Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
double post
https://archive.ph/L5vBL
Knock yourself out @Evergreen_7
Good old Senan Moloney, he's had some mileage out of this over the years,
mostly bullshit!
Wrong hand!
Given how inaccurate observation and recollection can be even soon after an event I think it would be reasonably safe to say that a sketch drawn 25 years after an event would be based more on imagination than information. So much for a 'scoop'. Still, paper never refuses ink.
Senan Moloney get's another gig out of the story,.
This time it's the DNA angle and linking the investigation to the Noel Long case.
And getting our friend Nick Foster back into goading Bailey to confront him in a public debate.
https://archive.ph/k5kMj
Hopeful, at least.
Though the "chain of custody" wasn't exactly ring-fenced round what little evidence there was.
Footprints all over the site from all sorts of passers-by - and where is that gate?? etc etc
The gate has been explained a thousand times....
What could be taken from it, was taken. The Family were offered the gate back, they declined (obviously). The gate was then disregarded.
Of course. But my point stands.
Isolating evidence from contamination or interference is an important aspect of forensic criminology. Wasn't very well maintained during the first response of Gárdaí to this remote rural case. May not make much difference in the end, but it certainly isn't a helpful aspect.
The sketch gives us an appreciation of how tough the Guard's had it in '96.
The camera was stored hours away in Dublin, so all the stations had a standard verified pencil allocated instead.
I'd say the "chain of custody" is a major stumbling block for the review team.
The French forensics team found the evidence in dissarray, stuff missinng, bags open, stored in several different places, and so on.
If the French team witnessed such disarray, and they surely reported it back to their Government, you have to wonder how they reached a conviction of murder against Ian Bailey?
It dosen't look great for diplomatic nation?
It looks like it was a forgone conclusion before any investigating was done.
Have to tip the hat to the Irish Justice protocol - Every man is innocent until PROVEN guilty (weather guilty of the crime or not)
As I understand it, the French team were given a file from AGS which pretty much said Bailey did it and that was that.
Doesn't really square up to the fact that the Gardaí have THREE TIMES sent a file to the DPP and been turned down each time - not enough evidence for a prosecution.
Not enough for the Irish justice system - but enough for the French, who always want to see someone found guilty and who don't presuppose innocence-until-proven-not.
So, the Guards have a favourite suspect and the French bought the story;
Really, it all adds up to a very good argument for a fresh look at the whole case.
Wouldn't matter anyway. Bailey could say that he told the 'nosy stranger' complete lies.
Even if Bailey had massive scratches on both hands and arms and lot's of scratches in his face, it still wouldn't prove murder.
His DNA was neither on the scene of the crime, nor on Sophie's body, thus he couldn't have gotten the scratches there and then.
What is suppose to have caused the scratches according to the Gardai? Hedgerows at Sophia's place?
The only explanation(s) we have is killing the turkey and cutting the christmas tree.
That is what they tried to spin - cuts from briars at Sophies.
But as the DPP reports notes what multiple witnesses - including a dermatologist - describe rules that out.
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.”
From the evidence available it seems clear that the scratches caused to Bailey by cutting the tree and killing the turkeys were not of a very grave nature and it is not therefore surprising that certain patrons in a pub on the night of 22 December 1996 did not observe them.
https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/30/
Yes , that was Bailey's explanation. But the Guards were using the scratches as part of the case against Bailey. How were they concluding the scratches were relevant to the murder?
It would only have been circumstancial evidence, - of course it would have been different, if Bailey's DNA was all over Sophie's body and on the brambles and briars.
That's the point I am trying to get to.
If the scratches came in part from Sophia, there would have been DNA on her body.
If they came from a struggle in briars, I'd expect similar scratches to have been reported on Sophia.
There were such wounds I believe reported on Sophie.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20321277.html
Sophie's right arm, similar scratches all over her body from the briars.
There was no unexplained DNA on Sophie, under her nails etc from scratching her attacker. There one small trace of unexplained male DNA on her left boot.
Thank you. That clears up the link the Gardai were making rightly or wrongly.
They were clutching at straws trying to place Bailey at the crime scene.
He's appearently after getting a third heart attack now and there must have been a reporter in the hospital for some reason because Ian is in the newspapers again.
You can nearly smell the hat from the photo at this stage, you'd have to feel sorry for anyone that has to be anywhere near him.
He intends to send his (imaginary) 13,000 euro bill from Bantry Hospital to Sophie's family after they had jokingly said they would pay his bill to keep him alive so they can get justice. Classy as ever.
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/ian-bailey-back-hospital-after-31129306
That the man seems to be an attention seeking dick doesn't make him a murderer.
However, to answer the question about AGS and Bailey's scratches, I believe AGS had decided already that, for whatever reason, Bailey did it and then used whatever they could find as potential evidence against him.
I firmly believe and always have done since attending his libel trial against the newspapers many years ago that he didn't murder that lady.
He is though a narcissisic women beater and I have no sympathy whatsoever for him whatever befalls him.
You'd wonder what evidence relating to other suspects was ignored or destroyed in their pursuit of Bailey.
I also attended that trial. I believe he murdered Sophie.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
