Loafing Oaf wrote: » Common sense assumption would be there was some sort of personal/sexual motive at play here, whether or not Bailey was the perpetrator. If he was and had established some sort of connection with Sophie prior to the murder but somehow managed to keep it completely secret, then there isn't going to be a trail of evidence regarding motive.
retro:electro wrote: » I don’t understand how Marie Farrell has never been either prosecuted or sued for the amount of drivel she has produced. She is a major factor in why this case remains unsolved 25 years on. Complete idiot of a woman
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » Well, yes, but she there was no evidence of sexual assault or recent sexual activity according to the PM report. If is a small word.....you can construct any scenario, however unlikely using the word if. But there is no evidence.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Well something totally out of the ordinary clearly happened here. Compared to some of the scenarios that have been floated in this thread, like the angry tradesman, the proposition that Ian Bailey committed the murder in a rage following a thwarted sexual advance doesn't rank very high on the implausibility scale IMO...
TomOnBoard wrote: » The French formally enshrined the "Passive Personality Principle" in the adoption of their Penal Code in Article 113-7 as part of a massive re-working of French Criminal law over the past 30 years or so. The principle is based on the belief that any person or organisation who commits a serious crime against any French national, in any place whether inside or outside France, will be subject to French law if certain criteria are met. It is a very aggressive principal that ensures that French nationals can obtain 'justice' even where a foreign jurisdiction fails to investigate and/or bring perpetrators of crimes against French people to justice in those jurisdictions. The fact that the DPP declined to prosecute IB, arguably for sound reasons to do with a lack of evidence, alleged tampering, alleged investigatory failings, etc. left Sophie's family with little choice but to use Article 113-7 to get their 'justice' in the only place that was left to them. On IB's part, there are no conceivably sound reasons for him to subject himself to such an extra-territorial process, but that does not negate the French authorities' rights and efforts to get him there. As it now stands, IB has been found guilty of Sophie's murder, sentenced to 25 year in absentia. It is unlikely he will ever be extradited there, but if he ever sets foot outside of the Irish State, he will be subject to an International Arrest Warrant. This is how this will continue to play out.. Unless, someone decides to kidnap him and bring him over to France, a tactic that has been used in the past, in the Bamberski- Krombach case.
FAILSAFE 00 wrote: » That state pathologist at the time... What an absolute **** When he was finally told he had to get his ass down to Cork you can tell he is reluctantly boarding the plane, moving as slow as possible. Must have ruined his Christmas plans.
nc6000 wrote: » I'm sure it was mentioned that a senior Garda wanted the scene preserved until Prof Harbison got there. The 23rd was his birthday and he appears to have been out for lunch so couldn't be contacted and didn't arrive at the scene until the 24th.
Wompa1 wrote: » I don't recall them saying that he wanted the body moved though but that was the 1st episode and I watched it 3 days ago so maybe I'm not remembering it correctly.
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » Well, that's you're opinion and it is a possibility, for sure. And it is plausible. But there is no evidence to support the theory. It is also possible that the husband arranged it. He had motive ( he was conducting an affair and his lover had his baby within a short time) He certainly had the means to arrange it ( very wealthy and well connected) He knew she would be there alone. He had already gone through an expensive divorce and may have wanted to avoid the cost of another. So the three key factors were present - motive, means and opportunity -I would say that that scenario is equally, if not more, plausible, but again, there is no evidence to support it.
monkeybutter wrote: » there's more info out there than one TV doc he wanted it moved
Wompa1 wrote: » There were a lot of loose threads in the documentary. There was no mention of that instruction in the documentary. They said she had her own hair in her hands and the mark on the door was from her. They explained the neighbor found her but not anything about the movements of the neighbor...what time did they go to bed, when was the last time they left the house. That and the lads who said they heard noises could give somewhat of a timeline. Bailey was wearing black coats in every court appearance....did he own more than one feckin' black coat at the time? The Garda who said they found the tongues off shoes and furniture in the remains of the fire. Where are those now?...there was a claim he was washing his boots at the bridge..the block wouldn't be capable of taking on a fingerprint. Is that true?...was that contested at all? Was it Garda incompetence or did the killer really get that lucky? It was beautifully shot but there was so many questions left unasked and unanswered.
Mackinac wrote: » In all the stuff I’ve read over the years there seems to be very little detail regarding what the neighbours may have heard etc. Maybe they chose not to give any interviews and stayed away from the press, it has struck me too. I read that Sophie had a difficult relationship with one of her neighbours over the shared gate and it being left open, it is ironic that poor woman died by it.
Wompa1 wrote: » Is it possible she didn't see anything and injected herself into the story?
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » That's an interesting point. How about this: There was an ongoing tension between Sophie and Alfie Lyons regarding the gate ( apparently she felt is should be kept shut, but he disagreed. Sophie shuts the gate the night before and Alfie, leaving the next morning fids the gate shut ( maybe even locked in some way) and creates a bit of a scene about it. Sophie puts her boots on and goes down to the gate to Alfie, where an argument ensues and Alfie loses his temper and whacks her. the fight escalates to the point where Alfie loses it completely........
Bannasidhe wrote: » Except that Alfie Lyons ran out of breath trying to knead dough as far back as 1995 so could no longer do the occasional shift at Arbutus Breads - but you think he could lift a concrete block in the air several times? You also think he would leave a battered body there for his partner Shirley to find? The same Shirley he had been counting the days until she retired and moved permanently to West Cork.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » And the modus operandi doesn't tally at all with a hired killer. So if the 'real story' were ever to come out here, some aspects are going to seem implausible and counterintuitive.
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » OK but compare the "plausibility factors" : He was definitely in the vicinity. (next door) He obviously knew her He had an ongoing issue with her regarding the gate. ( where the attack took place) So he had means, plausible motive, and opportunity. I would hazard that he was as likely a suspect, based on these factors, as IB.
FrankN1 wrote: » What was the gate issue & did he have an alibi?
Creamy Goodness wrote: » AFAIK the issue with the gate was that it was being left opened either by Sophie or the house keeper or anyone else who would go to her house to look after it whilst she wasn't there.
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » My understanding of it was that Sophie felt it should be kept closed for added security whilst Alfie couldn't be bothered as he regarded it as an unnecessary hassle to have to keep opening and closing it every time he came or went.
Creamy Goodness wrote: » Ah my apologies I got it the wrong way round.
marklazarcovic wrote: » that may very well have been the intention though. to not look like a hired hit.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » So the killer uses whatever random bit of masonry was to hand rather than bringing his own weapon, goes way beyond the level of force required to 'do the job' and makes no effort whatsoever to conceal the body. Overegging things a tad, no?
monkeybutter wrote: » you kill her with a weapon you remove the weapon you finish the job with the block I mean whoever actually did it hardly attacked with the 17 inch block weighing probably 25kg in the first place I mean how many times did they reckon it was used? how would they know
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
