and there was a quote he said "something terrible will happen tonight" not sure if this is hearsay or verifiable
Supposedly Ian remarked on Alfie's lights being on viewed from Hunt's Hill driving back from the pub. I think Jules contends the guards made it up.
deleted
I got scratched to hell climbing Sitka spruce (face too). I suppose you could avoid scratches if you want... Like if you were a Garda reportedly trying to "prove" something by saying 'I climbed a tree and got no scratches'.
I saw a picture of the tree which was referred to (with a Christmas tree size cut from the top) and yes I could get scratches of that too if I climbed it.
I don't know what you mean by "this was not proven", it doesn't need to be proven, that's like asking a guy where did he get the black eye and he said it was from walking into a door. Then you say 'well I walked into a door and no black eye so I'm proven right and your statement is unproven!'
BTW where was the photo of these scratches?
That drawing by the Garda looked 5hite
Thread is going round in ever decreasing circles now.
So here's a tangent, nothing to do with Ian Bailey .
I'm thinking ; if Bailey is innocent, and the neighbour living next door didn't do it, no French hitman , no randy Guard, no passing stranger.
Could it be the result of a very Irish problem ?
There is a clue in this image from the aftermath of the murder;
So you just ignore the numerous witness statements who saw the scratches and said they didn't think they could have come from cutting a tree? Sure thing.
I am unaware of numerous such witnesses but regardless, no expert saw the scratches or photos of the scratches to make such a determination, so such remarks have no foundation.
The Garda descriptions of the scratches are inconsistent and do not clearly describe briar cuts.
A dermatologist 5 days after the murder noticed nothing amiss on Baileys hands because they were scratches which had healed by then. Not briar cuts which would still be visible.
If you have received a scratch, on the first day they are at their least visible, just red scrapes.
Bailey made no attempt to conceal the scratches something which could easily have been done given the time of year with gloves and long sleeve tops.
Apparently Bailey got these cuts from briars at the scene but magically left not a trace of blood fibers or hair there.
This is all dealt with on the DPP report and it accepts Baileys account of the scratches.
There would have been so many Ford Fiestas in any area of Ireland at the time that it's unreal. There would have been alot of blue hatchbacks and alot of blue Ford Fiestas.
Intrigued now... do go on... and it better not be leprechauns!
Can you give us another clue - nothing is jumping out at me when I look at the photo. Im intrigued though to know another theory.
smh
Ok, the fence posts on the lawn suggests a fence has either been pulled down or about to be put up.
Thanks. I do see now. I take it you are suggesting that the murder could be to do with a posssible disgreement regarding property bounderies.
Maybe it was The Bull McCabe
Landdirect.ie
is free, join as guest
I'm thinking ; if Bailey is innocent, and the neighbour didn't do it, no French hitman , no randy Guard, no passing stranger.
And who would have an argument about land\fences if not a neighbour?
Fixed that for you now .
what do you mean. I posted what you wrote
I mean I fixed the original post, so if you read it again you'll know what I meant.
Somehow I think you already knew what I meant
i didn't know what you meant and still don't. why would i say i didn't if i did ?
,you edited the original post?
You changed neighbour to neighbour next door? Is that what you mean? so which neighbour is the next door one, wasn't she close to alfie and two others, i think
Alfie.
Boundary disputes don’t sound like a likely reason for a murder of opportunity, especially with a rock and a concrete block. Whoever did this was a ‘f****g head case’ as Dermot Dwyer said, prone to unpredictable outbursts of rage. They seem to be highly disorganised, with no thought about the consequences until it sinks in, probably hours or days later. The body was left right there on the lane, to be discovered by Shirley Foster. No attempt to cover it up or delay the discovery.
You'd normally see a boundary dispute resulting in a punch up or a scuffle at the very most. If one person was a bit nuts and lost the plot they would surely get a lethal weapon, a gun or a knife. They are usually found out straight away or give themselves up.
you have a very roundabout way of saying things. Are you saying it was alfie or wasn't Alfie
This post is just another weak attempt to undermine a perfectly valid theory.
1) There are countless examples of disputes between neighbours culminating in violence, even, frequently, murder. A brief google will throw up a multitude.
2) Dermot Dwyer is one of the architects of the total shambles that this investigation became. Anything he says is open to question. And should be questioned.
3) Boundary disputes frequently result in serious violence. There was one in Munster recently, over a right of way in which one farmer drove one of those big hay-lifting prongs into the other party, killing him.
There is, in my view more evidence to support the theory that Alfie Lyons was responsible than there ever has been pointing at IB. Not saying Alfie did it - just that there is more evidence that he did than there is that Bailey was the perpetrator.
It might not be just a boundary issue.
It could be right-of- way, or commonage, or just a misunderstanding between French and Irish land ownership.
The Munster case you mention involved decades of acrimony over a loud crow banger driving a man out of his mind.
People on this thread somehow want to believe a row over a gate being left open or closed or a fence being put up, when one person was only there for a few weeks per year, can lead to deadly violence, carried out face to face with a rock and then a completely unnecessary coup de grace with a massive concrete block. Absolute nonsense if you ask me. You'll notice in the Munster case, the perpetrator used a weapon that avoided face to face confrontation or manually killing. That takes a whole other level of madness.
Maybe read the story "The field" is based on.
The root cause of neighbour disputes are a secondary issue. The irritation and frustration is the factor that leads to the violence.
Neither is the use of a rock a factor that somehow mitigates against it being a neighbour dispute.
The facts are that :
1) Alfie knew Sophie personally. Bailey did not.
2) Alfie was at the scene of the crime at the time it happened. The is no evidence that Bailey was.
3) Alfie had an ongoing dispute with Sophie which was a possible motive. ( Neighbour disputes are notorious sources of violent conflict) Bailey had no motive.
4) Alfie had a bandaged hand on the morning of the discovery, which, I understand, he attributed to a dog bite. But he didn't have a dog.
5) Neither Alfie nor Shirley saw or heard anything. Despite the nature and length of the attack. This is odd.
So the rabbit holes of detail that are included in the above post as an attempt at smokescreen are disingenuous.
The is, I repeat much stronger evidence pointing to Alfie Lyons ( and/or, for that matter ) than that which points to IB>
I think people are forgetting that Sophie allowed locals to use her land to graze horses, completely free, and didn't seem interested in the land around the house at all. It was the isolation of the house itself she loved. This is a makey-uppey reason, comparing a French woman who came to the house three or four times a year to a bitter dispute over family land. Alfie was only living there a couple of years himself.
I said when I started this topic that I ruled out any part Alfie might have played, or Ian Bailey for that matter.
The fact I thought it may be a boundary dispute had nothing to do with Alfie.(apologies to SoulWriter)
I was simply looking at it from a different angle.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
