Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
Why are you assuming the French authorities are wrong but not the Irish authorities? Couldn't the DPP be incompetent also?
I don't know if Bailey did it. I'm just saying he's the most likely suspect and he is. The French authorities found that enough evidence was there, the Irish authorities didn't. We don't know who was right, the assumption that the French authorities are wrong comes from the pro Bailey faction.
I know but what she suggested is the most likely scenario in my opinion. Especially ahead of the Hollywood plots.
I don't think we could narrow it down between the killer being a local or not. However based on behaviour it would suggest that the killer may indeed have been local.
Or even worse is the idea that somebody from Dublin driving there ( after a recovered hangover from a birthday party before ) may have had difficulty finding the place, but somebody like myself, not being local either, found the house with ease, not having google earth or GPS or those sorts.
On the other hand, it's a statistic, that killer and victim often knew each other beforehand.
Not only did they not convict him, they didn't even charge him in the first place.
She also said that Sophie had told her that she wanted to remarry her forst husband and that she was in the process of divorcing Daniel.......
Yes, the most likely scenario is that the killer is local, so it may point to lots of people in the area including her own family, Alfie Lyons, Leo Bolger, The French man from Marseilles, the German musician etc. etc. The Gardaí also believe that for her to leave her her house she probably knew her attacker. She did not know Ian Bailey.
No, you're being selective with what he said.
He described the investigation as "flawed and prejudiced" ie. flawed ( which can be explained by incompetence) and prejudiced ( which cannot) . The use of the word prejudiced is critical because it implies deliberate misrepresentation, manipulation and distortion of the facts. This significantly weakens the Garda case and actually strengthens the liklihood of Bailey's innocence.
The reason he's still a free man, is because there is no evidence that associates him with the victim, the crime scene or the crime itself. Neither is there a plausible motive.
I think the only ones who did a decent job here is the Irish judiciary. They had no decent evidence beyond reasonable doubt, thus they didn't convict him.
The Guards were corrupt and inapt to solve the crime and the French judiciary convicted based on hearsay evidence.
You are right - it is the same stuff over and over again. The reason for this is that every now and again someone new comes along and says how it definitely was Bailey because he got out of bed, had scratches etc etc. They are blinkered to the fact that there is actually no evidence supporting that Bailey did it. These people usually haven't done much research on the case and need to be informed by others of other theories. They also dont read over the thread before posting. Thus the rehashing of stuff already mentioned again and again.
You can polish a turd any way you like but it's still a turd. Just in case I'm not being clear, the evidence against Bailey is a turd.
I wouldn't put much faith in the the French levels of 'mediated' evidence. It's sh1te evidence, no pun intended. You know this. I know this. The Gardai know this. The DPP knows this. Everyone knows this. Yet the French convicted Bailey on that sh1te evidence. So that tells me the level of French scrutiny or oversight of this evidence is next to non-existent.
It's also a mad system in France that if Bailey was extradited to France to serve his sentence, he'd automatically be entitled to a retrial.
And worth re-iterating the French judicial system is fundamentally different in structure. The roles are not equivalent.
In a French trial, police evidence is overseen by an instructing \ investigating judge during the investigation. An 'active' DPP who mediates the evidence.
So evidence that comes to court has gone through their oversight.
What happened in the French trial was that AGS evidence, without judicial \ DPP oversight, was presented as if it was French levels of 'mediated' evidence.
Yes, you can look at it that way.....I think the only reason Bailey became chief suspect was because the Gardai investigating the case, or at least the most senior of them, decided that he was guilty. Hence the investigation became a game of trying to find anything that would incriminate him. Even to the point of manipulating witnesses.
I agree that some of the theories expounded are not really plausible but I am of the view that the Bailey theory is also implausible.
As I said above, motive here is key. In cases of this type, the husband is always the first port of call for the investigators. Although there is no actual evidence of Daniel being involved, no one had as much to gain as him and, statistically, most female victims are murdrerd by their spouse or partner.
I don't think the Gardai hat some new break through. They've also messed up the case back then, that it has the stigma that the Guards are not to be believed in this investigation.
They may have spoken to some people in France, however that was more than a while ago. They also may have re-examined the cinder block, but no real news on that as well.
And then there is Jim Sheridan who may think he has some new insight, but I doubt that this is real news. A few shady men loitering in back alleys are hardly proof of murder.
What lit up this thread? it's been pretty quiet apart from the last few days.
I was beginning to think the Gardai had some new break through.
And without same, it's all a rehash of every opinion already expressed.
There is no evidence to convict Bailey nor is there additional evidence.
There is absolutely no evidence to connect anybody to the crime.
This is also not evidence. "Was known to" and "was likely" or "unlikely" is also not evidence, and neither is "massive ego".
Neither is writing about strange sexual fantasies.
If this was evidence one would have to lock up nearly half of the population.
Bailey was known to walk the roads late at night, traipsing miles was nothing new to him.
Plus in his eyes getting his hole was likely, rather than unlikely, he has a massive ego.
Sophie may have been running away from him down the lane.
Maybe you can explain how they might have been wrong from viewing the evidence as presented and not AGS who have shown themselves in this case to have made many serious mistakes with the evidence and also worth bearing in mind (AFAIK) that the heavies sent from Dublin to investigate the case involved the same team and culture that stitched up Joanne Hayes.
You make it sound like you know the guy!
