Murder at the Cottage | Sky

You're not a bit interested in the facts. The DPP is quite clear about some witnesses but you choose to gloss over the facts behind their testimony and suggest, like Nick Foster has done, that the DPP wasn't really up to the job and you know better. But your objective is the same as many others; to rely on fabricated evidence to suggest someone is guilty of murder. Slander.

Ah, I see what's going on with you. You are of the opinion that the DPP is correct and everyone else is wrong.

Well, if we trust the DPP's opinion then because Ian Bailey consented to having his DNA collected, it means he is an innocent man. Oops!

The DPP also tells us Jules' arrest was unlawful. Oops!

Another DPP special: If you are driving at night and you see someone walking on the road, it is impossible to tell who they are. Oops!

Yet another DPP flub: He is not aware of where the Murphy house is in relation to Marie Farrell's alleged sighting.

The capper for the DPP: Ian Bailey slipping into a sleeping woman's bed and rubbing her leg is not attempted rape. There was a case in Ireland a bout a year ago where this exact thing happened and the offender was convicted of attempted rape.

I am not disagreeing with everything the DPP says, but he certainly has his fair share of stupid and uninformed opinions.

It doesn't matter how many press ganged witnesses the Guards found to say they didn't notice any scratches on Bailey's hands

Aren't you "slandering" the Gards here, since we don't have any evidence or reason to believe that these particular witnesses were "press-ganged"

Are you familiar with the strawman fallacy?

Nowhere does the DPP say that "because Ian Bailey consented to having his DNA collected, it means he is an innocent man"

Under the section: " Lack of Forensic Evidence linking Ian Bailey to the murder scene."

Bailey willingly gave his fingerprints and a sample of his blood to the Gardaí for analysis and examination. These specimens were given at a time when he was aware that apparent bloodstains had been found at the scene.

What does the DPP say exactly? I'm going to copy and paste it as it will give a sense of the deliberate dishonesty in the previous post. And you accuse the DPP of fibbing? Look in the mirror. Your posts are riddled with them.

In her statement dated 14 February 1997 she states that on Monday 23 December 1996 at about 3 a.m. she was with a male friend in her motorcar and she saw a man walking on the road. He was stumbling forward and had his two hands to the side of his face but she could see his face. She states that she identified the man as being the same person she had seen on 21 December 1996 in Schull and on the morning of 22 December 1996. A person in a motor car being driven in an unlighted country area during the hours of darkness is unlikely to be in a position to make a reliable identification of a person on the roadway under the circumstances described above.

I don't know if the DPP is always correct, but given the choice between the DPP report and a poster who engages in deliberate lies on boards, well it's not much of a contest is it?

This is what you wrote: "if we trust the DPP's opinion then because Ian Bailey consented to having his DNA collected, it means he is an innocent man."

Whereas the DPP speaks of it being "indicative of innocence."

Your post is a wilful and deliberate misrepresentation. As I said, look in the mirror if you are concerned about fibs.

Wouldn't it be much easier for Bailey to say he got both the scratches and the cut on his head when climbing the tree? That's why I would lean towards the reasons he gives as being true. He could just easily have said he bumped his head on a branch while climbing the tree or the top bit he cut off fell and hit his head.

Jules clearly said in her statement the cut on his head wasn't there the night before the murder but was there the following morning.

He went back and corrected the false information he gave because he found out the gardai had been to the house he stayed at when he claimed to be at home. Both the people in the house and IB himself say he went to them to find out what they told the gardai when he found out they had been there. It wasn't a sudden recovered memory, he was obviously aware he had given false information and only corrected it when he had established his actual movements were now known to the gardai.

Yes I believe that Judge has been mentioned. Would you like to tell people why he felt Leo Bolger should be given a suspended sentence for dope cultivation even though it was assumed by everyone he would be jailed?

"Detective Sergeant Fergal Foley said the cultivation of the cannabis was the most sophisticated operation of its kind seen in west Cork."

Conspiracy theorists don't read the news? https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30979776.html

I doubt he was the only one looking for clues, even now there are ghouls touring the various sites and idiots harassing a family because they believe in a fairytale about a 'deathbed confession'. I mean, what kind of eijit seriously believes this? You're just about to pop your clogs and you get the sudden brainwave that what you most want to be remembered for is a brutal murder carried out by a highly disturbed person. The mind boggles.

But anyway, I don't think that's what he 'cried out'.

Yes it is relevant, because conspiracy theorists are convinced there's no other reason he got a suspended sentence, like the guy in the article I linked, except the judge is conspiring with gardai to get a guy off in return for largely inconsequential anecdote.

The guy in your article had convictions going back to age 12. That's not a valid comparison.

Well let's look at it objectively...

1. Fuller went to look for the murder weapon there. We know from Josie Hellen's statement that the idea that the murder weapon (they believed it was an axe at this point) had been discarded there was being talked about in the community.
2. Fuller saw a man in the distance carrying a large stick. Fuller had been a friend of Bailey. He was used to seeing Bailey carrying a large stick. So was everybody else in the area.
3. Fuller was with his wife and young child. He suspected Bailey was the murderer. He suspected Jules had discarded the murder weapon in that area. Is it odd then that he became afraid for the safety of his wife and child? He flagged down a passing car and they fled.
4. An investigation found that the figure he had seen was a local farmer carrying a stick and not Ian Bailey carrying a stick.
5. So why is this incident raised with such a scornful tone ( "ran screaming in panic crying" ). Why are we supposed to toss out Bill Fuller as a witness because of this?

What was Leo able to offer the gardai apart from an anecdote that didn't have much, if any, relevance to the night of the murder?