So much of this framing was looked at and thoroughly discredited in the DPP report including the scratches, so called foreknowledge of the murder, the 'non confessions'.
Premonition? The DPP report dealt with this nonsense again. There was a full moon, there seemed to be a lot of nocturnal activity from foxes, hounds etc creating an 'eerie' feeling. Absolutely zero suggestion Bailey himself had any hand to play in whatever 'something bad' should it occur. To list this as an association with guilt shows how credulous and biased you are.
Bailey met Sophie? Right? The two French witnesses who think they remebered it years later? Or the Bolger guy who remebered with crystal clarity Person A being introduced to Person B by Person C while he tagged along. If you believe that you'll believe anything.
Maybe Bailey did very briefly get introduced to Sophie by Alfie while gardening. There's ZERO evidence he was ever alone with Sophie or knew her to have a private conversation with her. How many other people were similarly introduced to Sophie? And do you think a third party in the Bolger role would have remembered that? Members of the jury, think back 6 months, can you remember when one of your friends introduced two acquaintances to each other?
Yes, his recollection of the night changed. Can you recall 100% your whereabouts of every night of your life, including nights when you were drunk?
Yes, he's a violent man, how many other people in West Cork have similar convictions for domestic abuse? Does that make them murderers. Nope.
An animal doesn't carry out a frenzied brutal assault and leave no trace.
How many other people in West Cork bought bleach? Burned rubbish?
Come on, answer up. If it's such a damning action it must have only been Ian Bailey right?
Let's go back to ZERO forensics evidence tying him to the scene, ZERO witnesses putting him at the scene, ZERO motive.
I`m banging the only drum. The name calling is water of a ducks back to me. The only victim here is you. You were obviously fu***d over by a guard at some point. You should leave it behind you and move on. Life is too short.
You sound like a broken record and when exposed you try to play the victim. I'm not even going to go over you're ridiculous points because they have all been answered previously many times in this thread but like another poster on here, you keep banging the same drum which suits your own narrative that Bailey did it.
I believe the DPP back then were more than a little aware of the carry on of so called gards investigating crimes. Lazy eejits often quick to point the finger at the most obvious suspects without properly investigating the case. This case exposed them.
The current one, Claire Loftus, is the opposite of that, and blatantly another political appointment by Fine Gael, no doubt Bailey would be going forward for trial if she was in charge back then. She doesnt have a scooby & attained the position of DPP mainly because of her length of service in the office of the DPP rather than any other reasons.
I didn`t say the majority of posters. I said "a few individuals" and you are certainly one of them. You regularly resort to personal insults. You have refused to engage with me and another here when confronted by facts that expose your fallacies. Classic conspiracy theorist behavior.
The self acknowledged main suspect is the main suspect for a number of reasons.
1..He is a violent man who has assaulted his partner at least three times. We get a sense of the workings of his mind from his diary entries that are on the public record....1993...."I have on a number of occasions struck and abused my lover". In May 1996, two weeks after another assault on Jules..."I actually tried to kill her....I am an animal on two feet".
2..On the night of the murder, he had in mind to go to Alfies. Jules is also on the record as saying he had a premonition, a sense that something was happening or about to happen.
3..He lied about his whereabouts later that night. After initially saying he was in bed all night, it turns out he got up, probably before 2 AM and wasn`t seen again until after 9 AM. He even acknowledges that he left the house.
4..He had scratches on his hands and a cut on his forehead in the days following the murder.
5..The statements of two witnesses indicate that he and Jules must have known before noon on the 23rd that a French woman had been murdered locally. Yet he claims he wasn`t told about it until 1-40 pm. Jules`s whereabouts on the same morning is contradicted by three witnesses, one of them is her own daughter.
6..He wrote articles that showed he knew details about the victims injuries and said that there was no sexual assault before the autopsy findings were made public.
7..He denied he ever met Sophie. This is contradicted by two French and two Irish witnesses.
