Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
Asked and answered in the previous post: "If you look at Bailey's hair in photos from the period, it would be quite easy for a 'nick' on his hairline to be obscured by his fringe."
Remember that at that time Bailey had long hair which flopped over his forehead so it's possible that the cut may not have been always visible. Also the scratches were right up his arms to his elbows. If he got them whilst committing the murder it would mean he either wasn't wearing a coat or jacket, on a night when temperatures were below zero, or he took it off to commit the murder.
It is not the DPP's role to investigate the murder or build a case against a suspect. The DPP's role is to use the evidence provided in a trial against an alleged murderer.
In this case, the evidence submitted was so poor that the DPP took the unprecedented steps making public their criticisms of the Garda evidence. Twice they did this.
And you already know this about the DPP so I'm not sure why you're asking this daft question again.
It’s not plausible that he got the scratches at the scene given we have photographic evidence of scratches from the same briars on Sophie’s body, and the Garda who saw both sets of scratches did not declare that they looked the same.
You don't care what the DPP says, and you have no understanding of the role of the DPP if you ask that question - but sure, it is not plausible. Says you, random boards poster.
That's your opinion, and you are of course free to disagree with the DPP report - but as the basis to make a statement such as "it is not plausible", it is entirely without foundation or standing.
And, an open minded person would not state "I don't care what the DPP said".
Thomas was able to see if clearly, but the professional dermatologist whose job is to see these things noticed nothing.
Something doesn't add up. I'm happy to be corrected on this one by the way.
OK as I am at work, I don't have time to look for some of the statements, although you might be able to help?
Thomas said he had a noticeable cut to his forehead on the morning after the murder. He said it was from a turkey. But 4-5 days later a dermatologist noticed no such cut.
5 days after the murder, and if you look at Bailey's hair in photos from the period, it would be quite easy for a 'nick' on his hairline to be obscured by his fringe.
And if he wanted to hide the scratches, he could easily have done so given the time of year, kept a low profile, when out and about hat and gloves. He took absolutely no steps to hide the scratches. As an innocent person who picked them up in innocent activities would do. Instead he is on video at a christmas day swim.
And I am saying its not plausible. I don't care what the DPP said. Did the DPP make an effort to reproduce the injuries by cutting down a christmas tree?
I have clearly said its possible he engaged in cutting down a christmas tree. But its not plausible he got scratches that way. I am not buying it.
But this was 5 days AFTER the murder when we know he had the scratches.
Sophie had cuts from literally the exact same briars on her person, she was caught up in them after all. Wonder why those have never been verbally compared to the scratches that were on Bailey, seems like it would be easy for someone to say, “this is what they looked like right here, on the victims pictures”. Instead we have childlike drawings and guesses about what they could be. The reasonable explanation is that they did not look the same, and therefore were not caused by the same briars at the time of the attack.
There is no need to stretch any credibility for any poster on thread to believe it, when the DPP report literally states:
Bailey’s explanation for the scratches is plausible, consistent and is supported by other direct and credible evidence.
Now, you of course free to doubt that. But there's no basis for an "open minded" person to say that it requires a stretch of credulity to believe it has no basis.
Here's an excerpt from the DPP report.
‘Dr. Louise Barnes, a dermatologist (skin specialist) closely observed Bailey some five days after the murder. She states “at no time, did he strike one as being suspicious. As a keen observer of peoples appearance due to my profession I certainly did not notice any marks or injuries to his face or hands…”
Yet Jules Thomas alleged he had a noticeable cut to his forehead the morning after the murder, and Bailey from memory never disputed this cut, only that he got it from a turkey.
On another note came across this elsewhere, I did not know Sophie was so friendly with the Ungerers. The author must be mistaken I thought they had only met once or twice before.
I've tried to be open-minded, but if you are going to take that attitude, why should I bother?
In any case, its stretching credibility to believe, although you probably do, that Bailey got these scratches from cutting down a tree or wrestling a turkey. Its entirely possible he engaged in both these activities, but I highly doubt he got the scratches that way.
