Murder at the Cottage | Sky

It's from one of her signed statements from an interview. Fair enough, she can claim it was fabricated, that's what the court case was trying to get to the bottom of.

No evidence was found or put forward to show these statements were altered or fabricated. The Bandon tapes do not show anyone being pressured to change witness statements. The gardai were talking about personal comments noted by one of the garda interviewers where they said they believed Jules was really trying to tell them the truth. As GSOC noted, the files sent to the DPP did include these notes that were discussed in the Bandon tapes.

None of us on this forum was there that night.

Therefore, none of us with absolute certainty can rule anybody in or out.

We can share information, and discuss events that have occurred, and learn from each other.

But, no matter what any of us thinks - Including you - It will always return to the first two sentences of this post. It really is as simple as that. Hopefully it's simple enough for even you to grasp and understand?

If you can't accept what other posters put up, that's too bad... I stopped throwing tantrums when I was seven, I suggest you do the same.

*Apologies if you haven't reached the age of seven yet.

Just like in every other scandal that we've witnessed for the last forty years there are supporters of the status quo who insist that any real examination of their behaviour must be stopped at all costs. I can say with certainty what's your angle here.

The corrupt guards in this case might have framed Ian Bailey but for the fact that they couldn't force Jules Thomas and her family to make enough false statements against him and the impartial (which is what this is all about) among us who have studied this case can see that Bailey certainly had nothing to do with this murder. CERTAINTY.

Sorry, I really can't understand what you are getting at?

My posts are consistent, I believe Ian Bailey is innocent with regards to Sophie's murder (show me a post I state otherwise).

I believe the Garda investigation was corrupt, I've stated it plenty of times (show me a post I state otherwise)?

I also believe that Bailey embedded himself into this murder case from the get go.... With the knowledge that he was innocent of the murder, he probably expected the Guards to finally fathom that out, little knowing there was a conspiracy brewing against him.

Like it or lump it, there are segments of this case that don't portray Bailey in a good light. He is many things that are not good, but that doesn't make him a murderer in my books (sounding like a scratched record here).

The very fact that multiple people lay claim that he and Jules were within a few kilometres of the murder scene on the morning the body was discovered, must at the very least warrant examination and discussion.... Why wouldn't it?

"Ian Bailey put himself in the eye of the storm, he was full on from the beginning. The scratches on his hands were probably the corner stone to which his attempted demise would be built upon."

Your posts are littered with things like this.If anything,the fact that Bailey seriously annoyed the guards, and on the basis of zero evidence they made him the chief suspect, should be enough for anybody to see what's going on, rather than going on to discuss the merits of the case they fit around him when you've practically suggested it's a frame up. That's too much. It's playing the very game the investigators want. There is no room for being neutral here, the same as a court case decides innocent or guilty. There is a serious investigation required here and it isn't into Bailey. If you want to continue to give creedence to did Bailey lie here, did Bailey lie there, you simply don't want the serious investigation which is as good as being happy with things as they are, which is ; It might have been Bailey

I think you've got this wrong.

Her statements were taken with her lawyer there and she signed them multiple times. She might want to distance herself from them now. It is not at all uncommon for people to give a statement and then when it is inconvenient claim they never said that.

When you refer to a book of evidence being destroyed, I think you actually mean some pages in the Garda Jobs Book, not related to Jules' statement.

On the Bandon tapes, two gards are not pressuring someone to tamper with a statement. They are discussing that a 3rd gard put down that he thought Jules "was being honest" in her statement. The two gards on the tape are discussing how stupid the 3rd gard was to write his opinion there and they are saying, that needs to come out. we'll leave it in for now but need to have a word with him about that. They never took his comment out.

It was signed by Jules. She testified in court that it was signed by her.

The journalist that wrote that article is full of sh*t. The reasons 'expert' testimony was ruled inadmissible was because the 'expert' from the UK had exactly zero experience or knowledge on police processes or procedures in this jurisdiction. He literally said he hadn't a breeze. You can't give an expert opinion if you don't know the factors that lead to procedures and you can't make accusations against individuals unless you know exactly what they were trained to do and the oversight they were under.

Likewise, the DPP was not allowed give his opinion on what he personally thought of the garda investigation because, as the judge pointed out again and again, that is exactly what the jury had to decide. He was allowed give evidence but was not there to give a personal judgement on the reliability of witnesses or what he suspected but had no proof of.

It's a discussion on an internet forum about a Sky documentary,

let's not get too carried away.

What? Where did you get this from? The GSOC report notes she initially opted not to have a solicitor present after her first arrest but then they had to break for a long period after she requested a particular solicitor but they weren't immediately available. The solicitor was then present for the rest of the interview. They were entitled to a solicitor at all times while being interviewed while under arrest.

She initially declined a solicitor. Then, after questioning, she asked for a solicitor. They waited 2 hours for the solicitor to arrive. She conferred with the solicitor and changed her story according to her statement. She read her own statement at the end. The solicitor read her statement. She did not make any complaint to her solicitor. Her solicitor did not have a problem with anything in it.

In 2012, Jules submitted a list of complaints to GSOC. She complained about the gards being rude, the press being there, etc.... a range of things. There were no complaints about her statement or the validity of it.

In the Bandon tapes, the gards are talking about taking another gard's statement about Jules being truthful out. Not chopping up her statement. Chopping up his comment about it.

hi folks, a bit out of the loop on this story.. whats the latest on this? I heard that there was an author on Red FM this AM and that the case has been reopened or something? Is there someone who could take a few mins to get me up to speed? TIA

This one post alone tells me all I need to know.

Let's just say I've educated you, and put you back in your box again.

Going forward, I suggest you read your posts before pressing the 'post comment' tab (that would save a lot of bother really)

Furthermore, respect people's opinions, even if they are different to your own. That's the point of a discussion.

Realistically, all you have done, is prove that you cannot engage in a mature debate with somebody that thinks differently than you do?

If you can't debate like an adult, maybe this isn't the forum for you?

And... Like everybody else on this forum, you mean absolutely nothing to me (I really can't emphasise this statement enough). I will discuss and debate with anybody, I don't care if the posters are pro-Bailey of anti-Bailey, they all bring something to the table.

You Sir, cannot see past or own conclusion. You are unprepared to listen to any alternative set of circumstance, even whilst knowing your own are unproven... You pick a fight with a poster that has repeatedly supported Ian Bailey through thick and thin. Are you for real?

Personally, I think you are sleep deprived and neurotic. Your post highlighted above is incoherent nonsense, it's complete drivel. Do you ever read back a post before hitting the send button???

Now, I think it's obvious that we don't see eye to eye? Why don't you hit the ignore button when you see my posts going forward. Don't engage with me any further, because you will become unstuck.

Thanks in advance

There is a HUGE difference between having a solicitor present with you during questioning and having one in the hall. By the time it comes to signatures, it's all over.

In fact the Gardai are trying to remove this right (which turned out not to be a right according to the Supreme Court in 2017, but still allowed in practise)