All irrelevant fluff MoonUnit and you know it.
Until a connection between Bailey and Sophie can be established, or some new evidence placing him at the scene is discovered, , or a plausible motive emerges, there is simply no solid evidence to link him to the crime.
Endless burrowing down meaningless rabbit holes will not move the debate forward.
Until one or more of the above changes, the case against Bailey is a non starter.
Where are the witness statements describing a man matching the man Marie Farrell described? The sallow skinned man from her original statements? The one she saw on the night of the murder?
How did these other witnesses recognise Ian Bailey and Marie Farrell did not? She's never seen him about town before?
Completely incredible.
As for "during the same time"? Oh will you come off it, it was Schull, how many times had Ian Bailey been on that main street?
How many other man were on Schull main street during "this time"? Come on, answer up?
And if you don't know that, how can you connect Bailey and the man MF described, who looks nothing like Bailey?
So to present that as independent witnesses corroborating MF's evidence is utterly false and without merit.
What is this nonsense about a hitchhiker? Another red herring dropped in when you are unable to back up one of your fabrications and misrepresentations.
Dan Griffin and Ceri Williams saw IB in Schull at the same time Sophie was shopping and during the same period that MF saw the man she described. Ceri Williams' statement is similar to MF's, she had seen Sophie coming out of a shop and IB was across the road at the time.
Witnesses saw IB at a house very close to the spot MF saw the same man hitchiking the next morning. IB had slept on the sofa at the Murphy house and said he had left at some point during the night. One witness said he heard the front door opening shortly before MF saw the man hitchiking.
Neither MF nor the gardai could have known these other statements would be made putting IB in the same areas as MF's sightings. It could have very easily happened that IB was spotted fly fishing outside the custom house in Dublin when she said she saw a man hitchiking outside Schull.
Marie Farrell is a liar. But, like all liars, she sometimes tells the truth. But nothing she says can be trusted.
Whether what she says supports the prosecution's case or undermines it is irrelevant.
There is no point in debating which particular statement is true and which is false. there is no way of knowing.
Its a dead end.
This is a complete fabrication. No indepedent witnesses corroborated MF's original statements, especially considering the statements didn't even identify the tall Ian Bailey but a short, sallow skinned man. So if they are your most reliable ones, they exonerate Ian Bailey.
We're expected to believe that MF saw Ian Bailey and in describing him, didn't mention he was tall?
And had never seen him about Schull in the year she was living and working on its main street, except for the weekend before the murder?
Simply not credible.
This is a total lie.
We both agreed before to ignore our posts yet he is still commenting on mine. Look back through the thread and inform yourself. I have no problem debating with someone who is willing to see a reasonable point of view but he/she ignores anything that points towards Bailey's innocence.
wow .talk about shooting the messenger,Moonunit is well versed in the minutiae of the case and contributed very positively to the debate on this thread ,
just because like me he/she does not share your opinion on this case shouldn't result in him/her receiving abusive posts.
Totally agree re: running of the investigation, but not sure from where are they going to recover this DNA?
Yes.
Alfie said a Frenchwoman who complains about everything was his neighbour but she wasn't there often. Shirley told him to shhh, probably to head off one of Alfie's little rants, while agreeing the French neighbour liked to complain.
That's it.
No one was interested in hearing what the Frenchwoman had to complain about
So nothing like chasing a cat around a garden then, unless your version of chasing a cat around a garden involves hitting it with a rock, then finishing it off with a concrete block, while being scratched by briars?
Pat Marry deserves great credit for catching David Lawler for the rape and murder of Marilyn Rynn in 1995, based on DNA from her body. Pity Marry wasn’t running the investigation into the murder, almost exactly one year later, of Sophie Toscan du Plantier.
He thinks they might recover DNA even now but surely that has been tried time and again? He also talks about genealogy databases, which could help if they recovered a DNA sample (not relevant to IB as he gave blood samples).
There's no reason to think the killer made any physical contact with the victim, the injuries were all consistent with a rock, a concrete block, a boot and some sharp implement.
It would look suspicious if all the neighbours came out to look for a missing child, and one person did not. It's completely different situation.
And Bailey was supposed to have gotten scratches at the scene.
So what's this new red herring comparing it to chasing a cat around a garden?
I don't know how you can compare getting cuts from briars at the scene, and brutally beating and killing someone at close quarters, to chasing a cat around a garden with zero contact.
The French made the right call on this. MF's first statements could not have benefitted her in any way, were corroborated in two instances by other independent witnesses and were made before a well documented series of complaints of intimidation and an eventual admission of perjury while recanting the initial statements. The earlier statements should be considered the most reliable ones considering all she went through afterwards.
GSOC's conclusions were the same as those of the jury in the High Court and of the judge in his remarks, having heard everything IB and MF could throw at them. Any of the gardai, journalists or members of the public who would not speak to GSOC or sign statements could be required to give evidence in the High Court, as many of them did, including retired gardai. I feel like it's groundhog day around here, it's like the GSOC report and High Court proceedings just go in one ear and out the other. If it doesn't agree with the conspiracy theory, it must be fake news, false reports, false conclusions. It's painful at this stage.
