He died earlier from a heart attack, very curious guy whatever you think of him. If he didn’t kill Sophie Toscan du Plantier he certainly didn’t help himself by his attention seeking behaviour.
But you must remember it was a different ERA.
"Typing" an article might mean a noisy mechanical typewriter, rather than a modern laptop/smart phone. It is belivible that someone might go someone so as not to wake a partner.
Ok you asked me to prove where Senan Maloney said this
The proof is above in quotes
I'll let someone else confirm what Senan Maloney states is in fact the truth . I believe it's established but am not bothering to google again to satisfy you
Btw you've a very aggressive argumentative posting style full of rambling rhetoric
the forensic examiner didn't botch anything
the garda 100%, but not necessarily the crimescene itself, just afterwards
a one off killing like that can be impossible to solve, it is unbelievably remote down there
I remember once (while working in SuperQuinn, actualy also on December 23, which was a saturday that year. A car rocks up to the store, just after closing time, he was looking for a christmas tree and was annoy to find the store closed, and ask what time we would open the next day (Christmas EVE).
He was quite annoyed to find out we were closed, It was Sunday, and Department Stores and Supermarkets did not open on Sundays at that time.
So cutting trees that late was not too odd.
So nothing then. It's a fact earlier on the thread you claimed Bailey got up "at midnight", and asked me to comment on this.
You have been utterly unable to backup that claim. Nowhere does Senan Maloney provide proof of your claim. Nowhere. Don't pretend otherwise and misrepresent what Maloney said.
You've provided zero facts in support of it. Proof positive it was a canard.
Your claims have no credibility.
I'm not engaging with your rhetoric about being all over the shop and contradicting myself in every post
I'll finish by saying you asked me where does Senan Maloney say he got out of bed drunk after midnight and I provided clear proof from the article in the 2 quotes above
That's a fact
Source? The comments I saw state he was never violent towards her (if you mean the ex wife in England). He would take out his anger on objects.
There's alarm bells all over the case.
He said he didn't "know" her, in the phrasing I saw.
Even if a very brief 30 second introduction did occur, does that meet the bar for "knowing" someone?
And there's considerable debate as to whether that introduction even occurred.
One of the witnesses Alfie Lyons wasn't sure. Like what does 90% sure even mean? Either you are sure or you are not.
One of the other witnesses only remembered it years later, an entirely forgettable introduction of two other people by another person. And was a criminal, who could have had their own reasons to curry favour with the Guards.
Anyone else who pops up in relation to the subject either has their own reason to mention it, or miraculously remembers it years later, or isn't sure, or is suspiciously sure for something so unremarkable that occurred years earlier.
All of it is dodgy.
Well according to his ex wife, yes he was violent before that.
That sounds like a description of Ian Bailey. Was it meant to be?
Yeah but given how the gardai and the chief forensic examiner botched things, there could have been a wealth of evidence left at the scene. we'll never know.
(Note: I'm not saying that's enough to convict him - it's obviously not nearly enough for a criminal conviction. But out of court, the rest of us are entitled to have suspicions about him.)
Your posts are all over the shop.
You were asked for as source for your claim that he got up "at midnight". Your words, not mine.
After three times of asking you haven't been able to back this up.
Self discrediting nonsense, typical of those who think Bailey is guilty based on garbage evidence.
His form as a “wife” beater predates the murder by a number of years- officially 1993, 1996 and 2001 - may well have been other instances and as for his life before coming to Ireland who knows what he got up to
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30024827.amp
I think its very strange that the husband didn't come to Ireland after the murder with her parents and son - it's very strange.
Nothing that came out of Baileys mouth was trustworthy. He was a noted liar, no-one doubts that. He admitted to some people he did it, said to others he didn't. That's alarm bells right there about his credibility.
Anything he said, you had to think the opposite. A bit like Richard Satchwell.
He said he didn't know Du Plantier. Multiple witnesses said otherwise. Who do you believe here? Certainly not Bailey.
From the article maybe don't be so hasty and what are these contradictions?
Anyway I'm done with U it's clear U don't engage in reasonable discussion
"It is admitted in the witness statements of both Bailey and Thomas that he left their house after midnight on the night of Sophie’s murder. He claimed he needed to go to an outhouse; something about writing an article for the Sunday Tribune. But it was a Sunday night – there was never any rush on that story."
"That’s what occurred when Bailey, who had been drinking all night, went to Sophie’s house seeking sex. Don’t forget she answered the door after presumably shouting “Who is it?” while in bed. The answer meant it was someone she knew."
I have no idea what you are saying, you are contradicting yourself from post to post.
You are the one who in a post above made this claim: "Who believes he got out of bed drunk at midnight Sunday."
Where does Senan Maloney say that? If you can't provide a source it will be assumed you are just making stuff up now.
was he violent before the murder? or did that situation cause him to change . I don't know.
sure its worth exploring your theory.
the truth is we probably will never know.
my own view as i said above is that as a booze hound he would be incapable of not leaving evidence behind him after a savage murder.
I think you need to read up a bit before asking me to backup established facts
It's been well documented and was recounted by Senan Maloney today as said to him
Are you saying he didn't claim to have left the house after midnight to write an article for the following Sundays paper ?
Bieng a scumbag and an oddball (which he certainly was) doesn't make him a murderer. A lot of the armchair Colombos need to get a grip. We'll never find out what happened thanks to the botched Garda investigation.
Garda incompetence aside, there was a reason Bailey was the chief suspect. Firstly you couldn't rely on anything that came out of his mouth. He denied ever knowing or meeting Du Plantier. Multiple independent witnesses said otherwise, including that he actually knew her quite well.
Bailey had met Toscan du Plantier, says producer – The Irish Times
If he had nothing to hide, why continue to tell lies?
He also had a history of violence and threats towards women.
And any alibi he came up with was to be taken with several grains of salt.
Very clear why he was suspect number one, but getting a conviction was always going to be difficult, as it frequently is in these kinds of cases - eg Richard Satchwell - people were 99% sure he did it and he was talking a load of nonsense, but the gardai actually proving it was another matter.
What alibi? I have asked you for your source for what you have outlined and you don't have one. It's not the one I have heard or are familiar with.
Getting up early after a night out to finish an article. That is how some people operate, even or especially after a night out, I had colleagues who could do a blitz of work at 6 or 7am, but will probably crash after lunch.
no motive, no evidence, the only reason people think it was him because of a stitch up by the garda and lies of one woman
LIES
Good job too if you think some of the flimsy evidence you have cited should have any sway.
What's your opinion on his alibi above ?
Plausible?
No idea what you are on about. Can you provide sources for your claim as to where he was at midnight on the sunday?
We're dealing with balance of probabilities and opinions here is all
It's not a court of law and.nobody can prove either way
Why not?
Why not chop it down only for when you are going to decorate? The tree stays fresher or some people are last minute.
That we're debating such aspects as part of a discussion of a murder shows how weak and flimsy the "evidence" against Bailey is.
If he got the scratches at the scene, why did he leave no trace there?
And if he got scratched from briars at the scene, as AGS say, these would be deeper cuts not light scratches - so why did a dermatologist who met Bailey a few days afterwards not notice them? They had healed, indicating they were not deeper cuts received at the scene.
Very unlucky innocent people suffer miscarriages of justice. Often they are oddballs or outsiders.
It is why we have offices like the DPP to validate evidence and the basis under which it was gathered.
Who believes he got out of bed drunk at midnight Sunday and went to another building to type an article for the following Sundays paper ?
Not plausible imo
