You are deeply out of touch. He wasn’t a ‘mover and shaker’ in the ‘smoke world’ as you refer to it. He was gifted plants, cultivated them and smoked weed. The tobacco hurt him, not the cannabis itself. YOU are the raging finger-pointing paranoid - you’re projecting.
Lol. And who might you be? 3 posts saying precisely nothing is quite a stellar contribution.
Have you anything interesting to add to the topic at all?
Let me guess. You're one of those twitter loons who got bored and wandered off the reservation over to here.
Sounds like very bad luck that he should get busted for something so innocent?
I don't believe I've seen you here before, but funny you should want to distract from where we are, given that any discussion around Alfie has been exhausted.
A good tweeter? You`re gas. A whole big pile of nothing. Assumption and conjecture wrapped up and presented as fact. But then you just lap up the bullshit Scooby. Pelagius needs to upgrade his diet and stay off the Irish porridge.
Did you miss me scoobs?😀
Yknow. I kind of did!
Oh. Brand new profile. 3 trolling posts. Conveniently arrived with Tiubruits return. *waves* 👋
Alfie was busted for weed. It went to court. The only reason he got off was because the warrant wasn't executed properly. There's an article several pages back that took me weeks to find in the newspaper archives. Some of us research this case deeply and add to the discussion.
This isn't twitter. Just so ya know
Well I did get one of those little red notification thingies and so I just had to take a look. It`s funny reading this thread now. All that remains are the Bailey minions, spinning their little false narratives, trying to divert attention from the realities of the case, convincing themselves that they are exposing a great miscarriage of justice, giving the Gardaí a kick up the arse at every available opportunity.
You seem to have a bit of a victim complex. Anyone who comes on to call out your nonsense with a few facts is accused of trolling you. I suspect you were getting it in the neck over on Twitter. So this place became a little haven of comfort for you to spin with a few likeish minds. Still, there`s nothing funnier than watching conspiracy theorists going apeshit when a few facts get in the way of their fantasies.
Not a Bailey minion...
Never met the guy...but I suspect I wouldn't like him...
However...If you can provide any factual proof..any! of his guilt please please provide it to the authorities so this case can be closed.
If you can forget a few facts like a DPP's report and the views of more than one DPP, Judge Patrick Moran's judgements and Bailey's high court case against the state, it's plain sailing for the naked dancing werewolf Bailey story.
Id say the opposite, whenever I look at this thread I just see the same people say Bailey is guilty, without offering any proof.
The reality of the case is there is no proof he did it, and the DPP agrees.
The DPP report isn`t fact. It is an expression of opinion. Worse still, it shows basic lack of awareness of local detail (facts not fantasy) and it gives far too much weight to the testimony of an exposed liar. Bailey lied on the initial questionnaire and he lied under interrogation, until Jules dropped him in the doo doo. There comes a tipping point when a suspect is contradicted by so many witnesses that the veracity of his testimony has to be suspect.
There is a large body of circumstantial evidence that points to Bailey, We`ve been through it here before ad nauseum and I`m not doing it again. If people want to see what it is, then they should read this thread and the other one. As for Bailey the naked dancing werewolf.....he can dance away in your mind because he ain`t dancing in mine.
The existence of the DPP's report is a fact but you like many others breezily dismiss its contents almost as the musings of some office clerk. On this basis half the prosecutions brought by the state are unsound.
The DPP dismisses the ludicrous claim, that you repeat, that Bailey lied and in fact emphasises how he finds Ian and Jules to be truthful witnesses, in a report where he has no compunction in stating that someone like Eddie Cassidy is at best an unreliable witness. A liar effectively.
I know you don't believe any of what you purport to believe but you have an ulterior motive. There is a major cover-up at the heart of this case and there is an on-going concern that it be exposed, hence the likes of yourself, Nick Foster, Michael Sheridan etc.
What these people also fail to understand is that the DPP had access to every single part of the garda files, which are vast from what I understand.
To judge the report based on what we are drip fed in the public domain is absolute stupidity.
As the Americans would say... People should stay in their lane.
The testimony of an exposed liar? Do you mean the prosecution case reliance on Marie Farrell?
The DPP (not one, not two, but three DPPs!) seemed to have enough awareness of 'local detail' to see through her lies and a Garda fit-up job when they see one.
A large body of circumstantial evidence can be pointed to people who are innocent of the crime itself. Especially someone the police are trying to get a result on. If that fools you, you're a bad person to have on a jury as that's how miscarriages of justice happen.
