Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
?
Agree with first paragraph
I believe it was clear to them and still is that they had the right man
For example that's been printed currently re cold case review indicates they are solely focussed on bailey
Also in't it known that gardai stated on more than one occasion that they got the right man
I believe that stated this to the family
You have alleged numerous times it was allowed go to the dump without a check.
Evidence?
But, as you already know, corrupt AGS did attempt to fabricate evidence. They also destroyed important evidence. They also effectively told everyone in the area that he was their man. The case against Bailey has been prejudiced (for whatever reason) from the early days.
Given that those corrupt gardai were involved in building a case against Bailey, why then do you still continue to believe that bailey is a prime suspect and, I believe, you stated that you believe he is the murderer? Given that you now do not know what evidence has been tainted by those corrupt gardai, how can you state with confidence that Bailey should be prime suspect? You also don't know what was originally evidence is now missing and we are completely unaware of. You also don't know the specific reasons for the corrupt gardai acting the way they did.
But you accept she did nothing that indicates anything suspicious or that she should be a suspect?
Glad we cleared that one up.
Look at the timings on the day.
In the time allotted before Shirley went on to the dump there was simply no way a car full of rubbish could have been properly checked for evidence.
Do you think the Guards stopped everything else they were doing to check all the rubbish in Shirley's car? How long would that take?
There was no proper check.
So how thoroughly was it examined? Was it forensically checked (by local gardai in the laneway without the specific forensic equipment) for hairs or fibres?
It's called securing the crime scene and if a garda back then was unaware of it then they shouldn't have been there!
You are missing the point - the gardai allowed a car to drive through the crime scene instead of staying in position. They then allowed a person (who should have been a suspect) drive off to the dump with rubbish. Evidence could have been destroyed or removed. The fact the car and rubbish were not forensically examined was negligent. A defence team would argue this point that there was potentially evidence destroyed and correct procedure was not adhered to.
How then could it clear to them he was the murderer.
Because the case against their other original suspects was even weaker.
And while their legal case may have been weak they probably had a gut feeling that it was him.
Many a weak case has been sent to the DPP.
Based on what I have seen, heard and read about this case I too have a gut feeling it was him, and I'm a million miles removed from it.
These guys were right there.
I've said many times that Bailey is only the likely killer
I'm not sure what point you're making with the rest
Are you disagreeing or not with my contention that it would be unsurprising if a corrupt AGS fabricated eyewitness testimony to secure confession and conviction
I believe it has been established for example that AGS attempted to alter the height of the eyewitness suspect to make him taller ?
Bailey is clearly prime suspect that is not in doubt
No. I didn't say that. Please dont try to put words in my mouth.
I do not accept that the removal of a vehicle and its contents from a live crime scene was normal behaviour.
That Shirley saw that as a priority at the time is curious.
That she was allowed to do so is also curious.
The vehicle and its contents should have been seized and taken to a proper facility for forensic analysis.
Given that we can safely assume that, to our knowledge, there has no new evidence of significant value (incriminating Bailey) introduced since the DPP's report, why then are the Cold Case team still focusing on him?
Also, given the many failures within this case by AGS including leaking case info, why are the Cold Case team talking to the media?
As for AGS saying they got the "right man", they possibly did. But there is nothing solid (even if you join up all the bits) against Bailey. It sounds like them having the "right man" is simply AGS are working off a gut feeling. Possibly in the same way that a decade earlier, they got the "right woman" in Joanne Hayes.
So maybe they needed to expand their list of suspects?
Gut feelings are a recipe for miscarriage of justice when it is based on weak, flimsy evidence (something the Guards have acknowledged of the case).
All the innocent people in jail for miscarriages of justice were put there by guys who were right there too.
Gut feelings for identifying a suspect is one thing, but it should not form the basis for an prosecution, or direct the focus of an investigation to the extent it did.
When combined with a high profile murder case, it can lead to scapegoating.
First para ? What are you saying?
We don't know what the cold case have to our knowledge or otherwise so we can't assume that
2nd paragraph mostly agree
No DNA or valid eyewitness
Gut feeling + various other bits
Hypothetically speaking, given all the evidence against Bailey that has convinced your gut, if (and it is hypothetical) the garda checked Shirley's car thoroughly and found Alfie's blood stained jumper, would you still think it was Bailey and if not, why not (given the strength of the evidence we currently have)?
