Ian Bailey RIP - threadbans in OP

If it’s true according to Jules , that he was missing from his bed/house between 11pm and 9am, that’s 10 hours. His house is around 3km from Sophie’s house - allowing 20 minutes per km over country roads that’s about 2 hours of travel return trip- longer if it’s miles not KMs.

So plenty of time to get there, get home tidy up etc

With Jules changing her story, it left Bailey wide open - had the timeline been much shorter, say 3 hours, it would have been much harder to believe - since I don’t know the minutiae detail enough am I correct in the above?

Not sure about 11pm.

In this excerpt from the DPP report it says:

In her statement taken (10E) towards the end of her detention Jules Thomas states that she went to bed at 1.30 a.m. on 23 December 1996... She said that she was in a sleep and Ian was tossing and turning and he then got up from bed approximately an hour later.

It is still a window of 5-6 hours, but towards the end of that window, he would be coming back in twilight and more likely to be observed.

I find the whole angle about going out at that hour on foot in middle of night in winter to be implausible. Also would have needed to gone out and back, cleaned up, without waking people in the house, and there was more than than Jules staying in the house.

There is also possibility there was drink taken, and Bailey's recollection of the details of that night a bit hazy.

She changed her statement later though I thought? Maybe I’m mistaken but just going with what was written in the above link I quoted

She changed her statements and challenged some of what AGS had recorded. Remember one of her witness statements could not be found by GSOC and some of the tampered pages in the Jobs Book related to it.

But she did not change those timings afaik.

So I think I'd trust the timings from the DPP report over that article. Have you got anything more definitive as to the 10pm comment?

By some accounts they only got to the pub at 9pm e.g. this timeline collated by "Crime Guy"

For most of this evening, starting at around 9pm, Jules Thomas and Ian Bailey are out in one of the Schull pubs, The Galley bar. According to them, they arrive home at around 01:30. 

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/6LO3XX7RV5W3/519310568-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-timeline.pdf

I don't and like I said only going on what I’m reading- considering that article was only published since Ian’s death you’d think they’d get the facts right.

Im not up on the official timelines of the night in question so happy to be corrected.

If they were indeed out in a pub getting pissed and only back at 1am , it’s much harder to believe that Ian was capable of making his way over and back from Sophie’s house without creating huge suspicion - I’m assuming that his outbursts and violence towards women mainly happened when drunk? So he was likely in a state that night where he had a strong propensity to be violent. But if the timeline is now is greatly reduced I’m less likely to believe his involvement

 I’m assuming that his outbursts and violence towards women mainly happened when drunk?3

Exclusively when he drank whiskey, according to Jules.

It's also worth noting, the physical violence wasn't just one way, Jules could be violent when drinking too.

It may be uncomfortable for some people to hear, but couples often have substance abuse issues, not just one. Dysfunctional Violent relationships are not always just one way either.

Detectives can legally lie about confessions? I'm not sure about that.

Either way you missed the point.

Incorrect.

If someone living alone was interviewed and gave one alibi, but then decided to change it at a later stage to something else, that potentially would make them a suspect.

Again I am not saying Bailey did it (no-one on here can prove he did or didn't do it unless they have some hard evidence no-one else has which is unlikely). But when you start changing your alibi, you can understand why people start asking questions.

It seems very doubtful he used the car... Ginny Thomas returned to the property about 2:30am and didn't notice the car missing afaik.

None of the people in the house heard the car leaving or returning.

There were no signs of blood in the car, noticed either by the residents or when searched for forensics weeks later. And afaik no obvious signs of attempts to clean away evidence.

Or maybe the "confessions" were just Bailey's sarcastic way of trying to get rid of someone annoying him \ trying to wind him up.

I'm quoting from the DPP report and reputable outlets such as The Guardian. To deliberately misrepresent that as "some random boards poster" is obviously false and shows you know you haven't a leg to stand on.

Stating categorically and first time, what you did or didn’t do and the times you did these things at, is actually incredibly difficult sometimes unless you first cross reference your version with others.

I couldn’t tell you what I did say a week ago, with any huge level of detail or accuracy- I’d need to be prompted by others whom I was with before arriving at some version of accurate.

Had I been questioned, I’d likely have stated that I need to verify certain aspects as a, I had been drinking and b, I had no cause to remember accurately, my movements on the night. I don’t think I would have readily locked in my movements in a Garda statement without first obtaining independent verification - at the very least I would have said it was my current recollection and reserve the right to update that recollection - that in itself shows that I’m not willing to be badgered into making a full and final statement on the matter that “can be used against me”.

If baileys face was scratched in the course of the murder wouldn't there be DNA evidence.

Again I bow to your greater knowledge of this topic - tracking across fields or the country road is certainly possible, especially as he was possibly fueled by alcohol - but probable? A lot harder to believe.

And what did he think would happen when he got there? There’s no major evidence that they were friendly enough that he’d visit her house at a normal time, no less in the middle of the night. Had there been evidence of an affair then yes, absolutely I’d be willing to agree that he would have been strongly motivated to visit her house- but even if they were “introduced” and knew each other “in passing” , just not a strong enough motivation to visit her house at such an hour - and if greatly pissed, even less likelihood of not leaving vital evidence behind - for this part of the story, it doesn’t add up to me that he visited that house that night.