Mackwiss wrote: » Let's put the jacket to rest shall we? In a very simple way. He was using that same jacket on Christmas day Swim. Explain to me how do you take that jacket soak it in water Christmas eve and you're using it the next day completely dry on the Christmas Swim? How do you dry it so quickly in the middle of winter in Ireland? From JS documentary, we know they took the jacket from him and we never saw him with such jacket again.
namloc1980 wrote: » Bailey never said he heard it from Lyons. He said he got a phone call from Eddie Cassidy in the Cork Examiner that there had been a murder in Toormore, Dunmanus and the victim was a French lady. The incident was first broadcast on Cork local radio at 2pm news bulletin and even they knew that the victim was a French woman at that point. Bailey didn't arrive at the scene until around 2.30pm. I mean, him being the local journalist and being at the scene of the biggest story in the area in 100 years is hardly incriminating. It's even less incriminating in that he arrived after a journalist in Cork knew about it and phoned Bailey to get over there, and after it had been broadcast on the news on local radio at 2pm. Bailey said that Eddie Cassidy told him where it had happened and it was a French lady. Didn't need to be a genius to work out who it might be especially as Bailey said he knew of Sophie and that she lived in Toormore next door to Alfie's house (which be knew exactly where that was as he'd been there before). Eddie Cassidy corroborates Baileys version.
isha wrote: » I still have not decided on who I think is guilty (although Bailey is an obnoxious man) but it did occur to me that getting a full length heavy woolen coat for a 6 foot man into an ordinary plastic/tin bucket to soak it in water would be some squeeze.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » Irrelevant but highly sensitive information could be removed for the same reasons given in my last post. If there was evidence of Garda corruption it is highly unlikely it would go into the evidence book in writing in the first place.
highly unlikely it would go into the evidence book in writing in the first place
EmmetSpiceland wrote: » This is it. And because of this the main suspect can never be tried properly. Had the Gards taken a “by the book” approach Bailey may well have been convicted on witness statements and circumstantial evidence alone. Instead, the gardaí acted like a bad guy in an 80s teen movie. Going out of their way to make things more complicated and, eventually, doing enough damage that no jury could convict Bailey due to, at best, incompetence or, at worst, corruption.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » The gardai can’t force a witness (or suspect) to answer a question about their personal life, especially if it is not related to an actual offender or crime. A judge could press a witness to answer a question or they would find themselves in contempt, so a spell in a cell or provide an answer. What do you want them to do, torture her?
SoulWriter wrote: » An FOI Request is not the same as a GSOC investigation though
thecretinhop wrote: » how has the guards not been checked on this. is it the case of yeah sorry bout that like wtf?
namloc1980 wrote: » Sorry you're right on that. But the DPP report clearly shows Cassidy must've known all of the details and that his classics that he didn't ring certain people are false as phone records, as you say, show he did. C103FM news broadcast at 2pm that the victim was a French lady and their knowledge of that is traced back to Cassidy by the DPP (even though Cassidy claims otherwise).
MoonUnit75 wrote: » Possibly the same reason freedom of information requests sometimes have certain parts redacted. If these statements were from people saying ‘I really think George my neighbour did it, he’s the type who would smash a woman’s head in with a concrete block’ or ‘my sister is having an affair with a journalist in the local paper and she heard x, y and z’, you can imagine lots of reasons the gardai might feel it’s wise to redact statements that are of no real relevance to the case. This is particularly the case if they have active informants or informants who would be associated wit drug gangs etc. where the source of the information is extremely sensitive.
odyssey06 wrote: » Why would pages have been ripped from the evidence book relating to the witness statements and how Bailey was identified as a suspect?
Why was MF pressured by AGS to say she saw Bailey when she didnt and originally identified someone of a different description?
