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.
It's mentioned in several of the podcast/documentaries on the matter, that he was on leave celebrating his 60th birthday, and it was the next day before Gardai were able to locate/contact him. It's not mentioned, but i assume he didn't have a mobile/pager at the time.
In fairness he was the only state pathologist at that time which meant he was on duty every day of the year 24 hrs per day. Its not really unreasonable that he wanted to have a few drinks on his birthday - the timing was just unfortunate. I dont blame in fairness its the authorities fault.
The preserving of the scene by the gardai was poor but its not a situation they were used to.
Have you ever heard of annual leave? And people choosing to take it on certain days? They probably couldn’t get through to him for a while.
Never really followed this case but the guards did a shite job.
I worked on the crimecall reenactment they did after.
The crew was all having lunch in the local pub with the local Guards and they all stood up and we had to leave as he came in and took the closest table to us.
It was very weird as if he was taunting them you can't catch me.
Interesting.
Was the perception back then that he definitely did it?
its was also the xmass eve and xmass day
If he had gone to ground and not turned up, you would have some people arguing that was a sign of guilt too.
A certain sort of innocent person might make an exhibition of doing normal things like shopping, going to lunch, to show I have nothing to be guilty of.
They used the words prime suspect.
thousands of partners (male and female) assault their partners. The local courts are fairly full of examples. To say that because someone assaulted their partner, that this makes them a murderer is rather far fetched. Even one of the local gardai down there had a barring order from his wife due to assault (few years after the murder, but well known in the area and still in the force) - is he a candidate for killing someone??
It appears that he wasn't a pleasant individual, but that's hardly a good enough reason to try and pin a murder on him.
When the guards got it into their heads that he was the guilty one, I reckon all meaningful investigation ceased.
Hence we'll never know who did it.
Someone did it, surely its likely to be somebody with a history of violence against women no?
Didn't even notice you were arguing on that one detail
I mistakenly said "at" whereas Maloney said "after"
Doesn't change the substance of my posts re:,the alibi .Suppose ya had to find some detail to continue to argue on seeing as you're like a dog with a bone
You’re also talking about 1996.
While people had mobiles (and someone like a pathologist likely did) Eircell only had 100,000 users and very large areas had patchy coverage.
It was still very much an era of landlines on desks, leaving answering machine messages, calling in from payphones and cardphones and fax machines.
You could go somewhere a bit rural, or just be in an house with stone walls and be fully off grid.
Easy to assume people were easily reached from todays perspective - an era of instant and always on comms, video calls to fields on the side of mountains are even taken for granted nowadays.
And mobile phones were not as prelevant as today.
Why?
It could be someone with no history of violence against women - until that point.
Or, it could be someone with no history of violence.
Or, it could be someone (or persons) with a history of violence against people, not specifically women.
Given that, it is useless as a filter.
You realise that in certain professions, "annual leave" can't always be taken when planned?
In far lower-status and less well-paid jobs than that of state pathologist, people often have to arrange their leave around work constraints.
The idea that he could be unreachable for a whole day, and that not only could nobody else do anything at all in the meantime, but - worse - that nothing could be done to preserve the body in suitable conditions until someone could attend, is just mad, really. Seems very Keystone Cops. But then, the whole thing seems very Keystone Cops, so it's probably par for the course.
i doubt it’s useless as a filter. Not sure what the statistics bare of female murder vs past violence but I’d say it’s quite strong.
Come back to us if you have them, because at the moment I don't see anything to justify the "surely" in your statements, when you admit yourself you are basing it on a hunch.
It's a bit of a stretch from domestic abuse to murder of an 'obsession', if that is what AGS put the relationship at.
Past similar convictions are considered a reason to look more closely at someone for a crime. Past violence to women is similar.
Yes, of course it could be the first time, so other people aren't all exonerated automatically, but in practice, I'd say it's pretty rare to go straight to killing someone first time there's any violence ever. There's more often an escalation of violence over time, finally moving up to killing someone.
Edit sorry , yeah I’d be pretty sure it’s more likely. I find it odd you don’t think it’s more likely. Not arsed looking for stats , need to go back to work.
Again this is a bit of stretch. Is this even a "similar" scenario? It is not domestic abuse.
Are we talking about past violence ever? Against either gender? Which could include a criminal thug engaged in GBH on a rival who then goes onto kill a witness?
The claims being made, are so loose and backed up by nothing more than hunches. It is neither necessary nor sufficient to identify Bailey as the culprit.
The TV detective series Columbo ran in the early 70s- scene preservation was part and parcel of nearly every episode -this was 25 years before the murder - keystone cops is the only phrase fitting for those responsible for scene preservation
Yea I edited my comment straight away. I also stand by what I said , as the poster said above escalation of violence
Exactly, this was 1996 not 1966. It had almost become a film or TV show cliche at that point that the first thing the lead did was tell people to preserve the scene!
can point out exactly what they did wrong? They preserved the crimescene and body, theres a whole load of untruths out there like someone washed the feckin wine glasses
all of it false
where the police fall over is focusing on Bailey after a false witness report, she is mostly to blame for this
You can stand over it but as we have established, you're standing on exactly zero foundation that you're provided. Zero evidence, zero facts, zero statistics. It is your supposition which of course you are entitled to, but not to misrepresent that as a statement of fact.
When did I say it was a fact??? I’m sure I’m correct though. I’d imagine most female murderers have some history of violence against women. Odd you don’t suppose the same.
Not really intentional but everything points that way. It was very unlikely to be a contract killing for example. You see a lot of contract killings in the news, mostly gangland killings, and none of them involve someone being attacked with a rock.
It did however have the hallmarks of a hothead being rejected.
You're changing the goalposts. You said he was an odd guy but in a lovely way, or words to that effect. He clearly wasn't.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1aba361f5b77a8017be035a0d4fc285.svg)
