You can look up the meaning of prurient which is obvious in the context it's used.
Go ahead and treat us to what you obviously consider to be very telling quotes.
While you say his sketches don't sway you, they have caused many people here to portray him as some kind of sexual deviant which says more about anyone with that view than it does Bailey.
mm I would say it was Bailey's whose interests were "prurient", No? (Not that that sways me. Don't care.) You bring up his sketches, perhaps those speak for themselves Par example? Envy as well? I don't recall much thunder being made about any of Bailey's.. 'doddles', literal, actual, or exaggerated. 😏
Ah the good Con Murphy, rest him.. Bailey said some heavy stuff through Con, didn't he then? You left out some of the good Con`s quotes for Bailey.. some whoppers..
One can imagine the kind of volatile relationship this couple had, probably full of drunken provocation. No surprise if Bailey wants to make a run for it, knowing as he does that the Guards are waiting on any chance to arrest him for something. It didn't stop Jules from getting back with him to a relationship that lasted for 25 years. I don't know how effective one can be kicking someone while having a cast on one leg;
"The inspector said they arrested Bailey at Cork airport on August 23 as he tried to leave the country.
Photographs and medical reports of the injuries suffered by Ms Thomas were handed over to Judge James O'Connor.
The judge said medical reports also referred to an incident which happened on the previous night although it did not appear to have been a serious as the assault on August 18.
But defending solicitor Con Murphy said Bailey had indicated this was not an accurate account of what had happened on August 17.
Mr Murphy Added: "But he does not want to deflect any blame for what happened from himself."
There is something curious about the mention of the medical reports and it's funny how we've seen a lot of pictures of Jules' bandaged eye, we've seen none from this incident. In the words of Jules later. probably because it's vastly exaggerated.
A lot of this stuff came up in the libel trial where there was much clutching of pearls, what with the very prurient interest in Bailey's sketches of people having sex. I would say his interest in heterosexual orgies displays quite a healthy interest in sex, it may well have caused envy in people who first found his diaries that he'd potentially had this experience and they hadn't.
Not my kink. I prefer the written word.
Going on... Jules flees the madman, tries to summon her friend Sue Hill...not happening..garda ring the Prairie ? ..who answers? Bailey does and says nothing to do here lads..but Wait! Jules manages to alert gards to the attack..And her attacker.. seems like there must be more like?
Go on, You seem to have a video
After sharing *a* bottle of wine with Bailey, Jules turned off the television and sat on the floor to go through her pocketbook. Out of nowhere Jules is struck across her right eye by Ian Bailey, using his crutch. He continues to reign blows to her face, head, cheeks, chin, with the crutch, until she lay on her side and then Ian Bailey kicks his partner in THE FACE and ribs with his plaster-cast leg and foot, until she manages to escape down the hall. Wanna know what happened next?
Happy Birthday Doc Harbison!
You are not telling us something about Bailey, you are telling us about yourself and projecting on someone else what is your own fantasy. Given your obsession and resistance to reason that isn't surprising. This has to be understood in the context of this investigation where you had some inadequate male fantasists deciding on the motivation of someone who didn't suffer from their kind of insecurity.
Well let's explore the timeline of Marie Farrell's changing story on this 1st sighting (21st Dec 1996 2-3pm) because I don't entirely disagree with you.... and I put some time into researching it.
In her 27 December 1996 statement MF states that he was approximately 5ft 10 and of thin build...wearing long black coat. (No mention of his skin colour or anything else)
In her 22 January 1997 statement, she describes the man as "very tall, I could not say in measurements".
In her 21 October 1997 statement, she said that she was standing "at a higher level than where he was across the road" and that "in describing his height I remember saying that he was taller than [a named gard]" The named gard was 5ft 11 according to DPP report.
(2004 is when Marie Farrell flipped over to the Bailey side, or as he says "the side of good".)
