Murder at the Cottage | Sky

People who saw scratches on Ian Bailey:

22nd - Jules, Ginny, Saffi

23rd - Garda Martin Malone

23rd - Arianna Boarina 

24th - Billy O'Regan and Denis O'Callaghan

25th - Florence Newman 

26th - Garda Kevin Kelleher and Det Garda Bart O’Leary

28th - Garda Kevin Kelleher and Det Garda Bart O’Leary

Ian was nominated as a suspect on the 27th by Garda Martin Malone. Malone said this was because he had scratches on his hands when he turned up at the crime scene on the 23rd, he made an excuse to get through the crime scene cordon on the 24th, and Malone was aware of his history of an unusual level of violence in his assault on Jules in May.

I vaguely remember Malone saying he was the Gard in the station who dealt with Jules when Bailey brought Jules in to retract her charges against him for the assault. (Not positive about this one, so need to check it)

If we both accept her killer was known to her or knew of her (highly likely ) ,and both accept the remoteness of her location and the difficulty in finding her dwelling ,the number of potentiaL suspects based on above must be a very ,very small number when the nature of the crime is also factored in ,and in that scenario Bailey with his history was always going to come under scrutiny,in my view most people would accept that.

It was then up to Bailey through his own statements and behaviour ,compared to witness statements to dispell any suspicion around his involvement and he certainly did not do that.Quite the opposite in fact.

Soulwriter, you were asking me for the reporting on the Ursula Jackson statement:

"Ursula Jackson gave another statement to gardai in June 1997. This referred to an alleged visit by Bailey to her home along with his partner Jules Thomas “sometime after his arrest” in February of that year. She said at that time, her son Daniel told her that Bailey had rung gardai to tell them Daniel “was in the area where Sophie was killed, making Daniel a suspect”. She added: “Ian vehemently denied this and was annoyed at the suggestion. “Ian said it was Sophie’s husband that set up the murder and in any contact he had with me since, he still maintains that.” She said Ian told her a friend of his had been interviewed by gardai and had been shown photographs, including of the defensive hand injuries incurred by Sophie Toscan du Plantier during the murder. She said in her statement: “I asked him what happened to her hands, he used some term like smashed and mutilated. That was the first time I had heard Sophie’s hands were injured in any way. Ian said this went along with his theory that it was a professional killing made to look like a local unprofessional killing. He gave the impression that the injuries to her hands were caused so as to look like an unprofessional job.”

(I guess we could maybe deduce that they heard Ian was spreading **** about a "Daniel" and assumed it was their son Daniel.)

If this were true with Garda Malone alarm bells would have gone off immediately and he would have gone running to his superiors with the news.

On what date did Bailey claim he cut down the Christmas tree, sustaining these scratches in the process?

So we're expected to believe that this Guard saw Bailey with deep fresh scratches, knew he had a history of violence and witnessed him trying to get through the cordon all on the 23rd and 24th Dec., yet he decided to go home for Christmas dinner, maybe had a few pints on Stephen's day and came in on the 27th, saying "no rush or need for searches lads but I have my suspicions about this madman Bailey".

From the DPP report:

Richard Tisdall in his statement 190B recalls seeing scratch marks on one of Bailey’s hands on Sunday night 22 December 1996 (prior to the murder but after the cutting of the tree and the killing of the turkeys).

Light scratches from gardening type work are least visible on initial day of the scratch, before they heal over.

So many people saw these scratches, and yet, gosh how easy it would have been for Bailey, had he been the murderer, to keep them under cover given the time of year.

And if he got these scratches at the scene, where is the corresponding trace evidence .. the briars were checked for forensics, but nothing to connact back to Bailey was found. No hair samples, no blood samples, nada nothing zip.

I cant believe people continue to trot out scratches as evidence against Bailey. Its thoroughly discredited.

You're right I forgot Richard Tisdall. But you are misquoting the DPP. Tisdall claims he saw ONE scratch.

The briars were collected and sent for testing in England. In 1996, you wouldn't expect to get any DNA from the briars. This was done just on the off chance they might yield something.... what the AMericans call a "Hail Mary". Even today, I doubt you would get DNA from a briar.

These "extremely light scratches" he got (supposedly on the 22nd or maybe the 23rd) were seen by multiple people for days afterwards (23 24 25 26) and were apparently still visible to the two gardai who visited him on the 28th.

What about the scratches has been thoroughly discredited?

Why wasnt he arrested then?

If the Guards cite the scratches as evidence of guilt then it could be used as basis for arrest. They cant have it both ways.

Well your logic is fatally flawed right there. The house's very remoteness makes it relatively easy to find. It's unlikely there would have been many random innocent passers by given it is at the end of a long cul de sac but it would be easily found by someone given fairly straightforward directions.