I'm just looking at it from Bailey's PR perspective as someone looking to prove himself 'an innocent man'. He has the presumably justified reputation as someone who has researched this case as thoroughly as anyone else. Now if he had come out 20 years ago and said "I'm absolutely certain it was a French hitman" and stuck to that theory ever after, it would lend that theory a strong dose of credibility in the minds of those predisposed to believe in his innocence. As it is, Bailey's reputation as a leading authority on the case is actually counting against him. Because if he keeps jumping around from one theory to another, it gives the distinct impression that the existing body of evidence does not support a single strong counter-theory.
Its gas how the very same posters who are calling the majority of posters on this thread conspiracy theorists are the very ones trying to condemn a man based largely on hear say evidence from a bunch of individuals locally no one could trust as far as they could throw them. Maybe take a look in the mirror.
Only an absolute dope would say the gards dont have much to answer for in this case. So much destroyed, missing evidence, so many false statements.
Perhaps the presentation of a single, consistent, plausible counter-theory would have forced the argument against him to be either proven, if backed up by solid evidence, or dissolved if not. It may have raised the standard, so to speak.
You are being ridiculous - Why would he have to pick 'one theory and stick to it as you put it'. If he didnt do it himself then he is just like the rest of us and can only speculate on who may have done it. Lets face it there is a long list of suspects and motives so why would he focus on only one theory.
For the sake of Bailey's credibility as someone looking to 'clear his name', he should have picked one theory years ago and stuck to it, regardless of how thin the evidence. Because as it is he's give giving the strong impression of someone who either (a) knows with absolute certainty the killer was none of these other guys or (b) has no more clue than the rest of us.
What's your explanation for the missing pages from a Jobs Book in Bantry station?
Malachy Boohig, state solicitor for west Cork, gave evidence in the High court about a meeting in Bantry with Detective Dwyer and Chief Supt. Camon;
"He said the meeting "continued for a good hour with both gardai continuing that I would have to persuade the director(DPP)".
Afterwards, two gardai followed him to the hallway: "Both stated in very strong terms that I would have to persuade the director to direct a prosecution," wrote Mr Boohig. He said one officer said he was "aware I had attended college and studied with John O'Donoghue, the then justice minister, and that I should use that connection to talk to the minister to see if something could be done. I made no reply. I did not contact the minister."
Asked whether Chef Supt Camon, just after that meeting, told Mr Boohig he understood he and then Minister for Justice John O’Donoghue had gone to the same college and would Mr Boohig get the Minister to have a word with the DPP, Mr Dwyer said he never heard Supt Camon say that.
He himself never asked Mr Boohig to get on to the Minister for Justice or anyone else and in 40 years as a Garda never asked a politician to do anything for himself or the Garda force, he said."
Mr Boohig informed Eamonn Barnes the DPP at that time;
"Mr Barnes was "quite clear" in his recollection. "Mr Boohig rang asking to see me about a matter which he did not wish to discuss over the telephone. He said that if I was available he would come to Dublin that afternoon from west Cork," Mr Barnes recalled in his email. Mr Boohig warned him how gardai asked him to use his connection with the minister to put pressure on Mr Barnes. "I was of course well aware of the anxiety of the gardai to charge Bailey and not just the gardai in west Cork, strong and persistent advocacy having being deployed by them on the office for some considerable time," Mr Barnes wrote."
Detective Dwyer is saying that the DPP and a state solicitor are lying. Or else he is?
Errr... It didn't originate with Gemma, don't give her the credit.
You've literally got so many things wrong there.
Out of interest what have you listened to or watched out of
1) Netflix
2) Jim Sheridan
3) West Cork Podcast
He stuck to his story until he died but his 80-90% certainty of having introduced Ian Bailey should never have been believed in the libel trial, regardless of what Leo hydoponics Bolger had to say. Why would IB have needed to lie about this if he'd only shook her hand? It wouldn't have meant he'd got to know her more but it is being used to imply a deeper relationship he was trying to keep secret.
A simple line of enquiry would have been ; "apart from Leo and Shirley, did you introduce many other people to Sophie? We'd like to interview them and their experience might jog your memory of how Ian and Sophie reacted to each other."
He is very much the main focus of attention in the real world. Here in Conspiracy Theory land we have a few individuals working hard to keep some focus on a dead Garda. The theory emanates from an article written for Village magazine a few years ago by Garda hater in chief Gemma O Doherty. Bailey himself last week on primetime TV was apparently pushing the same theory. Presumably he doesn`t think that there is a French connection to the murder anymore.
Anyway, Gemma related that Martin O Sullivan was on his way to work when he was dangerously overtaken by a blue Ford at 7-30 on the morning of the murder. She claims that O Sullivan gave a statement to Gardaí about the incident. I would question whether this is actually true and if a statement actually ever existed. Gemma doesn`t seem to have seen it because she is vague on where exactly the incident occurred but it seems it was somewhere between Sophie`s boreen and Bantry. She says that O Sullivan "believes" the car was a Fiesta. These words suggest doubt to me which makes me wonder how certain the witness can be that the car was even a Ford. I would also question how certain he could be that a car overtaking him in the dark with lights on was blue.
