This makes no sense, just seeing as you keep going back to it
1 Like
Of course it does. They probably had the camera in the car but new pictures of the scratches would exonerate Bailey.
So instead they fuelled the rumour mill.
There is no power to photograph anyone during a doorstep-type interview
1 Like
I really wanna mute this thread, but at the same time, its like watching a car crash.
3 Likes
Yet you can draw sketches?
Yes, or you can make reference to injuries/marks/scars in your statement
Had they done an effective investigation they wouldâve had forensic evidence. So thereâs no way the second part of your post makes any logical sense
They took Baileys coat and then lost it while claiming ye burnt it.
Nothing to see here of course.
Some lads on here would believe pigs can fly if a person in a position authority told them so.
Makes perfect sense, if they had forensic evidence then he could have been charged.
He voluntarily gave them a blood and hair sample
So youâre wrong again
1 Like
Somebody knew it would exonerate Bailey so they were never going to go this route.
It would be some hand of cards by Bailey to offer his own dna given the continual improvements in that area and how deceitful the investigators were as well.
No doubt the missing gate and the coat would turn up quickly if they really thought it was Bailey.
Wasnât the gate held.for years to the point DNA would no longer be recoverable and the gate therefore useless and was discarded?
2 Likes
Youâre stone mad for this gate as well
#gategate
2 Likes
This clown says the horses killed her.
2 Likes
There is continual improvement in the forensics.
Like most of the evidence that could exonerate Bailey it was either lost or destroyed.
He gambled and won.
Some new poster commented on this thread around the time of the Netflix documentary defending him but Iâd imagine it was an alias ball hopping knowing this place.