for anyone who thinks the variety of witnesses, including Michael Oliver, are in any way reliable in this case, I suggest looking at this and scrolling down to “witness back stories”. This was a close knit community; if people didn’t have beef with each other, they had beef with the gardai, and the DPP report rightly sifted through it all while making the report.
https://crimeguy.com/sophie-bouniol
Wouldn't it be much easier for Bailey to say he got both the scratches and the cut on his head when climbing the tree? That's why I would lean towards the reasons he gives as being true. He could just easily have said he bumped his head on a branch while climbing the tree or the top bit he cut off fell and hit his head.
GO back and look at the context. Don't be an idiot, bandying about accusations of lying.
This is what you wrote: "if we trust the DPP's opinion then because Ian Bailey consented to having his DNA collected, it means he is an innocent man."
Whereas the DPP speaks of it being "indicative of innocence."
Your post is a wilful and deliberate misrepresentation. As I said, look in the mirror if you are concerned about fibs.
Before accusing me of "lying", please at least try to quote the relevant part:
If Bailey had murdered Sophie, he would have known that there was a definite possibility of forensic evidence such as blood, fibres, hair or skin tissue being discovered at the scene. His voluntary provision of fingerprints and a specimen of his blood is objectively indicative of innocence.
My point was that the DPP has made quite a few stupid statements in his report. This one in particular indicates he is just not familiar with murder cases involving DNA evidence.
Anyone could tell him that worldwide, in a huge percentage of cases of murder solved by DNA, the offender has voluntarily given his DNA to the police. It's quite common because the offender makes a judgement call. Gambling that they don't have your DNA on the body is preferable to making the police suspicious by refusing to give it up. If they have your DNA on the body, then it's game over anyway, so why resist.
A person in a motor car being driven in an unlighted country area during the hours of darkness is unlikely to be in a position to make a reliable identification of a person on the roadway under the circumstances described above
My problem with this statement from the DPP is that he doesn't allow for all cars having headlights or for cars to drive at different speeds or for the fact that most people who encounter someone walking on a country road at night have to slow down as they pass them. If the DPP had ever driven on a country road at night, he would know that you can plainly see the person coming towards you. (This is not to say that I believe Marie Farrell - I am just saying the DPP's premise is silly)
Are you familiar with the strawman fallacy?
Nowhere does the DPP say that "because Ian Bailey consented to having his DNA collected, it means he is an innocent man"
Under the section: " Lack of Forensic Evidence linking Ian Bailey to the murder scene."
Bailey willingly gave his fingerprints and a sample of his blood to the Gardaí for analysis and examination. These specimens were given at a time when he was aware that apparent bloodstains had been found at the scene.
What does the DPP say exactly? I'm going to copy and paste it as it will give a sense of the deliberate dishonesty in the previous post. And you accuse the DPP of fibbing? Look in the mirror. Your posts are riddled with them.
In her statement dated 14 February 1997 she states that on Monday 23 December 1996 at about 3 a.m. she was with a male friend in her motorcar and she saw a man walking on the road. He was stumbling forward and had his two hands to the side of his face but she could see his face. She states that she identified the man as being the same person she had seen on 21 December 1996 in Schull and on the morning of 22 December 1996. A person in a motor car being driven in an unlighted country area during the hours of darkness is unlikely to be in a position to make a reliable identification of a person on the roadway under the circumstances described above.
I don't know if the DPP is always correct, but given the choice between the DPP report and a poster who engages in deliberate lies on boards, well it's not much of a contest is it?
This thread would be far more balanced if certain posters were not blinded by there own personal views.
It's a forum for debate, remember that.
Ah, I see what's going on with you. You are of the opinion that the DPP is correct and everyone else is wrong.
Well, if we trust the DPP's opinion then because Ian Bailey consented to having his DNA collected, it means he is an innocent man. Oops!
The DPP also tells us Jules' arrest was unlawful. Oops!
Another DPP special: If you are driving at night and you see someone walking on the road, it is impossible to tell who they are. Oops!
Yet another DPP flub: He is not aware of where the Murphy house is in relation to Marie Farrell's alleged sighting.
