Ian Bailey RIP - threadbans in OP

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121717213#Comment_121717213

Do you?

Which living person did I name today as a suspect and make a specific allegation against in relation to murder?

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121717477#Comment_121717477

When it was stated that it made no sense that Sophies neighbours would bring one murder weapon to the dump but leave behind the ultimate murder weapon which was the block, you said the following:

They wouldn't know how much time they had. Sophie had arranged to meet Josephine Hellen at noon that day, for example. It could be reasonably expected that Josephine Hellen, or a family member, would call around to Sophie as this seems to be a frequent occurrence when Sophie was in the cottage.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121717521#Comment_121717521

You were the one who implicated her. I was responding to your line of reasoning.

I made no specific allegation. There could have been stuff placed in the rubbish by the murderer. Alfie could have pushed her to go to the dump.

I have seen many insinuations made on this thread about what Jules knew. Can you find me the post where you expressed similar concern?

You cant can you? Proof this is an obviously bad faith argument.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121716561#Comment_121716561

You have listed off a whole collection of peripheral fluff and tried to package it all up as a conspiracy, but you haven`t produced a single specific detail at all that shows Gardaí went after a man they knew to be innocent and tried to pin a murder on him. Hours and hours of conversations recorded secretly and nowhere did a garda indicate a belief that Bailey did not commit this murder.

The DPP report and reviews that cast doubt on witness testimony were produced before those same witnesses all marched into courtrooms and repeated under oath before a judge what they had said in their statements. The weight given to Jules Thomas recanting her statement has also since been shown to have been poor judgement by the DPP. There should have been an immediate review carried out after that RTE interview in 2017.

Even if she is being truthful today, something which I seriously doubt, all Marie Farrell alleges is that she was pressurized to name Ian Bailey as the man she saw in her three sightings and she still maintains that it was the same man in all three. But the fact is the Gardaí knew that this man was Bailey from corroborating evidence that put him across the street in sighting No.1 and on the Airhill Road in sighting No.2. Nowhere does she allege that Gardaí had any hand, act or part in coercing her to invent her sightings. Martin Graham has never alleged that he was encouraged to produce false evidence to stitch up Bailey.

Just because the DPP accused the Gardaí of whipping up hysteria doesn`t make it so. The DPP never spoke to a single local. There were plenty of gibbering wrecks in the area and a number of them moved away, such was their fear of Bailey. It is referred to in the documentaries. Everybody knew Bailey was a violent, angry car crash. People were right to fear him and Jules Thomas was lucky he didn`t kill her afterwards.

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121717548#Comment_121717548

Nope, I did not implicate her. Nice try. I'm not the one continually trying to implicate Alfie. Another poster alleged his wife was potentially bringing evidence away, deliberately. When I asked why would she bring some evidence but not the block, your specific response was:

They wouldn't know how much time they had. Sophie had arranged to meet Josephine Hellen at noon that day, for example. It could be reasonably expected that Josephine Hellen, or a family member, would call around to Sophie as this seems to be a frequent occurrence when Sophie was in the cottage.

So one of your new theories is Alfie was pushing her to go to the dump? I suppose he also told her to pick up the block on the way? And ignore the body!

Regarding Jules, for her own sake she wants to avoid any question of culpability in potentially covering h over a very serious crime. She’s been through a lot, and likely under the influence of “Stockholm Syndrome” aka surviving strategy. She did also participate in some degree of violence onto Ian, but obviously she is the way weaker person here. I don’t think she used or threatened weapons.

I’m no eejit about how women can confront their men. I have a relative who was confronted with a knife by his wife on account of discussion of moderating family finances. He backed off to diffuse the situation, eventually left the marriage.

Of course in the horrible physical interactions between Ian and Jules, we don’t know who started what, but one way or another drink etc was obviously the usual trigger, whoever was the initiator or grievance.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121717630#Comment_121717630

Just because the DPP accused the Gardaí of whipping up hysteria doesn`t make it so.

No but not a hellofa lot more credibility than some randomer on a discussion forum claiming Bailey is a murderer no less being an expert in what the DPP “should have done” and being abusive to those who disagree with them, don’t you think?

The DPP never spoke to a single local.

That’s not the primary role of the DPP funnily enough- it’s actually the job of the Gardai believe it or not, when it comes to the olde criminal investigation.

From the DPP perspective:

• a crime is reported
• a file goes to the DPP
• the DPP decides to prosecute or not to prosecute
• a case goes to court

Weather the DPP ever tried out the great fish and chips available in Schull at the time is anyone’s guess but it’s about as significant and relevant to this case as your claim that “the DPP never interviewed a local.”

Chip?

