Ian Bailey RIP - threadbans in OP

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924122#Comment_121924122

There are no exhibits of evidence of "buttons from a coat", or any "suspicious items" from the bonfire in the recorded Garda evidence, submitted by Eugene Gilligan or anyone.

He may have said that in a documentary years later. But if something of evidential value was found in the bonfire, why wasn't it submitted as evidence and verified independently?

Remember we also have a Guard in that documentary saying Bailey never handed in his coat, did not mention that the the Guards took a coat from Bailey, it was listed in evidence and then "lost" by the Guards.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924146#Comment_121924146

I think I'll have to put you on ignore. You're now claiming that the former Deputy and Assistant State Pathologist was out to get Bailey as well.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924122#Comment_121924122

You brought this stuff up last August on page 67 and it was easily shown to hold no substance then. What makes your claims valid now?

As for Bailey's coat, AGS took it into evidence (and then lost it!) but I'm not aware that AGS made a claim that there were suspicious items found in the fire. Again, maybe you have an actual source for what your claiming?

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924181#Comment_121924181

What was shown as having no substance? I have no reason to doubt the word of the former Deputy and Assistant State Pathologist. Do you?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924178#Comment_121924178

I made no such claim. Those are your words.

I am pointing out that there is no record of this 'evidence' from the bonfire logged by Eugene Gilligan or anyone else.

There is no record of any proper or independent forensic assessment of these items.

So it seems pertinent to ask why didnt he record and submit any of these alleged supicious items as evidence?

These are the same set of Guards you have said: "The Gardaí didn't preserve the scene well, they botched the initial vital stages."

They dont get the benefit of the doubt when they make prosecution claims that cannot be verified.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924202#Comment_121924202

Going back to my original question on this which you still haven't answered - can you provide an actual (and reliable) source as to what was found in the fire? Maybe you can also tell us why this material was not submitted as evidence?

I'd also question the 'who' part of your reply because Eugene Gilligan was a detective involved in forensics and AFAIK was not in the role you claimed.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924218#Comment_121924218

I'm taking about the local Gardaí, they botched the initial investigation. I have no reason to doubt the word of Eugene Gilligan. We're not in a court. You are disputing his statement, questioning his reliability, hence you are adding him to the huge list of people who have conspired against Bailey in your opinion.

You have to ask yourself, why are you choosing to believe a man with a history of violence towards women and weird sexual behaviour over a huge number of decent people who have no reason to lie?

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924439#Comment_121924439

Again, I choose to believe the former Deputy and Assistant State Pathologist. It was his statement. I didn't say anything about his position at the time. What reason do you have to disbelieve him?

 Quote 

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924783#Comment_121924783

The link thst you provided links to a post contradicting your claims. Have you an actual source because so far all you have added to the discussion is suggestion and erroneous info (as I've pointed out)?

You have to ask yourself, why are you choosing to believe a man with a history of violence towards women and weird sexual behaviour over a huge number of decent people who have no reason to lie?

I'd also challenge this suggestion - it has nothing to do with whether one believes Bailey or decent people (nice bit of bias there!). One needs to ask why after nearly three decades, do they have nothing at all against their primary suspect, why was he deemed primary suspect so early and with no evidence and why they allowed all other suspects to drop off their list given they had as much on them.as they did on Bailey? In addition, we've had several cases where the decent gardai had their murderer, spent ages trying to get them only for it all to have been based on absolutely nothing - the case against Joanne Hayes being a perfect example of this. Would you describe that POS Gerry O’Carroll as being "decent" despite everything he (and his colleagues) did to Hayes and her family?

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924859#Comment_121924859

I have no idea how that quote got in my post!

I have already noted why Bailey is and has been the leading suspect for 27 years:

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.

For anyone to deny that Bailey is the leading suspect, they have to doubt the word of loads of decent people. And yes they are decent, it's not just Gardaí we're talking about here. For you to try to lump them all in with a scumbag like O Carroll is disgusting.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924898#Comment_121924898

So you've nothing at all then. Ok, thanks for confirming.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924905#Comment_121924905

Fair enough, you can ignore the long list I provided and avoid facing up to your nasty suggestion that those who gave testimony against Bailey are in the same category as that scumbag O Carroll if you want.

At the same time, it's fair enough for me to put you on ignore as you have nothing of value to add.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924898#Comment_121924898

Nobody here denies that Bailey is a suspect - but there are others who equally should have been treated as suspects.

As regards your implication that everyone else involved is 'decent' is a very naive assumption. A few of gardai involved in the investigation were not decent at all, they were bribing witness's, docturing statements, god knows what the Marie Farrell Shenanigans was about, getting rid of notes and evidence that didnt suit the ' Bailey did it' agenda etc.

