Bibblybobbly wrote: » it’s like some people are looking for a conspiracy rather than looking at what’s staring us in the face.
dublin49 wrote: » IMO there is nobody on either of these threads who can say with 100% conviction they know they are right( unless Ian is logged on) ,I get that,his defenders want DNA linkage to the crime scene,DNA was only around a few years at the time and before that witness statements were paramount to convictions and there are IMO ample witness statements to totally undermine Baileys professed innocence.
monkeybutter wrote: » It's like you think the gardai should interview someone sober and then get them drunk and see if they can reliably keep a train of thought going on something that happened 20 years ago and then if they can't, bang guilty It's why drunk people aren't reliable witnesses
Bibblybobbly wrote: » However, they had good reason for probing Bailey, marks on his arm and head on the day following the murder, no solid alibi for his whereabouts on the night of the murder, a history of violence against women and critically an admission on more than one occasion of murdering the woman. Occam’s razor and all, it’s like some people are looking for a conspiracy rather than looking at what’s staring us in the face.
unplayable wrote: » https://www.newstalk.com/news/marie-farrell-walks-out-of-high-court-in-middle-of-cross-examination-679072
EmmetSpiceland wrote: » Was the DNA found enough to conclusively say it didn’t match Bailey’s? Or was it so degraded that it could only be established that it was male DNA?
brendanwalsh wrote: » Any other theory is just fantasy.
brendanwalsh wrote: » What are the chances in a small town that a guy who with the following FACTS: - has a history of violence towards women - had scratch marks on his arms the day after the murder - when asked about anything to say on Christmas morning his reply was “talk to my solicitor” - admitted he killed her multiple times to multiple people, at one point describing how he did it and what happened - unreliable alibi and changing story Compounded by - poor dna and crime scene handling by cops over in over their heads Didn’t kill the woman. Any other theory is just fantasy.
Ultimate Gowlbag wrote: » Your fantasy is the best fantasy,amiright?
brendanwalsh wrote: » Who do you think did it so ?
Are we back up and running 🧐
Yes. Let’s speculate away…🤔
I see IB on Twitter saying the gate was not lost but destroyed 🤷🏼♀️
https://twitter.com/iankennethbail1/status/1415046221572493320?s=21
The two of them well matched when it comes to attention seeking, the should get together, both will do anything to attract attention.
That’s random! Dunno who to believe.
After listening to the podcast, and watching sky and Netflix I think he did it.
The sky one I watched first and felt sorry for him and thought he may be innocent.
Then I watched the netflix which is obviously anti bailey and sure enough I thought then he was probably guilty.
Finally listened to the podcast. Lots of unbiased interviews and much more detail.
What did it for me was him contradicting himself and his alibi, or no alibi. Witnesses (not marie farrel) saying hed walk around at night. Sophie telling her friend she was meeting a journalist. Ian telling people he did it. The violent streak and his ego. Most damning was when he drove back from schull that night and according to Jules he commented on the Alphies and the cottage and said something terrible was going to happen, and turning up the next morning with a cut on his face. She herself admitted at one stage she wasnt sure if he had done it.
Bad investigation yes but overall I think it's likely hes the killer.
same for me,too much stuff around him ,no silver bullet but lots of very strange ,contradictory and bizarre behaviour on his behalf and too many plausible witnesses that contradict his version of events.
Very little talk about the hatchet?
Isn't the murder weapon one of the vital pieces of evidence.... I mean if it started at the house... the block was off down the lane..
She wasn't knocked or chased by a block wielding murder... too heavy.
Marks from the post mortem indicated sharp knife like marks to her skull …
Why would someone walk away with a bloody hatchet? especially after leaving it down to use a block?
Were the local ponds and rivers dredged? Were the ditches adequately checked? or like the bottle of wine has I to be found?
.....
I don't think the hatchet was ever found. The river at Kealfadda Bridge might be worth searching!
What’s the contents of Sinéad O’Connor’s interview with IB? It’s behind a paywall. Anyone care to post the article here? Thanks
Sinéad O’Connor accused of being a journalist. Verdict:innocent
Have a read of the DPP file and see what you think:
https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com
Having been completely caught up in the Sky and Netflix take on the story - the Sinead O'Connor encounter was an excellent addition to read! I was in West Cork myself all week and wondered why Bailey wasn't at the Skibbereen Farmers market on Saturday - what I would have paid to be a fly on the wall for the interview! I'm not going to post an entire article because it's only a €1 if people want to read it - but here's a bit from the end.
"I have one last question. What knot did he use when killing one of the famous three turkeys — the one that scratched his hairline on the night before Sophie’s murder? He waves me away in anger. He’s not talking any more.
..... Once he realises I’ve fled, he calls The Star newspaper at 7.15pm, looking to take control of the narrative around our interview."
A new career for Sinead InshAllah, a cross between mrs marple and colombo
I didnt get to read Sineads aritcle yet - looking forward to reading it BUT
The fact Sinead O Connor now a journalist is a joke. Lets face it The Independent exploited Sinead here knowing that Ian Bailey would jump at the chance of meeting here. I think its disgusting to use a vulnerable person like Sinead. Give it a few weeks and 'The Independent' will have dropped her.