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.
Well just like Mick Clifford proclaimed to the listeners of the radio, the person who reported it missing to GSCOC also reported wrongly.
It didn't go missing.
they thought he was the killer at the time, so not unreasonable to warn people in the community
everyone thought it was him, because there was evidence to say he did it
very reasonable
Re-read if you don't understand its all there. My common sense and life experience tells me that Ian Bailey (or any other violent man) probably sexually active from age of 16, don't just start hitting their partner for the first time at the age of 34/35 or whatever age he was when there was the first, known, incident with Jules Thomas in early 1990s. It was in earlier posts but bears repeating Bailey gave Thomas a vicious beating:-
'Bailey is questioned about Thomas where he's told that she "nearly lost an eye" during one of the multiple assaults inflicted by Bailey and that "her eye was the size of a grapefruit."
"I think that was a gross exaggeration but I do accept," he said.
At this point, Fitzpatrick interjects and says: "She was in the hospital, Ian."He responds: "Yeah, she was."
The interviewer added that her lip was "almost completely severed from her gum" as she had to get eight stitches. '
Technically he may not have hit Limbrick. But clearly explain why Limbrick (and any potential witnesses from 1980s England) may have run a mile from getting involved. This was a violent man, convicted of assault and held by the libel trial judge to have been a violent man. He hit other partners aside from the woman its known he hospitalised.
The Guards hadn't a notion of whether the claims the below were true.
In a report submitted to this Office on 26 February 1997 for the purpose of a consultation the Gardaí stated the following:
1. It is of the utmost importance that Bailey be charged immediately with this murder as there is every possibility that he will kill again.
2. It is reasonable to suggest that witnesses living close to him are in imminent danger of attack.
3. The only way to prevent a further attack or killing is to take Bailey into custody on a charge of murder and this point cannot be over-stressed.
It is understood that the Gardaí issued similar warnings about Bailey to members of the community.
It generates a climate of fear, don't pretend otherwise. As witnessed by the bonkers reaction of Bill Fuller.
Here is the DPP commenting on unsafe Garda operational practices:
On 29 September 1998 Garda Kevin Kelleher advised that D/Garda Leahy was the sole officer assigned to dealing with Bill Fuller. Superintendent Twomey confirmed this to be the case. Such an investigative practice is unsafe.
As the DPP says report says:
Once Ian Bailey was believed by the public particularly in the local area to be responsible for the murder the fear thereby engendered was bound to create a climate in which witnesses became suggestible.
None of this is reasonable conduct by a police force.
the removal of the pages from the jobs book wasn't tampering with evidence though
now I know they did get caught discussing predating a statement on the Bandon Tapes, but presume they didnt actually do this.
It is tampering with evidence, as the Jobs Book records the process by which Bailey was identified as a suspect and documents the gathering of evidence such as witness statements.
It relates to chain of evidence and integrity of the investigation.
Yeah but he was a known wife beater. Forgot that bit didn't ya. He was vient, unpredictable.
He burnt some of his clothes around that time also. Why did he do that ?
Ask yourself how many times in your life you decided to burn your clothes outside ?
From what I can see it's at least 50:50 as to whether he did it or not.
Its difficult to know how relevant or helpful the gate would have been as evidence, save possibly blood spatter which proved where the murder took place. Its unlikely any fingerprints or DNA were recovered from it.
But yes looks like the missing gate is just another myth that has grown legs.
Of course it is.
They got caught conspiring to alter of a statement.
the public believed it was him, they had every reason to, for obvious reasons
thats all the fear you need
not sure what the point on the bill fuller thing is for
It takes an especially depraved human being to bite the lip on his partners face to the point of almost severing it.
If a dog did that to another dog it would be put down.
but did they actually do it? No otherwise they would have been charged
Didn’t he also write in his diary that he wanted to murder her…
DNA forensics have come a long way. The blood on the gate, could be more fully analysed today, if it was available.
There's a big difference between fear created because a murder happening in the area, and police going around putting it about the killer will strike again and could even attack witnesses. That's a level of hysteria being generated as we see with Bill Fuller.
The point re: Bill Fuller is that you're not getting rational opinions from people towards Bailey and these are the people AGS are looking to for evidence against Bailey. Well dodgy.
nope
They certainly cut the pages from the jobs book, yes.
And, of course, the mere act of conspiring to alter a statement, is indicative of the integrity of the investigators. And must, logically, raise questions about the conduct of the investigation.
As Eamon Barnes ( whose credibility is impeccable) stated " the investigation was thoroughly flawed and prejudiced"
He is the only suspect in the murder and still remains the only suspect.
GSOC were more than generous in their assessment, the DPP not so much.
Yep.
post being arrested and suspect number 1 in the case that is what you are dealing with
there are still people who think it was him, even after all this time
Touch DNA profiling has improved.
They should've kept it regardless since the case was open
post an auld link there
An un named source has claimed it was offered back to the family and then destroyed.
Her son claims he knew nothing about that.
6 years of a GSOC investigation couldn't locate it either.
If it was just that on it's own you could write it off as carelessness, but 22 exhibits went missing.
Like you say this was not a closed case, this was very much an open brutal murder investigation.
yeah will look.
it doesn't mean they have thrown away the swabs taken from the gate
There would be no need for gardai to whip up fear if there genuinely was a murderer on the loose in the locality. It would be responsible of them to point out that there was a murderer on the loose though.
Seems they can't win with some people.
Personally speaking I'd like to know if there was a murderer on the loose of if my neighbour was a suspect in a murder. I'd imagine I'm not the only one, fear or not.
I assume they didn't
so thats why they didnt need the gate
The point is, it may be prejudicial to the case if you name the murderer, which they did.
Again, this is not my opinion, it's the opinion of the DPP, who looked at this case 3 times.
Ya need to read that again pasted below
The article clearly implies they're strengthening the circumstancial case against bailey
Intruder in this case refers to Bailey
There's no new suspects merely strengthening the existing case file
