Three months ago this was said about Drew Harris in relation to reform in AGS ;
"He says the plans for the oversight agencies are too complex and it is not clear how they will operate and overlap. The lack of clarity about how the new board, for example, would overlap with the new Policing and Community Safety Authority risked “encroaching on the operational independence” of the office of Garda Commissioner."
The Garda Commissioner has proven he's not afraid to tackle corruption in the force. How would it look if he could get a 'win' in the STDP case? Wouldn't that have the politicians falling over themselves to come to his defence in any argument about ceding powers?
If you could show that he was a violent man and assaulted his wife then you might have something
but this does not mean anything in relation to Bailey?
Neither Ian being violent to Jules or Tomi Ungerer having a penchant for S&M mean anything, when it comes to murdering sophie.
Tibs is making a point that amounts to nothing. It would prove nothing.
The only reason Tomi should have been a suspect is because he was one of the last people to see her alive and they had a deep and meaningful.
I think he's super interesting, personally. I also don't think he murdered sophie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYcAccrxwc
My point was it cuts both ways.if being violent had a bearing on toni it would have bearing on ian
Yes, I understand what you meant.
I agreed, in both cases it counts for absolutely nothing in a court of law here.
Does bondage require testosterone?
The act does, the drawing of it doesn`t. What is your point exactly?
No. It means F all in this context. Daniel TduP couldn't be arsed to travel to the place of his wife's demise. He lied about arranging to meet her at Toulouse airport on a flight from Dublin on Christmas Day. If being a rotten partner indicates guilt then look no further than Daniel.
What is your source for saying Daniel lied?
My point was if spousal abuse equal murderer for toni it also applied to ian
Daniel's statement to the police. We have covered all this before. I suggest you read this thread from the beginning.
Change the subject why don`t ya
"I am saying that in a telephone call that I received on the morning, my wife had told me she had finally intended to return to France on 24th December and that she had been able to get a seat on a flight arriving in Toulouse at 8.00pm, though she had initially anticipated returning on 25th December.There was no particular reason for this change of plan and it was agreed that I would meet her at Toulouse-Blagnac, on the arrival of the Aer Lingus flight." Daniel's police statement.
I got mixed up. She could not have travelled on Christmas Day as "anticipated" there are no flights out of Dublin Christmas Day. And there were no Aer Lingus flights to Toulouse that winter so Daniel fabricated that entire section.
And I just realised he says this call was IN THE MORNING.
Was there anything about potential Garda impropriety or the curious case of Nick Foster in that documentary or was it relevant in some obscure way?
No??
We were just discussing him.
You can say that with a straight face?
Share your thoughts on Jimmy Saville
Doubt Daniel would be stupid enough to lie.he would know they would check.
If you got mixed up read the whole thread
WTF 🤣
Why do you believe that any new investigation or cold case review should be mostly concerned with investigating the Gardai involved in the investigation to try to determine amongst other things why someone like Bailey was made the no. 1 suspect with zero hard evidence?
Oh I'm sorry facts get in the way of your man hating.
What's that got to do with a Tomi Ungerer documentary and Jimmy Saville???
I think we all agree that's what needs to happen with a cold case review.
You've lost me.
Or lost the plot. I'm unsure
You don't know any facts
Why do you believe the investigating Guards should be investigated?
She could not have travelled on Christmas Day as "anticipated" there are no flights out of Dublin Christmas Day. And I just realised he says this call was IN THE MORNING.
Daniel is probably mixed up about what she told him. There was never an intention to travel on the 25th. She arrived with two return tickets, 23rd and 24th.
In his statement he makes it clear, there was a phone call on the morning of the 22nd when she talked about the flights. And another phone call on the night of the 22nd which is the one we are all familiar with.
Daniel TduP couldn't be arsed to travel to the place of his wife's demise.
Daniel TduP couldn't be arsed to travel to the place of his wife's demise
That's what Ian Bailey says. And in his reporting, just after the murder, Ian claimed Daniel did not travel to Ireland because he had too many business commitments in France. No indication as to how Bailey got this information or if he just made it up himself. Meanwhile, Sophie's family say he did not travel because he was in no fit state emotionally to travel.
Personally, I think he may have suspected Sophie was murdered by a boyfriend/lover in Ireland and that might explain his reluctance to travel straight after the murder.
He lied about arranging to meet her at Toulouse airport on a flight from Dublin on Christmas Day.
No, if you read his statement you will see he says they arranged that he would meet her in Toulouse on 24th when her plane arrived.
Daniel: "I am saying that in a telephone call that I received on the morning, my wife had told me she had finally intended to return to France on 24 December and that she had been able to get a seat on a flight arriving in Toulouse at 8 p.m., though she had initially anticipated returning on 25 December. There was no particular reason for this change of plan and it was agreed that I would meet her at Toulouse–Blagnac, on the arrival of the Aer Lingus flight. During the last telephone conversation, Sophie did not make any reference to any particular plan."
He says Aer Lingus, but how would he know which airline it was. She bought the tickets. He is assuming Aer Lingus because... Ireland.
If being a rotten partner indicates guilt then look no further than Daniel.
The way you are speaking about Daniel, it is like you are channelling the comments Ian Bailey has made about him over the years. You and Bailey share the exact same sentiment about Daniel.
