Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
Is there evidence of him burning clothing and footwear in the days following the murder?
From the Irish Times: "Ms Farrell agreed with Mr O’Higgins that they were able to “clear a sum to the tune of €350,000” on the sale of the house after the clawback amount and outstanding rent arrears were deducted."
The house sold for over 500k.
Maybe Bailey was the sharp tool all along….
So, Chris and Marie got a site for a grand, built a 3000 sq ft, 6 bedroom house without a mortgage and sold it, still unfinished, a few few years later for 500k. And Marie still had a moan about the council clawback.
Don't get me wrong, I know she was bought, just like Martin Graham and Leo Bolger and probably others but those figures don't add up for me.
Bottom line…
It's over 30yrs later, and not one scrap of evidence has ever been uncovered that ties Bailey to the crime scene.
Not one!
But, but, but, he bought bleach. How can you say he is innocent when he bought one bottle of bleach and used changing a saw blade as an excuse to cover up the buying of the bleach?
Hang him!
Ah humour. Always a good deflector when faced with uncomfortable reality.
Me? Deflecting? Irony.
Ah humour. Always a good way to puncture a concept detached from reality.
But the uncomfortable reality (for you), is that there is not one jot of evidence against Bailey connecting him to the murder. Not one piece of valid evidence.
This is a fact, tell me otherwise?
I missed this post yesterday.
"What else would you call a Detective being directly involved in Farrell obtaining council land for 1000."
It isn`t bribery, and that`s even if it was true to begin with. Furthermore it would have to have happened in the few weeks after the murder and before Farrell identified Bailey. You can`t bribe someone to do something for you if they`ve already done it.
"Farrell benefitted from implicating Bailey."
There is no evidence for this claim whatsoever. Like so many at the time Farrell benefitted from investing in property.
"Farrell said that Fitzgerald had introduced her and Chris to Callanan and that Fitzgerald said Callanan owed him a favour"
Your difficulties begin with "Farrell said…" It isn`t corroborated by other evidence, unlike her original identification of Bailey as the loiterer outside her shop and the hitcher on the Airhill Road, which is. Furthermore her claim was made within the context of her ridiculous withdrawal of her identification of Bailey as the man she saw outside her shop, on the Airhill Road and at Kealfada. It is further undermined by her former employee who testified in the case against the state that Farrell said she would be getting some of the money that would be awarded to Bailey. Farrell`s own testimony was laughed out of the courtroom and Bailey lost.
This is just the usual conspiracy theory nonsense that has prevailed on the Du Plantier murder threads for years now.
Bribery isn't your narrow definition no matter how much you want it to be to. It is for continued cooperation. Why else would a Detective in the Bailey case help Farrell get council land? Can you explain why the Detective did it then?
Of course Farrell benefitted from implicating Bailey, she got council land directly because of her involvement in this case, and continuing to implicate Bailey.
Ah so now it is a "conspiracy" when two independent witnesses say they were given bribes, but you totally accept the claims of witnesses that suit YOUR version of events.
*edit: typo
You see you would have been grand if you just left it sitting at Martin Graham which could be interpreted to be a bribe even though it was clearly about discovering the truth and not about miscarrying justice. But you had to go and include Farrell and suggest that she falsely identified Bailey for financial gain even though your supposed briber made no material contribution to your bribee.
"It is for continued co-operation"
You`re gas. So now that you`ve realized that what you claimed was a bribe couldn`t have occurred in the short timeframe before Farrell identified Bailey and so therefore couldn`t be a bribe, you widen the goal posts with the woolly and rather vague "continued co-operation".
"Can you explain why the detective did it then?"
I don`t know that he did anything, but even if he did, as far as I am aware, at that time these people were friends who socialized together.
"Ah so now it is a "conspiracy""
Only in your imagination. It`s your theory.
Thank you for admitting that there is evidence of bribery, we got there eventually.
Not eventually. I acknowledged that back in post #14092.
Ah a detective giving a person drugs is bribery, but a detective arranging a cheap sale of council property for a star witness to then profit from is not bribery?
Still, at least you have finally admitted that bribery did occur during a murder investigation, so at least we are getting somewhere with you.