Someone drunk enough to traipse a few miles to see a stranger in the bizarrely unlikely chance of getting their hole is unlikely to be in a position to have the ability to overcome a sober person and beat them to death.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that STdP would have walked down her lane in the middle of the night for a pissed eejit like Bailey.
You've gone off the rails there a bit dude.
The French authorities didn't find any evidence. What addtional evidence did the French authorities find that proved Bailey's guilt? They looked at the pile of sh1te evidence the Gardai handed them and decided that Bailey 'dunnit'. Evidence, I might add, that our authorities couldn't stand over. Evidence that they deemed insufficient to warrant a murder charge let alone achieve a conviction.
Yes, there was incompetence on the part of the Gardai. But that doesn't mean that Bailey 'dunnit' and got away because of the Gardai incompetence. Bailey could also be innocent. But you don't seem to want to consider that.
Being the most likely suspect doesn't remotely mean that he did it. It just means he warranted investigation. And when Bailey was investigated, they couldn't find any substantial evidence against him. The credibility of witnesses in this case was unbelievably bad. If Marie Farrell told me I had a head on my body, I'd go look in a mirror to check. Scratches etc. All had plausible causes.
Bailey hasn't helped his cause with what he said, but most people agree that he's an attention seeking whore with a very warped sense of humour.
Long story short. Do I think Bailey did it? I just don't know. In my mind, there's feckall credible evidence to say he did it.
I've asked on the thread before if people can point to other murders which have occurred as per the Garda narrative.
Someone barely known to the victim, wanders up post midnight to the victim's residence, rebuffed and brutally murders the victim. No sign or indication of sexual assault.
This is not a "most likely" scenario for any murder afaik.
Josie may not have being referring to Bailey at all.
Sex would have motivated Bailey, it's that simple.
You did it. You saw her in Spar on Saturday. You saw her walking up the aisle with her tight arse. You fancied her. You went up there to see what you could get.
We know from his diaries in the liable case that he had a less than conservative attitude to sex.
We also know that he acted weird when he had drunk whiskey.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that he did head off to her house to see if he could get some action.
People do wired things while drunk, and randy people do even weirder things, like hike across the country side looking for sex from some hot French woman they have been observing from a far.
Plus he's not the kind of guy who expected to be rejected.
Someone like Josie who was actually living there states the most likely scenario. And it is.
So maybe the DPP were wrong then?
Not contradicted, they said there wasn't enough evidence, almost exactly what I said! And as I said above, there's no doubt the investigation was flawed but that's what could have saved Bailey.
There's not enough evidence to convict in court but as I said, we're not in court. Based on testimony provided by a large list of people, Bailey is the most likely culprit. Of that there's no doubt.
This is by far the biggest motive. It is also speculated that Daniel would have some financial problems as well, - but that was also never investigated. Him not coming to Ireland spelt to me the language of "I don't care if she's dead" and "don't go to Ireland" and "better get on with your new girl" and "let all the others deal with it". I mean, what do you do, if your wife dies overseas? You drop everything and go there to take care of things.
However I don't know the extent of possible drug trafficking in the area, the financial loss or a possible jail sentence. Interesting fact is that neither on the peninsula lived a lifestyle in luxury.
The same Josie Hellen (Housekeeper & probably only Irish confidant) did also speculate as to the likely killer:
'Josie believes a local person around Schull were they both live took Sophie's life.
She said: "It is probably somebody who had a crush on her, who must have seen her and went out of their way to see where she lived.
"Somebody out there knows who the killer is and is shielding him.
"I would appeal to that person to come forward to contact the Gardai for the sake of the whole community." '
A fairly specific line. And one the Gardai rightly or wrongly pursued.
If I'm not mistaken, the French found nothing. Their "trial" was based on evidence provided by AGS which our DPP had already said was thoroughly flawed and prejudiced.
So he was saying there's not enough evidence to arrest Bailey. That's what I said. This can be true, along with the Guards being completely incompetent and the investigation flawed. This can all be 100% correct but takes nothing away from the likelihood of Bailey being guilty. The flawed investigation could be the reason he's still a free man.
Your statements about the DPP have been demonstrated by multiple posters to be false, without foundation and merit.
Directly contradicted in fact.
Yet still you repeat it. I think that speaks volumes about your 'case'.
There is no way your false statements can be reconciled with this:
To quote Eamon Barnes, Director of Public Prosecutions: "the evidence came nowhere near warranting a charge against Ian Bailey" " the case was thoroughly flawed and prejudiced and culminated in a grossly improper attempt to achieve or even force a decision which accorded with that prejudice"
And if we take this report to be from the DPP:
Bailey’s explanation for the scratches is plausible, consistent and is supported by other direct and credible evidence.
The Garda contention that Bailey is being untruthful and evasive regarding his knowledge of Sophie Toscan du Plantier is not supported by convincing evidence.
Based on the above conversation and on the allegation by Martin Graham that he was given Hash by the Gardaí, despite D/Gda. Fitzgerald’s denial, the balance of evidence suggests that Graham is telling the truth. Such investigative practices are clearly unsafe to say the least.
The Gardaí that describe Bailey and Jules as lying in relation to the fire. This Office is not persuaded that is the case. In any event the most that this evidence could possibly establish is that Bailey could have burnt bloodstained clothes, not that he did so.
https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/30/
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e68aa2b0e039b12ade8384a2f42841c6.svg)
