Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
Life isn't black and white though, most everything lands in the grey area between. Unfortunately you just have two colours on your palette.
In addition as I've said before the gardai aren't a single entity. They are no different than the folks on here. I'm sure many of them have different opinions. You are in fact selling them very short in that respect. Do you think every single Garda on the whole island believed that Bailey was planning to murder someone else? Far more likely that one or two amped up gards thought so.
"See here`s the dilemma.."
There`s no dilemma.
"There`s nothing to show that he did commit it…"
Apart from the confessions you mean? Footprints, fingerprints and bloodstains would be good but they are not the be all and end all. Go ask Lucy Letby. She didn`t even confess.
"There may not have been an organizational conspiracy…"
Jules Thomas`s statement is fundamental to setting out what Bailey`s intentions were on the night of the murder. Either he was going over to Alf Lyons`s place or he wasn`t. Either the statement was fabricated or it wasn`t. As far as I am aware she was questioned by six gardaí. Fabricating her statement then required an organized conspiracy of minimally six gardaí. Then she signed it and came back and signed it again three years later. It was either a conspiracy or it wasn`t. Take your pick.
"missing evidence"
Poor management and procedure or a conspiracy to deflect attention from the real killer. Take your pick.
"pages being ripped from the jobs book"
I don`t know why and neither do you but as I said before the conspiratorial mind will always think the worst.
"AGS members warning the community that Bailey was responsible and would kill again"
Because they genuinely believed he was the killer and that he had the propensity to do it again. He nearly did in 2001 and with a weapon too.
Twenty years between three professionals is really not as awe-inspiring as it sounds in your head!
As for your links, why would I want to browse them? I do know that you're finding research to meet your opinion of who is guilty - the wrong approach to solving cases!
Those aren't "findings" - they are theories.
If someone is found guilty then the theories are vindicated - they have some basis in experience, after all. But until someone IS found guilty, they remain merely theories - and unproveable.
Therefore they are largely irrelevant to an investigation; not only are theories inadmissible in court, they can even be misleading if someone should mistake a theory for a fact.
Psychiatry is the branch of medicine which is the least scientifically driven of them all. It's simply about labels which are attached to people who exhibit certain behaviours. These labels have been patented by psychs themselves.
OK you're in dispute with the findings of 3 professionals with a total of over 20 years training between them.
You can take any fact and boil it down to just opinion if you want to be like that about it. Water freezing at 0 can be mocked as just opinion if you want to do so.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fbul0000323
If that link doesnt help just search 'increased violence and narcissism' and pick from any result, this isnt a controversial take.
Edit: here, took 5 seconds.
Ohio State University researchers Brad Bushman and Sophie Kjærvik reviewed 437 studies of narcissism and
aggression
involving more than 123,000 participants. They found that narcissism is related to a 21 percent increase in aggression and an 18 percent increase in violence.
These are truths borne out by professionals and scientific literature, they are not opinion. They are fact.
Firstly, they are opinion and not facts - they are the opinions of those professionals you refer to.
Secondly, care to mention which scientific literature published those three truths about Bailey as per your claim?
Lastly, these opinions would be, if presented, laughed out of court but the chances of those professionals standing over their opinions in court, despite never haven met or spoken with Bailey, are quite low!
And putting it out there that they had a witness that said that she saw someone resembling Bailey near the scene on the night in question. Evidence later recanted. Did they ever identify who was with her at the time ? Was she even out that night ? Giving contraband to help to guide a witness. Keeping Bailey at the forefront of local suspicion even while admitting amongst themselves that the evidence against him was flimsy ? But sure we can ignore all that as we now have the three shrinks !!
Very pertinent. May be part of a timeline that proves it wasn't Bailey. Or could have come from some innocent explainable source. We just dont know. Hopefully gardai can elaborate on this information, find out something more about it. Somebody mentioned online dna databases, thats an exciting possibility.
But until then not much more to be discussed as members of the public afaik. Its a scientific fact, we accept it, note it, and move on.
So what does your theory say about the fact that unknown DNA was found on the victim and it wasn't Bailey's
ok.
I don't think you're being serious, tbh. But then again, you never really were.
a garda conspiracy? is that it?
I don't know what a nothing burger is.
I don't see the value in speculation. In fact, I think it is harmful in the pursuit of the truth you claim to value.
This view of mine should be obvious if you paid the slightest attention to anything I've said.
Do you have a theory of your own for this crime?
Ill be surprised if you do. I expect a long winded evasive grandiose nothing-burger, but would be happy if you prove me wrong.
