He is constantly made out to be someone who could turn murderously violent at the drop of a hat and it isn't true.
How do you know it isn't true that he could turn murderously violent at the drop of a hat?
turn murderously violent at the drop of a hat?
Jules might disagree. Jules has some responsibility too as someone said. She stayed with hima fter he hit her twice so he got a third opportuniity.
Being one of many who beat women does not make it less of a crime. And this thread is is about IB not the others so that is strawman argument
I have travelled back and over to England for the last 25yrs. My work takes me everywhere from Brixton to Scotland.. I have a good cross section of the natives mindset.
It may disappoint you, but Ireland is seen as a hub of superior education by the Brits (both north and south)
The backward paddy statement you refer to is simply not true. Can't tell me I'm wrong, because I know different.
I often wonder if the majority of Irish people really understand the British mentality with regards to Ireland??
When the conversation crops up (one I tend to steer away from if possible), most Brits couldn't give two hoots about Northern Ireland, nor do they want to keep funding it.. One contact in the north west of England, even refers to the Irish cleverly dumping the North onto the British tax payers... (All spoken in banter, but as you know, many a true thing said in jest)
The point is obvious. He is constantly made out to be someone who could turn murderously violent at the drop of a hat and it isn't true. He is guilty of the kind of domestic violence that, sadly, is almost a commonplace and as has been endlessly pointed out is no indication of propensity to murder or the jails would be bursting with people doing life sentences.
When and where did you live in England?
I would suggest to people who make it their business to go on about Ian Bailey's supposed violent nature that what we know about him was confined to something between himself and his partner and she was quite open about the fact that she wasn't completely innocent in all of it and that she forgave him
St.Ian is a thug whether he killed Sophie or not is my point. Regardless of any other abuse by priests -strawman- it does not chage that fact.And it is a a fact. On one occasion he tried to flee to the UK but was arrested at the airport https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30021658.html
Just because he is one thing does not mean he is not something else. he may not have killed Sophie but he is no saint
because it's true. and i was not assaulted three times by a thug
'A certain type for whom it is an innate belief that Irish people are backward'
Where do you pluck them from??
This statement was conjured up by yourself with zero supporting evidence.. A ridiculous statement to make.
Some claim the viewpoint where the Bantry Garda and Alfie are involved in the murder are mad conspiracy theories. Yet at the same time lap up the tripe, Nick Foster is peddling where somehow he has the AGS and IB on the same sides. Lunacy.
Not to mention the talk of IB contaminating the crime scene. If they found even the slightest bit of IBs DNA at the scene he'd be behind bars right now. Some people have completely lost the run of themselves.
Foster's latest "tipoff" doesn't make a lot of sense. He is imagining a conspiracy of silence that ties up the Gardai and Ian Bailey and this witness and lots of others. Essentially he is saying Gardai are pretending not to know Ian Bailey was at the scene because it would be embarrassing to them whilst Ian Bailey is pretending he wasn't at the scene because it would be incriminating. It doesn't make sense. If the Gardai had a witness to say he was there they would have used it to try to get a charge Bailey.
Alternatively, if this witness hasn't told the Gardai after 25 years then his or her testimony is worthless.
If someone breached the scene the Gardai would not have covered it up, if they knew about it, as Foster claims. It would not have been a mistake so bad to be fired over and the stakes in a murder investigation are much higher than that.
Schull is full of rumours, Foster has picked up another one and run with it. I notice he is not talking so much about the wine bottle and watch these days either since those leads were debunked.
I think he is essentially unreliable, just adding noise and rumour to the story.
If you've ever lived in England, you will know that Nick "roaring laughing" Foster is very typical of a certain type for whom it is an innate belief that Irish people are backward and credulous. He has more than likely found the whole idea of Bailey's guilt being widely accepted as so ridiculous that he has no problem adding to the absurdity. He does however have work to do and there is some method to his madness.
There is a preliminary investigation taking place at present and it is highly desirable from many people's point of view that everything to do with the original crime scene and investigation is beyond any redemption as far as bringing serious charges are concerned. This of course need never be communicated to the public, any report(for internal use and confidential) can state that there are reports of potential crime scene contamination, so consequently any evidence cannot be relied on blah, blah blah.
We will know soon enough when some Garda source advises some newspaper that it has been decided not to have a cold case review but that the case is still a live investigation. When Sophie's son was interviewed by Ryan Tubridy he didn't come across as someone in any way convinced of the verdict they concocted in France. If he had been he would have been passionate about the need to extradite his mother's killer but he hardly even mentioned this only making some pointless appeal to the Irish people for something or other.