Gemma goes on to tell us about a local guard who was a handsome lothario with a taste for foreign women. She says he drove a blue Ford (again unspecific). No evidence, just Gemma`s word. She goes on to say that Sophie may have known this guard by complaining to him about local drug issues. So no evidence that the two were ever in contact with each other. Where is the evidence that Sophie ever even made a complaint about drugs at all? Leo Bolger was convicted in 2010, fourteen years after the murder. It is highly unlikely he was growing weed on his land in 1996. It would have been uncovered in the searches for evidence after the murder.
Another point worth mentioning. Gemma tells us the guard is now dead. She claims that he was a very disturbed man on his death bed, but nothing more. No deathbed confession then? So no connection at all between Sophie and the dead guy, no death bed confession, I wonder how many blue Fords were driving around Cork in `96? And even then it probably has no association with the murder. She also suggests that the fact that there were no fingerprints on the two wine glasses is evidence of a garda cover up. Sophie didn`t wash the glasses lads. The Gardaí wiped them down because yer mans prints were all over them. Really.
I wonder how the phonecall to Jules went ; "Hello Jules Irish Mirror 'newspaper' here, the paper which Ian Bailey won damages against. We have a story that a man, never mind who he is, went to the gardai, never mind where, saying blah blah blah about you. Tell us your thoughts and we'll print them verbatim and if we don't you can take us to court hahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa!!!!"
Well he hasn't denied he was talking about Bailey and Jules after Bailey directly claimed he was. If he was talking about someone else isn't it likely he would have come out and clarified that (without necessarily identifying that person specifically) to refute Bailey's claim of besmirching his name?
That is how I read it too.
If the first 9 handfuls of mud were aimed at you, you'd feel reasonably confident that the 10th was coming your way too.
We can't assume there was sufficient noise to have reached inside Alfie's place.
Double glazed windows? poor hearing? fast asleep? radio or TV on? intoxicated? weather?
Okay but there's nothing to back up the claim in the article that the man who gave the interview was talking about Jules. The man himself hasn't stated that publicly, neither have the Gardaí, who incidentally haven't even spoken to Jules about it. Wouldn't you expect that a revelation like this would lead the Gardaí directly to Jules' doors to question her about it?
Perhaps Jules is just assuming the man is implicating her because Bailey has been the only suspect for 25 years?
I'd say that, if Alfie was involved, it was most likely drug related.
Alfie didn't "hear anything" because he was either himself involved, or he did it himself.
Thus he denied that he heard anything that night.
Ian Bailey should probably now set up a dedicated means of contact, such as a simple website (maybe he already has one), and publicly invite anyone with information, to provide it directly to him.
There would be two elements to this, the collating of any information relating to the crime itself, but also, the collating of any information pointing to the existence of any campaigns conducted against him.
He seems no longer to be the sole focus of attention.
Alfie didn't hear a peep on the night of the murder, not a "human voice". He remembers how he had told Ian of Sophie's imminent arrival, how he had his back to him, when he introduced them Ian "shook hands with her and...that was it." Come on Alfie, this is Ian loudmouth Bailey, surely you must have noticed he was dumbstruck.
the revelation that a local had been confided in about the washing of bloody clothes? Surely that wasn't Jules
I'm afraid it was, or that's the claim
It is intriguing that this young man may have gone completely unnoticed by the Gardaí. Do we have any real evidence of this though, or is it all hearsay from internet forums?
You would imagine it would be of huge interest to the Gardaí to interview this man if what we have heard is true. He was in the area on the night. Left some time shortly afterwards. His family were interviewed and nobody bothered to mention him. He had a "French connection" so there is a tenuous thread of motive there which needs to be explored.
Is there any possibility that this is the same man "living in Europe" who was of interest recently after the revelation that a local had been confided in about the washing of bloody clothes? Surely that wasn't Jules, she has separated from Bailey now and if she had felt inclined at one point to spill some critical info like that to a local, surely she would by now have made a statement to the Gardaí or gone public with it...
Edit to expand on that point... With the majority of locals seemingly convinced that Bailey is the perpetrator, it is also hard to imagine that if this kind of revelation about washing clothes came from Jules that it wouldn't have spread like wildfire amongst the local community and to the press. It would have been a cross to crucify Bailey on, which many people are looking for.
And anyone care to hint what his connections might have been... to a local politician, to a guard?
He wasn't French,
he was a local lad who went to school in France and spoke fluent French.
Has this young French man ever been interviewed? Ballyrisode is a relatively short walk from Kealfadda Bridge. It seems crazy that he was in the area on the night in question and that he hasn't been definitively ruled out.
Sorry, Tinytobe, we are at cross purposes.
As Lintdrummer said this is about a different person.
