Ian Bailey RIP - threadbans in OP

And yet other people are saying it was suspicious he was at the scene. Have you challenged them?

Why do you keep introducing a false narrative that people don`t believe that turkeys were killed and a tree cut down?

Anyway what I do know is that after he cut down the tree and killed the turkeys, Bailey bought and drank whiskey and pints of Guinness and played the bodhran in the pub. Multiple witnesses were interviewed. None of them saw a scratch or cut on his forehead, none of them saw scratches on his hands or arms bar possibly one individual who vaguely referred to a mark on one of his hands and I`m not even sure if that can be corroborated or if it`s just an urban myth that was introduced by a Bailey minion who frequented one of the other threads. So nothing at all similar to what was evident in the days after the murder.

Investigators sent a man up a similar tree to cut the top off it and he came down without scratches.

Jules saw a "raw" and "a bit bloodied" scratch on his forehead the morning after the murder that she hadn`t seen previously, according to her statement that she signed in the presence of her legal rep in 1997. She also said here that Bailey said it was caused by a "stick".

This part of her statement was read back to her in court in 2015. Her reply was..."This is an invention"

Then in 2017 she goes on RTE.

Philip Boucher Hayes: "The scratch from the turkey....why do you think that if he got it before the murder you didn`t notice it?"

Jules : "Because his hair covered it."

PBH : "But then you did notice it?"

Jules : "Yes well maybe he brushed his hair back and I saw it. It was like the teeniest little nick, like a twig or a turkey claw just flicking it."

So the scratch/cut that she immediately noticed on seeing him the following morning, she nor anybody else for that matter, had noticed it the previous evening or night. An after listening to Bailey blaming turkeys for 20 years she still mentioned a twig.

It is blindingly obvious from that 2017 interview that her original statement wasn`t doctored.

The only theory which fits perfectly without flights of fancy or other improbable events e.g drunks walking miles, randy garda, international hitmen etc is the aggravated burgalry one. Unfortunatly these were common enough during that era and people did sometimes get killed ir seriously injured in violent encounters with intruders.

STDP sees a couple of people coming in the gate. Goes out to see whats going on. Meets her demise. One of the burgalers checks the house to see if anyone else was present who might have seen the violent encounter.

The curveball is the Garda corruption. Why? The recent revelatiions re the kerry babies (i.e. mudered baby is from a garda family) makes you think again as to why they tried to pin it in someone.

It's not a false narrative. There is a tone \ undercurrent in the way the turkeys and trees were discussed implying it was a madeup story. Talk of, who would only put up their tree just before Christmas, as if the whole story was suspicious.

The DPP covered all the scratches, including the "sending a man up a tree" charade. That one person went up and did not get scratched is not evidence it cannot occur.

So, exactly as I suggested, the plausible reason for not noticing the 'teeniest little nick', is that it was easily covered by fringe.

And I see another false narrative, who mentioned a 'twig'??? This in a repeat of similar canard from yesterday where you tried to misrepresent the word 'stick' as if it was some sort of gotcha. This is the thin gruel you attempt to make a murder case out of. Look up the dictionary definition of 'stick', before you further try to claim this as a gotcha.

Excepts from the DPP statement 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).

Ronan Collins and Dylan Fairbairn on 24 December 1996 were in Bailey’s house and neither noted the scratches on Bailey. (After the murder).

Con O’Sullivan a butcher who alleges he met Bailey on 23 December 1996 does not refer to seeing any scratches on him.

From the evidence available it seems clear that the scratches caused to Bailey by cutting the tree and killing the turkeys were not of a very grave nature and it is not therefore surprising that certain patrons in a pub on the night of 22 December 1996 did not observe them.

Virginia Oliver (Thomas) in her statement of 2 January 1997 states that “in relation to the scratches on Ian’s hand last week I can verify that Ian killed and plucked three turkeys on the Sunday before Christmas. Ian also climbed to the top of a tree to cut the top off to use as a Christmas tree. I did see his hands scratched when he came down the tree.

Saffron Thomas was interviewed on 10 February 1997 and she stated that “I can verify as I was a witness to him receiving cuts and scratches to his hands, arms and legs from more specifically the cutting down of the tree.” “We had to kill three turkeys and in doing so Ian was cut by the turkey wings flapping when their heads were cut off.”

Conclusion:

Bailey’s explanation for the scratches is plausible, consistent and is supported by other direct and credible evidence.

Burglars don’t generally kill people- and especially not in the gruesome way in this case.

Given the brutal nature of the killing, with the extensive body of research on killings through the years in the land of academia and at the disposal of police forces across the globe,, I’ve no doubt that the nature of the death, the destruction of the head and face in particular , may point towards some type of killer profile and potentially some type of condition or reason for the killing.

And yet incidents do happen where people confront burglars, and violence ensues.

I would imagine if you've just killed someone your focus would be on getting out of there, instead of spending longer at the scene and being possibly spotted on the off chance there might be something worth finding in the house. There were neighbouring properties, it wasn't a completely isolated location where burglars would know they would not be disturbed.

And yet we have many incidents of burglaries leading to violence. Why didn't they just get out of there?

You could say the same for the Bailey scenario, if he turned up and was rebuffed, why not get out of there? Why kill? That's a fantasy theory too then.

So it is as much of a fantasy as the Garda scenario outlined for Bailey, which as a scenario is highly implausible and doesn't seem to have many precedents.

All of which you could say about Bailey. Did he 'decide' that?

It's not like he would have been overpowered. if Bailey can get into a rage, why not a criminal on a burglary? Perhaps a drug addicted one.

So yeah, of course they would get out of there fast after a murder, in that scenario.

It is no more fantastical than the one outlined for Bailey, and if anything a good deal more common.

They don't. But things can happen they had not planned for, things get out of their control, people get enraged. Once violence has started.

I didn't say it was probable. I suspect whatever the real explanation, it will seem improbable.

I was making the point it is at least as plausible\likely as the scenario outlined for Bailey by AGS, if not more so.

There were zero signs of a sexually motivated attack, and given how much has leaked out from DPP report, Garda File, etc I think we can assume that to be the facts of it.

I dissagree. Google some of the horrific cases that have happened in Ireland over the past 30 years.

We have multiple witnesses who were close to him and noticed it after the incident, people in the family unit likely paying more attention after such an event as cutting down a tree.

Scratches become more noticeable as they heal and scar \ scab over. And the scratches were gone in only a few days when Bailey was witnessed by a dermatologist. So exactly as the DPP outlines, consistent with Bailey's explanation of them being light scratches from the tree and not deeper ones from briar thorns.

It's not "beyond extraordinary". It could simply be explained by hair fringe being styled when out, and next morning, perhaps after a shower, hair slicked back after a shower. And the 'teeniest little nick' could have been scratched and re-opened by Bailey when sleeping or styling the hair back.

The explanation could be as simple as that.