The local area was full of what were frankly weirdos and not at all the normal run of the mill people. Everyone had intermingled relationships and grudges against each other. When you dig into some of their past and future antics I dont think anyone could describe them as decent people.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924916#Comment_121924916

You have provided absolutely nothing that is of any evidential value. Getting emotional because I pointed out previous miscarriages of justice doesn't add to your point either.

So if you gave an actual sourced to back up your claim about evidence in the fire then please post it. Otherwise you're just throwing handfuls of mud in the hope some of it might stick (some might even suggest that by repeatedly posting your unsubstantiated claims you might even be trolling but I clearly am not one of those)

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924929#Comment_121924929

No one has close to the level of suspicion Bailey has on him. Can you list the reasons why you think someone else has a similar level? And there does seem to be people who are denying Bailey is a suspect.

There's a huge list of people who have provided statements that show that Bailey was lying. These have and had no reason to lie about Bailey and yes, they are decent people. And maybe if 1 or 2 of them aren't? That still leaves a huge list of people.

Or are you claiming they are all dodgy witnesses or worse, comparing them to O Carroll like that other poster?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924771#Comment_121924771

Bit contradictory coming from someone who has post after post disputing statements and assessments of the office of the DPP?

What's your explanation for how so many items of evidence and witness statements were lost? For the deliberate tampering with the Jobs Book? For the unsafe conduct with witnesses such as Marie Farrell? For the recording of Guards discussing altering a witness statement by Jules? Well? That's an awful lot of 'botching'.

So yes, it is entirely reasonable to question the reliability and accuracy of statements made years later versus the actions at the time, where they are in conflict with the actions at the time, where no evidence was logged, no exhibit information recorded. There is a reason chain of evidence recording is so important, and here there is none. Just the word of a Guard which does not appear to be based on a proper detailed forensic assessment, but a quick look at the contents of a bonfire. If the Guards could 'botch' (your word) the initial investigation, so too could this Guard be mistaken about what items may have been seen. If 'suspicious' items were found, why weren't these alleged coat buttons taken away from proper evidence processing?

And remember Bailey does not dispute that he had a bonfire and that items of clothing were burnt on it, just that he did not burn a coat, bloodstained or otherwise.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924958#Comment_121924958

No one has close to the level of suspicion Bailey has on him. Can you list the reasons why you think someone else has a similar level? And there does seem to be people who are denying Bailey is a suspect.

It is a bit rich for you to make demands on others when you still haven't backed up you claim about the fire.

There's a huge list of people who have provided statements that show that Bailey was lying. These have and had no reason to lie about Bailey and yes, they are decent people. And maybe if 1 or 2 of them aren't? That still leaves a huge list of people.

Can you name all those who provided statements against bailey and also include how long it took them to recall their memory of the event?

Or are you claiming they are all dodgy witnesses or worse, comparing them to O Carroll like that other poster?

I clearly did not compare them to O'Carroll so please stop lying about what I posted.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924965#Comment_121924965

But you're not only doubting the former Assistant State Pathologist. You are doubting Jules Thomas's daughters, all of Sophie's neighbours, a huge number of locals, neighbours of Bailey's, the Gardaí, the list goes on and it even includes you doubting Jules Thomas and statements from Bailey himself. Only when that suits though.

Again I'll ask you; why are you choosing to believe a man with a history of violence towards women and weird sexual behaviour over a huge number of decent people who have no reason to lie?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121925018#Comment_121925018

The former Assistant State Pathologist Eugene Gilligan appears to be doubting the work of Garda Eugene Gilligan on the case, who processed no such items as evidence!

And you're doubting the DPP, you're doubting the words of all those 'decent people' who have given evidence which support Bailey's version of events.

Noted you offered exactly zero answer to the questions put to you:

What's your explanation for how so many items of evidence and witness statements were lost? For the deliberate tampering with the Jobs Book? For the unsafe conduct with witnesses such as Marie Farrell? For the recording of Guards discussing altering a witness statement by Jules? Well? That's an awful lot of 'botching'.

Were all those the actions of 'decent' people?

Is there some standard of test for being a 'decent' person you can elaborate on, seems like it would save a lot of time bothering with evidence, trials and the DPP etc.

So do you accept Marie Farrell's testimony and do you find the Garda conduct with her to be safe? If not, why not? Is she a 'decent' person?

The Guards whipped up the 'decent' locals into a hysteria with claims about Bailey, witness a grown man like Bill Fuller running away from Bailey like a headless chicken because he thought he saw him across a field! Nearly got himself knocked down. And it wasn't even Bailey. Whether he is 'decent' or not, that is not a reliable witness:

They ran a considerable distance until they reached Toormore Beach where they ran along a lane way which led out onto the roadway to Goleen. Screaming and roaring they ran in front of the first car to approach them... It transpires that a local farmer was working near their van that day and they had mistaken him for Ian Bailey in their high state of apprehension.

