listermint wrote: » Tbf notes are made for references all the time for all sorts of matters. Hand drawing references to scratches for recollection purposes later isn't a hill you should die on for the mishandling of this case there are plenty of actually problems with the investigation but not a reference sketch.
sydthebeat wrote: » Its no hill, it's pretty much peak ineptitude though. If its for reference, just go photo the hands. If it's so long after the fact that the hands have healed, there's no way anyone can recall the number, position and direction of scratches. I doubt anyone could recall anything like that 10 mins after seeing it, never mind a number of days. Screams to me though of another stitch in the stitch up.
listermint wrote: » Guards live and die by their notebooks. Notes sketches references all done in the notebook for recollection purposes later. Do you know any guards ? If yes ask them The sketch has nothing malicious about it. It's not part of the stitch up . There are other things that could be like the bribing the fella to be friend him. For note I don't think B did it.
sydthebeat wrote: » Note book?? It was a A4 sheet which clearly someone had outlined their own hand on. Bailey didn't become a suspect until nearly two weeks after the murder, when his articles drew suspicion. Are we to believe that a guard drew a sketch of baileys hands prior to that?? If so, why?? If not, why not photo the hands at that first interview? That particular piece of "investigation" stunk to high heavens for me
listermint wrote: » And the bribery and the missing gate didn't ? The wine bottle. The sketch is a nonsense reference it's not the lynch pin you think it is
sydthebeat wrote: » I don't think it's a lynch pin or "Hill to die on" Why do you keep saying things like that?? My comment was its hilarious in its ineptitude
listermint wrote: » Your words "That particular piece of "investigation" stunk to high heavens for me" This reads as if you think this was a particular cunning plan to catch him. So that's why I'm pointing to your own words ...
monkeybutter wrote: » maybe you did it?
sydthebeat wrote: » My words : Four of us watched it together on Sunday night.. We all broke our **** laughing when we saw the drawings of the hands and cuts. Is that really how basic the gardai were in 1996??
sydthebeat wrote: » "this reads as if".... That's YOUR taking of what I'm saying. So once more for clarity, that particular piece of the case completely highlighted the ineptitude of the gardai for me as it was a comical sketch.
listermint wrote: » I'm not sure of your age but yes the technology you take for granted today was not as ubiquitous back then. There was not cameras for next to nothing in the local Currys. It's really not that odd for the time .
dark crystal wrote: » I don't think Ian Bailey killed Sophie, but it was a local. My theory is that she may have had a flirtation with someone locally, perhaps someone she was speaking to in the local bar where she often went to have tea and scones. Perhaps it wasn't even a flirtation, but merely a fledgling friendship. This would explain the two wine glasses and the missing bottle of expensive wine found in the ditch by the lane. The barman said she had expressed an interest in going to the Christmas party that night and perhaps this person offered to escort her. He arrived, they had a glass of wine, but she felt tired, or perhaps felt the person was looking for more than she was willing to offer and he left. Perhaps they didn't even touch the wine at all. She gets changed for bed, calls her husband and settles down for the night. However, the person comes back a while later, perhaps after having a few drinks at the party to see if she'll change her mind. This could be why she had her boots and dressing gown on, to walk the unwanted guest back to his car. He presses her and gets a bit more handsy, so she pushes him or says she'll call the police if he doesn't leave and that's when he panics and gets violent. He hits her and she tries to get back into the house, but he pulls her away and she starts running away from him, probably crying out at this stage. He catches up with her, they struggle and he hits her with the rock first, just to keep her quiet. He then realises if he leaves her alive, he's in big trouble, so he finishes her off with the block he finds a few metres away. I don't think he was on foot, as there were apparantly fresh track marks by the gate, so I'm not entertaining Marie Farrell's sighting at the remote bridge. I think she was a pure attention seeker. The police made a complete hames of the investigation and I doubt they'll ever find out who killed the poor woman. I think they know the killer alright, as he's a local, but they've invested too much time in Bailey at this stage to ever make an about face and admit they were wrong.
sydthebeat wrote: » If they didn't, then that just straight back to me question, were the guards really that basic in 1996??
Bannasidhe wrote: » Ah jayzuz, it wasn't the Stone Age. A disposable 35mm camera could be bought in any chemist for a few quid. Especially in a tourist area like West Cork.
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.
JimmyVik wrote: » Imagine traveling all the way from her home in France to that house for 2 nights and one full day in it. She was definitely meeting someone.
Polly701 wrote: » Marie Farrell should be charged with wasting everyone's time - she is a fantasist who really muddied the waters.
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.
dark crystal wrote: » ...This could be why she had her boots and dressing gown on, to walk the unwanted guest back to his car.
listermint wrote: » And these were beat guards not detectives. Once again cameras were not ubiquitous . It wasn't a go too thing at hand. People are clouded by technology these days and trying to put a Instagram 2021 mindset in 1996 is wrong.
khalessi wrote: » In regards to cameras, it was fairly normal to have a camera at the time and in early cases from years before this, crime sites were photographed, so it is a bit strange no one thought to call forensics photographer or just lift up a camera to take a picture. Twasn't the stone age.
Creamy Goodness wrote: » Sure even the Christmas swim was video taped, camcorders were super expensive back then way more than point and shoots. Whilst yes some people are forgetting how fast technology has moved on in terms of DNA and the likes, to suggest cameras weren't accessible is a bit too far especially in a murder case.
JimmyVik wrote: » I dont think thats evidence of anything. Just more fitting the evidence to the tall man theory. I worked in a car hire company in Dublin airport in my teens. You would push the front seats all the way back if you hoovered the back before you hoovered the front of the car. You started wherever had the most dirt, so it was totally random where you would leave them. Also im average height and whenever i get into a car as a passenger i push the seat all the way back to stretch my legs, unless there is someone sitting in the back.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » It was noted by the gardai that morning that the seat had been pushed all the way back. There were no suspects or leads at the time. I remain doubtful that a car hire company would valet a car and leave the passenger seat pushed all the way back.
