Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
But it wasn't overlooked
The bottle was tested and nothing was found.
So I said the reason Bailey became and remains a suspect had nothing to do with the gardai and you just ignore that and rehash the same old stuff you've been rehashing about the gardai.
It doesnt have to be just the gardai looking at suspects. Plenty of others have. Not one suspect has been brought up with the same level of suspicion and circumstantial evidence as Bailey. Even on here no one has provided a genuine alternative.
I was responding to the claim made by another poster that: "Experienced gardai saw the real Ian Bailey in interview."
I've no idea what point you think you are trying to make or how it is relevant to that discussion.
I'm pointing out that the entries in the log book relating to how Bailey was identified as a suspect were deliberately removed by Guard(s). A serious breach. So what you say about Bailey becoming a suspect has no standing or foundation.
Indeed- and they were so adamant that this “killer” would kill again soon if they weren’t caught- so even the Gardai have recognised the brutality of the murder and the instability of the perpetrator - so where’s the additional killing by Bailey in those 27 years???
Remote and all as is the place is, there was someone there of a far more disturbed mind than Baileys, is my view.
False alibis, admitting in court to having a feeling the night before something was going to happen, and going around telling people he did it as "black humour" didn't help, and would be more than enough to bring suspicion on anyone. So the suspicion was self inflicted.
If the entries were removed how does anyone know what they were related to? Did someone remove the entries and then write in the logbook what the entries were and that they were removed? Have you personally seen this logbook?
It is not my claim. It was widely reported as part of the GSOC investigation:
Missing pages from the garda ”Jobs Book” in relation to the murder investigation are of the most concern GSOC as the specific pages missing are from an area of the book when Ian Bailey seems to have first been identified as a potential suspect in the murder by gardaí – and as such, “they are potentially very significant”.
Job books are meant to form a complete record of all activity undertaken in a major or critical incident along with the rationale for the decisions made. The report stated that as the hard-backed book had a glued spine “it would not be possible for pages to simply fall out of the book by accident and for them to be removed, this would have to have been a deliberate act”.
Also missing:
https://www.thejournal.ie/grave-concern-over-missing-evidence-in-du-plantier-murder-investigation-4161933-Aug2018/
Fair enough.
No wrong.
It was only after he knew he had become a suspect that he started with the sarcastic humour.
"We don't know that because the Guards destroyed the record of how Bailey was identified as a suspect".
It looks like Bailey was first identified as a suspect on Fri. 27th Dec., number 166 in the jobs book number two, although his name had appeared earlier in jobs book number one
Bailey and Jules had gone into the local station under the pretext of informing the Gardaí about a party on Sat 21st Dec. Mar Dhea. Most likely it was to see what was going on and try to get information. The desk Sergeant didn't like the look of him and - Suspect ?
Note the pages after job number 166 are cut out and the next date is 30th Dec, I wonder what went on there in the few days after Bailey was identified as a suspect?
Edit;
I don't think his name actually appeared in jobs book number one. The man across the street from Marie Farrells shop was mentioned, of whom Marie Farrell later said "I now know to be Ian Bailey"
Is there any precedent for a suspect boasting that's he's responsible for the murder in a similar case
Being honest whether he was guilty or not I haven’t the slightest scrap of sympathy for him. Even before the arrest he wasn’t leading a very productive life, contributing zero to the country and sponging and leeching off the state and his partner. He was basically an educated bum and an educated bum is the most dangerous type of bum. Instead of licking his wounds and getting on with it like anyone else who got arrested and questioned about a murder he simply couldn’t let it go, preferring to inflict horrendous poetry and himself generally on an unwilling populace. It’s doubtful if anyone in west cork was sad to see the back of him.
All this is true, of course. But nothing justifies the Garda habit of falling in love with a pet theory, hunting around for "circumstantial evidence" to back it up, and refusing to let go of it.
Of course, Bailey may be guilty; and unfortunately, so may anyone else. If you review the detailed factual evidence summarised above in this thread by Bridget, you can see that the scanty evidence doesn't really point at any one person. And there's no suggestion of motive, either.
I'd love to have seen a DNA swab of that bottle. But these technologies weren't so highly developed back then.
To be honest, I don't know. However, I'm not aware of anyone relating to this case who boasted that he's responsible either (despite your deliberate attempt to portray Bailey's stupid sense of humour as an admission of guilt).
As I've said previously, the man was a complete c**t for what he did to Jules. That said, him being a complete c**t doesn't make him a murderer.
As for him sponging, leeching and contributing to society, he did write some stuff for the media. However, nobody would give him any work after he became a suspect so maybe that's why he had to resort to inflicting his crap poetry on people. Let's all assume for a moment that he's innocent, is he wrong for him to try and scrape a bit of self worth when he is at an absolute low?
Ok a reasonable theory but someone places an offering not throw it into a ditch. Also would it not be most likely placed nearer the site of the murder not 800M away?
The circumstancial evidence was there
It was the false eyewitness testimony they used to try and secure a prosecution
They're at fault for that
That's just another take on it
Your deliberate attempt to paint baileys confessions as a stupid sense of humour to paraphrase your remark
The fact is he made confessions
Did anyone except bailey paint them as stupid sense of humour ?
Maybe jules anyone else ?
I don't know how well hidden it was, you would probably want it to remain in situ for as long as possible so nowhere on the beaten path easily spotted. But fair point about the distance. You'd imagine a closer spot could be found.
Another option is it was stolen at some point from one of the holiday homes in the area and dumped for reasons... like needing a corkscrew and teenagers not having a clue about that just booze hunting.
I'm just putting those possibilities out there, probably it is connected to the murder but as noted like so much about this case it is tantalising without being conclusive.
Bailey had contradictory positions
On the one hand he was persecuted by the gardai etc. according him
(Which is patently false as I believe he was arrested 3 times in total ? )
And at the same time he managed to position himself at the centre of the case by his own words and actions etc
Ok but explanations for somebody unconnected with Sophie 'left' it there seem more unlikely.
It is unlikely
For every likelihood here ie; the wine bottle being connected
Someone will posit an alternative possible but unlikely theory
Other posters are posting likelihoods as "facts" here
There's very few facts in this case except that she was murdered
A random french tourist discarding an expensive bottle of wine near Sophie's house
Some of the stuff on here😁
Yes,
the DPP.
No the fact is he said something which according to him was not an admission. A confession (by definition) is an admittance. You want to believe what Bailey says is true but at the same time denying what he says has truth to it - make up your mind please!
Has anyone close to him said that they believe he did it?
Jules and others have provided claims that they believe his innocence (Jules said that she "knows" he was innocent given how he was unable to keep his mouth shut and how messy he was).
She's hardly going to say otherwise, that she knew he was guilty all along.
An expensive bottle of French wine (only available in France) found on the side of a coutry road in Ireland in a remote area close to where a French lady was murdered, close in that to place it any closer would involve going down the cul de sac and limiting the depositors to the people using that cul de sac. If it was placed there as a deflection then of course it would have to be" found" wouldn't it?
What did he say ?
Seems odd when the receivers took them seriously
https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/30/
Not sure what you're saying there regarding confessions
He told multiple people he killed her
As far as Jules stement re his guilt we have to be sceptical of that given her position. She may incriminate herself saying otherwise.
![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)
