have no watch. I had a story to write for Tribune and was told it was okay that Tuesday would do. It was a story about the Internet. I went back to Jules house at about 11a.m.
(Dramatic change in his story. - Unspecified time writing in the studio – uncorroborated then nothing between 11am and the Cassidy call.)
28.01.98
“Got up at 9 a.m. and went down to Studio to finish the article.”
One reference to a phone call (10.00-10.30 denied by others) but nothing on what he did throughout the morning.
[Pottering versus writing an article and phoning the Tribune. He has no corroboration for anything after 10am and offers no details , bar the alleged phone call between 10am and 1.40pm]
Richard Curran
“The deadline was in fact 12 noon on Monday the 23rd December, 1996.”
“He did not phone through his story by the deadline (12 noon). The report was eventually phoned through at about 4p.m. on Monday 23/12/96. I remember it because I was worried about it not arriving and I would have to come up with a replacement article if it didn’t arrive at all.”
Tom McEnaney
“On or before Thursday the 19.12.1996 I spoke to him and told him that the Monday morning was fine to file the copy. I was reasonably relaxed about it but I said to him get it in by Monday morning. When Monday (23.12.1996) morning came and went and the copy had not arrived I began to get nervous.”
“To my recollection I attempted to contact Eoin Bailey on the Monday unsuccessfully. He filed his copy over the phone to a copytaker at about 5p.m. on Monday the 23rd December 1996. I can confirm that it was Eoin Bailey who filed the copy as I had the call transferred to my line as I wished to enquire about the photograph.”
Bill Fuller 317
. I drove down the road then towards Kealfadda Bridge. A short distance from Riley’s I saw a white fiesta in front of me, I knew it straight away as Jules car and I knew that it was Jules driving it. It was about 11 a.m. at this stage. I followed her, I was in my jeep a Volkswagen Transporter, blue, Reg. No. 88 C 3543, all the way to the main Schull-Goleen Road where she turned left and then immediately turned right across the causeway. She was alone in the car at all times.
James Camier 472
I recall Monday 23rd December, 1996.
Between 11a.m. and 11.30a.m., Jules Thomas, Prairie, Lissacaha, Schull whom I know well, approached the Stall. I know this lady well. I was struck by the fact that she was very distressed. There was a distraught, strange complexion about her. She looked very worried. …Out of the blue, she followed up on "Ian Conversation", by saying "Ian is gone to Dreenine to report on the murder". I may have asked her, "What murder?" She replied" A French woman". She hung her head, "it's sad, but that's his job, to report on these things or something like that"…….. ……. I have no doubt in my mind, I first heard the news of the murder from Jules Thomas, between 11 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. on Monday 23rd December, 1996
Jules Thomas
08.06.97
“On the Monday of the murder Ian was very busy getting an article ready for the press, I drove down past the scene at about lla.m. and onto the causeway. “
“If Fennella said that I brought home some vegetables it must have been the Monday I was in Goleen”
“I did have a conversation with Jimmy Camier”
Michael McSweeney
“He then went on to say that it w
as in fact his girlfriend who took the photographs when they were there earlier. I asked him what time was that and he replied that it was around 11.00a.m. that morning.
“After 2 p.m. on 23rd December 1996, I was contacted by Eoin Bailey who informed me that he had a roll of film of the scene of the murder of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier taken that morning at about 10.30a.m.”
Paul O’Colmain
I heard of the murder of this French woman. I have thought long and hard about the time of this call and to the best of my recollection it was between 11 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. on the morning of the murder.
Donal O’Sullivan
Re 23.12.96
“It was between 12.20p.m. and 12.30p.m”
“I met a white Fiesta that I knew belonged to Jules Thomas who lives at The Prairie, Schull”
“There were two people in this car, a man who I know to be Ian Bailey and Jules Thomas. I thought Ian Bailey was driving the car. The reason it stuck in my mind is because it was unusual to meet them on the coast road. I would often meet them on the Schull to Goleen road. “
Were all of these people in on the conspiracy too?
2 -
- Former Deputy and Assistant State Pathologist, Eugene Gilligan. He found buttons from a coat amongst other suspicious items.
- Tell me more.
The Gardaí didn't preserve the scene well, they botched the initial vital stages. This doesn't mean that a ghost killed Sophie, it just means the killer, who could be Bailey, got very lucky.
The evidence that leads to Bailey is the suspicious injuries he picked up on his arms and head. That he lied about his whereabouts at the time of the murder and when he knew about the murder. It looks like he lied about not knowing Sophie. He had a premonition that something bad was going to happen in the area that night. He had a history of walking out late at night. He had a history of extreme violence towards women. He had a history of perverse sexual behaviour including with Jules Thomas's daughter. He admitted on a number of occasions that he killed Sophie. He proposed the most realistic theory by saying he saw her in spar, he wanted to have a go, he went up to the house but it got out of hand, he chased her and hit her over the head.
The above is why he is the leading suspect for nearly 28 years. He knew they were closing in also as he was panicking in his last few months and his heart eventually gave up.
1 -
Advertisement
-
People mis-remember things. Especially people questioned much later. Eye witnesses get details wrong of actual crimes they actually witnessed. Here we are looking at the testimony of people of secondary events i.e. not an actual crime, in some cases recorded much later in time. There is no need for a conspiracy to doubt the accuracy of such statements. And the DPP doubts some of them as is covered in the report.
The DPP report looked at all statement from e.g. James Camier and concluded that: The evidence of James Camier and his wife is highly suspect. Their statements were taken some two years after the murder.
If Bailey had a roll of film of the scene where is it? Because the only photos Bailey actually shared were taken from outside the cordon, and were very poor quality, and in some cases featured the hat of a Guard. So, where are these incriminating photos allegedly taken at 11am?
So again, we come back to zero actual incriminating evidence against Bailey.
So can you provide some credible sources for your claims here about Saffron Thomas?
Because the only place I find them referenced is a random internet page below:
And remarkably it even says: If the statement of Saffron Thomas is corroborated
If?
https://westcorkmurderersfriends.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-evidence-of-saffron-thomas-shows.html?m=1
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
0
