Posted by 
Why should the suspect be interviewed?
Mon Sep 27, 2004 07:53 UP DATED BY FRED BASSETT Excerpt from Citizen Journalism site. Hilaal
Almost two thousand people were interviewed in this case , some who were up to 75 miles away on the night of the murder were interviewed twice, so why not this man who was only a short walk from the murder scene?
His family obviously covered for him , as gardai didn’t even “know he existed”. All the houses for miles around were canvassed and anyone present on the night was interviewed. So why was this man not known to have been in the area if people did not lie about his presence that night?
Many local men and some women had DNA samples taken even though they had never met Ms Du Plantier. The legion of local peeping toms had hair taken for analysis. A woman like Ms Du Plantier could be assured of many local men taking an interest in what she did at night as rumours had circulated that she often took men to her home…..wink …..wink! Former lovers in France were even interviewed about their wherabouts that night.
Despite claims/lies that Mr Bailey never gave a DNA sample to be compared with samples found under Du Plantiers nails, he in fact did give a sample immediately and without legal order at his first interview. The French press regularly claim that if Ireland had complusory DNA sample taking laws the case would be closed, thus giving the impression Bailey is escaping on this legal technicality. In fact it eventually emerged that no DNA was found under Ms Du Plantiers nails. Just another lie!
Another of the many lies/rumours circulated to paint Bailey as guilty was that he had gone to the scene of the murder before he had received a plone call from Eddie Cassidy of the Star, to do so as a proxy reporter for his paper. In the libel case that Bailey took last winter against newspapers this was proved false although Mr Cassidy then claimed he had never mentioned to Bailey on the phone it was a “murder” case.
Another nonesense is that if Bailey was to have been seen washing his boots at the bridge at Kealfadda where Mrs Marie Farrell said she saw him as she drove back from Goleen to Schull at 3.30am he would have been walking home approvimately four miles on a busy road by many houses whereas he could have walked home directly two miles on a deserted road by only a very few houses.
The Suspect that the Gardai “didn’t know existed” lived a very short distance from the bridge at Kealfadda where Mrs Farrell said she saw a man she later claimed was Bailey washing his boots. This would have been on the Suspects direct route home. From there he could have walked to his house in fifteen minutes by road or in about eight minutes over the beach and rocks, thus not passing any houses. Mrs Farrell only seven weeks later identified Mr Bailey as the man on the bridge a mile from the murder scene AFTER the Gardai had settled on him as a “prime suspect”. She could say that he was the man she had seen in the dead of a winters night washing his boots down in a river as she sped by on the road above. She claimed she had seen him outside her shop in Schull and walking on the road almost two months later and then went to Gardai ! Incredible!
But if you think there is no need to interview the “Suspect” then perhaps you are right. Sure, begorrah his family are “fine people” and we all know that “fine people” never do things like this. Well, there was Malcom McArthur…………..
Of course to entertain the prospect the Gardai got it wrong would not only be embarassing to them but would also leave Bailey claiming hundreds of thousands in Libel damages against the very papers who tried so hard last winter, in cahoots with the Gardai to build a case against him out of rumour and oft repeated and exaggerated rumour .
Who Watches the Watchers? 