Murder at the Cottage | Sky

They got nothing of evidential value from all this material. That’s my point.

Ironically, there was a highly significant piece of evidence linked to the forensics. As the DPP report stressed, IB repeatedly offered to provide blood and hair samples although it was well-known that blood had been found at the scene. This is compelling evidence of his innocence because he couldn’t have know that a complete cock-up had been made of the forensics I.e. his samples could neither incriminate nor exculpate him.

After these documentaries, someone might make a comedy series called CSI:Dublin.

The first episode could show the fake fingerprints “lifted” from the bomb that murdered the British Ambassador.

There are photographs, I think footage as well, of Bailey walking around the scene after crossing the garda cordon. He had also worked at Alfie Lyons place next door and visited at other times, you could argue there was plausible reasons for his fingerprints or hair being found around the scene. He also seems to have known details of the post mortem and forensics at least a month before he was arrested so may have known nothing of evidential value linked to anyone but Sophie was found by the time he was arrested.

The year before a rape and murder was solved because the perpetrator volunteered a DNA sample. There's a simple dilemma any potential offender faces, if you refuse to give a sample it makes you even more suspicious and worthy of further investigation, where you might be compelled to give a sample or seized personal items will provide it anyway. If you do take the risk of offering a sample and there are no forensics linking you anyway, you're feeling like you are on the home run.

There are few advantages in refusing to provide samples. They will get them anyway.

Just an aside. Anyone posting in this thread will enjoy this immensely.

This thread kind of reminds me of it.

I suppose one of the first things they check is whether a lock was forced or picked so it's likely they put it on the latch while continuing the search of the house.

"IB himself told several news organisations, supposedly just after hearing a french woman had been killed, that he had photographs of her and photographs of the scene taken around 11am, before he was supposed to have even known there was a murder. This was apparently all before he left the house and confirmed who the victim was and exactly where she lived."

On these alleged photos (note, the first record of him offering photos to anyone (Padraig Beirne) was at 1410, this is not corroborated by any other statements), there are a few scenarios:

1. IB actually had photos of the body (which means he was likely involved in the murder) and was then touting these photos around to news agencies to make money while somehow being oblivious to the incriminating nature of these photos
2. IB had no photos of the body but was touting these around to new agencies to make a deal in the hope of later securing photos

The story about the photographs is nonsense IMO - think about it, he murders Sophie at some point, goes home and gets cleaned up, heads back out with his camera to take photos (before the body is found but not knowing when it will be found) and then goes back home to wait for somebody to tell him about the murder before trying to sell the photos on for a few quid......

It's true that the failure to preserve the scene meant that IB could explain away e.g. a fingerprint. This is particularly egregious because a central plank of his defence is that he did not know Sophie personally and never visited her house before the murder. But he was also offering to give a blood sample - a match with blood at the scene could not be explained away.

Perhaps you are right and the chaos of the investigation was such that a journalist like IB had been told just weeks after the murder that there had been a total failure by the forensics team. What a terrible scenario! A murderer brazenly offers sample of his blood because, as a journalist, he had discovered that the blood he had spattered all over the crime scene did not yield any evidence. I'm prepared to believe anything at this stage about this investigation (and it would make a dramatic scene for CSI:Dublin) but I prefer the simpler explanation - that IB was confident his blood and hair samples would prove his innocence.

Who in Ireland was convicted of rape/murder after volunteering a DNA sample? I don't recall any case in this country where the culprit provided DNA samples voluntarily but it is possible someone did so in the past before DNA testing became part of the forensic arsenal.

You say there are few advantages in refusing to provide samples. The legal profession will await a detailed exposition of your reasoning before they abandon their strongly-held opposition to this notion. The law makes it very difficult to take samples. The tragi-comic history of our drink-driving legislation continues to this day:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/drink-driving-conviction-overturned-as-wrong-doctor-allowed-blood-sample-1.4513999

IB told several people in news desks or reporters that he had photos of her alive, he told at least one person that he had taken the photos himself. It's one thing saying you have photos, hoping to pick some up afterwards, its another to say you took them yourself so no copyright or licensing issues would come up. He told the photographer sent to collect some crime scene photos that they had been taken around 11am.

The photographer said they were taken through bushes and practically nothing could be seen except that there were gardai around. In their official account they drove up to the scene and spoke to gardai, so its not clear why they resorted to taking photographs through bushes at that time.

There's photos of him, taken with a long lens, looking through the front window of the cottage in the Netflix doc while one of the contributors says he was seen crossing over the cordon to examine the scene as far as I remember.

One would think that the first thing that would be done would be to compare the DNA profile to that of pathology lab staff and scene of crime gardaí for elimination.

Hopefully this DNA sample, even if first identified ten years ago, is what will help finally solve this case.

If your trying to show sympathy for IB can it. At best he's a degenerate self loating drunkard who's antics completely hijacked a murder investigation.

Not to mention beating up his partner. Who also got threatened and intimidated by the gardai (sounds like Reid-style guilt presumptive techniques) and her daughter also arrested.

I'm not an Ian Bailey cheer leader if that's what you are implying...??

It's quite ironic that you label him a 'degenerate self loathing drunkard' and then imply that he hijacked a murder investigation ??

Are you suggesting the Gards didn't form the same opinion too?? That they couldn't detect that he was an ego driven, self opinionated, drunken, media hoor.....??? Really??

The Gards are 100% responsible for the failure to investigate the murder properly and professionally. They failed at every turn, at every level. They targeted their man (Bailey) without one jot of evidence against him, they closed off any other line of investigation, and when ultimately realised they had nothing on him, procured false witnesses to change their statements to implicate Bailey at the scene / alleged confession(s).

The Gards hijacked their own murder enquiry. Their conduct was borderline criminal.

Bailey may be a drunkard. He may be egotistical. He is a Wife beater.... That dosen't make him a scapegoat for a corrupt murder investigation. There are plenty more home grown drunken wife beaters around the country besides Bailey, that dosen't make them, or him murderers.

Didn't stop MF. Her guilt wasn't exactly tested. Although I get your point.