bb12 wrote: » regarding the "drug lord" hypothesis...the local gardai would have been well aware who was doing what and when...can't imagine they would be too bothered with a french lady making complaints every now and then when she flew into town for a few days here and then..she may have complained about drug use but i doubt the gardai would have taken her too seriously at the time or diid anything much about it. those new-age hippie communities are dotted all around the country in the west and the local cops in those areas usually leave them to their own devices
qwerty13 wrote: » Sekiro does raise a good point. Hasn’t West Cork been a well known spot for smuggling drugs for years. What if Sophie’s complaints were starting to cause problems for ‘importers’. What if AL was a little more than recreationally involved, and had people connected to the trade calling to his house? What if Sophie’s house was used as a ‘safe house’ when she wasn’t around. What if MF and her companion had some low level involvement with the imports, and that’s why they were out that night. What if the Gardai know all too well why Sophie was murdered, and IB is just a deeply unlikeable bystander. Does anyone know if there’s records of Sophie’s complaints about drugs?
Henry... wrote: » Did he also contaminate the crime as was alleged to prevent himself being implicated
odyssey06 wrote: » No. From reading this, I don't see how that could be possible, and if someone alleged that they seem very dubious as a source.https://evoke.ie/2020/05/31/life-style/sophie-toscan-du-plantier-murder-book Not a single piece of forensics evidence has ever been found putting Bailey at the scene, 'contaminated' or not.
Henry... wrote: » This is when he turned up the next morning
Henry... wrote: » Did he not.turn up at the crime scene that morning
mgn wrote: » The one thing I did learn from the Murder at the cottage one, is that Jim Sheridan made a complete mug out of Bailey by shown him up as someone who is drunk day and night and filmed him ranting on about nothing to do with the case. Take the Netflix documentary, Bailey comes across as a totally different man, sober and articulate.
odyssey06 wrote: » And the weird thing is Sheridan has said he has no angle re: Bailey being the killer. But the rest of the Netflix content seems to be pointing that way.
threeball wrote: » Could MF and her fella been using Sophies house as a love nest and were unaware that she had returned. Tried to enter the house and was confronted with an altercation taking place. MF then concocts a load of nonsense to divert attention away from her involvement by implicating IB.
dark crystal wrote: » Sophie's rental car would have been parked outside the house, I presume, so anyone showing up at the house would know the house was occupied.
odyssey06 wrote: » He turned up at the location in the mid afternoon. He wasn't the first journalist to turn up. There's no indication he had access to the crime scene i.e. within the Garda cordon. So he had no more or less access than any other passer by. He took photographs from outside the cordon. If you have something solid to show he had access to the actual crime scene please share. And no forensics evidence has been found putting Bailey at the crime scene. Not, well we found something but it is probably from his afternoon visit. Just nothing at all. Which is really something considering the Guards put him as a suspect because of scratches on his hands. How do you get scratches on your hands at the crime scene and leave no forensics.
odyssey06 wrote: » Could you have seen that from the gate I wonder?
mgn wrote: » I cant figure out what's Sheridan game is showing him in that light, I don't think I seen him sober in any part of the documentary. As for the Netflix one you would except that with all her family and friends involved in the making of it, in fact I think it was a family friend who made the documentary. Still Bailey came across a lot better and gave a good account of himself.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » I think this is the ‘CSI Effect’ in a nutshell. There was no LCN dna analysis available at the time and you would have to be very, very lucky to get a profile from the bags with thousands of thorns sent by the detectives. I think people tend to forget he could have been wearing fabric or cotton gloves which would leave no fingerprints but would absolutely allow thorns to scratch you quite badly. You would need good thick leather or gardening gloves to avoid scratches while running through a bramble patch. Speaking here from bitter experience!
As far as anyone knows, he was the first journalist to turn up, where have you heard different?
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » as another poster has mused, I wonder if it is part of a softening up process, preparing the public for his eventual surrender to the French?
MoonUnit75 wrote: » I think Sheridan’s thinking was to show Bailey as the perfect oddball, weirdo, loud, obnoxious person that locals would be only too happy to throw to the wolves.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » You could see it from outside the Garda cordon up the road from the gate.
[Deleted User] wrote: » What this case really needed was a trial, where defence and prosecution barristers cross examine and shred such characters as Clueso Dwyer, Mad as a box of frogs Farrel, Crazy Bailey, Alfie in wonderland Lyons, Daniel de Wienstien Tuscon de plantier, The French affair connection, Cassidy the forgetful journalist, a couple of local stoners coerced by the gaurds, and other random characters. Oh, and they need to drag that ****ing white lady in for a chat as well. Unfortunately instead we are left with pure amateur sleuth speculation, as per this thread.