comment in Tomi
what is that. https://streamable.com/a22821
GSOC said it was unable to clarify when the interference may have taken place other than believing it was likely to have occurred since a review of the file in 2002, but possibly as far back as the 1990s. The commission said it had considered whether the interference with the Jobs Book warranted sending a file to the DPP, but they had chosen not to on the basis that one of the main gardaí who had responsibility for the documents had since died.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30859712.html
The whole "IB is guilty" rests on MF's alleged sighting of him on foot a Kealfadda Bridge.
So it is in the interests of AGS and their sock puppets on here to say he walked.
Undoubtedly in the real world a pie-eyed IB would have no qualms about driving.
Do you know off hand when the pages were discovered missing?
One of the only bits of interesting information from the interview on Monday, that has largely gone unnoticed, was when Bailey said that Sophies son was kicked out of Daniel Tuscan Du Plantiers house not long after the murder.
Well the generally toothless GSOC would have charged the detective in charge of the evidence in relation the deliberate destruction of 35 pages (including pages relating to MF) had he still been in the force. But dead men tell no tales.
To be fair, considering the nature of the crime, that car would have been in a mess had he driven it back home afterwards. There no tactful way to put that. He would have almost certainly needed to have ditched the car somewhere it couldn't be found. I wonder if the Gardai ever did examine his car or home etc in any great detail.
I think the biggest problem with him driving there is how he would avoid getting blood in the car. I would assume the guards would have taken his car in for tests?
Plenty of people would have been driving around dark country roads while drunk. It was very much common practice in this country until not too long ago.
In the libel trial before she broke down i think yes, but the guards were never going to charge her with perjury considering she was saying they coerced her into testifying in the first place.
If she was charged with perjury then you'd have to charge all the guards who put pressure on her to falsify statements and incidents.
I think anything coming from Marie Farrell is probably best ignored. Jim Sheridan in his Documentary pointed out the road up that leads to Sophie's house after kealfadda bridge and Marie Farrell said she didn't know that and acted surprised when he mentioned that.
Are you really comparing typewriting whilst drunk to driving a car down pitch dark country roads in winter whilst drunk
Did MF ever lie in court or under oath? A charge of perjury might have made her rethink her story.
Well considering he was able to get out of bed in the middle of the night to write an article, there's no reason to suggest he couldn't have driven over.
The murderer may indeed have had a lot of alcohol on board. Memory may be quite hazy of events. They may even be able to convince themselves that it wasn't them. Just a thought.
I think the problem is that her first call was anonymous and didn't mention Bailey at all. Same for her 2nd and 3rd call too?
So the narrative has to be that she didn't recognize Bailey well enough that she could have positively identified him right there in the first anonymous call but she was then able, after discussions with Gardai, to retrospectively identify him. Worth noting that her first "official" interview with the Gardai is maybe 4 or 5 weeks after the murder.
If she knew him well enough the first "Fiona" call would have just been "I saw a man called Ian Bailey out by Kealfadda Bridge on the night of the murder." So the story has to be that she wouldn't know him right away by sight but would be able to remember that it was him with a bit of memory jogging at a future date. In the small community where everyone knows everyone else.
The unfortunate thing for the Gardai is that her initial statements were basically describing a stranger in the area. This then had to be backtracked and adjusted until she was "sure" it was Bailey. Which she then went back on all those years later.
The French seem to have just said "forget all that, we wont accept your first answer cos you didn't ID Bailey and we won't accept your final answer cos you say it wasn't Bailey but in that window where you did say it was Bailey THAT'S the truth we accept." I wonder how many poor folks are locked up in France for crimes they didn't commit?
He could have but the Gardai and French prosecution narrative was that he walked to the murder scene and was seen walking down by the bridge after the murder. Probably people who witnessed his level of drunkenness would have maybe testified that there's no way this dude could have drove a car around there in that state.
So he could have definitely driven over there but this would ruin the prosecution narrative, I think. We just don't really know.
It might have made things much easier for the investigators had they been able to suggest he had, but it was ruled out possibly because Ginny Thomas arrived home about 2.30 am and would have noticed it missing. Neither she nor Jules heard a car being moved later, so I think Netflix went with the notion that he might have pushed it silently down the road before hopping in obviously aware he was going out for nefarious reasons
Slightly off topic but it was interesting that Baby Johns body was exhumed yesterday.