The capper for the DPP: Ian Bailey slipping into a sleeping woman's bed and rubbing her leg is not attempted rape. There was a case in Ireland a bout a year ago where this exact thing happened and the offender was convicted of attempted rape.
I am not disagreeing with everything the DPP says, but he certainly has his fair share of stupid and uninformed opinions.
It doesn't matter how many press ganged witnesses the Guards found to say they didn't notice any scratches on Bailey's hands
Aren't you "slandering" the Gards here, since we don't have any evidence or reason to believe that these particular witnesses were "press-ganged"
This object next to the bed is actually an old style French bed warmer. It would be too hot to have in the bed with you. Presumably Sophie was in bed for the night and had put some forethought into it. So did she get out of a warm bed during the night to investigate a disturbance or knock at the door? Or did she get up in the morning and have some breakfast?
You're not a bit interested in the facts. The DPP is quite clear about some witnesses but you choose to gloss over the facts behind their testimony and suggest, like Nick Foster has done, that the DPP wasn't really up to the job and you know better. But your objective is the same as many others; to rely on fabricated evidence to suggest someone is guilty of murder. Slander.
The Likes of Me are just interested in the facts. "persisting with slander"? You're kidding surely.
I saw the part of the DPP report you point out, but I am trying in the timeline to include only people who witnessed something that happened on the day. The dermatologist would be talking about how the scratches looked on the 28th Dec. That Bailey had scratches is not in dispute. There are witnesses who said they saw the scratches on the 22nd, including Jules, Saffron, Ginny.
You suggest Michael Oliver is credible.
DPP's report;
"He was also involved in taking a statement from Michael Oliver on 10 February 1998 on which date Oliver was awaiting sentence on a serious harm conviction.
The statement flatly contradicts a questionnaire completed by Oliver a year earlier. This questionnaire was not volunteered by the Gardaí – it had to be sought. It could certainly be argued that Oliver in an attempt to avoid a heavy sentence was anxious to please the Gardaí at the time of making the statement on 10 February 1998.
Little if any incriminating weight can be attached to it."
Michael's a bit like yourself
Obviously it won't stop the likes of you persisting with slander and thoroughly discredited bullsh*t.
"Dr. Louise Barnes, a dermatologist (skin specialist) closely observed Bailey some five days after the murder. She states “at no time, did he strike one as being suspicious. As a keen observer of peoples appearance due to my profession I certainly did not notice any marks or injuries to his face or hands.”
It doesn't matter how many press ganged witnesses the Guards found to say they didn't notice any scratches on Bailey's hands on the 22nd because all he would have had are barely perceptible scratches from pine needles.
On this day in 1996: (22 Dec 1996)
Morning - Ian Bailey was sleeping on the sofa of his friend, Mark Murphy in the Murphys' house.
Around 7:00am - Marie Farrell claims she was out driving when saw the mysterious man in the long black coat hitchhiking on the road outside Schull. This was within 100 yards of the Murphys' house.
"Morning" - Daniel Du Plantier claims he spoke to Sophie by phone and she told him of her decision to return to France on the 24th.
Before 2pm - Sophie drove from Toormore through Goleen and out towards Mizen Head, on the tip of the peninsula, where she went for a walk.
Between 2.00pm and 4.00pm - Sophie visited a French-speaking couple, Thomas and Yvonne Ungerer, with whom she had become friendly on one of her previous visits.
Around 4:00pm - Sophie drove to Crookhaven where she called into a bar and restaurant owned by Billy and Angela O’Sullivan. She ordered a pot of tea and chatted with them, the O'Sullivans estimate for an hour, then left and drove back to Dunmanus West.
After 2pm - Ian Bailey got a lift back to The Prairie. DPP: "Mark Murphy states that he drove Bailey home at about 2pm." Jules says according to the DPP: "around midday that Sunday 22nd December 1996 I met Mark Murphy’s van as I drove towards Schull and I saw Ian Bailey in front of the van and presumed that Mark was bringing him home to my place. I returned home from Schull and I spoke to Ian at home. He had shorts on him and he was going killing the turkeys for Christmas and me and the girls were stringing up the turkeys. Ian and Saffi went down to cut the top off a Christmas tree for the Christmas. Following the cutting of the tree his forearms were scratched”.
