monkeybutter wrote: » its not entirely clear what they didn't preserve exactly? can you shed light on it i mean you heard all sorts of rubbish after as to what they did, washing glasses etc, but its all rubbish Leaving bailey walk all over the place, but did this happen? do people really believe they kept the coat and gate out the back in schull garda station?
am_zarathustra wrote: » Ah the guards did a terrible job. Watching the TG4 documentary Maru inar Measc on Phylis Murphy (more than a decade previous) or any of the other 3 cases will shine a light on the standard of murder investigations in the country, this was way off what should and was expected at the time. The level of detail and the forensics kept despite not knowing there would even be the advent of PCR would make you proud of the force. Its astonishing to think that this case was run by the same group. I know some guards of that generation down that way, they were cowboys sent there or to the north west because they could do less harm. They wouldn't be terribly law abiding themselves and would have a fairly strong sense of being above reproach. And job books are carefully monitored, they are very often required in court cases and will almost always be looked at. Missing pages and books is again a red flag that this was badly run from the start. Seems like the lads didn't like the boys from Phoenix Park telling them what to do and weren't used to being held to account for their actions. The super deciding he knew better than the state pathologist or the forensics is a glaring example.
Addle wrote: » You think it’s any better now?https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/man-released-without-charge-in-deacey-investigation-1.3513521?mode=amp
odyssey06 wrote: » Ok <does more googling> didn't realise the washing glasses thing was rubbish, ignore that. But what did happen the coat and gate? At what point did the gate go missing? And later, the wine bottle?https://www.thejournal.ie/grave-concern-over-missing-evidence-in-du-plantier-murder-investigation-4161933-Aug2018/
monkeybutter wrote: » what are you trying to say with the link? it doesn't have many details
dark crystal wrote: » How so? No motive, no DNA evidence, no witnesses. What's probable about his guilt exactly?
FrankN1 wrote: » He knew her, he had no alibi that time of night, he was known to be very aggressive against women, he had a bonfire a few days after, his jacket was soaked in water/bleach, he had scratches consistent with a brawl, no other major suspects, he knew about the murder 3 hours before the news broke, he admitted it to multiple people that he did it...there's probably more but that's off the top of my head. May not be enough to convict but he is more than likely guilty.
FrankN1 wrote: » He knew her,
he had no alibi that time of night,
he was known to be very aggressive against women
he had a bonfire a few days after
his jacket was soaked in water/bleach
he had scratches consistent with a brawl
no other major suspects
he knew about the murder 3 hours before the news broke
he admitted it to multiple people that he did it
FrankN1 wrote: » Is it worth watching the sky version after the Netflix one?
Yurt! wrote: » How about Ian Bailey howling at the moon while sitting in a rocking chair surrounded by 10 dancing lesbians? I like that one...https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/bailey-would-howl-at-the-moon-and-had-sat-in-a-rocking-chair-on-beach-with-10-lesbians-dancing-around-him-30795318.html
Polly701 wrote: » Regarding other suspects.. Wasn't there a German ex boyfriend of Sophies who was considered? I think he committed suicide the following year? Was he ruled out? Couldn't he have turned up (uninvited) that morning in a blue fiesta? Carrying a bottle of wine he bought on the trip over? Maybe Sophie saw him at the gate and put her boots on (thinking for God's sake I told him not to come, etc.) .. too annoyed to bother with coat... walked down angrily to the gate as she didn't want to see him at her home at Christmas. When he presents the bottle of wine she angrily flings it away? He is furious at his grand gesture of travelling to her being rejected and after making the trip all the way to Schull.. he flips?? To me this is more plausible than trying to make little bits of information add up to it being IB. Looking at the photos of her house taken that day the loaf of bread really stands out to me.. Surely you wouldn't go to bed and leave a loaf out uncovered?? This makes me think the murder may have happened in the morning. I don't think IB did it... And it's shameful that so many think guilty until proven innocent..
