Ian Bailey RIP - threadbans in OP

@chooseusername Typo in your post there - 1979?

The problem in todays terms for the DPP reports is that a lot of the doubts expressed about witness testimony has been shown to have been misplaced when those witnesses came under oath and other scrutiny.

As for the shenanigans with Farrell. For sure a couple of the boys in blue might have dropped the pants for her and I don`t really doubt her when she says that she was pressurized to identify Bailey as the man she saw in the three sightings. But I have serious issues with her now saying that it absolutely was not Bailey and it was someone else that she identified in a French photo for Jim Sheridan.

She said in her statement that it was a quiet day. Farrell was on the street when Sophie entered the shop. Another witness who actually knew both Sophie and Bailey said she saw Bailey in his long black coat across the street as Sophie exited Spar. Are we seriously to believe that the man that Farrell saw in a long black coat across from her shop when Sophie was in was anyone other than Bailey? You`d be arguing for two separate men in black across the street from Sophie, minutes apart on a quiet day. Gimme a break.

Farrell saw the same man on the Airhill Road early the next morning. It has also been established that Bailey was on the Airhill Road at some point early the following morning. Come on now. French hitman equals LaLa land and apparently Jim Sheridan has given up on the theory.

I seriously doubt that Marie was out at all on the night of the murder. There was no Kealfada sighting. She has accused them of a lot but Marie has never accused the Gardaí of creating false tales for her to tell. All she has offer now is that the man outside her shop followed Sophie when she left and I am in no doubt that that was Bailey.

She has also caused a lot of confusion because I suspect that the Gardaí believed the Kealfada story and assumed that Bailey was wearing his black coat on the night. If he gave any forethought to seducing the classy French lady, I seriously doubt that he went over there dressed as Bull McCabe.

As for the Garda whipped hysteria...it was well know locally that Bailey was a violent man who had been hammering his partner. He had been kicked out by Jules in 1993. That was also the year that Sophie`s house was broken into. Alfie had his own bath. Locals saw the scratches on his hands and word got round. That`s where the hysteria originated. It didn`t need whipping. That`s just another stick that people like to beat the Gardaí with. The fact is that the locals added one and one and got two and two was the right answer.

DNA extraction techniques are much better today than they were back in 2007. It's also possible that a DNA sample from 2007, if kept in storage, may have degraded or actually have insufficient quantity left to reanalyse. I know they currently analyse profiles using STR technology, I'm not certain what techniques were in use back then. Also, there is the possibility that no DNA remains on file. I know the DNA database is only relatively recent, it's possible they weren't allowed to retain extracted DNA back then.

Thanks - is there any possibility so that this “new” DNA could bring up something the “original” DNA couldn’t?

I thought it was a given and accepted truth that no DNA from Bailey was recovered from the crime scene - could this new sample change that in some way? Seems unlikely I would have thought. Once you have the profile locked in and stored on a computer I would have thought you wouldn’t need to go near the sample ever again

It does sound creepy ffs.

This is going to sound awfully creepy but sometimes if I see a very attractive woman, I'll follow them a bit. Not up the street or back to their car, but I'll follow them around Tesco for example. I hope I'm not alone in this.

Lol.

I was hoping someone would say " Yeah that's completely normal. I do the same thing. Nothing to worry about."

I'm not breaking any laws.

If I see an attractive lady waiting for the dart or Luas, I'll get on the same carriage as them and sit near them.

It's only creepy if I follow them home or talk to them or make them feel uncomfortable.

Well said. At this stage the thing most in the public's interest is an independent enquiry into the investigation of the murder. Go through the Garda incompetence and corruption with a fine tooth comb and make recommendations on Garda procedures and practice so that such a shambolic investigation is less likely to happen in the future.

If the cold case review ends up down a dead end then the murder investigation should be stood down and that independent inquiry should be carried out.

You're off your rocker. You've claimed malfeance on the part of the office of the DPP with zero evidence and I've responded stating that 2 separate DPPs have independently come to the same conclusion that the case presented by Gardai against Ian Bailey did not warrant him facing trial for murder. And yet no response from you to refute that fact, instead you continue to waffle on about the infallibility of the DPP.

It's very simple. There is some circumstantial evidence there that Ian Bailey may have committed this murder. Circumstantial evidence that is weak and was gathered as part of a Garda investigation that has been proven to be incompetent and corrupt. 2 separate DPPs, independently, on 2 separate occasions, have reached the same conclusion . That the circumstantial evidence against Bailey is not enough to give a reasonable chance of securing a guilty verdict for murder in an Irish courtroom. And that the manner in which some of that evidence was compiled by the Gardai was unsafe thus undermining the strength of that evidence. Until such time as the Gardai find some new, more incriminating, more concrete evidence against Bailey or any other suspect then whatever DPP is at the helm now is unlikely to return a different verdict. Care to debate that?

BTW, I fully agree that Bailey was deserving of being the chief suspect in this case. However, I simply do not agree that the evidence against him warranted him being in court having a trial for murder.

Are you seriously ok saying that

Excellent statement

Think witnesses are atrocious at height. People of whatever sex under 5ft 6/7 tend to struggle to know whether someone is 6 or 8 or 10 inches taller than them. Especially so if they only have a fleeting glance at them. Over the years have read or heard that police are looking for a man in his 30s seen at X,Y, Z and between 5ft 10 and 6ft 2 or whatever. If you stand someone 5ft 10 next to someone 6ft 2 its quite different. Have a look at some archive footage of (say) Michael Caine next to the smaller John Lennon or George Harrison as an example. No issue with Guards enquiring of Farrell how she got to idea he was 5ft 7 and was she sure. Strangest issue, re height, in recent years for me in a trial is the Adrian Donohue murder. No hesitation that Aaron Brady was a v nasty gouger who was on the robbery. But find it really odd notwithstanding the shock of seeing his partner shot that the other Detective described the shooter as 6ft 1 whereas Brady is a little runt and much smaller. Know seeing his friend killed was terrible but he was still a trained policeman who should be able to 'call' someone's height much more accurately than the rest of us under stress.

There were plenty of blow ins of his type in that part of West Cork at the time and still are, Ian Bailey wasn’t exactly unique in that sense. Known as new age hippies. Some were industrious setting up niche farms or shops, or were varying degrees of talented craftspeople or artists, some were drug and alcohol addled hasbeens like Bailey. They were ten a penny there and then.

For Marie Farrell to salvage any credibility, she would have to name, honestly, the man who was with her that night.

You would have thought that answering that question should have been high on the list of priorities of the cold case team