You love to harp on about Cassidy because the DPP had a pop at him. At the end of the day Cassidys poor recall is irrelevant. Based on Baileys own testimony, he first heard about the dead French lady from Cassidy. Based on phone records, we know this initial contact occurred at 1-40 pm. But of course Caroline Leftwick says that Bailey knew all about it at mid day and don`t forget Jules was telling Mr Camier down in Goleen before 11-30 am. Go figure. I would question why the DPP devoted so much time to deconstructing an irrelevant witness.
You'd hardly turn up to a crime scene hours afterwards if you just smashed someone's head in.
You've all got the blinkers on, just like the cops had.
"I would question why the DPP devoted so much time to deconstructing an irrelevant witness." Is this your conspiracy theory?
What a laugh you are.
"Cassidys poor recall is irrelevant."??? Yes but no but yes, I didn't even know the Sergeant but.. what? there is a phone call on record, oh hang on what year was that yes about 3... what? 11am on record for 20 minutes well who knows, very busy don't you know, no I barely remember what month it was but I definitely didn't say I am Irish I mean she was Spanish at exactly half six quarter to ten, ok I've told you for the third time, sorry what did I say the second time? got to go, clear?
Why don`t you try to address the question I posed coherently?
"don`t forget Jules was telling Mr Camier down in Goleen before 11-30 am"
"Good morning Mr. Camier, are those fresh sprouts?"
"Yes Jules, just in this morning. Any news?"
"No nothing strange, there's a broken street light in Schull and em, oh yes a French woman has been murdered just up the road!"
"Go 'way. Anyway (looks at clock) what will it be? Pound of Brussels sprouts?"
It is so funny here when the conspiracy theorists are hit with a few plain facts. Scooby jumps up and down shouting "Troll....troll".....Angry Jim demands that you don`t reply to anything he says .......Bamboozle resorts to gibberish....and Flanna, who asks the most bizarrely ridiculous questions just doesn`t reply at all.
Funny? You certainly are.
This is your best yet; "I would question why the DPP devoted so much time to deconstructing an irrelevant witness."
Hey look! a conspiracy theory. In questioning the motivation behind the DPP's actions what did you come up with? I'm all ears. Tell us!
Yeah, if you'd just brutally killed someone, you'd be fairly freaked out if you were in any way, what's the word, neurotypical, I suppose. Therefore, if Ian Bailey came down to the crime scene the very next day and was in any way collected, it paints him either as someone who didn't do it, but thought it a good opportunity to put his journalism skills to use, or else as a stone cold psychopath.
So, is a Ian Bailey a psychopath? He has been described as a narcissist, which is often cited as a hallmark of psychopathy, but then again he could also be described as a pompous bore. He has committed domestic violence upon his longtime partner, which shows he's capable of violence, but people can be capable of violence against a loved one (with drink taken, in Bailey's case) without necessarily being capable of murdering someone they either did not know or barely knew and then be OK the next day.
I would say more sociopath than psychopath, if I had to say anything.
And Gards like you act like there's nothing to see here, everyone move along while stitching up an innocent man for murder all the while letting the real perpetrator walk free who's most likely a gard also.
You keep repeating the mantra that Bailey is truthful. Fine. So this establishes that Bailey was first told about the death of a local French woman at 1-40 pm. Question.....Why does Caroline Leftwick say that Bailey knew about it at mid day? Why does James Camier say that Jules knew about it at 11-30 am? And Fuller confirms he saw Jules driving in the direction of Goleen that morning. Why does the DPP go into detail deconstructing Cassidy if he already accepts that Bailey is truthful. Surely the Cassidy testimony no longer has relevance? I have no theory on it by the way.....just posing the question.
Do you actually know what neurotypical means??
What an uneducated, ignorant, post, and an offence to the neurodiverse community 🙄
Added to the fact that trying to nail Ian Bailey for the murder involves far more conspiracy than any of us have suggested on here for other suspects.
Statements about naked lesbians and howling at the moon, anyone? 🤣🤦♀️
Your nonsense has been well and truly deconstructed here.
You talk about facts yet rely on incredible uncorroborated witness statements.
It wasn't just Cassidy the DPP was pointing a finger at, remember there was a Guard on the other end of those phone calls, which would have been a major embarrassment in any trial. The DPP, in not bringing a charge, was doing the Guards a favour.
Only "kind of" scoobs?😕
Fair question but maybe he did not think they would believe him or did not want to betray he had it. In the early days he probably he would not be suspect long term and would have use for it again