Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
"Doesn`t matter if they stick to the story when the story never made sense in the first place"
Makes enough sense to me. They got spooked the night before when they were alone with him, then they got back into it the next day when they bumped into him in a very public place. Some people need everything to fit into place like a jigsaw. But that`s just nonsense.
When you invent a narrative, that`s when you make it all fit. As far as I can see, the Shelley`s told it as it was, warts and all. Both you and the DPP need to stop applying your own standards of what you consider normal when you are judging the various witnesses in this case. Maybe you both need to get out more and get a handle on the slobbering drinking culture that was part and parcel of the Bailey/Thomas existence, where people don`t always behave in a rational or normal way.
"what shenanigans went on with Marie Farrell"
We know all about the shenanigans that went on with Marie since she has now switched sides. Apart from the pants dropping, we can safely conclude that no garda played any part in inventing narratives about Bailey. Truth or lie, it all belongs to Marie. There are some obvious truths and some obvious lies. Bailey was outside her shop. Bailey was on the Airhill road. There was no Frenchman.
"and Leo Bolger"
Well I listened to Bolger on the West Cork Podcast talk quite extensively about Bailey`s meeting with Sophie. I found him to be quite convincing. All he does is add the 10% onto Alfie`s 90. Now if I was a crooked investigator and I had Bolger over a barrel with an upcoming drugs conviction, I would be making him invent something a bit more productive than Alfie`s missing 10%. We don`t need Bolger`s evidence to know that Bailey is a liar.
"We can argue until the cows come home about the minutiae of each piece of circumstantial evidence."
We can and I intend to. It is important.
"I have no doubt that the DPP will make the right decision"
Indeed, just like the previous ones in the case.
If sufficient evidence is found, then I would hope the DPP would do the right thing..
Realistically, there is not one jot of hard evidence to support a prosecution.
'Bailey was hypothesizing and Fuller knew that'
How do you know what Bailey was doing or what Fuller knew?
Bailey was hypothesizing and Fuller knew that, Bailey could just as easily said " you saw her on the street"
I did not say Malachy Reid was lying.
It will be put before the DPP again, a new DPP and a refreshed investigation file. I have no doubt that the DPP will make the right decision.
And their explanation of why they didn't go to the Gardai and continued drinking with Bailey makes as much sense now as it did then - none.
Doesn't matter if they stick to the story when the story never made sense in the first place, as the DPP is right to call out.
So yes, you are unable to challenge the fundamentals of the DPP's assertion.
Or as I have put it - the evidence is unreliable, there is established evidence of garda malpractice - from tampering with the Garda Jobs Book, to pressuring officers to change statements, to bribing 'witnesses' with drugs. And that's only what we know about - what shenanigans really on with Marie Farrell and Leo Bolger. This is a recipe for a miscarriage of justice.
We can argue until the cows come home the minutiae of each piece of circumstantial evidence. It doesn't matter. It is still circumstantial evidence. None of which is enough to convict him, all of which is questionable in some manner, some of which is downright dodgy.
The DPP made the correct call.
"Bill Fuller interpreted "You did it! You saw her in Spar.........you went up there.." as I did it......". You decide how silly Billy is."
Fuller wasn`t in Spar at the same time as Sophie. So how else should he have interpreted what Bailey was saying? Then of course, we have a witness who bumped into Sophie as she exited Spar and saw Bailey across the street at the same time.
Malachy Reid was a kid. He was entitled to be silly. It doesn`t make him a liar.
"Personally, if I had heard someone confess to a murder and I believed them, I would not have said "I think you are guilty", I`d have said "I know you are guilty because you told me, now f* off away from me you murdering bas***d" and I`d let everyone hear me."
You and me both then. Where we differ however is that I don`t presume that everyone else would act and think like I would in those circumstances.
No minor points. I`m dealing with the fundamentals of the Shelley testimony. The crux of the issue isn`t the Shelley's recall as the DPP seems to suggest. It is whether or not they have invented a story where Bailey said to them "I did it".
"you are unable to challenge this DPP assertion"
In fairness to the DPP, we all now have access to information that he didn`t have at the time. We have all got to see and hear witnesses in the recent documentaries and podcast. Multiple witnesses, have gone before judges, been cross examined by Bailey`s reps and under oath, re-affirmed what they said in their original statements including Ritchie Shelley.
The Shelleys obviously didn't think like you, and they were there. If they did they would have gone to the police with it. Instead having "run out of the house" at 4am they continued the conversation next day in the pub. It took a visit from the police some time later to help the silly people think like you.
Malachy Reid didn't think much of Bailey's 'confession' at the time, If he did he too would have gone to the police. Instead it took a visit from the police to explain to the silly boy what Bailey meant. It didn't stop him from taking lifts from Bailey afterwards.