8..He had a bonfire where he burned laced footwear and clothes in the days after the murder. He denies this but yet again a witness contradicts him and says she saw the fire on the 26th. He also bought bleach after the murder.
9..He told a number of people he did it. Three of the confessions came before he was even arrested.
The keystone cops in west Cork had an open goal and they shot and missed, primarily because of their own ineptitude and also because of early over confidence. I am certainly not a conspiracy theorist as a rule. As far as I`m concerned, the best conspiracy is a conspiracy of one. I don`t believe for a minute that the Gardaí in west Cork had the wherewithall to immediately know that this murder was committed by one of their own, destroy and hide all the evidence and then set up a patsy to take the hit. Most importantly, there is absolutely no evidence for it either.
And Maurice McCabe, only he recorded that conversation the whole weight of the corrupt bureaucracy would have crushed him. We see that corrupt bureacracy on display here that cares more about protecting itself than the trivialty of the murder of an innocent and a minor detail such as the guilt or innocence of Ian Bailey.
Aye, there was obviously a cover up here, and so much low level malpractice that was par for the course (as per the Bandon tapes where we see the contempt displayed for an honest Guard to change his statements), the only real question is what was being covered up.
Did the DPP see the missing pages? Did that inform the attitude they took to the prosecution I wonder.
If you try to cut the pages out close to the binding, you will be left with the jagged edges like in the above image.
Couldnt have said it better myself, right on the button, how many times have we seen similar carry on in the HSE as to what was going on with the gards in this case.
Complete lack of accountability in the public sector leads us to these situations. Those gards that destroyed evidence & manufactured false statements should be looking at prison time, only way they'll learn. Absolute scumbags
Where ever you can put it?
" Gsoc sent the book to an experienced forensic scientist in Northern Ireland. He found that the pages had been cut from the book, probably using scissors"
Would they really need "an experienced forensic scientist in Northern Ireland"
I think the public service in question here is better summed up by
Destroy evidence of malpractice \ corruption \ wrongdoing \ looking after our own.
Assign responsibility to someone nearing retirement.
Investigation into wrongdoing happens so much later and the body responsible is toothless and deliberately hamstrung by design ... most of those involved hide behind loopholes or retirement.
Investigating body has to use external experts because no one here can be relied upon to be independent - either of the influence of those under investigation or to be implicated themselves
Bonus points that the assigned scapegoat is dead by the time the investigation occurs.
Gsoc sent the book to an experienced forensic scientist in Northern Ireland. He found that the pages had been cut from the book, probably using scissors.
I had to laugh at this bit. It kind of sums up everything that is messed up about our public services as a whole. If the pages were cut by scissors there's a straight cut line of remaining paper at the seam. a child could point to it and say 'those pages were probably cut out with scissors'. Yet GSOC sends the book to another jurisdiction to have experienced forensic scientists from the UK tell them this.
I've read books, watched interviews & documentary's
I think you have to take I.B out of the equation completely to identify some suspects that appear to have gone under the radar.
I now understand I.B when he says he has a suspect in mind... I do too .
Not being cryptic but incompetence in this case is still going on today with speculation and shoddy media and blinkered vision..
Take a fresh look with I.B (the patsy) being ruled out early on ..
List the suspects and why...
Can you just give us one example of how these pages might go missing for an innocent reason.
Gene Kerrigan, Independent.ie in 2018;
"It was not an exemplary investigation. There appears to have been a fixation on getting Ian Bailey. We will say no more than that. What happened some time later was even more disturbing. This was after the case had become controversial and questions were raised about the hounding of Bailey.
In Jobs Book No 2, on page nine, Bailey was mentioned as a suspect.
Pages one to seven, just before this, are missing.
The two pages following the mention of Bailey, pages 10 and 11, are also missing.
Jobs Books are bound, the pages could not fall out.
Nine pages deleted.
Let us put this in context.