Zola1000

I haven't been on here for few days and just reading back posts now. A good few pages of threads and some and lots of stuff raised. Just two elements to the case I was thinking of since if anyone has an thoughts.

-The laneway for Sophie's house on second review I was surprised at gor long it was in various images. I'm thinking on night in question certainly the outside light of the house alone would not be sufficient for Sophie or any impending attacker to go about thr manner of attack in way that it did. Does that seem plausible..like surely the night light/early morning light would not be enough..could a car be still an option at scene..

-secondly and it's just reading back on the posts...but that part of me where some of you mentioned the attacker going back to pump house for block..it's crucial area...like certainly this person knew the ground...was there also evidence that the shed in between Alphies and sophies was shared between them..possibly known to Alphie/IB if used for gardening equipment or also...person who used house for showers might know of pump house if water has been turned back manually. Just random thinking..but certainly the chances of knowing or going back for block there is very strange...like the same rocks at road...would do same thing..

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121717932#Comment_121717932

Nope. I did not implicate her. I pointedly said the case against Bailey was flimsy, and I think him on balance to be innocent. I then, as a thought experiment, made the case against Alfie Lyons (deceased) to show how if you use flimsy circumstantial you can spin evidence how you like it.

I stated that I didn't think the case against Alfie (or Daniel for example) was any stronger than that of Bailey, I did not imply guilt - because remember I said I think Bailey is likely to be innocent.

You cherry picked a sentence from a post, you didn't even link to the full post so that readers could see the post in its context. This is misrepresentation. But go ahead, find the actual post where I made such a specific allegation. You won't be able to will you? Proof you have made a false claim.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121717630#Comment_121717630

There are safeguards in place to protect innocent from miscarriages of justice. On multiple counts the Guards violated these. The conspiracies they engaged in are documented and you have not challenged these. It is still a conspiracy if you think the person guilty, because you violated those safeguards. And we only have a small fraction of all the Guards conduct to go on. We don't know what else was said behind closed doors. We know the Guards on this case tampered with evidence, destroyed witness statements and the entries in the evidence log. They engaged in unsafe conduct with witnesses. Marie Farrell has no credibility, and a competently run investigation would have seen that from the outset. The Guards desperate for anything against Bailey, took it. Unsafe conduct again. They admitted on tape the case was flimsy and that was when they were trying to present Marie Farrell's witness as credible. Take that away and you have even less.

SO why are they sure Bailey was the guy? It is never explained so we don't know how the Guards were so sure Bailey was their man when they admit the evidence was so weak. Unsafe conduct.

Look at the Kerry Babies case, maybe that deluded Guard believed the nonsense he peddled about the case, and convinced the others, I dunno. The material facts are the conduct of the investigation was unsafe and incompetent.

The DPP doesn't speak to a local, ever. That is not the role of the DPP and you know this. So why would you mention it? You are trying to spin this as a criticism against how the DPP conducted the case when the DPP does not speak to witnesses.

https://www.dppireland.ie/victims-witnesses/how-we-make-prosecution-decisions/

You know who does speak to witnesses? The Guards. And this is what happened. I already posted this information in reply to you, so you can't claim ignorance.

Earlier you tried to claim that witnesses weren't re-interviewed, to try to present is as if a DPP took a look at a case file and made the decision, and there was no further engagement with witnesses by the authorities. This is an inaccurate misrepresentation, both on the role of the DPP and what actually happened.

The DPP's report angered the garda team that investigated Ms Du Plantier's murder. On the strength of it, the Garda Commissioner dispatched two chief superintendents to review the murder inquiry, Austin McNally and Joe McGarty. They took a team to West Cork and reviewed the evidence. Suspects were revisited, statements analysed, and witnesses re-interviewed. Their inquiry revealed similar shortcomings as the DPP's review but produced no fresh suspects.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/the-complex-and-secret-private-life-of-fragile-sophie/26805384.html

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121719051#Comment_121719051

Can you provide a link to that McNally/McGarty review?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121719313#Comment_121719313

I have provided articles from both the irish times and independent about the review. Irelands major newspapers. I doubt more detailed information is publicly available.

Outcome - no change in DPP decision.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121719324#Comment_121719324

If the review is not in the public domain, then Maeve Sheehan is only speculating on how it was conducted. She provides no quoted material. You wouldn`t want to believe everything you read in the paper.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121719332#Comment_121719332

You dont know she is only speculating. That is your speculation. She may be speculating or as a journalist at a major newspaper may have insider information randomers like us on boards do not.

You wouldnt want to believe everything you read on boards.ie

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121719340#Comment_121719340

Yes but the evidence you cite to counter what I have been saying isn`t actually evidence at all. You`ve just accepted it may be speculation.

