Deeec wrote: » When Bailey and Jules stopped to look at the moonlight and were looking over at Sophies house Bailey mentioned that there probably was a party in Alfies. What if there was a party in Alfies that night? Another poster on here mentioned Alfie liked his parties, was a stoner and also grew his own supply of drugs. We know Sophie had complained to Gardai about drugs in the area. What if a person called to Sophies house thinking it was Alfies - Sophie got angry and a fight ensued. This could explain why she didnt run to her neighbours house.
TomCor1 wrote: » This is a strong possibility IMO. It could have been someone heading towards Alfie's house during the night, we know that they were in dispute over Sophie wanting to have the gate kept closed over but Alfie wanting it left open. It could have also been somebody leaving Alfie's party after a heavy night's drinking.
Mackinac wrote: » If the block is still in evidence it could be tested again though. A 65 years old murder case was recently solved in the US using DNA extracted from a very small amount of semen that had been kept in evidence.
TomCor1 wrote: » This is a strong possibility IMO. It could have been someone heading towards Alfie's house during the night, we know that they were in dispute over Sophie wanting to have the gate kept closed over but Alfie wanting it left open. It could have also been somebody leaving Alfie's party after a heavy night's drinking. I wonder was it ever confirmed that he was having a party and was anyone there that night ever questioned.
Mackinac wrote: » It was alleged that Ian Bailey said that there was a party at Alf Lyons’ house. Jules Thomas has said that never happened. I don’t think there was any party and believe that the neighbours were watching a film that night. Otherwise if there was a party that’s a lot of people staying quiet and also a lot of potential witnesses and suspects too.
odyssey06 wrote: » How could the killer know that the pathologist wouldn't get there in time to determine the time of death? If you want to buy time for an alibi, you close up the house and hide the body.
leath_dub wrote: » Ian Bailey is a really strange individualhttps://twitter.com/IanKennethBail1/status/1410846930155065347
Icantthinkof1 wrote: » Would the block& slate have been easily visible to the murderer at night time? I know there was a fairly full moon but it had been said how dark it gets
Treppen wrote: » First thing a killer might have done would be to remove any evidence of blood off the hands or look in a mirror to assess the aftermath. I think the killer did go into the house to clean up, then turn off the light on the way out. Although it would have been hard to avoid bloodstains when in the house...
TomCor1 wrote: » I watched the Netflix doc last night. 'Demonising propaganda' is putting it lightly. Dywer saying it was right that the French believed the main evidence of MF's original statement, seeing IB opposite her shop, yet it doesn't mention that her actual original statement was a 5foot 8 sallow skinned, european looking man, wearing a french beret, not IB. It's a pity DD wasn't questioned on any of these inconsistencies in the Doc, the missing evidence also. The whole doc compiles of anyone willing to jump on Bailey. Malachi's Mother for example.. he originally laughed Ian's statement off as a joke, and as IB states - when asked how he is by Malachi, he replies that he's not feeling great "after I apparently went up there with a rock and bashed her f***ing brains in". It may well have been IB, but it may well have been dozens of other people. There's not a shred of evidence against him. Just a snowball of 'he said, she said' built up over the years. The DPP saw this for what it was.
threeball wrote: » It could be a case of Sophie coming down the lane to confront the neighbour about leaving the gate open again. Him losing the rag and attacks her. Closes the door of her house on the way back to his.Its hard to believe that nothing was heard of the whole incident with the two houses in such close proximity. You'd hear a mouse fart in the depths of night in an area like that.
monkeybutter wrote: » if you killed someone, you would then walk into their house to clean up after? then spend time in the house cleaning up the mess you made while cleaning yourself. oh dear its like people thinking bailey would drive, bash someone to death and then drive home in the car after dragging blood etc into the car as far as sensitivity of the DNA testing, a few mls to do a DNA test is not correct in my mind, a drop was enough back then, smudged fingerprint of blood etc The amount you would drag into a car wearing or carrying some blood soaked black jacket If anyone thinks DNA evidence wasn't in the news at the time, think OJ They would have sent the samples off to the UK and they basically invented the process
MacDanger wrote: » That's not true - it's dealt with in detail in the DPP report, well worth reading
threeball wrote: » It could be a case of Sophie coming down the lane to confront the neighbour about leaving the gate open again. Him losing the rag and attacks her. Closes the door of her house on the way back to his. Its hard to believe that nothing was heard of the whole incident with the two houses in such close proximity. You'd hear a mouse fart in the depths of night in an area like that.