From Ian Bailey in The Big Issue: "I climbed the 30ft tree bare, armed with and old bow saw and set about cutting the top 5 feet off. [Saffron] was with me throughout... in the process of which I got a few light scratch marks on my arms."
Ginny Thomas said in her statement "I did see his hands scratched when he came down". Saffron Thomas said in her statement: "I can verify as I was a witness to him receiving cuts and scratches to his hands, arms and legs from more specifically the cutting down of the tree... We had to kill three turkeys and in doing so Ian was cut by the turkey wings flapping when their heads were cut off."
Saffron Thomas would later allegedly tell Mark McCarthy that it was she, and not Bailey, who had cut down the tree and he was lying if he said otherwise. She allegedly told her father, Michael Oliver, that Ian Bailey was “a lazy bastard” and that he did not even want to get them a Christmas tree and that she had to cut the tree and bring it into the house herself. (In his report, the DPP casts doubt on Michael Oliver's statement).
5.30pm - Sophie tried to call her friend Agnes in Paris and left a message on the answering machine wishing her a happy birthday.
6:00pm - A man passing by said he saw lights on upstairs and downstairs in Sophie’s house. (It was suggested elsewhere that this was a postman delivering something to Alfie's house).
7.30pm Sophie telephoned Josephine Hellen, but Josephine’s daughter, Catherine, told her that her mother was not at home. She then rang a local tradesman, Pat Hegarty, who was also unavailable.
"Sunday Night" - Ian Bailey says in The Big Issue: "On Sunday night after the turkeys had been gutted and plucked, we went in two cars to Schull where a number of bars had pre-Christmas music sessions. Jules and myself went to [the Courtyard Bar] and then on to [the Waterside] where there was a traditional session. With the invitation of a group of visiting musicians I had joined in with the bodhran and threw a few poems into the session." Venita Roche-Galvin, whose husband David owned the Waterside pub, told gardaí she had spoken to Bailey for 15 minutes and had not noticed any marks on his hands or face.
9.10pm - Sophie again rang the Hellens and again spoke to Catherine, as Josephine had still not returned.
9.20pm - Sophie’s neighbour, Shirley Foster, was pulling the curtains before going to bed. She said she noticed that the outside light on the gable end of Sophie’s house was on.
9.45pm - Josephine Hellen had returned home, heard that Sophie had been looking for her and rang the house. She spoke with Sophie and they made arrangements to meet at noon the following day. They chatted for 15 minutes.
Between 10:30 p.m and 11:00am (Irish Time) - Daniel claims he received a call from Sophie. He was in a work meeting and called her back about 12 minutes later. The conversation lasted a few minutes and he said it sounded like she was in bed about to go to sleep.
11:00pm - Chris Lynch, who had worked with Bailey in a fish factory in Schull for several months, told gardaí he saw him in the Galley Bar at about 11pm and spoke to him, but he again could not remember seeing any scratches on his hands or arms.
11:00pm-12:00am - Sisters, Bernie and Sinead Kelly, were both in the Galley Pub and near Bailey when he was playing the bodhrán and neither of them noticed any marks or scratches on his hands and face.
12:30am - Barman John McGowan, who served Bailey five times during the night, also did not notice any marks on his hands or face. The Barman says Bailey and Jules left around this time.
Does anyone have any more important details we can add to this timeline or corrections we should make?
He wouldn't be much of a journalist if he couldn't find some pretext to get in to see Alfie.
There is no big reveal. I was trying to pin down when he went up to Alfie's because there is confusion in the reporting. It doesn't prove anything or disprove anything about Bailey's guilt or innocence.
He went once. He brought milk and briquettes. He said he did. Writing it down four times then the big reveal "he admits it" is trying to brainwash us that he was obsessed with going up that boreen.
Yes, I wasn't sure if that was a photo from the day or from another time. That's why I said they showed a photo in the (Netflix) documentary of him peering in the window, but the voiceover says he went around the "back" of the house. Edited it.
