Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
Very dubious to me that Griffin and Farrell both report a beret then Griffin says...
"When I saw him on 12th January I saw that the hair was very black and heavy which may have appeared to me a black beret when I first saw him."
Both of them independently mistook the hair for a beret? Doesnt add up.
Hard to separate out any kernel of truth from such an amount of lies.
The point I'm making is that the statement she made in 2006 totally contradicts the statements both she and Dan Griffin made in the immediate aftermath of the murder.
Seems remarkable that Griffin had never laid eyes on such a distinctive character as Bailey before about town.
Strange how Marie Farrell mentions Dan Griffin in above statement But Dan Griffin does not mention Marie Farrell in below statement
Edit: just seen your most recent post...never mind
didnt matter what he said ,he had the get out of Jail card of his FOREIGN SENSE OF HUMOUR that locals mistook for the truth
What Jim Sheridan made of his “humour”
About 15 mins in if you can’t be bothered with the rest of it;
Wonder do people believe he went home that night and was worried about not having much work lined up so decided to go and randomly murder someone so he would have something to report on for a while. Seems a bit of a stretch.
Are you going to explain this post or just leave it?
Motive is a good one
Attractive french lady shows up dead battered to death at her gate
What likely happened is someone showed up at her place and things got out of hand
Other scenarios are much less likely and no evidence points away from above
Complete stretch.
I don't believe that even considering Bailey's level of narcissism he would go that far.
And even though he did tell a newspaper editor in a supposed serious conversation that that's what happened I didn't believe it was the case.
The motive wasn't publicity
Bailey was a complicated character
The motive wasn't likely straight sex as some posters like to postulate
Probably some psycho sexual infatuation
I explained it a few posts later,
However on looking again, it's possible the bags are hidden by Shirley's car, parked up at the cordon . That would mean the photo of the bags could only have been taken in the time it took Shirley to go to Schull and back (unlikely) or several days later when the cordon was lifted allowing Shirley to bring her car back home. In which case I owe @tobefrank321 an apology.
I've just checked the other photos and it is clear that the gate is still in situ and the undergrowth has not been cut back. Officer Tony Byrne, who took that particular photo did not arrive on scene until late on the night of 23rd so the photo was probably taken on 24th as his statement says he attended the scene on that day and took photographs.
When was the photo of the bags taken, do you know?
We've been over this. Here is the statement of the garda. It feels like your doubting him. The allegation that the gardai allowed Shirley drive off with a car full or rubbish is completely false and a myth.
"Further confirmation comes in a statement from Sgt John Healy who arrived at the scene at @14.15 on 23rd. He states - "I recalled seeing a vehicle a Peugeot 305 estate parked within the crime scene area on the road leading away from the scene. It was faced away from the scene and had black plastic bags in the boot area. The bags were full. I attended the scene and spoke to members there. This may have taken 5 to 10 minutes. I then noticed the female from the neighbouring house. This person who I now know to be Shirley Foster go through the field from her house towards the Peugeot. I spoke to Ms. Foster and informed her that nothing could be removed from the crime scene without investigation. She agreed to a search of the vehicle and the removal of the bags for further examination. She then drove off in the direction of Schull""
Probably 24th December.
But Shirley’s car would have been there on the 24th?
I’m not doubting him at all. This is how I see it; Sometime after the cordon was extended a Garda drove Shirley’s car out to the gate where the bags are photographed. Sgt. Healy arrived at 2:15 and took the bags out of the car. Shirley arrived and drove her car to Schull, met Bailey on the boreen at 2:20. She returned and parked her car at the cordon in the same place as before. Now if the photos of the bags were taken on 24th, Shirley’s car would still be there.
So the car drove over the crime scene proper only once?
And herein lies a problem. I have attached a photo of Shirley's car in situ and the statement of Garda Byrne who allegedly took the picture. It is certainly exhibited under his name. Spit the deliberate mistake.
I can only see Byrne's statement, no photo of Shirley's car I'm afraid.
.
Try again now.
I always thought that photo was taken on 23rd before the body was covered by the tarpaulin around 1:pm. Taken by Det. Pat Joy.
Photograph the body at the lane (not in the picture) and also be at the post mortem that day?
It probably was taken by Pat Joy but it's exhibited as being taken by Tony Byrne who didn't arrive until gone 10pm.
He didn't arrive until gone 10pm as he came down from Dublin with Eugene Gilligan.
It would be completely dark after 10pm!
Well he did next day the 24th it appears, post mortem began at 2:pm I believe;
Exactly!!!
Bags are in the car in the picture which it is stated was taken on 24th yet the bags were supposedly removed in 23rd?
![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)