There was no credible evidence against Ian Bailey."
He hasn't said anything publicly as far as I'm aware so how is anyone supposed to know?
IB is innocent until proven guilty. Its not for him to put forward viable cases against the murder in order to clear his name. Its up to the Gardai to have undertaken a thorough and competent investigation.
It can't be innocent, if it was innocent there would be no need to do it.
Ripping pages from an evidence book could be innocent!!! Ive heard it all now, what about the disposal of key pieces of evidence, the bribery/coercion of dodgy witnesses, the manipulation of the statements, the intimidation put on the DPP to prosecute the case. Get up the yard ffs.
Dwyer strikes me as the kind of detective you would put on a case if you didnt want it solved. Thick bogger who wouldnt be able to see the wood from the trees in a month of sundays. Happy to go along with the narrative from his superiors that Bailey did it as long as his pension remains intact.
I have no idea about the missing pages. It might be sinister, it could be innocent.
Dwyer may be lying, perhaps his recall is poor. But that passage does illustrate how determined Gardaí were to charge Bailey. Did they seek to do this because they wanted to pin it on a saddo that they knew to be innocent so as to cover up for one of their own? Absolutely not.
Yah, he's such a fool to believe the gards might actually do their job. I guess its unreasonable for us to expect them to do their job properly and investigate the murder the way it should have been. **** sake
That is what the garda did. Bailey seem to be following the evidence as he sees it
Killed elsewhere and the body carried/dragged by person or persons unknown to where it was found?
And the trail of blood is where?
More fool him 😉
Yeah, Googling some of the coverage of IB's theories about the murder, it seems he's not really coming forward with each new or reheated theory like it was the Third Secret of Fatima, and that's more the spin the media are putting on it. Certainly what he's actually saying in that Cork Beo article was a lot more tentative than the blaring headline. If he doesn't have a single strong counter-theory that he can get behind 100%, I guess it's fair enough for him to highlight the range of alternatives and whatever evidence there is to support them...
The 'scene' of the crime was quite dramatic. Like a play or a drama. Blood on the door, keys in the door blood on the gate a concrete block used to destroy her skull. What if it was staged? Killed elsewhere and the body carried/dragged by person or persons unknown to where it was found?
IB knows no more than the rest of us ( thats if he didnt do it of course! ). All he can do is raise any theory thats plausible to help clear his name. I think most people would do the same in his position. The guard, hitman, drugs etc theories are all plausible however coming up with new evidence 25 years after the murder is unlikely - the theories do deserve consideration though. He is right in bringing the other theories to public attention - not everyone knows the ins and outs of the' dodgy investigation and dealings' relating to this case. Alot of people have changed there view on Bailey being guilty by familiarising themselves with the case over the summer. If anything the documentaries have highlighted this.
Who knows? Maybe, there has been much more of an intense focus on the murder since June because of the two documentaries that were aired throughout the world. Maybe new witnesses have come forward. Nobody knows whats going on behind the scenes. The gards certainly arent going to tell you.
But he was still talking about the French hitman theory (without much conviction, no pun intended) as recently as June.
Has he discovered dramatic new evidence pointing towards the deceased guard in the last few months?
He just looks like someone desperately clutching at straws.
Not necessarily, the vast majority of murders involving married women come from their husbands one way or the other & her husband had ample motive to murder her as has been pointed out earlier in the thread. On top of this, she was having a least one affair that we know about. So it wasn't unreasonable for Bailey to think along these lines initially.
Its only been in the passing of time & the more we've discovered about her death & the subsequent handling of the case that other more likely theories have emerged. How the case was handled, the losing and disposal of vital pieces of evidence, the corruption of the local gards, the lack of follow up with witnesses, the drug issues regarding her neighbor & his land.
I'm sure with the benefit of 20 years of hindsight he might take a different approach. Perhaps at the time he thought the gards might solve the case
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bd89cdce15309a6ec2dff928c865017a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