Deleted User wrote: » I'm trying to check out if this story of the unopened bottle of expensive French wine lying in a ditch near the body is actually true. All I've found so far is mention of: "....A French wine bottle found four months after the murder in a field next to the scene;".. No mention of it being full. Could easily have been dropped out of a car a long time before after one of Alfie's parties.
Treppen wrote: » Maybe why the killer went into the house, have a look around for witnesses, smell bread in oven and take it out... But if he was French he would have naturally covered it.
odyssey06 wrote: » It's not even enough to prosecute according to our DPP rather than a corrupt French kangaroo court bent on a miscarriage of justice. Did he know her? It's not really clear. He may have known her. He did know 'of her'. So did lots of people. This is not evidence. Scratches consistent with a brawl? They've been explained and corroborated by multiple witnesses as NOTHING whatsoever to do with a brawl. If he had scratches from carrying out the murder, why wasn't his DNA found under the victim's fingernails? So the evidence you are offering actually exonerates him. He did not ADMIT to multiple people that he did it, off hands angry sarcastic remarks are not an admittance or confessions. People who are aggressive to women should be prosecuted for that, it does not make them murderers. Again it's not evidence. He didn't have an alibi - nor did lots of people. Would you have an alibi for all your movements if someone died in your area? This is not evidence of anything. No other major suspects? That's not evidence against Ian Bailey, that's evidence against the competence of the investigation. There are murders with no suspects. It doesn't mean whichever one is suspected is guilty. Lots of people know about murders before the news is officially released to the public. It's evidence of nothing. There is no evidence putting Bailey at the crime scene, zero forensics. He's given DNA, blood and fingerprint samples. Yet nothing. The guy is innocent.
SoulWriter wrote: » The bread would suggest Sophie was at breakfast when the incident began. Also she had stomach contents.. I cannot recall was bread one of the items
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » I've been thinking about this. The bread on the table, the breakfast material in her stomach and the fact that there was no light on in the house upon the arrival of the Gardai. It all points to the time of the attack being in the morning rather than late at night. the absence of a burning light, in particualr, suggests that it was daylight when Sophie left the house.....so around 9am say If we assume that this was, indeed the case, then the "sighting" at Kealfadda bridge is irrelevant and IB can be ruled out, because he brought Jules coffee at 9am.
FrankN1 wrote: » Well he knew where she lived and commented to his wife that there may be a party on next door at the neighbours on the night. It's a hard place to get to by all accounts so this is an important point. I'm pretty sure the witnesses said they were definitely not consistent with an injury from cutting a tree and a turkey. Did they even test his nails for DNA? Admitting it is actually evidence. Not many people go around saying these things. It's not admissable but definitely important that it happened many times and not just a once off. Most suspects did have an alibi actually so again this is vital. His own wife said he got up. And he was spotted near the scene until that statement was retracted. The lack of other suspects obviously points to him. If there were other sightings of different people or any evidence of other locals going to the home, it would bring his guilt into further doubt. Knowing about a murder in a very rural place hours before it has spread to the community is actually crucial for obvious reasons. The gardai didn't collect anything really and messed up the crime scene. I'm not saying he's 100pc guilty, I'm saying it's the most likely scenario based on the current evidence which is circumstantial.
SoulWriter wrote: » What time was sun up, about 8.30 am? Is that too late for the blue fiesta?
SoulWriter wrote: » https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderAtTheCottage/comments/o4pjr4/an_unopened_bottle_of_wine_was_found_in_bushes/
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » Can't agree with you on this Frank. I would say that the circumstantial evidence points much more towards Alfie Lyons. 1) He knew her .....without doubt 2) He was at the scene....without doubt 3) He had an ongoing dispute with her so , possible motive. 4 And nobody heard anything, despite a viscious attack occuring, with Sophie fighting back. Not even Alfie, 100 yards away............... Now I don't really think Alfie did it. But if you put your faith in circumstantial evidence, then there is more pointing at Alfie than there is at Bailey.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bd89cdce15309a6ec2dff928c865017a.svg)