Helen Callanan did go to the police after Bailey 'confessed' to her. This came after she felt duped by Bailey. All the Sunday Tribune coverage of the murder had been by Bailey. He continued contributing to her paper without telling her he was a suspect. When she did eventually find out she asked Bailey if he did kill Sophie, he answered; "I did it. I killed her. I did it to resurrect my career." I wouldn't call her a silly person, maybe naive to think he would actually confess to her over the phone.
Yvonne Ungerer always said she read Bailey's confession "I suppose I was washing blood off my clothes" as a joke. She is maybe the only sensible person here.
Bill Fuller interpreted "You did it! You saw her in Spar............you went up there.." as "I did it........" You decide how silly Billy is.
Assuming that you are responding to what I posted, let me repeat from the article I quoted:
The file allegedly says: "The next morning, all four people met up in the pub again
Now, where did I or the original article say the Shellys went to the pub with Bailey & Thomas? Your entire retort is based on you not correctly reading what I quoted.
Also, if Shelley believed that Bailey had admitted murdering Sophie, why didn't he go to the gardai with this lead? As per the DPP report, "If the alleged conversation took place he did not attach sufficient weight to it to even bother reporting it. Richie and Rose Shelley were collected from outside the Thomas house by John Shelley but neither Richie nor Rose bothered to tell John Shelley about the alleged admission".
Disingenuous phrasing here both by you and indeed the DPP. Saying they "met up again" the following day, suggests the meeting was pre-arranged, when it clearly was not. I can understand why posters here of a certain viewpoint might use such terminology, but the DPP is supposed to be objective.
I've merely quoted an article so I haven't phrased anything disingenuous! I understand the article is quoting the DPP report.
As for the meeting and the use of the term "met up", you are simply interpreting that way.
No it doesn`t. It`s not as if they had the detail of a long conversation to recall. There were only three words to remember. The DPP needed to make up his mind as to whether the witnesses were inventing a conversation or not. It had nothing to do with faulty recall. If the Shelley`s intentions had been nefarious, they would have stated that Bailey said more than just "I did it". We could expect something along the lines of "I did it. I killed her." There can be no doubt Bailey said "I did it" to the Shelleys and there can be little doubt about what he was referring to. It is also obvious that it wasn`t some bizarre attempt at humour. He had a habit of revealing his thought processes under the influence of alcohol both before and after the murder.
Shelly had had a lot to drink. When collected by John Shelley, neither Richie nor Rose mentioned the "admission" to a crime that most of the area allegedly attributed to Bailey. Furthermore, Shelley didn't bother mentioning it to the gardai?
And we're supposed to believe that he heard bailey confess to a murder but didn't feel it warranted any action? In fact, Shelley is alleged to have said the following to Bailey when they met up in the pub the following morning: "up to last night I thought you were innocent but now I think you are guilty". Personally, if I had heard someone confess to a murder and I believed them, I would not have said "I think you are guilty", I'd have said "I know you are guilty because you told me, now f* off away from me you murdering bas***d" and I'd have let everyone hear me.
On an overall basis the Shelley evidence is dangerously unreliable.
See, you are unable to directly challenge this DPP assertion. So instead you engage in semantic pedantic disingenuous nonsense about minor points, trying to get a 'gotcha' on another poster - as if this proves anything. All the while trying to distract and keep attention off the truth - the evidence is dangerously unreliable and you cannot change that.
"Unless there is video recordings of the alleged statements, it is practically impossible to determine the context of the conversation in which they were spoken".
Presumably then you disregard the DPP as his report is based on the reading of written witness statements.
"the DPP file notes all four had met up again in the pub the next day"
" "This diminishes the credibility of their recollection still further." "
Bailey is now doing shout out on tik tok for 15 Euro a time. His fans call him "the ledge"
https://extra.ie/2022/11/07/news/watch-ian-bailey-now-charging-people-e15-for-tiktok-shoutout-videos
The Shelleys didn’t go to the pub with them - it was over the Christmas / New Year period and they were in the same pub as Jules Thomas and Ian Bailey. As they were known to each other and had been in each other’s company the night before, they acknowledged each other and entered into a conversation during which time Richie Shelley made known to Ian Bailey his belief that, based on what Bailey had said and how he had acted the previous night, Bailey murdered Sophie Toscan du Plantier.
Or.... As stated by Ian Bailey, he was mimicking the line of questioning being used by the Gards?
You see, that's the counter response to the admission of guilt (and can be used vice-versa as well)
What witness accounts & written statements don't reveal - Is the context of the statement(s)
In Cork, the statement ''I will, yeah'' - Basically means the exact opposite.