SoulWriter wrote: » He doesn't. Cassidy claime he did not tell Bailey the victim was French or that it was a murder and that he thought it might be a hit and run. But Cassidy is discredited in The DPP report claiming he didn't phone people phone records show he did
Weddings ahoy wrote: » I agree IB did himself no favours in regards to Alibi, and his mannerisms turn of phrase whatever around the time of the murder are hugely suspicious to say the least, but the fact he so easily gave Dna, hair samples, and nothing forensically was ever found to link him to the murder is astonishing, especially as this was such a frenzied attack,
EltonJohn69 wrote: » I always suspected the GAA was in involved in the murder.
odyssey06 wrote: » Why would pages have been ripped from the evidence book relating go the witness statements and how Bailey was identified as a witness? Why was MF pressured by AGS to say she saw Bailey when she didnt and originally identified someone of a different description? This what a miscarriage of justice looks lke.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » It amazes me how people an totally disregard so many witness statements and circumstances around the murder but one whiff of madcap conspiracy theories in the ranks or powers that be and they are all over it like a rash.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » Why wouldn’t he mention this in his statements? It wouldn’t be a crime for Alfie Lyons to tell someone about a murder being discovered. Likewise, Alfie would have mentioned it too.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » The DPP’s opinion on the witnesses was tested in the defamation case and the judge in that case did not agree with the DPP that practically every witness apart from Ian Bailey himself was unconvincing and unreliable. The DPP report itself is a farce. After throwing out over a dozen witnesses as ‘dangerously unreliable’ etc. but whose testimony later stood up against cross examination in court, he suggests it was totally reasonable for Bailey, who had been drinking into the late night, to say he got out of bed to go to a cold, unheated studio to write an article. Bailey claimed he had to have it in the next day but lo and behold when he contacts the paper they tell him he still has another day to work on it. He places no weight on the false alibi previously given.
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » "Can you describe the clothes"? "were they dark coloured" "Could it have been a dark coat" etc etc. So with a little bit of prompting and suggestion, "I saw clothes soaking in a tub" becomes "I saw a dark coat soaking in a tub" on the signed statement.
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » Well, I see your point but a dispassionate view on the way the Guards conducted themselves leads me to only two possible conclusions: 1) The entire investigation team was totally incompetent, unprofessional and incapable to the extent that heads should have rolled. or 2) They were not incompetent and were trying to cover up/destroy evidence for some sinister reason. Its hard to accept that such levels of hopeless ineptitude could exist within a trained, professional organisation but its also hard to accept that the Gardai would cover for a vicious murderer like this.
Weddings ahoy wrote: » Please read the Dpp report its linked a few pages back, it page 146 i think, it has raised some interesting points for me and perhaps changed my opinion on a lot of this case, It's clear to see why IB was never trialled in Ireland for this murder, and the incompetence of the Garda is shocking, also the finding that the star witnesses are at 'best wholly unreliable ' is a true description, most statements were taken by AGS much too late to be any way reliable, for instance the young girl staying in the prairie the next day wouldn't she have been a key witness 5/6 after murder not 2 years later when they took her statement, in the show she intimated it was a coat soaking in a tub, in NF book it was clothes soaking in tub, which is it? Or the couple who went back to the prairie on NYE , where IB confessed i did it ..i did it...then i went too far, the female overhears this and leaves immediately as you would when you hear a suspect confessing to murder, they both left and year's later testified what went on that night, but they never mentioned that the day after that 'confession' they were both drinking with IB and JT in the pub again, would you?? It makes very interesting reading, a lot of the case was built on the personality of the main suspect, and the savage attacks he inflicted on his partner, but the Dpp report also says MF husband has been charged with assault multiple times, why was he never looked at ? On the whole I believe that IB was the convenient suspect, case closed, we have him no need to look anywhere else , witnesses coerced, evidence missing, its such a shame for Sophie and her family that the person who killed her will likely never be brought to justice
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7f0ee566c2a6a4f1cca1529d24ea5553.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/94a541c5ef1520586577efdb9b199207.svg)
