Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
Gow do you get this;
"You're arguing that ANother left DNA at the crime scene therefore it was a frenzied attack by ANother"
From this;
"We also know that there was DNA of ANother on Sophie's boot so your point doesn't really stand up."
??
Unless you believe that all the DNA found at the scene could only be either Sophie's or her attacker?
what I don’t understand how using she had an illegitimate child be such leverage to make such statements, we are not living in the 1800s
and also it’s never been mentioned again that it was true, so there might not even be one, it was said in a few articles in the beginning as her reason for lying but has never been mentioned again and never proven to be true so I’m taking it as it’s just another lie with her
The DPP doesn't have to solve the case. They have no investigative role, not should they. Their role is solely to determine if the case that has been submitted to them merits prosecution.
In this case, on three separate occasions, the DPP has determined there was not sufficient merit for prosecution in what was submitted by the gardaí.
Wonder who he’s playing
In terms of the briars injuries to both victim and alleged perpetrator, Shirley some comparison photos could have been taken - it wouldn’t be conclusive proof by any means, but it would certainly steer most people to disregard the turkey/tree cutting excuse if the injuries sustained were very similar.
I know the Gardai probably didn’t try very hard to replicate Baileys injuries but it would certainly be worth a try- use the same species of tree that Bailey used (I’m sure it was well known at this stage) - and simply carry out the same procedure he did- even if you only get a few scratches they should be similar to the hand drawings (assuming Bailey validated that the hand drawings were accurate in the first place
Ive snagged my arm on briars many a time - it’s not pretty - bloody “drag marks” is what best describes them - of course you stop instantly and try to detangle yourself- if you are forced to keep moving your arms /hands you’ll certainly end up with a hell of a lot of rip marks - shredded skin all over the place
Im actually surprised some armchair detective hasn’t tried this themselves already
They did actually send a Garda up a tree . He came down with no discernible scratches. They couldn’t afford a brace of 25 lb turkeys though.
Marie Farrell?
🤪
I found a link actually to examples of briar injuries
Can someone confirm if this is the hand drawing completed in the early stages of the investigation or is this something done years later from memory as an example of what a witness saw?
Certainly there’s similarity between the drawing and the persons injuries above that are stated on the website as coming from briars- the underarm injuries in particular are very similar
https://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2012/11/25/the-farm-report-jungle-boogie/
Another thing to add to the mix - handling pine trees can produce a nasty /oozing rash for some people
https://www.justanswer.com/health/0bv4n-bumpy-rash-arms-trimming-pine.html
I wonder did they remove and preserve briars from the location - it would seem logical today to do that given the information it could provide from a DNA perspective but back then?
The briars were cut and sent to a Forensic Lab in the UK for examination.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
I’m so sick of seeing this rubbish she did not have an illegitimate child!
everyone in her hometown knows exactly what she is
she had a child with the man she was married to
how she is using that an excuse is pretty unreal it’s not like people don’t know
And so would Sophies and so would anyone elses DNA
I would like someone to argue the DPPs assertion that because there was none of Bailey's DNA it wasnt a frenzied attack by him
That's not how I read their point.
To me, they are saying that the contention by the gardai that Bailey received the scratches on his hand from the briars whilst attacking Sophie, is undermined by the fact that such contact with briars would leave forensic traces. As the briars were forensically examined and no such traces were found, the contention that the scratches are evidence of Bailey's involvement in the crime is rejected.
As someone who has followed this case for a long time, I only heard this allegation recently.
Don't know where it originated.
The DPP asserts nothing. They merely assess whether the evidence submitted sufficiently supports the case submitted, and it didn't.
It was printed in both the village magazine and the Irish times
I did see it from very early on when she retracted her statements as she had said guards coerced her into making statements by saying they would keep secret the fact she had a child in longford
but this hasn’t even been proven true or spoken about in more detail so I can’t say if it is true obviously the poster above seems to know
Thanks.
But keep secret from who exactly?
from what I took from it this child was a secret people didn’t know about and it was in an earlier post that guards used the fact she had an illegitimate child they knew about
below is the extract from the Irish times
Yeah we are being told by posters that the Guards had Bailey in front of them and trust their instinct that Bailey is the murderer.
The same guards had Marie Farrell in front of them and tried to pass her off as a credible witness. Corrupt or incompetent or both?
But they clearly destroyed their credibility for any claims about their 'instinct'.
I definitely think both corrupt and incompetent
The extension the Guards or some of the responsible Guards went to steer this case in the wrong direction would suggest they were protecting one of their own.
Bailey did supply his DNA early on, voluntarily, without a court order or anything.
His DNA wasn't found anywhere on the scene of the crime, not on Sophie, not on the brambles or briars, not on the house, not on the gates.
This there is nothing to kink Bailey forensically with the crime. This is totally unrelated how often he had beaten up Jules, how many drinks he had, or what other women he may have beaten up.
From the article
"many in the media need to justify why they regurgitated Garda spin and ignored the DPP’s forensic legal document – packed with evidential detail and inconvenient facts – that eviscerated the Garda case against Bailey."
As someone who only had a passing interest in the case I always assumed Bailey probably did it . I thought there probably just wasn't enough evidence and the cops bungled the case.
It was only after Ian Bailey died that I read the DPP's report and it was a shock to the system. The horror that an innocent man was hounded into an early grave dawned on me. An "appalling Vista" to quote another well known case. We are poorly served by the media in this country.
When people say there was no trace of Bailey's DNA found at the scene, I'm assuming a lot of DNA evidence would have destroyed by the weather, hairs blown away etc. Was there any DNA found at the scene?
Its unclear what effect weather would have... I dont know if if rained between the window for the murder and forensics being done.
Lots of DNA found - all Sophies. Including bloody hand print on door.
Unidentified DNA found on her boot.
The briars were checked for blood, Sophies fingernails checked - no other DNA found.
Interesting. On her boot, are the sure it was someone's DNA or could it have been hers also but not a conclusive DNA profile?
Pretty sure it wasnt matched either to Sophie or Bailey.
It may have come from before the murder, the murder or contamination.
The evidence bag was not sealed properly. Its a concern when stuff is collected from a less forensic aware time and retested with more sensitive latest tech.
The thing is, even if the DNA on the boot is identified, it will be uncertain, if this was from the time when the crime was committed, thus this is also hard.
Suppose the blood stain was from a couple of days before? Hard to prove the contrary.
A lot of people have said Bailey's DNA wasn't found which is evidence of his innocence. But if no "stranger" profiles of DNA have been found then this irrelevant.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
