Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
The term I had meant to use was "messy" because this is what Thomas described him as when, despite everything, she remains convinced of his innocence...
“If he done something like that, I would have known. He is messy. I would have seen blood. I would have seen all sorts of things.”
As for why he would leave DNA, the point I clearly made was that part of the AGS "evidence" against him is the scratches which they are claiming were made during the struggle. And despite these "wounds", he left no trace on the block!
Ok was just wondering your reasoning there
I read the independent link and her defence of Bailey. Frankly its a bit bizarre. She says Ian would have been emotional and not keep it to himself. Except he didn't keep it to himself. He told multiple people over the years he did it and was at times emotional when doing it.
She never told a lie? Did she not change her account multiple times? Initially saying Bailey was in bed all night beside her and then changed it to he got up, which blew his own alibi out of the water. She said she asked about the cut on his head, he said it was a stick. He later changed it to a turkey as did she. And later still in a radio interview changed it to a stick or a turkey!
Good luck with her suit, but can't see her winning.
Re the scratches Bailey did not become a suspect until several weeks into the case so its hard to determine how anyone could say for sure how severe they were. The garda contention is he was scratched at the scene. He could have been scratched with the christmas tree too, and still carried out the murder. Its not an either/or situation and was always one of the weakest parts of the garda case. It showed what amateurs they were as an experienced detective would drop it, knowing it was contentious.
The forensics team found no evidence on briars and wire. Therefore the murderer was not scratched by SDP and was unlikely to be scratched by briars or wire either. Basically the gardai hadn't a clue and its amazing how many people still give credibility to several contentious aspects of the garda theories.
As I said on the other thread, Gardai rushed the investigation and took shortcuts. Had they been more patient and by the book , Bailey would have probably died in prison.
Sophie's son is on The Late Late Show tonight.
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/son-sophie-toscan-late-late-32025791
Shame that Bailey died
I'd like to see the evidence come out into the open . It might settle the issue in peoples minds as to his likely guilt
With the Marie Farrell stuff, I find it very difficult to understand why she didn't just say she was out driving on her own.
You've got a woman who says she was in the area at the time of the murder. She claims she was with another man and they both saw a 3rd man (allegedly Bailey) also in the area at the time of the murder.
Eventually, parts of her story change and she really loses all credibility. Yet, the one part that seems to stick is that there was this unidentified man in the car with her. We are able to see her go back on several aspects of her statements, claims that the guards forced her to make stuff up and changing the description of people she saw, but the man in the car with her is still there and still unidentified.
It's a very odd thing that this mysterious man should be lurking just out of view in the whole narrative of the case against Bailey, especially in France where it was a big part of the basis for his conviction. I wonder who that man is supposed to be and if he saw Bailey down by the bridge or not.
I don't think she was even out driving in her car.
I think she thought she was helping the police or something.
When you take the time to read this it seems pretty obvious that he didn't do it and there is just no way that there was ever going to be a successful conviction. Thanks for sharing.
But why not just say she was out driving alone? Why her insistence in the presence of this unidentified male?
Obviously I think she is a complete fantasist. I just can't wrap my head around the insistence on this particular detail while everything else changes.
What evidence? Are you referring to evidence discovered since they asked the DPP to put Bailey forward for trial (several times) and the DPP's response was that the evidence was useless? Or has some fantastic new evidence come against Bailey to light that AGS have deliberately withheld from the DPP and AGS have been deliberately biding their time for a suitable moment in which to go public with it?
As for settling the issue in people's minds as to his likely guilt, sure you've decided without any evidence so I guess it is no surprise that the general public will see him as the murderer. This is helped in part by AGS effectively telling the public that he's their man.
More of baileys lies ...
" Even before your first arrest, you made an ill-advised comment to a local 14-year-old whom you’d picked up hitchhiking.
Malachi Reid. Yes. He asked me how things were going and I said, ‘Well, things were going well until people started saying that I was the murderer and had bashed her brains out’. That got completely twisted and turned.