Putting on my open minded hat here again, Bailey lived in the country, and its entirely possible he picked up scratches from briars or some other way. But he possibly decided it wouldn't look good to say so, so instead linked them to the tree or turkey.
Still can't believe he climbed a tree to cut the top off it though!
Nah,
you’d only argue he cut it down afterwards .
Given the gardai believed the scratches were a crucial part of the case, did they bother to get Bailey to show them the surviving part of the tree he cut down? Or did Bailey in turn offer to show them?
The turkey is innocent! Killed for a crime they did not commit. Ah well, I hope someone got a nice Christmas dinner out of it... although earlier experts on the thread said they would have needed to be hung for longer and were killed too close to Christmas.
Disengage After Hours mode :)
It might rule out the turkey as being the source of the scratches, but it still seems reasonable for Bailey to say in the weeks after the murder, that he got various "wounds" and blame the turkey, or sometimes blame the tree\branch\stick, without being certain.
To me that sort of rules out the turkey to a degree
Sitka Spruce I believe.
Saffron Thomas was with him.
There's multiple witnesses, including a dermatologist, whose evidence would suggest they weren't deep scratches at all, as covered in the DPP report.
And I have stood singing Christmas carols with the choir, mildly embarrassed by my hands being covered with light, small scratches, from cutting holly for seasonal decoration.
Never tried subduing someone beside a brambly hedge, but I've picked blackberries many a time, of course. Always a bit of bloodshed!
I really think someone should try this, just to see how it looks.
I always thought the scratches on the hands were a weak part of the case and a tenuous link at best.
However, I have never heard of anyone suffering deep scratches from cutting down Christmas trees. Christmas trees are made of pine needles, and pine needles don't really leave deep scratches, they leave pin pricks at best.
So I would be sceptical of him getting the scratches that way.
Also climbing to cut down a Christmas tree, also a bit odd. Why wouldn't he just cut down the whole tree, and then cut parts he needed?
Well didn’t Gardai say they tried to replicate the tree cutting and couldn’t replicate the marks?
As I said above I got briar cuts (just a few) over the winter - they would appear very similar to the drawings so if the drawings are accurate then they’re more likely briars than trees- if it were turkey claws, to replicate the drawings they’d need to be multiple scratch motions all down the arm - I’d say near impossible .
I’ve got chaff marks from cutting back trees - but these tend to be more red blotches as opposed to the sort of scratches you see with briars
This could be tested. Some hardy volunteer could quell a struggling turkey, or three; and then climb a ladder to chop the top off a prickly fir tree. Meanwhile Volunteer #2 goes to a bramble patch and has a heated struggle with a woman. Each makes no attempt to save their hands from scratching, but also they mustn't try harder than usual to GET scratches.
Photograph the results.
Then get a local amateur to draw the scratches, from memory.
Compare and contrast.
Fact-finding mission.
Thanks - hard to keep track of everything.
I’ve never wrestled a turkey so can’t comment but you’d imagine the scars would be deep nearly requiring bandages.
I’ve cut back trees through the years- depending on the tree you could get “marked” - some species of pine tree can be a bit prickly - others not so much.
Briars are a b1tch - I actually got scratched recently- you stop dead in your tracks to remove the thorns and extricate yourself from the area asap, but slowly. Obviously if you’re in a tussle with someone that’s a different story.
While I don’t believe Bailey is involved, I’ve always felt those marks are briar marks- but really we’d need proper photo evidence - drawings 20 years on or whatever could easily be made to look like briar marks - But Garda and witness testimony of briar marks from the time is strong too - if you didn’t know the specifics you’d say “briar” marks as a catch all
Attempting to gaslight, but failing miserably.
I think he's only sceptical if he doesn’t get the answer he wants. Which is ironic because that's what has caused so many of the problems with the murder investigation.
Statement of Garda O'Leary
Yeah it’s a good point - I guess he could have got a few from the tree cutting and a few from a turkey claw - was there an original mapping drawing done at the time in the Garda station?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