I thought it would be useful to pin down the exact day of the Briquettes delivery in relation to what he was writing in his Star articles at the time and in relation to the discussion about someone contaminating the crime scene. Bailey testified in court at some point, when pressured, that Alfie Lyons was the source of his reporting about Sophie having many lovers.
Good post,
Shame you used the photo of Bailey peering in the window as proof he was there in the days immediately after the murder.
That photo and the one of him walking up the lane beyond the gate were taken long after as can be seen by the foliage cut back and the gate changed.
It was Christmas, he could have been bringing Alfie a surprise. "when he was cross-examined, he agreed that Mr Bailey could have been trying to get information out of Mr Lyons as a journalist."
There appears to have been no fury or suspicion about Alfie, Shirley, Finbar Hellen and whoever else coming and going past the cordon as they pleased.
The 'most interesting of all' is that there might be some hope with the Garda's PR guy, Nick Foster, talking about the crime scene being compromised, because something has come out in the preliminary investigation that has some people desperately trying to come up with reasons for not carrying out a proper investigation and framing Bailey.
Has it been established that Bailey visited Alfie by Christmas day?
Martin Malone was the garda at the crime scene when Ian Bailey turned up at 2.20pm on the 23rd Dec.
Reported in the Independent in 2015 based on Malone's testimony: "Four days later, [which would be Dec 27th] Martin Malone heard that Ian Bailey was back at the crime scene. He had gone up the lane, past the garda cordon, to Alfie Lyons' house. According to Mr Malone, he had told the garda he had a message for Mr Lyons and mentioned "briquettes". Mr Malone said he was "furious" and "suspicious". He wondered was Ian Bailey trying to compromise the scene? But when he was cross-examined, he agreed that Mr Bailey could have been trying to get information out of Mr Lyons as a journalist."
And from Irish Times: "On December 27th, he nominated Mr Bailey as a suspect because he was amazed, furious and suspicious that Mr Bailey went earlier that day to the home of Alfie Lyons, Ms du Plantier’s neighbour, at Toormore, Schull. Mr Bailey had been turned away from going beyond the Garda cordon on December 23rd and he wondered why he had gone to Mr Lyons’s house close to the murder scene and whether he was trying to compromise the scene."
From Sophie A Murder in West Cork: "On 26th December, three days after the murder, Ian made his way around the back of Sophie's house, which was still cordoned off, to Alfie Lyons' house to deliver milk and briquettes, even though it transpired that Alfie hadn't requested him to do that." (They show a photo of Bailey peering in Sophie's front window, but no indication of when this photo was taken)
And we have witness Billy O’Regan saying on the morning of [24th Dec] Christmas Eve 1996, Bailey came in to have the blade on his saw changed... Mr Bailey returned later [that day] and got briquettes, a bottle of bleach and feed for fowl.
But most interesting of all:
From Ian Bailey's own account in The Big Issue: "Over the Christmas I was active on the story and went out to visit Alfie Lyons on St Stephens Day with supplies of milk and peat briquettes."
So, there seems to be some confusion about when this happened, but it appears most likely it was the 26th.
Agreed. It poopood the fundamentals of time being one of the critical factors in such an investigation.
Further, it was not a case of not being sure if foul play being a factor or not.
Not saying that was his decision. No doubt his duties were mandated.
I was being sarcastic to whoever said she hit herself trying to take the crutch . that was trying to excuse bailey. She may have toned down the assault in court because she was back with him
One of these days you'll think of something funny. Somehow she doesn't strike me as someone who stands meekly waiting to be punished
I still think it's unforgivable that he didn't travel to Cork that morning. Murders were rare then and he was the sole state pathologist. Even if a bit hungover, someone should have driven him there.
Maybe she started head butting his leg
RIP Doc H
If the guards had arrested the Ungerers or Alfie and Shirley then told the female Alfie/Tomi has admitted to it would any evidence resultant on that lie be accepted?
The only difference between Alfie,Tomi and Ian is their partners not under Garda duress gave them an alibi.
So you have nothing to say?
I'd like you to keep talking, read: typing. I'm interested in seeing what you adress
and what you don't.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/37b29390e71419ead582d06229ae30a3.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
