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.
If on foot , return journey would be 5 miles over fields, 7 miles by road, and 11 miles if you believe the Marie Farrell sighting.
Quote the post where i mentioned contamination. re the scratches again i dont believe i ever mentioned anything about her scratching him. Others have mentioned the scratches potentially coming from briars.
I do wonder if the Gardai obsession with pinning it on Ian Bailey left them blind to other possibilities. It seems highly unlikely now that we will ever know the truth. Bailey could have done it but again their is only circumstantial evidence and a botched Gardai prosecution attempt. Just because Bailey was physically abusive towards his partner in doesn't elevate him to being a certain candidate to have murdered Sophie.
Having watched the first part of the netflix documentary it put a face to the horror of her murder seeing her family recall events at the time of her murder. Heartbreaking. It could be argued that the international element of the crime may have put the Gardai under extra pressure to solve the case.
There is no creditability in any aspect of the investigation. So good luck to the review team.
The DPP were actively shittíng themselves because O'Starsky and O'Hutch had gone full rogue in West Cork.
Members of the DPP don't usually completely and utterly trash a criminal investigation line by line.
You get a brief summary, a bit more if you apply for it.
You just raised the contamination angle with a question mark at end. You have referred to the scratches though and it logically follows that there should have been DNA left behind in such a scenario. But there wasn't.
If Bailey did do it, how much ground would he have had to cover on the night?
Excuse me? I never said he contaminated the scene. And I don't believe i said anything about scratches and dna either.
Have you confused me with another poster?
Lol.
In fairness, you've used scratches as proof which would have left DNA. Made a claim of contamination of the scene etc but then backtracked. But either way, no DNA evidence was ever attributed to Bailey. So it's more like a rumour mill amounts to guilt.
There's no question that Bailey was a **** person but that doesn't make him automatically guilty. The overall handling of the case by the Gardai was atrocious so their conclusions have huge credibility issues and the DPP had the exact same concerns.
I was merely trying see the creditability of Alfie. I didn't realise he was on weed or whatever. I'm trying to piece things that Bailey had reason to go to Lyons or excuse to be helping them gardening or whatever but may have been using that to get know Sophie. Probably ridiculous but its just trying see angles.
We don't have get hung up on probability or a percentage. But fact remains bailey visited Lyons as helper...and that's something we know correct? Then on that basis he's closer to sophie given it being such rural area as we have said but he would be made aware by Alfie someone lived in the house..surely..and its just narrows things somewhat. But I know not much of this was mentioned in DPP 44 pager but possibly is in detail in Garda file..
No, I fact checked your libelous accusation against one of the most respected journalists and authors in this country.
Do you accept that he didn't state that Ian Bailey had no friends or family and that you completely made that up yourself?
Do you accept that your statement that Ralph Riegel "was never too bothered about facts" is a complete and utter lie and a libel on the mans professional integrity?
Again your talking nonsense, and not for the first time.
If the gardai had corrupted him, why wouldn't he say he was 100% sure?
Do you understand how daft you are starting to sound? You're saying stuff without even thinking about it.
Her statements have been referenced numerous times here and elsewhere. I'm not going to do your leg work.
And a statement from Jules is the subject of this comments from Guards on the case, as noted above:
"That statement has to get ****** chopped up anyway.”
"You see there are statements here that I have to go back to fill it in."
“I know but it is in the statement, it has to be taken ****** out.”
Where and when did Jules give this original statement?
I think it's my fourth time asking.
I was linked to a jpeg with some writing on it. No context.
I was then told it was during her arrest, I was then told it was a questionnaire.
Given Jules wasn't a male age 25-40 as Senan Baloney suggests, why was she giving a questionnaire?
For someone to retract a statement the first thing is needed is a statement.
I imagine I may have to ask a 5th time.
Thank you
Lol back to probability theory.
And I'm the wind up merchant?
If some ould fella who spends his life stoned says he is 90% sure of something innocuous that happens a considerable amount of time previous. The very high probability is that he hasn't a fúcking notion.
He was probably given a bag a weed by the guards, or his stash was ignored.
I'm 90% sure you're a wind up merchant. Although there's a 10% chance you're not.
I can't help it if you're poor at maths. People ask for a bit of science to be introduced into this case and as soon as someone does, someone like you cries foul.
90% is a very very high probability, end of. You originally said 90% sure wasn't good enough. That's nonsense.
DNA evidence works on probability, but you'd likely dismiss that too.
That's not true. His partner initially said he was at home in bed all night, then retracted her statement, then retracted that one again later. He also retracted his statement about being at home in bed all night.
Yeah I know- they’re still banging the “come talk to us” drum even as they’re preparing this file - it doesn’t fill one with hope
Any wonder statements are retreated when we remember we have remarks like this on tape from AGS:
You brought probability theory into it.
I'm 90% sure Alfie smoked himself retarded.
OR a retracted statement of a key witness coupled with a brand new one implicating him - I think that’s what the Gardai are waiting for at this stage
The irony is that the only retracted statements to date have been by people who AGS originally got to point the finger towards Bailey and who eventually changed their story to removing Bailey from the statement.
Even the last page of this thread shows what a field day a defence barrister would have if defending Bailey right now - the amount of items lost, misplaced, statements missing etc - the opportunity for creation of doubt is huge.
Its unlikely the DPP will say yes to the next Garda dress-up of the file- those aspects still remain in place - only new definitive evidence placing Bailey at the scene will do at this stage- OR a retracted statement of a key witness coupled with a brand new one implicating him - I think that’s what the Gardai are waiting for at this stage
For the tapes - you would need to google "Bandon Tapes" or Fennelly Report and Bailey for a summary.
The full report is 740 pages! But jump to page 635.
And remember, this is the tip of the iceberg. It was just a matter of chance this call was recorded. Imagine what was discussed in person.
https://assets.gov.ie/1987/221018150627-28665ac2ce7f4bcbaa610616d084f429.pdf
For the GSOC report
https://www.gardaombudsman.ie/news-room/archive/information-report-from-the-garda-siochana-ombudsman-commission-at-the-completion-of-the-investigation-into-the-complaints-of-ian-bailey-catherine-jules-thomas-and-marie-farrell/
is this accurate and a reflection of Alfie at the time of this murder?
He's surely making it all up. However, even if we are to believe that he is telling the truth then AGS allowed a journalist to examine the case file of an ongoing murder investigation just shows how fupped up this garda investigation is.
While he has been quite vocal that Bailey is the killer now, and his earlier comments were that it was the killer who leant over the body - so I think we can assume it is Bailey.
Based on Foster's previous garbage claims about the case (2) is more likely.
Nick Fosters full of ****. Don't believe anything he says.
Did I say he crunched the numbers?