I don’t mean a sexual relationship, which nobody (not even the Gardai) thinks he had . I meant any form of interaction.
If he had any such connection, he would have told the whole parish and definitely John Montague. If he had any knowledge of her, it is inconceivable that he would have talked at length about French film to Bannasidhe without mentioning Sophie even though they were standing looking at her house. If you didn’t, it is nonsensical to imagine that he would be knocking on her door in the early hours of the morning.
I suppose it would be very fanciful to think that a man who had just killed and dumped the body of one of his friends and neighbours would go over to the victim's house hours later to offer their help to look for the missing boy. But it happened.
Someone carried it out and was not acting in such a way that seriously concerned anyone they met afterwards, at least not more than the small number gardai were alerted to and had ruled out.
It would be very handy if the killer had somewhere to go back to where no one else was living, somewhere that wasn't their residence but had excellent privacy, bathrooms, baths, running water etc. There doesn't seem to have been any actual hand to hand fighting, it was very one-sided and was probably over in less than a minute or two. There's no reason to think you shed any more DNA or hair than if you had been out chasing a cat from the garden.
Is there anymore obvious evidence that the French case was a shame than when Marie Farrell actually offered to go to France to recant her earlier statements accusing Bailey because of Garda coercion and she was in fact denied access to attend by the French. Instead they took her earlier statements as fact.
Now, this is key because some posters on this thread have indicated that Marie Farrell only wanted to recant her statement against Bailey because of a financial motive for the libel trial but that would completely contradict that because with this, there was zero financial motive along with the inconvenience of attending a court in a foreign country for a man she barely knows.
This case shines a light on the corruption of our own Gards, the farcical nature of the Napoleonic law, our own inept government politicians who bow down to anyone from France or Germany, the integrity and decency of some of our own citizens who would happily see an innocent man imprisoned if it means they get some money, drugs, favours in return, amongst many many other things. The land of saints and scholars we certainly are not
Can you elaborate on "complain about everything"
some on page 5 and on page 7. put p5 or p7 after sky/ in the url. Sorry if you know this
This says DNA can stil solve it and confirms what i said before that cold weather would preserve rather than destroy DNA
The Guards were told to do one when they arrived in France asking questions.
Laughable there are posts on this thread defending the farcical French trial when you consider that.
The path of least resistance lead to Ian Bailey, which is no way to conduct a murder investigation.
If people actually thought about it, they'd be looking at every possible angle on Daniel du Plantier
I'm in no way pointing a finger at him but
1 - Ian bailey lived locally, barely knew Sophie, no known motive. Drunk on the night and 5km+ away in a very rural location.
2 - Daniel du Plantier. Financial issues, all but separated from Sophie, new girlfriend, has many contacts, has the means. Knew of Sophie's movements. Has the Motive
Yet very little real digging done on Daniel du Plantier.
GSOC can't even question Gardai who don't want to be questioned.
They can't explain why 35 pages were deliberately cut out from the book of evidence.
You'd have to be a particulary dumb or blatantly obvious Guard to be caught out by GSOC in your wrongdoings.
But yeah, GSOC are infallible in their conclusions if you believe some here!
I think that's pretty much the point the OP was making. You just don't do that, so why someone would use it as a pretext for visiting Alfie is ludicrous - the whole angle of the light being on and a premonition of something bad being about to happen is absurd.
Bailey wouldn't have to tell the whole town they were having an affair... but why would he have kept quiet had there been any sort of professional element to it, even as a cover story. Or that could have been the cover story for Jules and the rest of the town, but to his male buddies he would have been more frank.
And how was this contact meant to have been carried out.
Nobody saw them together.
No letters were found.
No phone calls traced.
Sophie was in France most of the time.
Had Ian been hanging around Sophie's, Alfie or other neighbours would have noticed.
As for this spontaneous incident turning into a murderous frenzy, I can't remember any cases like that from the courts that happened between two people who barely knew each other, living in same area, and the incident occurred at her property.
So we're back to, no connection between the two that could in any way be a motive, and no credible scenario for why Bailey would have killed her. And no forensics evidence linking him to the murder. And no eye witnesses putting him at the crime scene, and one very dubious* witness who may or may not have put him in the vicinity or put some short, sallow skinned man there instead. Oh, and the mystery man who was supposed to be in the car with him. Who didn't recognise Bailey either.
The GSOC report is just GSOC opinion. GSOC do not have to the power to say whether JT arrest was legal. It would have to be ironed out in a criminal court to get a determination of whtether the arrest was legal. GSOC's view is just GSOC's view. I am sure if Bailey were prosecuted in a criminal court it would be an issue and would be decided by the court not by GSOC.
That is a very good point. In fact a man his size and strength may not have needed to hit her so many times
Why would you phone someone because there was light in their house? I used to regularly drive a rural country road route at 5am years ago. i recall one house always had a light on. I never thought i should stop and ask why
He's 6-4. She was 5-0. If he wanted to rape her I'm sure he could have overpowered her. And disgusting as it is, he could have easily carried away her body and still done the evil deed.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