Unless, there is video recordings of the alleged statements, it is practically impossible to determine the context of the conversation in which they were spoken..
Ian Bailey is British - Dark humor is one of his traits. (Along with having a dose of the Donald Trumps about himself too... )
In my opinion, Ian Bailey loved to shock & awe his congregation whoever they may be... He kept himself in the spotlight on purpose, and too be frank, revelled in the notoriety attached to it..)
Like most of his utterings, best taken with a pinch of salt - Let hard evidence convict a man, not his alter-ego.
Presumably youre referring to this (my emphasis at the end!)...
Richie and Rose Shelley
In Netflix's piece Journalists Michael Sheridan, Barry Roche, and Schull resident Peter Bielecki tell the story of Ian's alleged confession to Richie, saying they were in a pub together before going to Jules's house for a nightcap.
As this story is told on Netflix, Bailey started crying and said "I did it, I did it" to Richie at around 4am after Jules had gone to bed.
Bielecki explains it's like "that early morning thing after drinking when he'd get strange" and after Bailey's alleged admission "they ran screaming from the house. They ran away".
Rose does say she ran out of the house, but the DPP file notes all four had met up again in the pub the next day, which wasn't mentioned in the documentary.
The DPP note that despite numerous attempts by Richie to get Ian to elaborate at the time he only ever repeated "I did it" and never explicitly said it was about the murder.
The DPP call their evidence "dangerously unreliable" owing to other factors too.
The file allegedly says: "The next morning, all four people met up in the pub again, and Richie Shelley is alleged to have said to Bailey 'up to last night I thought you were innocent but now I think you are guilty'.
"From the report of Inspector Horgan dated 27 July 1999 it appears that Richie and Rose Shelley have indicated that they did not come forward with the above information previously because they did not want an involvement in the case.
"This diminishes the credibility of their recollection still further. In fact Richie Shelley in his statement dated 19 June 2001 states that he did not come forward with the information until he was approached by the Gardaí.
"If the alleged conversation took place he did not attach sufficient weight to it to even bother reporting it.
"Richie and Rose Shelley were collected from outside the Thomas house by John Shelley but neither Richie nor Rose bothered to tell John Shelley about the alleged admission.
"On an overall basis the Shelley evidence is dangerously unreliable."
Admissions of what exactly...
As noted on the earlier thread:
According to the Dpp report, after the so called confession that night where IB said" I did it, I did it"
The Shelley's were that upset and concerned that they went to the pub with Ian and Jules again next day... pretty much says it all !
The statements made in the presence of Richie Shelley were not in any way sarcastic - they were admissions of guilt.
They did not admit their guilt. They made sarcastic remarks which people who want to make mischief are running with to fool the poorly informed.
TO submit anyone for prosecution on the basis of the questionable circumstantial evidence, in light of evidence of garda malpractice, would be a recipe for miscarriage of justice. No conviction would be safe when evidence has been tampered with.
We know the 'star' witness Marie Farrell has wavered all over the shop and is completely unreliable, and may have been subject to \ of Garda malpractice.
You are absolutely correct. It is obvious and they have admitted their guilt to third parties. Anyone who comes on here suggesting otherwise is either poorly informed or making mischief.
There is a significant amount of circumstantial evidence, more than enough for a prosecution in my opinion. The passage of time, the shifting positions of Ian Bailey and Jules Thomas in the intervening years and the unwavering testimony of witnesses which was very evident most recently in TV documentaries and the West Cork Podcast, has clearly undermined many of the DPP`s conclusions about this case.
I doubt boards would appreciate it. So no. :)
would it be the first time the state protected criminals ? You are aware… The state have form for doing so.. ? Yes !?
you are rather delightful yourself.
Julian, Dick, Ann, George and Timmy, the dog?
At lease five credible suspects that I can think of.
Best not to name names. I guess there are a few in the frame at this stage.
It's known who did it...?? Please enlighten us?
They've admitted it to third parties..??? Who are ''they''?
Who are the third parties that they felt compelled to unburden themselves to with this knowledge..??
Quite a few statements there buddy.... Are you suggesting this Country is knowingly protecting a murderer?
Or are you just looking to nail a murder on somebody without any evidence...??
What a delightful citizen you are..
I'd hazard a guess that @Strumms is referring to the person that our DPP has said a number of times that there isn't sufficient evidence that would warrant consideration of a trial.
This would be the same DPP in whose office, an official produced an analysis of the case which actually believes that the evidence suggests that he didn’t do it.
Still @Strumms probably knows more than the rest of us!
Who's known to have done it?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c33618a99b1d02afaf5370e8c02bf147.svg)