So you’re saying you were joking.
He just asked me how things were going and I answered things were going fine until people started saying I had something to do with the crime.
I understand that you were a bit more direct than that.
I think I might have been a little bit more direct.
Malachi’s statement to the guards said you told him you ‘went up there with a rock and bashed her **** brains in’.
I don’t think I used that language, exactly, but I did make mention of it. He lived nearby, and his mother still lives nearby. I would have known him and I would have picked him up on previous occasions. And subsequently he took lifts off me from Schull."
Bailey supposed to be a journalist according to himself
Lying through his teeth
Bailey also claimed that DTDP had a large insurance policy on his wife's death
Has this been established as fact
That was just more of his "Oh look over there" strategy and largely irrelevant.
The man was enourmously wealthy, he bought the house for Sophie as a gift.
Ya bailey was all distraction and lies
Originally it was the husband behind it then it was the bantry garda
So he is describing how he told a stupid joke regarding the accusations against and this somehow makes him a liar in your view? I often use dark humour and my OH will sometimes remind me afterwards that the person I was talking to doesn't get that type of humour. It doesn't make me a liar though.
Seriously, are you unable to approach this case from an impartial perspective?
When did Malachi Reid go to the Gardaí with this statement?
Evidence of lies provided: Zero.
The lad seriously believed Bailey had confessed to the murder... as evidenced by his willingness to continue taking lifts from Bailey.
Were obviously not on the same wavelength here . Not sure what you mean about being impartial
First he said he confessed
Then he lied about the confession in the interview
Among many other suspicious things about Bailey
What evidence do you have that Malachi Reid continued to take lifts from Bailey after Bailey confessed to him that he was the murderer?
It's in the quoted article.
But that's an Ian Bailey's quote in the article.
You seriously think his word is good enough to accept as fact? Lol.
But he didn't confess!
As for you not being impartial - you're not. You've decided on his guilt despite there being nothing aside from some very short circumstantial threads which all lead to nothing. based on the evidence, if htis case were to be reviewed by an independent team e.g. FBI or from Uk, would Bailey even be a significant suspect? I do not believe so.
Here's the DPP report too backing up that Malachi Reed didn't take it seriously until the Guards put the wind up him.
It is abundantly clear that Malachi Reed was not upset by Ian Bailey on 4 February 1997, however, following his conversation with Gda. Kelleher he became upset and turned a conversation which had not apparently up until then alarmed him into something sinister.
In fairness, it was a quote from Ian Bailey in the article
has the kid verified that he took lifts off him afterwards?
Yes.
When asked why he accepted a lift from Mr Bailey on two further occasions, Mr Reed replied: "Because I didn't have the opportunity to jump over the ditch."
Mr Reed is made of sterner stuff than Bill Fuller it seems. Happy to take a lift from someone he thinks is a murderer rather than risk ending up in a ditch.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/boy-heard-how-womans-brains-were-bashed-in/25919004.html
That link makes it abundantly clear to anyone with even half a brain he wasn't happy to take lifts from Bailey after hearing him confess to the murder.
The information makes it abundantly clear to any good faith reader that the lad didn't react at the time as if it was an actual confession. Any good faith reader can see that the wording reported it was not a confession, it was Bailey reported what was being said about him. And it has been established he still took lifts from Bailey afterwards - so he was 'happy' to take the lift in that sense. He was happy to take it rather than walk the long way home. Not the actions fearful he was in a car with a mad murderer.
So this is a total mountain out of a molehill. Total nothing burger.
Yes, it was his mother who decided that he was traumatised by the conversation.
Malachi, to his credit refused to testify in France. BUt his Mum couldn't resist a few minutes in the limelight.
Bailey is, undoubtedly, the architect of his own problems. His mouth has got him into all sorts of problems. He never did learn to button his lip.
Anyone with a full brain would realise he was happy to take the ride.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