In 2006 Farrell told the McAndrew inquiry in her retraction statement that she initially described the strange man as 5’ 8". However, the garda said "we would round that up to 5’ 10", as I may be confused, as the footpath was lower on the opposite side of the street". In that description, Farrell told McAndrew’s inquiry, she had initially described him as "about the same height as my husband who was 5’ 8". (Note - Mare Farrell is the only source of this allegation that the description was originally 5ft 8).
In 2012 to GSOC: "She described the man as thin, sallow skin, late 30’s to early 40’s, 5’8” tall, Mediterranean looking and wearing a long black coat.
In 2014 at Bailey's case against the State: "She did not know the man but he was “not Ian Bailey”. He “stood out as being a stranger”, was slim, with sallow skin, about 5ft 8in, and wore a beret and long black coat with silver buttons."
so lets totally dismiss the merits of whether the main suspect for a lot of people may be responsible for the murder and indulge ourselves in hair brain theories allied to some good ould Garda bashing because.....
It is all relative and this seems to be an ongoing issue for you and how you interpret things. I suspect MF is quite short. To her there wouldn`t be that much difference between 5`10 and 6`2. She would just be looking up at a tall person. You also fall down badly in your understanding of Bailey`s character. So for example I remember you recently stated that Bailey not hiding his scratches was an indicator of his innocence. But that is based on an assumption that a guilty Bailey would react in the same way anyone else would. He wouldn`t. He is a malignant narcissist who craves notoriety. If Bailey killed Sophie and managed to send the evidence up in smoke in the Xmas bonfire, he would have been happy for the world to see those scratches. His logic would have been running along the lines of...."Hey there, did you see my hands.....did you hear about the French woman up the road.....are ye putting two and two together yet?" Ffs he was telling people he did it soon after that.
It's 2 days till the 25th anniversary of Sophies death.
I think it gets forgotten in this thread sometimes. We need to remember.
25 years, for her family to have no closure. To be desperate for answers and fed a load of bullshit by the irish Gardaí.
It becomes a "for Ian" or "against Ian" argument. Over and over. Can we just remove him from the picture and be objective?
It would never have been about him except the press and gards made sure it was. Then they tried to make weak evidence fit.
The bottom line is this: an innocent woman was brutally murdered and her killer was never brought to justice because of incompetence, corruption, and cover up. Its utterly shocking. Yet it happened in our country, in our land, and it was permitted.
The authorities whitewash the kerry babies, and they whitewash this. Its the same old crap over and over.
Yes they did.
Dan Griffin saw him too. His statement corroborated Marie Farrells.
Neither described Ian Bailey, that's for sure. You are correct. It was a different man.
I clearly called out relative heights and you proceed down this smokescreen of feet and inches.
Tall.
Big.
Large.
The words someone would use if describing Bailey.
Which she obviously wasnt.
She didnt just get it wrong in feet and inches. She didnt even get it right in build and relative height.
This is basic stuff.
She wasnt looking at him on TV.
She has looked out that window before? Seen other people through it?
Yet Bailey didnt register as bigger than most people she had seen from it? Nope. Not credible.
She worked in that shop for a year.
Beggars belief if she saw Bailey there she wouldnt pick up on that.
You can criticize Marie Farrell for a lot of things, but the height issue isn`t one of them. I`m tall and I think I would make a fair estimate of the height of someone in the 5`10 to 6`5 range. However if you asked me to be accurate about someone in the 5` to 5`6 range I think I would fail miserably. It`s to do with eye level really and it is far easier to estimate the height of someone that is a few inches either side of your own height. The same applies to a short person trying to estimate the height of someone tall. I`ve always assumed she is fairly short, but then I`ve only seen her on TV so that can be deceptive and I could be wrong. She was also estimating the height of someone who was standing alone on the other side of the street. I find it weird that some people are critical of her about this.
Marie Farrell wasnt describing Bailey that much is obvious. As obvious as Ian Bailey on Schull main st over the course of a year.
