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.
There's been reports for years about this alleged trampling over the crime scene
Like a lot of stories once they're in the public domain they persist , true or not
From what, we can assume one of the following is true:
Hi. Where might some of this information be available. Is it readable to public in any form or information you have gained from various places if ok ask.
Yes.
Either
(1) It is true, and the Guards covered it up. Because there is no record of it in the Garda File directly, and Bailey is noted at arriving at 14:20 outside the cordon.
(2) It originated because of a mixup of information. Several days after the murder - after the body had been examined and even removed (?) but while it was still a crime scene, Bailey visited Alfie Lyons but under Garda observation. No contamination of the scene could have occurred at that point.
(3) It originated as deliberate disinformation against Bailey or the Guards
Did I say he crunched the numbers?
Nick Fosters full of ****. Don't believe anything he says.
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.
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.
is this accurate and a reflection of Alfie at the time of this murder?
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/
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
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.
You brought probability theory into it.
I'm 90% sure Alfie smoked himself retarded.
Any wonder statements are retreated when we remember we have remarks like this on tape from AGS:
"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.”
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
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.
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.
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.
Thank you
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.
And a statement from Jules is the subject of this comments from Guards on the case, as noted above:
Her statements have been referenced numerous times here and elsewhere. I'm not going to do your leg work.
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.
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?
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..
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.
Lol.
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?
If Bailey did do it, how much ground would he have had to cover on the night?