The Suspect that the Gardai "didn't know existed"
this is a follow-up post to the one above;
"Why should the suspect be interviewed?
by Hilaal
Mon Sep 27, 2004 07:53
Almost two thousand people were interviewed in this case , some who were up to 75 miles away on the night of the murder were interviewed twice, so why not this man who was only a short walk from the murder scene?
His family obviously covered for him , as gardai didn't even ,"know he existed". All the houses for miles around were canvassed and anyone present on the night was interviewed . So why was this man not known to have been in the area if people did not lie about his presence that night?
Many local men and some women had DNA samples taken even though they had never met Ms Du Plantier. The legion of local peeping toms had hair taken for analysis. A woman like Ms Du Plantier could be assured of many local men taking an interest in what she did at night as rumours had circulated that she often took men to her home.....wink .....wink! Former lovers in France were even interviewed about their wherabouts that night.
Despite claims/lies that Mr Bailey never gave a DNA sample to be compared with samples found under Du Plantiers nails, he in fact did give a sample immediately and without legal order at his first interview. The French press regularly claim that if Ireland had complusory DNA sample taking laws the case would be closed, thus giving the impression Bailey is escaping on this legal technicality. In fact it eventually emerged that no DNA was found under Ms Du Plantiers nails. Just another lie!
Another of the many lies/rumours circulated to paint Bailey as guilty was that he had gone to the scene of the murder before he had received a plone call from Eddie Cassidy of the Star, to do so as a proxy reporter for his paper. In the libel case that Bailey took last winter against newspapers this was proved false although Mr Cassidy then claimed he had never mentioned to Bailey on the phone it was a "murder" case.
Another nonesense is that if Bailey was to have been seen washing his boots at the bridge at Kealfadda where Mrs Marie Farrell said she saw him as she drove back from Goleen to Schull at 3.30am he would have been walking home approvimately four miles on a busy road by many houses whereas he could have walked home directly two miles on a deserted road by only a very few houses.
The Suspect that the Gardai "didn't know existed" lived a very short distance from the bridge at Kealfadda where Mrs Farrell said she saw a man she later claimed was Bailey washing his boots. This would have been on the Suspects direct route home. From there he could have walked to his house in fifteen minutes by road or in about eight minutes over the beach and rocks, thus not passing any houses. Mrs Farrell only seven weeks later identified Mr Bailey as the man on the bridge a mile from the murder scene AFTER the Gardai had settled on him as a "prime suspect". She could say that he was the man she had seen in the dead of a winters night washing his boots down in a river as she sped by on the road above. She claimed she had seen him outside her shop in Schull and walking on the road almost two months later and then went to Gardai ! Incredible!
But if you think there is no need to interview the "Suspect" then perhaps you are right. Sure, begorrah his family are "fine people" and we all know that "fine people" never do things like this. Well, there was Malcome McArthur..............
Of course to entertain the prospect the Gardai got it wrong would not only be embarassing to them but would also leave Bailey claiming hundreds of thousands in Libel damages against the very papers who tried so hard last winter, in cohoots with the Gardai to build a case against him out of rumour and oft repeated and exaggerated rumour ."
And another post on that site;
"It was when the mans name was given to the Garda that it emerged they, "did not even know he existed". Strange enough, since the Guard in question had been to his family home to have a confidential talk regarding the spouse of his first cousin with his mother ! Strange enough since the Guard in question was one of the first to the scene of the crime!
However it may be pointless now, so many years later trying to interview this man as he lives in Britain and presumably would have little or nothing to say except that the family lawyer would be in touch."
I think you're confusing two houses. The blind woman lived about a mile from Sophie's house. Somewhere on the road you would turn off to go up the lane to Sophie's and Alfie's houses.
The person living near Ballyrisode beach is a young man who spoke french and who left the area shortly after. He was never questioned by Gardaí.
I don't know anything about the blind neighbour, except someone said he heard a car that night,
I don't know where he lives.
Ballyrisode beach is the direction the in which the young man mentioned in the Indymedia article above lived.(post 6218)
Ballyrisode beach is too far away from Sophie's house for the blind neighbour to have heard anything relevant to the murder. If Alfie and Shirley didn't hear anything then somebody in Ballyrisode beach would certainly not have heard anything. Even a car going by or not, wouldn't be relevant, it's too far away from Sophie's house.
This is exactly it. We've just had a list of 10 plausible suspects and we know virtually noting about them. I doubt a team of detectives can be that negligent. One person maybe, a team I don't think so. When MF went off name dropping the shadow man. The deceive willingly went off on the wild goose chase. Why the double standards when none of this suspects weren't investigated? Some have evidence against them some failed alibis. Makes zero sense. Which is why the dead detective is top of my list.
I believe the third house at the end of the cul de sac was a holiday home and unoccupied at the time. AFAIK the blind 'neighbour' lived about a mile away on the Dunmanus to Kealfadda road, not in the cul de sac.
"only a short walk from the murder scene"
"Only a short walk" is actually about an hours walk from Sophie's to down past Ballyrisode beach.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a04babac7ef9d681628a280d81c51a1e.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e8040f74ccd8f7c0f1f8b2804da972be.svg)