So if she saw this not big not tall sallow skinned man ... yet nobody else did.
Well the conclusion is also obvious.
"Last night I saw upon the stair,
A little man who wasn't there,
He wasn't there again today"
She may have said that as well. I was talking about what she said, I think, in the West Cork podcast.
I also said that two other witnesses saw Bailey at that spot around that time. One of those witnesses (Williams) saw Bailey and Sophie there at exactly the same time. She was interviewed in the West Cork podcast.
So if Bailey was not the man in the long black coat who Marie Farrell claimed she saw, then the man in the long black coat was very close by when Bailey was there.
I'm not supporting Marie Farrell, as I am quite convinced she is lying in her most recent testimony. I am saying we don't need her testimony to place Bailey in that spot around 3pm on 21st Dec 1996.
You're right, I didn't mean to seem like I was defending Marie Farrell as a witness, just attempting to add more context. She is very much an unreliable witness.
In fact, in her last court appearance, we have evidence to suggest she was lying. Her friend was called as a witness. The friend testified that Marie Farrell had told her she would be a witness in Bailey's case and if he won the case, and won a big settlement, she (Marie) would be getting a cut of it.
I've never seen Bailey in real life, but I take your word on his size. The book authors who have seen him in person have also written about how he is much bigger than he seems in photographs.
Absurd special pleading and weasel words. MF said she wasnt good at putting height into feet and inches... that is a world away from not knowing if some is short, average or on the tall side. If she saw Ian Bailey from a window through which had seen other people but somehow didnt register Bailey as being bigger than most people she is lying or so clueless at observance her worth as a witness is zero. Its the first thing you notice about Bailey.
She worked on Schull main st for a year running a shop yet never saw Bailey about town before? Yet magically saw him on the saturday and had no problem finding him days later to point out to a Guard? By magic I mean this is invented nonsense. Lies.
If you believe this crap you will believe anything.
Yes, it was Ethna. I was not aware that their relationship is public news.
I find it very very difficult to believe the Maria Farrell statements on this. Serial rape cases are very different to seeing a man in a long dark coat across the street or on the side of the road. Serial rape involves deep trauma, seeing someone at the side of the road is a casual observation. If you were to ask anyone what their first visual impression of Bailey is on seeing him one thing anyone would have to mention is very tall. Of that there is no mistaking.
Why I bring this up is that even though I'd wager Bailey is the murderer I find that there should be far more suspicion around Maria Farrell's testimony and recanting of this testimony. The woman risked jail time to not name the man who she claimed she was with in the car whilst driving near Kealfadda Bridge. That testimony was used in France to secure a murder conviction.
Like I said, I'd wager Bailey is the murderer. Not put my house on it but I'd risk a few hundred quid. But something about the Garda investigation and the behaviour of the French justice system really wrankles with me on this one. I believe that deep down that Sofie's family are not 100% fully behind Bailey's murder conviction in France. They're just desperate for closure. They haven't been afforded the opportunity to close this traumatic chapter and to truly grieve for their loss. The murderer, whoever they are bears the sole responsibility for that. In mind mind Bailey is the most likely perpetrator. But there's something fishy going on too, and the Gardai have always known more that is being said. There have been too many instances of Garda malpractice exposed in this case over the years, some of it more than malpractice. It's hard to know if it'll ever be solved. And that's sad, because a man who is afford the presumption of innocence under the law is judged guilty in the eyes of the public and by a deeply flawed trial outside of this jurisdiction and a family goes without justice and closure on the murder of their daughter.
"Bailey's explanation of the 2001 assault was that he was holding the crutches, they struggled over the crutches and Jules accidentally beat herself in the face with the crutches."
Maybe he was out jogging by Sophie' gate a decided to do some weightlifting with the breeze block. Sophie startled him and it fell on her.
Accompanied by a well dressed woman at least 10 years his junior.
