Yurt! wrote: » The claim is he was killing a turkey for Christmas dinner.
dublin49 wrote: » one thing that struck me as odd is why the scratches on his hand from cutting down Xmas tree wasnt proved or disproved conclusively,he hardly put the xmas tree up on 23rd Dec ,you would imagine with young kids in the house it would have been up for weeks,did Bailey confirm when he cut tree down.
dublin49 wrote: » very little new information except from a friend of Sophie who came forward to say Sophie had received a phone call from Ireland from a man claiming to be a poet ,he seemed to have freaked Sophie ,pity this lead wasnt possible to follow up,I didnt watch all 5 episodes but my wife said Bailey did gardening for Sophie's neighbour,never heard that before either.In general theres a lot of circumstantial evidence .The scratches,the fire,the fact he admits he left the house,the confessions,the knowledge of classified detail .history of violence,fixtation with sex,can make me understand the comment further back that well over half the town thought he did it.
Fandymo wrote: » Have you seen/heard Ian Bailey? If he was having an affair with a French writer and wife of a famous French director, do you think he’d be able to keep quiet about it? He’d love telling everyone about it.
monkeybutter wrote: » What's the story with her having had breakfast? Is that bull duty they could have placed her time of death somewhat accurately or did the time it took to get down from Dublin riuin this
MoonUnit75 wrote: » From my reading of the DPP report, Bailey was first questioned a few weeks after the murder. The reason there were drawings instead of photographs is probably because the visible scratches had healed by then so drawings were made to provide some record of the observations of gardai who had dealings with him shortly after the murder. You don't generally photograph the hands of people attending the scene of a crime or suspected of a crime without first arresting them. I think the DPP was too eager to dismiss the case, perhaps to avoid an embarrassing demolition of the hapless gardai at trial. Several times the DPP describes Ian Bailey's behaviour as 'indicating innocence' without giving any consideration to a perpetrator having a fatalistic resignation to being caught, or hoping for full co-operation to reflect well on them when it came to sentencing. This would be consistent with the several witnesses who made statements that Bailey basically admitted to it, perhaps even wanting to be caught and enjoying the notoriety. Nearly all of these witnesses are described as either being suggestible or wanting to please the gardai. This is not even considered once when his partner and children's statements are presented as corroborating his account. Some of the reasoning is contradictory. The DPP says Marie Cassidy's statements are completely unreliable and should be dismissed. But they also use her description of Bailey wearing a long coat to argue that wearing this long coat would have prevented him getting scratches from the thorn bushes.
SoulWriter wrote: » anything new in it? was going to buy it but there seems nothing new anywhere
MoonUnit75 wrote: » No, I think they should apply the reasoning about the credibility of witnesses consistently, not just when it implicated Bailey.
weadick wrote: » I have read it. It is a very good book, well written.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » Do you think police drawings based on witness accounts are all guess work? They are used very often.
am_zarathustra wrote: » Has anyone read the book by Foster, Murder at Roaringwater.....half tempted to buy it but he seems to have made his mind up regardless.
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » So guess work?
gussieg wrote: » so, does that mean Jules and her daughter are lying, is that what you mean?
MoonUnit75 wrote: » From my reading of the DPP report, Bailey was first questioned a few weeks after the murder. The reason there were drawings instead of photographs is probably because the visible scratches had healed by then so drawings were made to provide some record of the observations of gardai who had dealings with him shortly after the murder. You don't generally photograph the hands of people attending the scene of a crime or suspected of a crime without first arresting them. I think the DPP was too eager to dismiss the case, perhaps to avoid an embarrassing demolition of the hapless gardai at trial. Several times the DPP describes Ian Bailey's behaviour as 'indicating innocence' without giving any consideration to a perpetrator having a fatalistic resignation to being caught, or hoping for full co-operation to reflect well on them when it came to sentencing. This would be consistent with the several witnesses who made statements that Bailey basically admitted to it, perhaps even wanting to be caught and enjoying the notoriety. Nearly all of these witnesses are described as either being suggestible or wanting to please the gardai. This is not even considered once when his partner and children's statements are presented as corroborating his account.
odyssey06 wrote: » They didn't know how to use a camera?
monkeybutter wrote: » If we could only see the brilliant drawing I mean you could get scratches from anything Hardly unbelievable
Loafing Oaf wrote: » If there was some sort of flirtation between them, is it surprising that it was completely secret?
gmisk wrote: » I honestly don't believe him about the scratches from the tree and turkey. He also admitted doing it to multiple people. But yeah no hard evidence, partially I would say due to gardai incompetence
monkeybutter wrote: » No motive and no evidence though
gmisk wrote: » I am up to episode 4.. It feels a tad biased...I don't think Sheridan thinks Bailey did it...and it shows. I honestly think he did it. But the gardai made an absolute hames of the investigation, disaster after disaster, people like that clown Marie Farrell are not credible and muddied the waters absolute eejit.
notahappycamper wrote: » Just finished the West Cork podcast. I hadn’t heard of it prior to it been discussed earlier in this thread. Wow, some level of detail and investigation. Weighing things up there is obviously no concrete evidence against IB. Only he knows the truth. But Jesus, the level of incompetence by the Gardai, bribing of witnesses and missing exhibits is absolutely diabolical. The podcast comments on the GSOC investigation in the last episode. The French court case was a a farce.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