Being the last person to see her alive wouldn't automatically make you a suspect. It would depend on the circumstances. The gardai have a process. You are nominated as a suspect and there have to be valid reasons. Your status as a suspect means you can be arrested and questioned. Can't do that if you are not a suspect.
The Ungerers weren't even the last people to see her alive.
She was with them between 2.00pm and 4.00pm. Then she drove to Crookhaven where she called into Billy and Angela O’Sullivan for a cup of tea, then left after about fifteen minutes and drove back home. where I think she rang her friend Agnes at 5.30pm and left a message on the answer machine.
I think if this crime had anything to do with S&M, you would see that at the crime scene - bindings, some form of control etc. A beating death like this has no link to S&M.
Also Ungerer was a pensioner at this time, as someone said above. The motivation and drive for a man to commit a crime such as this one is largely gone in your 60s. This, in my opinion, is a younger man's crime. The killer's age could be 20s to 40s, maybe up to early 50s in some cases. I would say most likely around the age of the victim, give or take. In other similar cases of women beaten to death in this manner, the attacker's age was around the same age range as the victim, probably because the victim is in an age range he is attracted to and anticipates he will have success with.
However, I disagree that Ian being violent has nothing to do with it. Domestic abuse is not common. The vicious nature of Ian's attack on Jules is extremely uncommon. He bit her, shoved his hand in her mouth and pulled, pulled out her hair, attacked her eyeball.... This is savage. You or I would not be capable of doing something like this. Just not capable of it. Ian Bailey was capable of it. Multiple times. That marks him out as a certain type of offender who has no problem attacking and badly injuring a woman. Strangely, neither his compassion nor conscience stopped him as it would us.
If we were to describe our unknown killer - what we would expect him to be like - he would be someone with a history of using violence against women. If he is in a relationship, it will be a very unstable relationship, marked by violence.
Jules said of Ian Bailey that he would fly into a rage in a flash and then it would be over. This, I think, is the kind of person the killer is. A man who flies into a rage in a flash, commits sudden violence and then... its over as quickly as it began.
In the 2003 libel trial Jules said "The devil drink was the cause of it," she told Judge Patrick Moran. "It's like a temper flash," she said. "It's not something that goes on. It's always like it's two minutes and that's it."
"The devil drink was the cause of it," she told Judge Patrick Moran. "It's like a temper flash," she said. "It's not something that goes on. It's always like it's two minutes and that's it."
And from Ian's testimony:
"You did the biting, the hair-pulling from two parts of the head, the severing of the lip from the gum?" asked defence lawyer Paul Gallagher SC. "Was it frenzied?"
"It was just something that happened in the heat of the moment," Bailey replied.
A man does not simply wake up one day and beat a woman to death. If he beats a woman to death, he has previous form for violence against women and this violence is going to be directed at women in his life. That can be wife/girlfriend... but also mother or sister.
MF her contempt for the court and lack of will from AGS or the courts to put her behind bars where she should have gone (suggests she's was with AGS member hence protection from law)
MF and the house she and CF built from zero no mortgage no nothing (suggests proceeds of crime)
The house keeper Josephine Hellen pointing the finger at AL for using the bath (suggests willingness to break laws and also that JH had reason to distrust him)
The lack of any into on AF before he moved to Schull and bought the Basil Brush (suggests lack of AGS will to actually look anywhere but IB)
Body not moved to mortuary as requested by state pathologist (willingness of AGS to allow forensics to disappear)
Fiesta sightings prior to murder no re-enactment on crimewatch but poorly discredited (suggests willingness from AGS to ignore obvious lead and is also typical AGS car at time)
AGS bribing of witnesses (will at all costs from AGS to frame IB. They are incredibly aware they have no case, and have no interest in catching real killer)
AL drug infringements and past history of growing (willing to deal or dabble in drugs)
STDP drugs complains
AL and STDP tension over the gate, access issues, shed issues etc.,
AGS tampering with Job books (AGS very aware casework won't stand up to scrutiny and is again willing to break law to prevent poor casework becoming criminal matter)
In Bailey's action against the Guards, Detective Fitzgerald admitted writing out one of Marie Farrell's statements from memory about a week after she'd been interviewed. He wrote it in the first person as that made it 'easier' for him.
This did happen. I believe the reason was Marie Farrell refused to let them write anything down when she was being interviewed. Which is odd alright. When they say the Gard wrote it in the first person... It's not that strange because he was writing down what she said. He was not claiming she wrote the statement. When a gard takes a statement from you, he writes it out in the first person, in your words. But anyway he should have been writing it down after the interview. not a week later.
But then Marie Farrell's current claims couldn't be true:She now claims the gardaí asked her to sign blank statements that they would fill in later...
Why would a Gard be writing down her statement a week later, when he supposedly could be just filling in her blank, signed statement? Most likely because there were no blank signed statements.
Nick Foster pushing the "murderer returned to scene at 11 and took watch" claim. Inferring Foster himself walked off-road from the Prairie to Dreenane and back in a certain timescale.
Either that or he has produced a new suspect.
https://twitter.com/NFoster66/status/1472490904665604097?t=ImPEpVj4NJ4qbx5LtlRqig&s=19
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/37b29390e71419ead582d06229ae30a3.svg)