Is it possible for decent people to be unreliable witnesses, whether through apprehension, or through the passage of time, or whether through leading questions from police engaged in unsafe practices.

As the DPP report calls out:

Once Ian Bailey was believed by the public particularly in the local area to be responsible for the murder the fear thereby engendered was bound to create a climate in which witnesses became suggestible.

As for your question, what has the one thing go to do with the other. Baffling connection.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924958#Comment_121924958

Please can you give me a list of the witnesses who you regard as 'decent people'?

tobefrank321

For anyone who cites the DPP report, its full of mistakes and holes.

Eg page 30 - "In a rural area the local grapevine can operate most efficiently. At 10.00 a.m. Alfie Lyons who knew Sophie, suspected that it was she who had been killed."

page 37 - "The body of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier was found by Alfie Lyons at 10.10 a.m. on 23 December 1996."

He couldn't even be bothered to get the timelines right.

Also there is not a single mention in the DPP's report of Bailey's conflicting alibis from what I can see. The only mention of the word alibi is on page 38 -

"If Bailey had murdered Sophie Toscan Du Plantier earlier that day such a telephone call is hard to comprehend. One would have expected his mind to be on other things, such as listening to the radio to see if the murder of the woman was reported, establishing an alibi and so on. His behaviour is indicative of innocence."

How is it indicative of innocence when his alibi turned out to be false, which was nowhere addressed by the DPP.

Onto the fire. pages 40/41.

"On 7 February 1997, Brian Jackson made a statement to D/Garda Jim Fitzgerald. In it he states that around Christmas time he noticed a fire in the Thomas property. 41 The statement of Louise Kennedy is taken on 17 April 1997 some four months after the event. She says that she noticed the fire on 26 December 1996. After a period of four months her recollection could easily be in error as to the date. A fire in a country area is surely not unusual. At page 5 of her statement, Bridget McLoughlin recollects that "in the course of my conversation with Eoin Bailey I asked him about the rumours that he had burned some clothes on the morning after the murder. He replied "I had to burn clothes because they were covered in turkey blood". Bridget McLoughlin mentions the day after the murder. Bailey in his reply does not. On 10 February 1997 while Jules Thomas was in detention (10B Page 5) she was asked "what about the fire at the back of the studio? She replied "it was going for about three days. I wanted to clean out that place and tidy it up. I burned newspapers and clothes I used in my painting. I burned the mattress as well it was old and worn. A horse hair mattress could easily smoulder for three days. At page two of a further interview conducted while she was in custody Jules Thomas was asked did you ever see blood on Ian's clothes? She replied "no". Except when he killed the turkeys on the Sunday. He returned to the house about lunch time from Schull. He did some jobs around the place. When he killed the turkeys he was wearing shorts. There was blood on them. I put them soaking in a tub outside under the drain pipe. None of us like killing turkeys and Ian doesn't like doing it. She mentions soaking shorts, she does not mention other clothes. If the blood stains were not removed from the shorts as a result of the soaking it is possible that Bailey burned them or some other clothes in the fire. Jules Thomas is alleged to have told D/Gda. Jim Fitzgerald that she started the fire long before Christmas. Bailey during an interview referred to the fire being in early December. The Gardaí that describe Bailey and Jules as lying in relation to the fire. This Office is not persuaded that is the case."

For goodness sake, he doesn't accept the fire was in late December, yet he himself argues its possible Bailey burned the turkey blood spattered shorts in the fire!

There are countless instances of this poor logic from the DPP as well as false and speculative contentions.

tobefrank321

Here's more on page 9.

"This evidence suggests that there could well have been unusual movement in the area where Sophie was killed in the early hours of the morning. Bailey and Jules were drinking in a pub in Schull at the time the dogs initially became upset. Later, Bailey was with Jules Thomas overlooking the scene from a distance and he says he got a bad feeling. This was during the time the dogs were unusually alarmed. Such a sense of foreboding is not considered incriminating. Bailey may have sensed the activity below him which also alarmed the dogs."

So Bailey was drinking in the pub at the time the dogs were upset, but was able later to "sense" the activity below him which alarmed the dogs?

Below him as in miles away from it.

