Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
It is on the Guards\prosecution to make the case. An innocent person may lie, or get details wrong.
If he was in such a drunken haze we come back to the point, how did he manage to make his way over to Sophies in the middle of the night, commit a bloody murder, and yet leave no trace.
So maybe he was nowhere near Sophie's... and he frequently has hazy memories from drink... there was no murder on the Saturday night yet he still got the information wrong to no apparent advantage.
Maybe he was worried if he disclosed alcohol obscured recollection to the Guards on the night of the murder, that would be a blank cheque for them to pin the murder on him (from his perspective).
Or if as you suggest he was being economical with the truth, to what purpose with regard to the Saturday night?
That's when he was first arrested on suspicion of the murder.
Before that, days after the murder, he was spoken to and asked to account for his whereabouts.
You missed the ?
The DPP report mentions questionnaires Bailey answered for the Guards on 31 December 1996 & 14 January 1997, but it doesn't list all the questions, just selected ones.
So it was probably the questionnaire on the 31st that Bailey put down the incorrect information for both the Saturday and Sunday nights.
Or he could have put different answers on both,who knows.
Yeah, he was caught out lying on the first questionnaire.
He gave himself an alibi for the time of the murder when in fact he afterwards admitted he was alone and had no alibi.
Actually I don't think the gardai did waste time on a wild goose chase to France as a couple of Bailey supporters on here were vocal in questioning why the gardai didn't spend time in France. There's nothing to point to the answers lying in France.
He wrote and filed an article with the Sunday Tribune during the night. Two editors confirmed this. They had extended his deadline to facilitate him. There's no way he managed to do this while roaming around the countryside murdering random strangers.
Article was 750 words in length. An established hack could write it up in an hour. He'd already researched it and for all we know was 90% written.
Really?
Tell us more.
The biggest financial motive for murdering Sophie lies in France with her husband Daniel. But some still refuse to believe that.
I also doubt that Bruno's alibi with just a signature of a telephone technician who sees many clients every day is that credible. Any man looking similar to Bruno could have signed some paperwork, and after 20 or 30 on site calls the technician won't be able to remember exactly who singed that paperwork, - and he didn't even ask ID, or possibly see a credible forged ID. Anybody could have fooled a telecom technician, is what I am saying here.
Now it's too late anyway. Such a case should have an early involvement of French police from the start.
This has been gone over numerous times. No one has wanted a more professional, thorough investigation done of this murder than the French family and indeed state. When the Irish investigation was closed down after hitting a dead end, but with Bailey the main suspect, you'd think if the murderer was Daniel he'd be happy with this. In the clear, not a suspect.
But oh no, he wanted the investigation restarted and done properly. Is that logical for a murderer?
Is there evidence they were divorcing
The problem is there doesn't seem to be anything substantial related to any theory.
Except bailey
Nobody can really say why other suspects were ruled out or what prompted the Gardai to bring Bailey in again as pages relating to that period were removed from the Garda jobs books for the investigation.
As far as I know Sophie asked for a divorce. She wasn't happy in the marriage, and neither was he. They were both seeing other partners, and knew about that. She was seeing Bruno, he was seeing the next wife, who announced pregnancy soon after Sophie's death. We also know that he had financial constraints, whatever that meant for a man like him. Money was certainly a concern, especially as Sophie would have been a single mother, with a son out of a previous marriage.
None whatsoever, they were happily married.
Not in the DPP's opinion, three times.
Bailey also called for the case to be reopened. Is this logical for a murderer?
Thats a different matter. Evidence sufficient for a prosecution
What we're discussing here is a level below that
That's all we have here speculation and available evidence
Yes, that's there role.
But, if you read the report carefully and consider the nuances, they didn't just respond in the negative, they completely eviscerated it.
And the Director himself called the investigation flawed and prejudiced. "Flawed" is acriticism, "Prejudiced" is a condemnation.
The DPP does more than that with the 'evidence'.
On multiple points finds Baileys version of events to be credible.
Calls out unsafe conduct by Guards with regard to witnesses and by implication their claims.
What i read left me unconvinced
In fact I was surprised at the amateurish nature of the report . What I read.
He factored in a dermatologists opinion of baileys demeanor when examining his hands
Chapter 10 or 12 hard to take that seriously
Also very speculative on lack of baileys DNA
You can argue as Sophie as scratched that any killer therefore should have left DNA
Ah here now, you can't go around objectively judging Ian Bailey using the same yardstick as other potential suspects. If everyone did that there wouldn't be clear reason to consider one potential suspect above another. </sarcasm>
It wasn't just DNA. It was any forensic evidence.
The case presented by the Gardai relied on, firstly, Marie Farrell's sighting of him at the bridge and secondly the scratches on his hands. Clearly, if Bailey's hands were scratched by the briars, then there would be forensic traces on the briars. skin cells, blood, clothing fibres hair etc. And there wasn't. None at all. So the "circumstantial evidence" of the scratches was, logically, dismissed.
Yes the eyewitness testimony was false and can be discounted
On the scratches though he had a variety of explanations
Also the DPP stated that the lack of forensics indicates baileys scratches were not caused by a frenzied attack
This is highly speculative imo as the killer (whoever it was)would likely be scratched and likely therefore should have left forensics
If you think the DPP report is amateurish I dont know what perjorative you can apply to the Garda case against Bailey which the report discredits.
The entire Garda scenario for Bailey as murderer is very speculative. In assessing it of course the DPP report will consider the speculative scenario.
The reason for mentioning the demeanour has already been explained. No indication Bailey was making any efforts to hide his hands... which might have been expected of a murderer scratched at scene of murder. It was winter. Bailey made no attempt at hiding his hands at parties or in public with gloves which would be normal in winter.
You also overlook the main point about the dermatologists evidence which is that it discredits the Garda case against Bailey as being scratched by briars.
Just because Sophie was scratched by briars the killer(s) dont have to have been. Depending on what was worn or how the events unfolded.
That doesnt apply in a situation where Bailey is supposed to have been scratched at the scene.
No Tom.
The point is that if the scratches happened at the attack, then there would have been forensic traces at the scene.
There weren't any. So they didn't. Subsequently, the scratches were not evidence.
No ambiguity. Whatever caused scratches, it wasn't the briars , which is what the Gardai claimed.
What's the bar here ..
10% likely Alfie and the Husband
50% thereabouts , the chances bailey killed her imo
80% , burden of proof needed for prosecution
95% enough evidence to convict
I'm only working at the 50% range with every available circumstancial evidence and suspicion pointing at bailey
There are no other credible suspects imo
![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)
