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.
Someone was hanging out in Sophie`s house when she wasn`t there. He may have been there multiple times. Alfie lived next door. Could have been him. Certainly makes sense that Sophie might have suspected him. Bailey did a bit of gardening for Alfie, attended at least one gathering there, could have been him. Alfie had his own bath. Bailey fell on hard times around the time of the break in. Might have needed a wash and a drink.
The wine may not have been stolen when the bath was used and was deposited on what would have been Baileys route out of there.
So he had a blackout decided to a take bath, steal a bottle a wine, stash it, but then he forget where he stashed it and couldn't remember why he was clean presumably?
That sounds like complete fúcking nonsense, doesn't it?
Be honest.
They don`t throw them away. They do hide them though with the intention of coming back to them at a later date. Those darned blackouts though. Kinda like a squirrel forgetting where he buried the nuts.
Be suspicious all you want, but it puts to bed your theory that he came up with this story to get himself a lighter sentence in 2010 and that it was part of a wider Garda led conspiracy to get Bailey. Boys being boys, testosterone and all that, it is something that you would remember. It would particularly have been ingrained in your memory when the lady was murdered and would have stayed there afterwards.
Bolger was never asked about Bailey after the murder and didn`t think he had anything important to disclose.
The whole argument about the frailty of "recovered" memories of witnesses, (something which the DPP relied on) is a nonsense. The murder was a momentous event locally and local residents recall would have been crystalized by it so that even if they were asked by Gardaí months later they were likely to remember the detail with reasonable accuracy.
Caroline Leftwick for example. The call she got from Bailey the morning after the murder. She was`t recalling that several months later. That phonecall and it`s timing would have been to the forefront of her thoughts only days after the murder when it was becoming apparent that Bailey was a suspect.
That doesn't answer my question though, does it?
He could have been tanked up or had more at his house
Throwing the bottle away is probably suggestive it was involved
Do many alcoholics throw away bottles of wine?
It is still a miraculous memory, to remember a brief social interaction from years earlier, utterly unimportant at the time it occurred, to which he was just a bystander.
Reason one to be suspicious of it.
Did Leo Bolger ever say when this happened? It was not recent to the murder by all accounts, and yet he recalls it years later but not after the murder. Doesn't add up and never has.
He didn't disclose this information directly after the murder which was when it would be obvious to anyone sincere that it when it was most timely?
So again that should immediately make people suspicious of the story.
Here we have him putting himself forward because a newspaper was looking for someone to corroborate their defence in a libel case. Purely out of the goodness of his heart for sure.
A man running a sophisticated drugs operation who got off with a suspended sentence. Who knows what shenanigans such a man could get up to.
Turns out Leo`s memory isn`t nearly as miraculous as you continually claim. Leo was arrested in 2010 and you have continually maintained that this was when Leo invented the Bailey/Sophie introduction. Go on then....I`ll quote what West Cork Podcast says....
"The thing is, 2010 wasn`t the first time that Leo told anyone about what he saw. Years earlier, Leo spoke to a lawyer for the newspapers that Ian sued for libel named Paula Mullooly. She told us that they`d heard there was someone who could corroborate Alfie`s story about an encounter between Ian and Sophie and they tracked Leo down. Leo was even lined up to testify at the trial but the case was settled so he never got called up to the stand....Mullooly told us that the story Leo told them back then matches what he says today."
Other posters have taken apart this entire line of argument on multiple points.
"There is no evidence that any other bathroom fixture was used."
Why would there be? Some actions don't leave any evidence as has been pointed out to you. This is all then more ironic given that you have absolutely zero evidence or reasonable suggestion it was Bailey.
And this is from the Irish Independent:
"Ms Hellen claimed that Sophie suspected that someone was getting into the house to use her water and bathroom facilities while she was away."
You're seriously arguing that a ring in a bath was noticed and not a missing bottle of wine! This is speculation on top of speculation which has no credibility.
So you know Bailey had access to another property, a property that might reasonably expected to have hot water... yet still continue with this speculation he would go to another place 4km where he could be seen, on the off chance he might be able to get into it and it would have hot water and wine? The proposition makes no sense.
Leo Bolger of the miraculous memory and the suspiciously light suspended sentence for a sophisticated drugs operation? He has no credibility either. Remembering unimportant (at the time) social interaction years later - nope. Nor does he say that Sophie was to the "forefront" of Bailey's thoughts at time of the murder if ever.
Nobody involved suspected Bailey, the locks were changed. It was pretty obvious who was suspected as you well know from following the case.
Does the West Cork podcast suggest Bailey as the person using the bath? Which episode? Or are you misrepresenting them to support your own invented claim?
Are there any high profiles cases of coppers trying to frame a guilty man?
"Nobody said the only water used was the bath"
There is no evidence that any other bathroom fixture was used.
"A dirty ring in the bath is noticed and not a missing bottle of wine?"
The wine was more likely to have been assumed consumed by one of the numerous welcome visitors. I wouldn`t notice a bottle of wine going missing from my house.
"based on complete speculation"
Actually no. It is based on Leo Bolger`s description of the lead up to Alfie`s introducing Sophie to Bailey on West Cork Podcast.
"Why would Bailey go to a random house when there was a separate studio cottage?"