How is it even remotely credible or believable for a person to do this?! This is just fantasy stuff from the DPP.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121925059#Comment_121925059

Ok so you're like the other fella, trying to portray decent people as liars and unreliable. You're unable to answer why you choose to believe a proven woman beater and sexual deviant over a huge list of witnesses and testimony from those who have no reason to lie. Off to the conspiracy theory forum with you and off to my ignore list. Timewaster.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121925221#Comment_121925221

I've listed many already. You didn't answer any of my questions.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121925351#Comment_121925351

Yes, some would like to think the DPP are infallible. This clearly isn't the case. We have seen this in other cases. There may not have been enough evidence to convict Bailey but to hold the DPP report as gospel is foolish, especially with the errors involved as you state and the huge level of testimony which contradicts the report.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121925351#Comment_121925351

Nope, what the DPP report says is:

Bailey and Jules were drinking in a pub in Schull at the time the dogs initially became upset.

What you wrote:

So Bailey was drinking in the pub at the time the dogs were upset.

Your "interpretations" of the DPP report are completely misleading.

The point about mentioning when it initially happened, is to point out it happened when Bailey was in the pub and could not have been the cause of it.

These are the hours when unusual activity was reported, so Bailey would have had ample opportunity to be aware of the disturbances.

1. David Bray at 12.45 a.m. on 23 December 1996 noted that the wolfhound which he minds was unusually upset.

2. Martin Breuinger confirms that the wolfhound was unusually disturbed between 12 midnight and 2.00 a.m. on 23 December 1996.

3. Geraldine Kennedy states that her dog was barking mad from 10.30 – 10.45 p.m. on 22 December and continued this for about three hours practically non-stop.

4. The dog owned by Derry Kennedy and his wife was unusually upset between 10 p.m. on 22 December 1996 and 1.50 a.m. on 23 December 1996.

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121925395#Comment_121925395

Why would he even bother including that line, drinking in the pub when they were initially upset. Its irrelevant. And Hunts Hill is miles away from where Sophie's house was. In the off-chance he heard the dogs, why would he have foreboding.

It was clearly a "premonition" of some sort. The DPP just minimizes and dismisses it out of hand. Nothing to see here, move on, etc. Except it can't be dismissed that easily. Bailey was not a clairvoyant, so his "feeling" is hugely questionable.

I never said Bailey was the cause of the disturbance earlier by the way.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121925434#Comment_121925434

Asked and answered in previous post:

The point about mentioning when it initially happened, is to point out it happened when Bailey was in the pub and could not have been the cause of it.

It was a night of an almost full moon, dogs unusually disturbed to the extent that the owners noticed it above and beyond normal activity. I expect many people had a 'feeling' that night, and there is nothing incriminating about that. I imagine readers of this post can reflect back and think of times when they had such a feeling... and that is all it was.

And the DPP report continues in same section:

Michael Gallagher refers to strange people being in the area on 23 December 1996. Sheila Barnett noted an unusual man in the area earlier on 23 December1996...

Unfortunately, the forensic evidence is unable to pinpoint the time of Sophie Toscan du Plantier’s death. It is not, therefore, possible to say whether she was killed around the time that the dogs were acting strangely, or at a later time in the night or early morning.

So for all we know, the disturbances were connected to the murder, and they kicked off at a time when Bailey could not have been the cause.

tobefrank321

Regards addressing the alibis the DPP does address them but doesn't mention the word alibi on pages 12/13 but completely exhonerates Bailey and Thomas. He lets Bailey off with no questioning of his credibility.

Bailey's first questionnaire was completed eight days later. It is a difficult exercise for any person to recall with precision the timing and location of ordinary matters even after a very short time. 13 The same observation applies to the questionnaire completed on 14 January 1997, some three weeks after the murder. The same observation applies to the interviews conducted while Bailey was in detention on 10 February 1997, some seven weeks after the murder. The fact that Bailey and Jules Thomas have made errors in their recollection does not necessarily mean they are deliberately lying. Errors made by other persons are regarded as simple mistakes in terms of recollection. 

The first part is nonsense. 8 days is not a long time. And coming just 2 days after the supposed difficult article was published. Everyone else's recollections are heavily criticised by the DPP except Bailey's. The DPP criticises anyone who remembered anything months later, but is perfectly happy to accept Baileys recollections from some time later, and his misrecollection over a week after the murder. This is not how memory works. It becomes more hazy with time as the DPP admitted, not clearer as in the case of Baileys.

As for Bailey's article, the DPP again lets him off without serious questioning (page 8)

He states that this was a very difficult story because it was about computers and he found it difficult to write 900 words on this subject which had to refer to computer language etc.

This was a story about internet cafes in West Cork or similar. How would this be a very difficult story for an experienced hack like Bailey who had worked on far more difficult articles both in the UK and Ireland? Again the DPP doesn't bother to question what Bailey says, but goes all in on anyone else who makes any sort of assertion. Where is the balance?

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121925360#Comment_121925360

No you havent - You do realise that many of the witnesses had either personal grudges against Bailey or are completely untrustworthy due to dubious backgrounds. Most of them I wouldnt regard as decent, reliable, honest people at all.