tibruit wrote: » Death In December by Michael Sheridan. Alfie`s wife first saw the body and returned to her house and told Alfie. He walked down the driveway and as far as I can remember he approached close enough to confirm it was a body and then he walked back up the driveway and knocked on Sophie`s door. If he was certain it was Sophie, if he was the killer, then he wouldn`t have done that.
Deeec wrote: » Ive never seen or heard this before but I havent read Michael Sheridans book. Alfie could also have done this to make it look it like he didnt know who the body was. It could be a clever move. It probably means nothing.
chooseusername wrote: » Attack was in Stroud, Bailey lived about 10 miles away in Gloucester. "Misogynistic attack" was the phrase used by, I think the coroner . A man or woman who hates women implying the victim is female.
tibruit wrote: » He was thinking outside the box then for an old pothead.
monkeybutter wrote: » is murder not enough outside the box?
tibruit wrote: » The murderer was an out of control madman.
JP Liz V1 wrote: » Why not ring 999 asap
tibruit wrote: » He may have told his wife to ring 999. Alfie was not the killer. If he was, he would have known it was Sophie and he would have also known she was alone and therefore he would not have gone knocking on her door.
threeball wrote: » If you wanted to make it look like you didn't know who the body was then thats a very simple way. As well as having the added benefit of putting your fingerprints on her door which would explain any left previously.
tibruit wrote: » And yet his fingerprints were not on the door.
threeball wrote: » So he didn't go to the door and instead lied about it. If I saw a person dead on the ground at the end of our drive and wanted to check if it was my neighbour, I think I'd knock, then try the handle and give the door a shove. I wouldn't just tap my knuckle on the surface politely 3 times and assume she wasn't home.
forestgirl wrote: » I wonder is the reason MF changing her statement about it not being IB because she's afraid he will be extradited to France and serve 25yrs knowing well he didn't commit murder, just a thought. I have seen and spoke to him and to say the man she saw was about 5'8 is ridiculous because even if you couldn't gauge someone's height you would say he's the tallest man you have ever seen. IB has a huge presence altogether.
monkeybutter wrote: » but is he not 6 foot 2/3? is it not ridiculous that people all go on about how tall he is, how people over exagerate
Ash.J.Williams wrote: » Only landlines I guess
FileNotFound wrote: » MF changed her statement long before the French planned to try him. It was after she was dragged through the civil stuff which the Gardai said would never happen to her. She openly states she did not see him and the Gardai coerced her into the story (telling her husband she was with another man if she didn't) - end of her as a witness in anything, then the gardai called her untrustworthy anyway when Bailey tried for a civil suit against them. Sweet Irony. There really is no proof IB was anywhere near the house - only things we know is he had scratches on arms and got out of bed and his house that night. Says a lot about the french justice system that they took a statement known to be tainted and also the mother of the young lad testified on his behalf - never heard such odd stuff in my life.
threeball wrote: » Wouldn't fancy being accused of a crime in France. Seems an absolute shambles of a justice system. No checks or balances. Just verdicts based on conjecture and feelings.
Yurt! wrote: » The key difference between France and here is that with a murder in France, an investigation would be directed by a prosecutor appointed to the case - a magistrate with quasi judicial powers. The quality and probitive vale of evidence & statements, direction and quality control of the investigation is presided over by him/her. By the time the case reaches a court (if it's not dropped), the likelihood is that the evidence has been interrogated sufficiently to ensure a conviction. It's not a bad system from point A. to point B. The system in Ireland is that AGS direct the investigation, and the DPP act as gatekeepers to a trial based on the quality of evidence collected. The problem with the Bailey trial was that (apart from being conducted in absentia with no defence), the French court treated the Garda file as if the same quality control was conducted on it as would be the case in France with an investigation done by a quasi-judicial magistrate. They put lipstick on a pig basically.
Zeek12 wrote: » On the scratches, can we even say with any certainty that he had some? That were actually consistent with heavy briar scratches?
EmmetSpiceland wrote: » Isn’t the idea that the murderer was wearing gloves? I know they couldn’t get prints from the block but did they find any on the gate?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7f0ee566c2a6a4f1cca1529d24ea5553.svg)