People only have to look at that case in a neighbouring county to see the levels guards were willing to go to. Not to mention there were a few Kerrymen working in Bantry Station at the time of Sophie's murder.
The Ian Bailey case is almost like childsplay when you look at what they tried to do to Joanne Hayes.
I think Jules daughter babysitted for Marie Farrell after the murder, which makes it even more strange.
I do agree though that its weird that Marie Farrell said she didn't know Bailey at the time. He had lived there for many years, he has a clearly distinguishable physical appearance regarding his height and the way he dressed. Also, if people from the area are to be believed, he was also quite loud and intrusive and often trying to read out his poetry in bars and public spaces etc.
Could be possible that Marie Farrell was told to say she never knew of him.
I would largely guess that Sophie was murdered some time after might night. Her bed was unmade, and possibly already slept in.
She would only have opened up the door at this time of the night to somebody she knew.
The house was empty and not lived in, for a large portion of the year. Whoever visited her that night knew she was there.
Agree. Just to add to this that everyone around Schull seemed to know each other. Very odd that MF said she didnt know Bailey.
One of Jules daughters even babysat for MF!
Sure he was probably only bringing the turkeys for a midnight joy ride.
He could have driven over, but he would have run the risk that:
Were her husbands charges before the murder? And if so do you know what he was charged with?
I always assumed her husband was in trouble after she had came forward.
Can somebody remind me again why IB couldn't have driven over to Sophie's that night?
There are also a couple of things we do know in favour of Ian Bailey: If he was the murderer he never killed again.
Another thing we can also rule out is that it wasn't part of any kind of serial killing.
Whoever wanted Sophie dead, wanted her dead for a reason.
I also don't think the murder was part of an out of control kind of anger or the murder happened just by being hit like for example by accident in a heated argument.
For all that there was far to little evidence and traces left at the scene. Most likely the murderer had time on his hands to clean up the site to a certain degree. He would have operated totally under the guise of darkness and Sophie also didn't scream, thus none of the neighbours were alerted. On the 23rd of December it might only be light at 9 am, or 9.30? or so? Not certain on that.
Fingerprints were not traceable on that kind of brick and stone being used as a murder weapon and the murderer would have known that. Any amateur would most likely not have known that one and would have tried to dispose of that one, I'd say.
You're defending of Nick Foster depends upon a lot of what ifs and potential scenarios. What if Bailey had a different conversation with the cameraman. What if the cameraman wasn't truthful to Nick Foster. What if the camera was cut off before Ian said what Nick Foster said he did.
When posters on here propose what ifs and potential scenarios about Ian Bailey being innocent, you refer to peoples statements and what is on record.
Well what's on record here is Ian Bailey 100% not saying what Nick Foster claims he said. Not once does Bailey say "I did, I murdered Sophie".
For sure you would think her husband wouldn't allow her to go through with all of this unless there was some kind of deal with the Gardai. Even then when she later on decides to retract her statements about Bailey, claiming that they all but forced her to point the finger at Bailey, she doesn't just retract the ENTIRE story.
After all these years the husband didn't just come out and say "the whole thing was made up, she was never out and about on that evening"?
It's just odd that she keeps that bit of the story once she has already turned against the Gardai. Funnily enough that was what ruined her credibility in Bailey's case against the Gardai, I think? Her refusal to name the mystery passenger destroyed the case. If she had even just said "I was out driving alone to clear my head" then there's no French case against Bailey and Bailey probably even manages to successfully sue the Gardai.
If you look at her in the latter years...yes. But when she was younger...around the time of these events, she wasn't bad looking. Nothing spectacular, but reasonably pretty.
Yes, its wearying and unlikely to lead to anything new but, nonetheless, its a pivotal issue in the case. This man, if he exists, would have been able to corroborate or refute the Kilfeada bridge sighting.
If he doesn't exist, the a different can of worms is exposed.
what is most interesting is the question of why his identity wasn't pursued. Why was she allowed to withhold that information?
The story of the deceased guy from Longford is clearly a convenient escape.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c60577abaec2a07544afd73b107ad45b.svg)