Was the woman you saw him with the woman in this article (Ethna Staunton, his supposed new girlfriend):
Marie Farrell 5'10" statement. There is no way in hell that even in the dark of night at the side of the road or from a viewing across the street could anyone think Bailey is under 6 feet tall.
Marie Farrell claimed 3 sightings of the man in black. The first one was outside her shop on 21st Dec 1996 at 3pm. That's where the height claim comes from. It's kind of a moot point because:
Had an interesting encounter today with Bailey myself in a 5 star hotel in the South West. My first time in a 5 star establishment in fact. My partner and I were having our COVID passes scanned at the desk while awaiting seating for breakfast and lo and behold behind me in the queue is the man who is the subject of a European arrest warrant for murder. At first I thought I might be still feeling the effects of the cocktails from the night before but in fact it was Bailey himself. Accompanied by a well dressed woman at least 10 years his junior.
For a man of his age he looks terrible. The ravages of alcohol and stress have taken their toll on him. He was dressed in his usual eccentric garb complete with hat and large walking stick. A bandana style face covering completed the dishevelled look.
Some things stood out to me. The most obvious was Bailey's stature. He's become somewhat stooped but is still a large strong man. I'm 5'11", 11.5 stone and he'd eat me for breakfast. Certainly physically capable of a brutal murder but also it made me think about the Marie Farrell 5'10" statement. There is no way in hell that even in the dark of night at the side of the road or from a viewing across the street could anyone think Bailey is under 6 feet tall.
The other thing that stood out to me is that Bailey cannot live a normal life, deserved if he committed the murder, cruel if he did not. There were plenty of shocked faces at that breakfast sitting and much whispering. I understand the hypocrisy of this post in that regard but the observations I think are valid.
It's clear his female companion was treating him, as Bailey himself is essentially unemployable and dependent on welfare. Their behaviour was unremarkable at the breakfast, we were seated half way across the room from them and could barely overhear some of their interactions with the staff, nothing out of the ordinary other than Bailey's voice is recognisable.
The irony of it all was that much of the staff in this hotel spoke with French accents and had French names. Perhaps a hangover of COVID that hospitality staff are coming in from other EU countries to replace Irish staff who lost their jobs early pandemic and found alternative employment. Wonder if they knew who they were serving. It was clear at the breakfast reception that the Irish maitre D was immediately uncomfortable with Bailey's presence.
It was strange to witness a very infamous man going about ordinary things. It might wrankle with some too that he is availing of 5 star accommodation. But from this brief encounter I can only state that there is no way any person with the gift of sight could me confused on this man's stature. He is well above average height.
"Jules put her hand near his face." He may be doing the gentlemanly thing and downplaying something. Given what we know about the circumstances it doesn't look like 'putting her hand near his face' was to gently caress it.
This is somewhat juvenile when violence covers a huge spectrum but you don't wish to engage with the substance of what's being said.
Bailey gave his own explanation of these assaults in court during the libel trial. If she assaulted him, he would have told us then.
Bailey's explanation of the May 1996 assault was that they were driving home, he took over the driving and Jules put her hand near his face.
Bailey's explanation of the 2001 assault was that he was holding the crutches, they struggled over the crutches and Jules accidentally beat herself in the face with the crutches.
In the "most serious assault" people are referring to (the May 1996 one), Bailey tells us in his diary that this was actually two assaults. He assaulted her in the car first and then again when they came home. The daughter heard Jules wailing in the bedroom after the second assault and went to fetch the neighbor, Peter Bielecki.
Blows to the head arms and face would probably show that the attacker(s) was/were taller than her. The number of blows needed to subdue her also would indicate unused to killing or someone not that strong or in a weakened state?
hard to believe someone would try to paint an act of violence as an example of the abusers restraint.Bit of a Monty python vibe to the minimising of the injuries inflicted.
That is not proof you know It's speculation
Was she biting hi m? Was the hair pulled out because he was pulling her off him?. Pro bailey speculation
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/37b29390e71419ead582d06229ae30a3.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
