Ian Bailey RIP - threadbans in OP

What "off-roading" would be necessary? Let's assume Bailey is the killer. He could have walked or driven the route from his then abode to Sophie's, gone to Kealfadda Bridge to wash his bloody hands and clothing and be back in his own bed in as little as three hours or so.

He could have walked the route with that detour in entirely the wrong direction? How long is this 3am jaunt taking now? 3 hours?

Zero forensics found indicating anything in the car, no reports from the multiple members of the household of the car having anything out of the ordinary - and yes a man getting in with wet clothes would. Zero reports indicating that when the car was checked, it shows signs of recent deep cleaning.

This is just starting from an assumption, Bailey is the killer, and fitting debateable (in fact withdrawn) evidence around it.

What call are you referring to? The call to hire a hitman?

He couldn't have known beforehand that the investigation would be a mess and that the French state would not be interested in the murder of a French citizen, unless you stray into conspiracy theory and think he had some leverage.

If you're going to hire a hitman, you want to make sure as best as you can that it's not going to come back to you. You can't plan it and hope that the investigation falls apart.

Again, the theory that the French state would convict an innocent man just to save embarrassment is, in the 21st century, quite absurd and I don't see how it could be done. The reason Bailey isn't in prison in France is because of a technicality on extradition, not because his conviction was quashed.

There are simply too many holes in the hitman theory that can only be explained by unparalleled incompetence and/or conspiracy as to make it plausible.

And again, the hitman theory was originally promoted by a suspect. It is perfectly reasonable to think that he was doing so as a sort of forerunner to fake news and undermining the Guards' competence in the public eye and playing into the 'framed' narrative.

No the call to reopen the case.

I think it would be a pretty safe assumption that an investigation in Ireland in 1996 would not have the resources of an investigation in France, and that it would be hindered by cross border issues.

Prisons and crime stories have many examples of people who hired hit men who turned out not to be the best. It's not like choosing what expensive vehicle to buy.

Miscarriages of justice happen all the time, in France too:

In 2001, 45-year-old Marie-Agnès Bedot was murdered by stabbing. Nineteen-year-old Marc Machin was convicted of the murder based on circumstantial evidence and a forced confession. In 2008 David Sagno, a homeless man, admitted murdering Bedot and the police found Sagno's DNA on Bedot's clothes. Machin's conviction was quashed and he was cleared in 2012.

Can you show me evidence of French authorities seriously investigating a French angle to this murder?

There are more reasons than that as to why Bailey isn't in prison, I thought there was considerable doubt as to the fundamental legality of the basis for France attempting to extradite someone from here for a crime committed here. It wasn't some mere technicality that the paperwork wasn't in order.

Mr Justice Paul Burns said that, for an extradition to be allowed under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, there had to be reciprocity between Ireland and the country seeking the extradition.

I

Edited my post.

In the DPP report it seems to accept the below (I think it is based on a statement from Jules)

Has breakfast with Jules Thomas at 9.00 a.m

I thought Bailey himself said 11am?

I think we can both agree Jules was not the most consistent in her statements when it came to the murder. A bit unreliable in some regards, but at least she was able to help uncover that Baileys original alibi was false and ultimately brought into question his credibility.

Well look anything’s possible when we have no witnesses or evidence. The point I’m making here is that the theoretical motive is far from compelling and the lack of any evidence or credible witnesses means that any competent jury would find it impossible to be moved beyond a reasonable doubt that Bailey was the killer. The DPP were correct.

Ah but misleading to quote the DPP report and leave out this part

If Bailey had murdered Sophie, he would have known that there was a definite possibility of forensic evidence such as blood, fibres, hair or skin tissue being discovered at the scene. His voluntary provision of fingerprints and a specimen of his blood is objectively indicative of innocence.

Bailey would had no way of knowing what forensics were there or not, what mind have been left on the body or briars or whatever, It was dark, how was he supposed to know he was 'clean'?

Also, supposedly he went there on a drunken violent impulse, or half cut looking for a fling, but now he is forensically aware at the time of the murder?

It doesn't add up and never had in relation to Bailey.

Why was there blood on the door if Bailey had gone back and meticulously covered his tracks? Cleaning wine glasses etc. he would have had to clean the floor of his footprints surely also? The house was subjected to a detailed analysis.

I think a jury would find it hard to believe that he did all this whilst being black out drunk on whiskey and moments after committing an insanely violent and messy murder.

The scratches are open to contention. If they were briar scratches they were unlikely to be that deep and very very unlikely to open a deep wound with blood pouring out. He would have been confident enough on that one. The nick on the head is also open to contention. I believe you yourself said multiple witnesses did not notice any nick on his head while he was at the crime scene.

I've already accounted for the fingerprints.

The only hair found at the scene that I know of was Sophies. He would have known that himself, obvious she didn't pull his hair.

Did he provide any skin sample and was any sample found at the scene?

And while we are on the subject were any blood, fibres, hair or skin samples of anyone been found at the scene, or in the house that would indicate a third party?

Or was there on the otherhand the possibility of a basic effort at a forensic clean up? Washed glasses perhaps?

You keep mentioning the violent impulse. That is a garda contention. Its not mine. I'm open minded on his motives. This is not a murder she wrote episode. Motives in real life aren't always nicely framed and explainable. And especially when it relates to a known psychopath capable of turning into a monster in a flash as happened when he attacked his partner. There was no apparent sexual motive in that attack by the way!

Footprints? You think he left on his shoes and walked around the house after being outside? Unlikely.

Entirely possible he missed the blood on the door which by the way was Sophies, not his. But he would have known this already.

Regards subject to a detailed analysis, it was. Did they find any evidence to point to anyone?

I'm not going to bother, you've already demonstrated a lack of knowledge about this case, such as the attack on his partner when he almost in his own words killed her, denied her medical attention and attacked her again when she came out of hospital.

Not a psychopath? sure.

All under the influence of whiskey by the way.

That points to him having a wild temper and anger issues, not being a psychopath.

I don’t actually think you’re capable of outlining why Bailey was a psychopath so you’ve reverted to “I’m not going to bother”.

Bailey has talked about his “eternal shame” at what he did to Thomas. A psychopath would not feel shame about what he did and would not even understand or realise that they ought to feel shame.