He probably used that saw to cut down the Christmas tree.
Being asked for it and being required to give it are 2 very different things and as a journalist he would be very aware of that. If he did kill her he was taking a massive leap of faith by providing those samples, having absolutely no way of knowing what the guards had already found or might still find. If he had done it that would be the moment to book the next flight to Brazil.
But he didn't. He stayed there and continued to calmly do his job. How do you explain that?
Also, the implication of the saw blade being fine does seem to imply he just used it as an excuse to get the bleach but equally he might have just had it connected badly and hence though the blade was good it was cutting crooked.
Perhaps,
but why go to have the blade changed, if it didn't need changing?
edit;
sorry, answering Champchamp there.
Also Bailey and Jules Thomas dispute when the fire took place, Jules said around October and November time I think and Bailey said no later than early December.
The person who reported the fire said they never actually saw the fire but could smell and hear it.
It's possible he assumed it was the blade.
I would have asked the storekeeper how often he put used but good blades back on the shelf for sale. Maybe it wasn't so unusual for people to blame the blade when the problem was the set up.
link;
when did French police analyse and request to analyse the forensics from the case?
In 2011 a French scientist was invited by AGS to take fresh samples. It was this lady's sample that found DNA profile of unknown male on Sophie's boot West Cork part 14 - 37 mins in
Might there be something in the fact that there are several accounts from witnesses who said IB claimed to know Sophie in the hours after the murder? Apparently Bill Fuller said IB told him he had Sophie over for dinner once which seems a bizarre scenario.
I'm sure there were two independent witnesses who said there was a fire over Christmas?
I would say that points to his innocence more, if he killed her you'd have to imagine that he would be telling people that he didn't know her (like he eventually started claiming)?
He could have been asked to give a DNA sample voluntarily ,
If he refused at that stage it would be a red flag to the Gardai and I doubt he'd have made it to Cork never mind Brazil.
It was a calculated risk on his part , he probably thought that he would have to give the sample sooner or later.
Netflix part 2 40.16 in
That's another question we don't have the answer to. It's certainly strange.
Either he had nothing to fear as he didn't do it, or he knew for a fact that the Gards would never ever ( out of incompetence or corruption ) really collect a DNA sample of the crime scene.
Given the way Sophie was killed, it's very hard to imagine that the killer wouldn't leave any DNA at all at the scene. That is, unless the murder was carefully planned.....
Not strange at all. If he killed her, the burning would have been to get rid of HER blood/DNA. The sample he willingly gave was HIS blood. Why would it matter if HIS blood/DNA was on his coat? I am not saying he killed her, I don't know.
Yes, it is a fact. The Detective Garda from the forensics division interviewed in the Netflix documentary mentions this. As if such an item could just disappear into thin air. Conspiracy theorists may claim it was "disappeared" on purpose as a means of hiding evidence linking the now deceased Garda from Bantry - mentioned extensively as a possible suspect - to the killing.
Sure, but wouldn't it have been better to burn the clothes right after the murder, not a couple of days later?
And wouldn't it have been easier to dump the clothes into the sea somewhere? Getting rid of the evidence without the smoke, without the fire or neighbours noticing or smelling something?
Well, all of this happened twenty five years ago. They did what they could do in terms of getting evidence from the gate, given the skills and equipment available to them, at that time. It's not realistic to expect them to have held on to it whilst awaiting potential developments in forensic science.
I am replying to the comment "why get bleach and burn clothes and willingly give his own blood". if he did it the bleach and fire would be to get rid of HER blood or DNA. The samples he volunteered were HIS blood. There is no way HER blood could come from his vein but it could be on his clothes if he killed her
I have no experience in murder so i don't know. maybe getting to the ocean risks being stopped on the road with the clothes
So the bloke that recently stated that JT told him about cleaning blood stained clothes...
Or the other belated piece of news.. That Bailey turned up at Alfie's house dishevelled looking on the night of the murder..
Maybe Nick Foster is about to crack the case.. According to his twitter account, Hercule Poirot isn't a patch on him?
What about the French President offering to show the Irish how to try a man? After all, they sorted our banking crisis for us...
Then we have the Bailey bashers on this forum that know he's guilty, but can't exactly tell us how they came to this conclusion (No more than the DPP could)
Then.. Alas we have the beach.... Poor old Bailey can't wipe his tops down now without his actions being more proof of his guilt..
It's enough to drive a man to the drink..
I’ve been amusing myself by reading your posts in the snarky, camp voice of the guy who narrates the UK googlebox series. Who knew boards needed it’s own “unbiased” narrator to tell us what we should conclude from all the other contributions.
I thought your username was Flannel .
If Bailey knew he was a suspect then he probably anticipated that he would be arrested for questioning at some point.
The guards could have samples taken from him against his volition while he is detained for questioning.
So he was giving up nothing in the sense that the authorities could get his dna if they so wished.
If hypothetically he were the murderer(I don't think he was) then he would know that he was wearing gloves and that he shed no blood/saliva/semen at the location and so his dna would be of no benefit. But his clothing might contain fibres of STP clothes and her blood. But the clothing could be burned. That would leave no physical evidence. Then no witness to place him at the scene he would be home and hosed. Just need to remember not to confess to five people 😁
Interesting that she says she thought Bailey was burning evidence when it was only the 26th of December, when was Bailey first ID'd as a suspect?
If hypothetically he were the murderer(I don't think he was) then he would know that he was wearing gloves and that he shed no blood/saliva/semen at the location and so his dna would be of no benefit
He could never be 100% sure he didn't shed some DNA if he was there. The scratches, if it was him and they came from the scene, would result in his leaving blood
Don't get paranoid Moonie... No idea what camp you are in.
Actually, I thought you were an automated statement quotation bot..
Need to go to spec savers..
I don't know. Helen Callanan said it to him. That seems to have been weeks after Editor says Ian Bailey told her he killed to resurrect his career (irishtimes.com)
Of course if you are guilty its best to get rid of evidence before you are suspected even if you never are. No point fattening the pig the night before the fair! Not saying he is guilty i don't know who killed her
She also didn't give her statement until 4 months later and said Bailey had scratches on his cheeks days after the murder, the Christmas swim beach video shows no evidence of there being scratches on his cheeks.
I get the impression she didn't like him but she denied that. I find it strange an experienced editor was so shocked with his comment "i did it to resurrect my career" It is obvious sarcasm. Who would say that if they had actually done it?
i think a lot of media people don't like him because he is confident and doesn't care about them unlike the wimp senan moloney who was upset bailey would not hold his hand and bring him to the garda at the scene. i would say if the murder happened and moloney lived there instead of Bailey he would not have half the information Bailey had for Moloney when he arrived
Going around to the houses asking what the cops wanted was typical fishing. I think when he said to the group shooting the reenactment that he knew Sophie and had met her it was just an attempt to get a foot in the door with them. "I'm the best source" It does not surprise me he had the info re the wine glasses. He was a very good journalist and would wipe the floor with any of the irish hacks. A lady who worked in UK with him said he was excellent at getting information from people.
Yes but the fire was the 26th, Ian Bailey wasn't identified as a suspect before then.
This woman is claiming that when she seen the fire she suspected Bailey might have been burning evidence, but the fire was before Bailey was even a suspect.
So how would she know he might be burning evidence, when he wasn't even publicly ID as a suspect. I call BS.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bd89cdce15309a6ec2dff928c865017a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
