monkeybutter wrote: » She was over at Xmas for a reason, that's the real clue, wasn't someone in the direct local vacinity
dark crystal wrote: » With the Keystone Guards on the case, it appears whoever did it hasn't been caught, so they did, in fact, get clean away with murder. The nature of the attack just doesn't seem planned to me - no weapons involved, just whatever was to hand. Looks more like a crime of passion or opportunity.
SevenAte9 wrote: » I think you should re-read the DPP's report. First, IB was interviewed by a Garda Sergant on December 31st - no mention of marks on hands - not "first questioned a few weeks after the murder." Secondly, from pg25 of the DPP's report; Dr. Louise Barnes, a dermatologist (skin specialist) closely observed Bailey some five days after the murder. She states “at no time, did he strike one as being suspicious.As a keen observer of peoples appearance due to my profession I certainly did not notice any marks or injuries to his face or hands.” Denis O'Callaghan saw Bailey on 24 December 1996 (the day after the murder) and he noticed multiple light scratches on Bailey's arms. Such light scratches are not consistent with cuts by razor like thorns. 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) Does it not strike you as odd that of the 44 page report, the entire forensic evidence was dealt with in 1 section on 1 page.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » You think someone came all the way from France or some other country to kill her but used a stone and then a concrete block that just happened to be lying at an obscure location in a badly overgrown area of the garden?
fryup wrote: » maybe not to kill her but to meet her, maybe rekindle an old friendship or relationship and was rebuffed didn't one of her ex boyfriends have a fixation with her? stalking her in Paris? a certain Bruno Carbonnet?
MoonUnit75 wrote: » No one disputes he had scratches on his hands, he admits himself he had scratches on his hands, so Dr. Barnes' observations five days later are pointless. Sophie had a light night shirt on her, presuming the killer was warmly dressed on this cold night you would not expect scratches from briars to tear up a well dressed person in a similar way to someone in light night clothes. There are multiple witnesses who said he had no obvious scratches on the night leading up to the murder, a couple of people close to him and one independent witness who claim to have seen scratches before the murder. These are the kind of inconsistencies that would be ironed out much, much better in the witness box than in a report.
dark crystal wrote: » Exactly - this wasn't planned imo. Another thing is that Sophie arrived alone in Ireland on 20th December. She was killed on the night of the 22nd, having planned to return to France on the 24th. During her very brief stay, it was very unlikely she was with a companion, as her 2 day visit was quite well documented as having been in the local bar for tea and scones, shopping in the local boutique and taking a long solitary walk to the isolated castles by the lake, which she recounted to a friend in her home. Whoever killed her only turned up sometime after she had visited the local bar earlier that day, the 22nd (sorry, not sure of the exact time she was there) and likely after she spoke to her husband on the phone that evening. Not much of an illicit rendezvous if her out-of-town-lover only decided to make an appearance for a mere 24 hours before she was to leave the country again and without as much as a phone call made beforehand. Whoever killed her, knew where she lived alright, but I don't think she was expecting them.
Mackwiss wrote: » This is actually a very good point. The place is in the middle of nowhere, so was the night cloudy? Moonless? Because if you need to walk to get the concrete block and hit here straight on there needs to be light.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » One interesting factoid noted by the gardai was that the small Fiesta hire car had the passenger seat pushed back almost all the way to accommodate a tall person. They felt it was unlikely the hire car company handed it over like this after it was valeted, makes sense not to obstruct the back seats like that.
monkeybutter wrote: » You iron these out before you go to court or you will get some bollicking from the judge
monkeybutter wrote: » What position would they leave it in?
MoonUnit75 wrote: » The gardai only have the statements to work with, it's up to a jury to figure out who is actually credible and the barristers to tease out who is able to stand over their statements. That's how it works. The DPP consistently discounted prosecution witnesses but likely defence witnesses are not criticised in the same manner.
fryup wrote: » who said it was a hire car?
dark crystal wrote: » Was that Sophie's rental car? I'm guessing they didn't do any DNA tests on it?
MoonUnit75 wrote: » I've hired cars in at least 13 countries on average twice a year and have never been given a car with either seat pushed all the way back towards the back seat. Especially not in a compact car similar in size to a Fiesta. I normally throw a few bits and pieces, maps in the old days and tablets and the like these days, and would notice if the seat was set well back from the drivers position.
monkeybutter wrote: » I have, the chances of it happening in a compact car are even higher Come on
MoonUnit75 wrote: » Maybe you use an ultra budget hire company like Firefly? Sophie used a well respected outfit.
monkeybutter wrote: » Do they only hire short arses Have you rented in Ireland? Cork airport That's a strange amount of time to be spending noting the positions of car rental seats, driver and passenger You should note she was only 4ft 11, so would have the seat very forward
Yurt! wrote: » Supreme shade being thrown here. You use downmarket car rental agencies. Lol.
Mackwiss wrote: » This is actually a very good point. The place is in the middle of nowhere, so was the night cloudy? Moonless?
MoonUnit75 wrote: » Almost always at airports, I doubt I'm the only one with the same routine. I keep my phone holder, charging cables, tablet with emails etc. that I'll need etc. in my hand luggage, open the car, dig out all that stuff from the bag and throw it on the passenger seat. I'd notice if it was set well back sitting in to set up the phone charger etc. I'd have to get out to push it forward to keep stuff in easy reach. Never happened!