"Facts take you further away from the truth?"
If they lead you away from it, and I just described how but, again, as always, you pretend not to understand. And again, I'll point out, that it's obvious that you're doing it.
"And you move on."
Something you clearly can't do. You're clinging onto this psychological "evidence" with all your might. But it's vapour. Hot air.
Take your own advice. Move on. (You won't).
Facts take you further away from the truth?
lol. no.
You dont have to use those facts. They can be discarded as irrelevant if some other more pertinent evidence appears.
Facts will only help or not help, they wont take you away from the truth.
If you dont become fixated on them they wont obfuscate anything. You just note it. And you move on.
None of what you said brings us closer to the truth, because we don't know what the truth is. For example, if the truth is that Bailey didn't kill her, then accepting everything you just said takes us further from the truth.
That is why we stress the importance of hard evidence like DNA, because it is impartial and fair and that is the surest route to what really happened, not what a few psychologists imagine a person might be like without ever meeting him.
Its not meant to be a smoking gun.
If I've beat the drum for a while its because some people simply wouldn't accept scientific conclusion.
Some people tried every way in to book to dismiss and diminish, but tellingly never tried to refute.
If you're here trying to solve the case I can tell you thats not going to happen. This is all just speculation.
But if you want to move 1 tiny smidge closer to the truth you will accept three facts.
These are truths borne out by professionals and scientific literature, they are not opinion. They are fact. When you accept them as such, rather than simply complaining that they're not proof Bailey did it, you will that 1 smidgen more informed and closer to the truth.
Why it took you so long is a question for your own self-reflection.
You've been beating this psychology drum for quite a while now, but I don't see where it leads us. At best, it gives us a likelihood of someone being capable of such an act, and even then it's just a probability. That's it. It's not a smoking gun and it never will be.
You don't know what, any other suspects?
Means,
There's at least 6, probably more, in the locality that were closer to the murder scene than Bailey. Of the 6, one was terminally ill with cancer at the time, one was described as 'frail' but I wouldn't rule out either as being physically incapable.
Motives,
A Peeping Tom confrontation, arguments over property, rights of way, abuse of her property in her absence, someone other than Bailey chancing their arm after a night in the pub. If there's six of them, there's a good chance one of them is, what, a..something, something narcissist.
Alibi,
Two of them had no alibi for that night/ morning, the rest were alibied by partners and family.
Is it a Garda conspiracy?
No, just a typical ploy by the Gardaí to use the media to keep Bailey in the limelight.
yes it is.
but thats not to say that professionals cant diagnose with accuracy from other information sources.
even you or i can do this on the most basic level. if joe publics accounts show 50% of his earning regularly going on drink … good odds hes suffering alcoholism.
a dr psychologist typically trains for 6 years just on understanding people. when they submit a diagnosis to a court they put all that training, their reputation, and their career on the table. For all the public and legal professionals to try to pick holes in.
And he submitted DNA samples
But there's nothing to show that he DID commit it - not a footprint or fingerprint, and most tellingly, not a single bloodstain.
And this is despite Bailey's clothes being confiscated into evidence.
Bye. Again.
See, here's the dilemma; (reading over the last couple of pages.)
And bearing in mind the "Streetlight effect" - we can see what catches the light, but nobody knows what is still in the darkness.
Re: circumstantial evidence. There are plenty of circumstances, listed above, that can be used to suggest that Ian Bailey could have committed this murder.
(As could others, too, for sure.)
And that's the dilemma that keeps us all wondering.
And meanwhile, the crime remains unsolved.
T
The gardai are not a single entity. The idea that "the gardai" as an entity conspire together 10s of thousands of people is ridiculous. They're just like any other large organisation with a variety of different intelligences, capabilities and silos. It's possible 1 or 2 local gards might have handled things their own way early, or tried to shoehorn an investigation, and potentially ballsed the whole possibility of prosecuting anyone. Others may have had their own opinions too, but at the end of the day only one person can be prosecuted. This should be the main benefit of a cold case investigation, but who knows.
You just have to look at some of the other cases around the same time period to understand how various individuals operated.
A patient can lie, a Diary is a day to day account made in private and gives a great insight over time. A diary is invaluable evidence, I'm getting emotional again so I'll leave
There may not have been an organisational conspiracy but there was something irregular happening. How would you account for missing evidence? How woukd you account for pages being ripped out of the jobs book? How would you account for AGS members warning the community that Bailey was responsible and would kill again? etc.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