Ten of Swords

Mod - Please do not name people as alternative suspects, accusations like that are a no-no.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121719393#Comment_121719393

Didn't you previously classify journalists as having the insider knowledge if they view Bailey as guilty and anyone else is a "conspiracy theorist"? You're pretty inconsistent.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121719937#Comment_121719937

I don`t remember saying anything about journalists having insider knowledge.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121680532#Comment_121680532

Ah you're right, nvm.

odyssey06

An article in today's Irish Independent, an interview with Bridget Chappuis, a retired UK civilian police forensics expert, suggests a morning time for the murder - based on lack of alcohol in blood, stomach contents:

Sophie’s husband said that if she ate in the evening it would probably be bread and cheese with a glass or two of red wine. There is a wine glass on the mantelpiece in the main room with dregs still in it, cheese on top of the fridge in the back porch and a cut loaf on the work surface. There was no trace of these in her stomach and both her blood and urine were negative for alcohol. But there was a large bowl of oranges and a packet of breakfast cereal in the kitchen and she had caffeine — a constituent of both tea and coffee — in her system.

Is doubtful whether the block used as the murder weapon was moved \ wielded during the attack, or had been used to prop the gate open.

Also suggests use of a vehicle in the murder:

The fact that the gate was wide open and the presence of apparently fresh unexplained tyre marks in the grass verge above her head and clearly visible in the scene photos suggests to me that someone in a vehicle may have been around the little townland close to the time of Sophie’s death.

It also features a poll with the public almost evenly split between Yes, No, Don't Know on the subject of Ian Bailey's guilt.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/crime/exclusive-poll-two-thirds-of-public-unsure-of-ian-baileys-guilt-over-murder-of-sophie-toscan-du-plantier/a1559821832.html

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121721090#Comment_121721090

I've thought for quite a while that the evidence points towards a morning attack rather than the late night theory.

No lights on in the house

Cut loaf uncovered on the table.

Stomach contents indicative of having eaten breakfast.

No alcohol in blood or urine, indicating a significant timespan between her drinking with the Ungerers and having a late glass of wine at home and her death.

And finally, I don't think she would have gone out like that in the darkness without even turning a light on inside or outside.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121721090#Comment_121721090

“Is doubtful whether the block used as the murder weapon was moved \ wielded during the attack, or had been used to prop the gate open.”

You’d wonder how her blue dressing -gown/housecoat got under the block .

orangerhyme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121721090#Comment_121721090

Her analysis of the block isn't correct.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121721288#Comment_121721288

Interesting point, perhaps she doesn't have all the information ... she seems to be basing it in part on this:

the pattern of blood staining on the block does not support the view that it was used as a weapon. Rather, blood pattern analysis tends to indicate that it was in situ when she was bleeding and that her body was leaning or lying against it, causing voids on the surface which are free of blood.

chicorytip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121707582#Comment_121707582

He was friendly with the Lyons' who lived next door to Sophie and had visited their home frequently on a social basis as well as doing odd jobs. Like I say, he could have done it blindfolded.

Zola1000

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121721401#Comment_121721401

It would definitely make more sense that block was sometimes used at gateway generally for keeping it held from swinging back etc which was often common thing in rural areas if I'm right on that, and attacker not going back for it specifically makes more sense.

So if morning time it might also make lot more sense but if her.flight was said be 630...need be going for 430..

Maybe up at 3 or had not slept..and murder developed from there..someone knowing she was awake inside .

Although was speeding car much later at 7..00/730...this time still might be considered a time people were getting up..and could see and hear things...so if murderer was trying not be seen..you would think it was much earlier

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121721310#Comment_121721310

Possibly, I can only see 5 sides of the block, I don't know what's on the underside.

But the early photos- the ones with the body still there- clearly show the block resting on her dressing gown, So likely the block was moved after Sophie fell.

However she may be right regarding a second block, but it would only be a quarter block or at most a half block-there is one visible in the photo here along with my impression of where the block came from;

chicorytip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121718398#Comment_121718398

It would still be possible to see clearly I believe, strange as it sounds, given that we are talking about a remote, unlit landscape and the weather was overcast at the time. You could still make out shapes and walk or run without stumbling, particularly if you are familiar with the terrain.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121721587#Comment_121721587

I think you might be out by a day on timeline?

The timeline I am familiar with Sophie was down to meet housekeeper Josephine Hellen at noon.

Morning time would tie in with the speeding car. I dont think whoever killed Sophie went there with murder in mind if it happened at that hour, but it ended up that way. At 7/730 in December it would still have been quite dark, just some twilight.

Zola1000

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121721663#Comment_121721663

Sorry thanks on that, I was out by a day.

So guess that Twilight and knowing the area possibly any attacker would not have needed any further light