If there was any new firm evidence pointing towards his guilt, they would have used it against Bailey. If it is just more circumstantial evidence along the lines of what they have already then it's really of no use. If they say they have the right man then this needs to be based on firm evidence!
The review isn't completed afaik
You said "evidence " to which I replied that we don't know
Your new point "firm evidence " I don't know either but it's obviously less likely
The indications from the media was that the case was being tightened. Other than that I'm not aware of any info that we can draw assumptions feom
They guy that said he followed attractive women?
You have absolutely no way of knowing what was checked, unless the check was documented. What time did she go to the dump?
Again, the known murder weapons remained at the scene. A bottle of wine was discarded which may or may not be relevant.
Its entirely possible their car was locked overnight and if the murder happened in the morning, its unlikely they wouldn't have noticed someone opening their car door. Likewise its unlikely they wouldn't have noticed bloody handprints on the car doors.
In other words you are alleging without a shred of evidence to back it up, the very thing you've been complaining about ad nauseum on here.
To summarize there is no evidence the neighbours had anything to do with this murder.
I believe the suspect in the Kerry babies case denied everything from day one and rightly so. They certainly didn't go around making jokes about it, and claiming to have done it. Or were found to have fabricated a fake alibi which came from their own mouth! Or lied about various other aspects of their statements such as having a premonition but then denying they had a premonition later when it didn't suit. Or did the suspect in the Kerry babies case have a record of almost killing a baby in the months previous.
Don't think the cold case review are leaking info so how can we assume anything
We only have indications afail that they are solely focussed on bailey
Is there any of baileys articles from the early days where he was pointing the finger at the French?
Might be an interesting read
You have absolutely no way of knowing what was checked. But as I said, given the timings on the day, the notion that a a car full of rubbish could have been properly checked doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
The Guards at the time had no notion what the murder weapons were.
Why would the hands have to be bloody? Your argument makes no sense. They didn't hear a violent murder next door. I've no way of knowing what they would or wouldn't have noticed or why a handprint would have to be bloody. Just because there was a bloody handprint on the door doesn't imply what you think - they could have cleaned it off and dumped whatever they cleaned it with. Alfie claims not to have gone without 20 yards of the body, yet his action suggest otherwise.
It's entirely possible there was evidence in those rubbish bags. It doesn't mean Shirley put it there. Why do you think police forces check bins in the vicinity of a murder?
Yes, see how easy it is to create suspicion of circumstantial possibly innocent behaviour? If you apply the same standard to Shirley's actions as the prism through which Bailey's are viewed, her actions are highly suspicious.
To summarize, there is no evidence Bailey had anything to do with the murder either, if by evidence you mean any real evidence.
No other suspect has come even remotely close to Bailey as a possibility.
There may be a hidden unknown suspect out there of course, but of mentioned suspects, no-one comes close. All were discounted by the gardai for one reason or another such as having a water-tight alibi, something Bailey could never claim.
Ah right so Alfie didn't go near the body and this is somehow suspicious.
And if he went near the body you'd say he was trying to contaminate the scene as an excuse.
What utter nonsense. Once again there is nothing suspicious in his or his wife's actions that day. They acted very logically under the circumstances and Alfie has to be commended for not trying to contaminate the scene. Shirley can't be held responsible either as she likely was in shock and wasn't thinking straight.
Everything we know points to him but sadly no proof as of yet
French connection, alfi , burglar , random stranger , bantry garda all much less likely
It's human nature in some to look for a different explanation rather than the obvious, the prime suspect.
It would have been innocent enough for someone to get closer to the body to try to determine if they are alive, needing medical treatment etc. Didn't Alfie mention something about a possible hit and run? 20 yards is some distance.
Everything is suspicious to the suspicious eye.
I've read people saying that Bailey turning up at the scene was suspicious. And it could just as easily be argued had Bailey as a journalist in the area NOT turned up it could be viewed as suspicious.
That has actually only ever came from Marie Farrell.
She claims that the Gardai suggested to her that he be tailer.
It's never been established only in the mind of Marie Farrell.
The Bantry Guarda is brought to you by the late Ian Bailey.
He got a letter with a Christmas card that said it was a Bantry Guarda.
I'll leave it here again
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e68aa2b0e039b12ade8384a2f42841c6.svg)