Mackinac wrote: » Regarding the hitman theory, did that originate from IB or where did he get it from? I know he referred to it in a conversation with his neighbour in February 1997 after his arrest.
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » This theory ticks a lot of boxes for me and fits a great many of the facts. What if the gate issue had become something of a "tit for tat" issue between Sophie and her neighbours. ie. Sophie closing the gate and the neighbours leaving it open after leaving/arriving, Sophie closing it again etc. etc. Then, after several instances of this, the neighbour, in frustration, takes the 25kg concrete block from the wall of the pumphouse and props the gate open with it, making his point. Sophie alone, is unable to move the heavy object and resolves to confront the neighbour at the next opportunity. Or, alternatively, she sees him, that morning, taking the the block and positioning it against the gate, quickly puts her boots on and goes down the lane to challenge him. Words are exchanged, the row heats up and the neighbour has a rush of blood to the head, picks up the block and ........ as a theory it fits quite a lot of the facts that other theories, in my opinion don't. We know the neighbour was there at the time. We know there was an ongoing dispute regarding the gate... Nobody heard anything, or, at least, nobody admitted hearing anything. Speculation, of course, but I'll leave it here to be challenged.
odyssey06 wrote: » O'Reilly had a strong motive also. Bailey had none.
A Primal Nut wrote: » Well that is his side and a bunch of witness have a different story, including another journalist. So it depends who you believe. Bailey has been inconsistent from the start which he admitted, saying it's hard to remember everything. The witnesses have been consistent on that point.
Treppen wrote: » I wonder did the killer attempt a clean up of themselves at/around the scene or wait till they got home? I think they mentioned in the JS Doc that in the States and UK they could do DNA with a small amount but Ireland they needed a vial. Whether or not it was true I don't know but it kind of shows they had no intention of getting assistance abroad. Anyhow all of the blood was presumably hers.
A Primal Nut wrote: » Ian Bailey wrote about that in his articles for his newspapers days after the murder when nobody knew anything. I'm not sure if he used the word hitman specifically, but he speculated about her husband and other men she may have dated being the killer. The fact they were in France at the time of the murder meant that to pin it on them would mean a hitman of some sort.
mioniqa wrote: » That's exactly my line of thinking too. She had previously changed the locks because she thought the neighbours had been in to her house while she was not there. If this was the case you can see how a feud would emerge. Alfie also said he's 90% certain he introduced Bailey to Sophie, how can you be 90% certain?
padraig1963 wrote: » Or the new suspect identified by MF from the photo shown to her by JS.
A Primal Nut wrote: » Malachi himself testified at the libel trial and presumably would have testified if there was a criminal trial. Witness statements that a suspect confessed are admissable as evidence.https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/evidence/hearsay_evidence.html
Mackinac wrote: » I know she was suspicious that someone had been in her house but did not know she suspected her neighbours, where did you hear that?
A Primal Nut wrote: » Joe O'Reilly had no forensic evidence against him either and he was convicted in Ireland. There is plenty of other types of evidence. O'Reilly was convicted purely because phone masts showed he travelled home when he said he didn't, so he lost his alibi. Bailey lost his alibi a long time ago when both he and wife admitted he got up in the middle of the night and wasn't seen back home until 9am. Before forensic science was developed, witnesses were relied upon. In this case you have dozens of witnesses willing to testify that: Bailey knew Sophie (from her previous trips to Ireland) - he says he never talked to her He had no scratches or mark on his forehead the day before the crime, they were there after - he says he got it a few days earlier from christmas trees or turkeys, even his own wife contradicted that in her statements. The confessions That he knew about the murder of a French woman many hours before he claims he did. That's a lot of people who would have to lie and be mistaken. But we've become so dependant on forensic evidence that somehow witnesses aren't considered enough anymore. The idea that he was targeted because he's non-local doesn't make sense either. Some of these witnesses are fellow British, the Italian woman, Sophie's French friends and relatives. There's enough there for a trial. It's possible that a criminal trial would have put it beyond reasonable doubt. Maybe, maybe not.
fryup wrote: » yes i agree, and then there was the detective who mentioned he had to make emergency phone call from a phone booth but couldn't because it was vandalised, surely he could have made the call in the Barracks?? and as for DNA forensics being in its infancy back then?? bollix! it was around for ten years by that time ..that murder site would have been awash with the killer's DNA, the gate, the breeze block, Sophie's clothing etc............something stinks to high heaven about this
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.