I would suggest to people who make it their business to go on about Ian Bailey's supposed violent nature that what we know about him was confined to something between himself and his partner and she was quite open about the fact that she wasn't completely innocent in all of it and that she forgave him. The idea that he exerted coercive control is patently obviously stupid. When his accusers are clutching their pearls they might try to remind themselves that since Sophie's murder we have come to understand that there was always quite a bit of very serious violence going on behind closed doors in Ireland. We have heard about how many clerics, grown men, raped and abused young children, mostly boys and how many children died as a result of beatings they got while in their care. The horror is unimaginable to many people now. The institutions which these clerics were members of have done plenty to downplay their culpability and only grudgingly conceded that they should have to pay limited redress. It's one of those things with Irish institutions, don't expect to ever get the full story.
Never thought of this, crazy when you say it!
If Bailey did sneak or was allowed onto the crime scene and the guards knew or find out about it.
Why wouldn't they just have arrested him then after, for "obstructing the investigation and contaminating the scene"?
Is it because Bailey could say he was allowed on it, or it wasn't sealed off etc...? You'd think if they wanted to frame him, they'd have arrested him for this and say he broke through and contaminated the scene?
Him blatantly saying he didn't know about it until 2pm(or whatever time) and the guards knowing this is rubbish and being able to catch him out on this, but not doing so.. I dunno, maybe the embarrassment and they would lose their jobs maybe. it's just mental they all cover it up, just to save the jobs of one or 2 guards here.
Somebody (can't remember who) made a point her car was searched prior to going to the dump. Even so it is quite bizarre behaviour. You just found a young woman battered to death, your neighbour, up a lonely boreen, you don't know by whom and he doesn't know if you can ID him, and you go off on your own to dump rubbish.
Why do people keep writing this? Touch your lip. Now touch your gum. Notice anything?
Yes but both of those examples relate to someone 'pretending' to discover a body and having contact with the body and informing police of that as an explanation. Those scenarios I totally get.
But here the person who is declared as having found the body said they didn't touch the body afaik?
And the person who identified the body wouldn't have touched the body, one assumes?
So who has a legitimate reason to have touched the body and offer that as an explanation to police for contamination?
So... as I said, it's not adding up to me.
Is Foster suggesting the killer came in with a DNA Dyson and cleaned up the scene. What was the material outcome of the killer being at the scene?
I thought the murder is still unsolved or has Foster delivered a trial and verdict of his own?
Sion was tried in court and acquitted.there is no proof he tried to contaminate the scene.
Police may "think" he did but that means nothing legally. Courts are about law. If Bailey was acquitted the guards , gards, might still think he did it
Deleted
Just regarding murderers trying to contaminate crime scenes:
This happens a lot, as the general public has become more and more aware of forensics. Murderers worry that they got blood on themselves or left DNA at the scene during the crime, so they try to generate a plausible explanation for it.
Two cases for example off the top of my head...
When logic fails use abuse.
Wonder who that is aimed at maybe some clown who thinks they have some authority over others.
"oh i smashed SoulWriter's face in but it's OK i was on strong pain meds" No authority over me gardman
After one assault , there were three, Jule s lip was almost severed from her gum.
Not sure who that's directed to but.. I agree
Shut up you clown, if you spent as much as time looking at the gards who deliberately covered up this horrific murder rather than focusing on Bailey, you'd put that limited intellect of yours to use.
That Kev guy is not very smart having his photo taken with ian. Softening the image of a woman beating narcissistic thug which is what Bailey is whether he killed Sophie or not.
Journalists always get stuff wrong in early reports. They have to write something and at early stages there's a lot of rumours. Their sources get it wrong. Look at early reports of any murder. Compare with later reports.
Often, at early stage, no definite information is available
That last comment was meant to quote yours. Technical glitch!
There were a few things he got wrong in his articles. The champagne bottle was another one. it didn’t exist. I think he chanced his arm as a journalist and printed a huge amount of local rumours, as you certainly would.
people like to say him knowing things about Sophie’s body etc somehow incriminates him, but what about the things he got wrong?
It is fantastical.
It's like foster has *just* had the revelation that the Gards fecked up, and now he thinks this means Ian somehow sneaked to the scene that morning and BINGO! solved. 🙄
The carry on on twitter since is bizarre. The gardai fanboy trolls last week now think they colluded with Ian in a cover up to save their pensions.
You couldn't make this shizzle up.
But Foster seems to say he sneaked in unknown to the garda . If he leaned over her as well as earlier killing her that would be twice he did the magic trick of leaving no forensic
Can you give some examples and how they might relate to this case?
I mean someone there with gardai about also... I find the notion of someone getting unnoticed to the body 'as a crime scene' after discovery fantastical even allowing for the ineptness of the gardai.
I wonder if the guards bothered to find out if he got a tetanus shot after the "dog bite".
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/37b29390e71419ead582d06229ae30a3.svg)