Within the context of the recent discussion I highlighted what I said in post #14092. More generally I would have stated on these threads years ago that the Graham incident was illegal and the garda involved should have been subject to the rigors of the law. But feel free to pat yourself on the back if it makes you feel better and relieves some of the embarrassment of your Farrell bribe debacle.
Your comment merely demonstrates your inability to argue against my point. To you there is somehow a difference between a detective giving a person drugs and a detective arranging a cheap sale of council property for a star witness to then profit from. They are both bribery, in fact you said it yourself, "at that time these people were friends who socialized together." Making it more likely that it is true.
Love your response to the question "can you explain why the detective did it then."
"" I don't know that he did anything"". This is brilliant response. Which detective in case does this refer too. I don't know did any of them do anything. Lol. Well wait now.. We have missing pages from job book.. A missing gate.. Large field gate.. It was of no evendential value.
We have sketches of scratches from hands of prime suspect.. He will kill again.. We will get more sketches. We have some reminents of burned fire.. May have been clothes or boots burned in that fire. Oh yes we have black coat.. Possibly two black coats. One might be belong to another detective…but it fills up evidence room. Now some of the other evidence bags were also left open but sure look its OK..Great work.. I don't know did the detectives do anything else…there is lot in here.
We took loads of statements, now amended some of them chopped them up.. Sure look we had to make them believeable for DPP. We will ask a few local people to help out case.. Strengthen it up.. I know a women.. I'll meet her at hotel she might change her statement.. Another guy, we can give bit of hash too.. There's loads of there from recent arrests.
To quote you yes I dont know did they do anything but even if he did as far as am aware.. These people were friends and socialized together... Marie having few drinks with detectives in hotel.. And few drinks with Graham bit of hash..he said he would meet Bailey..
The futility of your allegation was exposed several posts back. Fitzpatrick would have required access to Doc Brown`s De Lorean to bribe Farrell. And yet here you are. In complete denial.
So any sign of the big breakthrough from the cold case review then?
Only because you don't define bribery as continued cooperation. That is your very narrow and unique use of the word bribery. I doubt a jury would take the same view of the meaning of the word as you, especially when you have said the detective and a star witness in a murder investigation he is involved in were already friends.
The irony of you saying that I am in denial is obviously lost on you!
Yeah but apparently all that is a conspiracy 🤣
You made an allegation that was untrue, something you invented in your imagination. You have now documented it here for posterity and I believe the edit facility is no longer available to you. Yeah…so good luck with that.
As always in these situations, conflicts of interest generally create an impression of impropriety. The gardai in this case were carrying on in numerous situations which could be construed as inappropriate, and to a layperson can appear as a bribe. However most of the time it is not bribery per se, and has an element of covering their own ass built into it.
So I guess I'm saying you could both be right.
Odd but last August/September media quoted that the probable killer's DNA had been extracted and a statement about the profile would be coming soon. Comparison with the main suspects of the time was to be ongoing. Still waiting might be a person under the radar.
What allegation have I made that was untrue?
An the mods just ban the idiots who are bickering back and forth that has to help or meaning to this thread topic, proper pain on the hold them idiots…..,....,... MOD NOTE: Warned for backseat modding and uncivil posting
Or at least deal with members calling others idiots.
No.
The only evidence is weak and circumstantial, that weak circumstantial evidence does however point to Bailey. Apart from that its a bit of a desert.
usual disclaimer; yes yes, there is zero physical proof it was.. 😑
I would imagine that this tragic case is probably a whole lot more boring and predictable than people would like it to be. How boring if the chief suspect was not some scapegoat for small town conspiracy.
Thus far the best we have is a local drunken pervert/narcissist/repeat wife (ok partner) beater. Who lives not far from the scene. Some amazing twist in the tale might take the reader out of the sense of disgust and sad tragedy, distract us with curiosity and awe. Whispering townsfolk and Gardai ganging up against the local outcast unfairly, all the while the real perpetrator … but no, sorry. I think its probably all the same old grim cold depressing predictable tale that one could first assume.
Some are hoping for a big revelation, I don't expect one. I'd welcome it, it'd be very interesting, but I don't think its coming.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