First of all it wasn`t a random house. It was the holiday home of the French TV producer that Bailey was clearly initially anxious to be introduced to. Of course there also has to be something of interest that gets you all riled up to go out for those famous long night time walks. Was it you or perhaps someone else who was recently going on about the studio being part of the family home and not a separate entity down the road at all? If he was banished to the studio after that assault, are you sure there was hot water available there? God forbid he had to buy his own alcohol.
You should take a listen to the West Cork Podcast. It undermines a couple of your core beliefs that you have pedaled on these threads to undermine the case against Bailey for some time now.
The locks were changed soon afterwards, so Sophie probably realised whoever used the bathroom had a key. They would also have to be familiar enough with the house to switch on the power and water pump and fire up the oil fired stove. You don’t need great imagination to figure who that might be.
Nobody said the only water used was the bath. Just that the bath was dirty so noticed. If you just used water from the place for your toilets, how would anyone know.
Why would Bailey go to a random house when there was the separate studio cottage?
No reports of any bottles of wine being taken from the property.
A dirty ring in the bath is noticed but not a missing wine bottle? I think we can safely rule that out.
Then you make a statement like "The reality is that Sophie was probably to the forefront of Bailey's thoughts"... based on complete speculation.
So, fixed your post:
Probably a nonsense pedaled by someone trying to find a reason to propose it was Bailey.
Of course not. But a night time wanderer, who was kicked out of his primary accommodation in 1993, probably needed a wash, might have been a few bottles of French wine lying about, knew the lie of the land well....all very tempting isn`t it? And that bottle of wine and where it was found?
Alfie had no water? Probably a nonsense pedaled by someone trying to find a reason why Sophie proposed it was Alfie. When the water supply fails you deal with it immediately and the last issue you will have will be taking a bath. First priority is get the toilets flushed.
The reality is that Sophie was probably to the forefront of Bailey`s thoughts for some time given her associations and occupation. It is obvious from what Leo Bolger said to West Cork Podcast that Bailey wanted to show his poetry to Sophie. To what level she interacted with him afterwards will never be known for certain, but I would find it incredible if over a couple of years he had never made contact with her to regale her with his bullshit poetry.
He had an extremely elevated sense of his own artistic ability, used to make eyes roll and move the public on when he pushed forward with his recitations and seems to have had no self awareness at all as to how crap it all was.
There in no suggestion that Bailey was the person suspected of breaking into Sophie's house to take a bath. The person most suspected is, I believe, Alfie.
In reference to this can we confirm that bailey did take showers there in 1993...
1993
If you think he was having baths there, he would have left plenty of DNA behind in the drains... So this is going for flights of fancy at this stage.
There have been countless “ex detectives” rolled out for TV programmes and radio interviews through the years - each one more pompous and arrogant than the last. The programme documentary on the 70s /80s “heavy group of detectives” or whatever they were called was one of the most repulsive I’ve seen where they had no problem in justifying their actions of interrogation - sick bastards is too polite a description for them
Complete Muldoon.
He is half the reason I think Bailey may have well been stitched up.
Yes for level of knowledge they are supposed as super intendant to have I felt he was nasty price of work.. it's on his conscious that he let course of investigation go on way it did...the book would have stopped with him..and can't believe he went along with tampering of statements , misleading witnesses etc. , etc.
Every minute of first two weeks were vital..and they were wasted on this investigation.
Dwyers patter was interesting in the documentaries. He had a sort of self satisfied demeanour. An implied superiority. He appeared like he was explaining basic detective work to a room of schoolchildren. Ironically he came across almost as arrogant as Bailey at times.
His efforts to appear competent and experienced in the interviews evaporates when the mistakes and mishaps of the gardai are laid bare.
It’d be interesting to hear an analysis of the gardais performance from a seasoned detective at Scotland Yard.
"Another item going missing. You wouldn't want be working in lost and found with this lot."
Or maybe you would... sticky fingers.
Incompetent for sure but a nasty piece of work too in my view
Another item going missing. You wouldn't want be working in lost and found with this lot.
I've never heard that statement before as reliable as chocolate fire guard:) . Suits him perfect.
I couldn't believe how drole he was a on Netflix documentary..reminded me this is what the case is like. May or may not get answers... trudging along. Sure once we are seeing to be doing a bit we will be grand sure. No panic. We will get evidence eventually , something will turn up sure. Put on kettle there.
Was gonna come on here and post the same. The guy looks like he takes a real Hicksville Tennessee approach to policing.
Edit: also, probably why Bailey said the guards weren't used to dealing with intelligent people!
I saw the Dwyer fella on the Jim Sheridan documentary and thought he was an embarrassment - is it any wonder the case was never solved with Gardai like him working on it?
Dwyer actually said no coat had ever been taken.
Coat was put into evidence but then disappeared.
Dwyer is about as reliable as a chocolate fire guard.
The missing exhibits included:
a) a blood-spattered gate taken from close to where Madame Toscan Du Plantier's body was found,
b) a French wine bottle found four months after the murder in a field next to the scene,
c) a black overcoat belonging to Ian Bailey,
d) the original memo of interview of Jules Thomas following her arrest in 1997,
e) an original witness statement from Marie Farrell provided on 5 March 2004,
f) an original witness statement from Jules Thomas dated 19 February 1997
And of course the DPP’s assertion was - “he could have burned clothes- not he did burn clothes”
Aside from I think Jules mentioning that if the blood stains from shorts worn when killing the turkeys didn’t come out, these might have been burned- there was no other mention of other clothes being burnt
