Yes, absolutely. That's kind of what I'm getting at. The reason for the killer being there seems to me to be unlikely to have been murder, it was something else but then things got out of hand. So asking what the motive for the murder might be seems to be less important than the reason for the killer to be there over that time period. That reason does not seem to be to murder someone. The motive for murder seems to be an explosion of uncontrollable rage caused by the interaction outside the cottage.
Yeah but whatever brought her killer to her house at that ungodly hour must have some connection to the murder, whether or not he [not assuming too much there am I?] intended to do her harm when he set out. I mean it's not like the postman suddenly went postal, as it were...
deleted
The thing about 'motive' in this case is it seems to come down to a completely spur of the moment thing. I don't believe for a second that a professional hitman would arrive with no weapon and use a stone from a wall and a large block from an unfinished building. That screams fantasyland. If it was a professional trying to make it look like a random attack, why not stage a burglary, break a window or lock, take something valuable from the house? This theory is more like a B-movie plot.
Her ex was verified to be in France and despite a bad break up had been on easy enough terms with Sophie since he had asked for her to loan one of his paintings for an exhibition and she agreed. They broke up a couple of years earlier.
Equally, I think the suggestion that an argument over a gate or drainage or speculation that Sophie reported Alfie for a massive cannabis operation up on the hill, which was not discovered during the extensive searches, are unrealistic. This makes Alfie a highly unlikely suspect to me. Shirley would likely have heard him leaving or coming back in to the house and disposing of clothes etc. I don't find it plausible that she would shield him after seeing first hand what the killer had done to Sophie. If Sophie was disturbed by the suggested drug operation going on a few metres from her house then it seems incredible she mentioned this to no one among her friends and family and brought her young son there.
So to my mind, whatever the motive was, it began and ended at the end of the lane.
We owe him the right to be treated fairly according to Irish law.
The DPP has repeatedly determined there is not evidence to try anyone for the murder.
Our courts have repeatedly determined there are not legal grounds for extradition.
If we can't be bothered, maybe we should leave well alone.
That's not how the ignore function works; it is not two-way and users don't get to dictate what others can or cannot reply to or so. You do however have the choice to ignore those posters so they never appear in your threads (or get informed when/if they reply to you). I would advise this if the user irritates you this much, rather than clog an otherwise engaged thread with bickering.
In regards to the Report button, it's quite clear on Desktop here, the bottom-right of any given post:
Or here on the mobile version of the site, in the bottom-left of each post.
If it doesn't appear for you in any case, please take a screenshot of what you do see, and report it on the Bugs thread in our Feedback forum; https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058199223/just-bugs-missing-functionality-reports-no-griping
Never heard much discussion as to the motive for this murder. Who and why had anyone reason to kill her?
As for Bailey, no time for him whether he's innocent or not. We owe him nothing, should be be sent for trial in France if we can't be bothered.
You`ve ruled nobody new in or out.
Michael Sheridan`s book. The doctor arrived at 10.30 I think. He noted that rigor mortis was evident.
Yes, good point. There's that and the fact that she hadn't (yet) bought any presents for the children. She said it was unusual as Sophie always left them pencils or books etc. when she left. So she may have been planning to buy all that stuff on the Monday and leaving on the Tuesday.
I do not see any flag.the person i refer to has pm disabled and i do not want any contact with them I have reported to hello@boards.ie. Also when someone is on ignore they should not be able to quote you
Bailey says two parter in mag. Sorry i quoted you in wrong place and cannot delete
Unlikely to be planning to travel on th 23rd as she had made an appointment to meet her housekeeper at noon,
in fact I believe mrs Heelen actually turned up for her appointment.
I doubt there will be any major revelations from Bailey regarding the murder case.
I'd expect him to stick with the same narrative... Went boozing, went home, went to bed, got up, wrote an article, made coffee for Jules.......
I don't think he'd be foolish enough to point the finger at any potential suspect, but may trash the Gards for being totally bias against him during the investigation.
The case is currently being reviewed, so I don't think he would muddy the waters too much, given that his antics the last time seemed to drive a vendetta against him, which could have seen him imprisoned with a murder conviction.
Looking at the case 25yrs on.... You would wonder is there really any point to it all? A lot of people have moved on since then, some have died, how much weight could really be attached to any new statements made today??
Doctor Larry O'Connor arrived on the scene 20 minutes after the gardai and said she had been dead for a number of hours. This was at 11am. According to Michael Sheridan's book he reported that rigor mortis had already set in.
Shirley Foster was up at 8.20am doing bits and pieces around the house and dawn wasn't until another 15-20 minutes. It seems unlikely she would have heard or seen nothing if the attack took place around then.
After some digging it seems that Sophie had a ticket to return for both the 23rd and the 24th. If she had to leave very early in the morning to check in then maybe the reason she had her boots on and her dressing gown was to go out and start the engine to warm up the car, then hears or sees someone on the lane?
It's a 4 parter
Mod: if any user is bothering you, you have options:
If someone is agitating you that much, then I would recommend the third option for everyone's piece of mind. Please return to discussing the show/case/etc and not each other.
There is really no reason to announce when you put someone on ignore.
Anyway, The Big Issue piece on Ian Bailey, I’m looking forward to part 2 where I guess he will focus on the case. Part 1 was a bit boring as I’m not that interested in his youth etc.
this thread is about sophie. who i disagre with is nothing to do with you so mind your own business . you do not get to tell me what to do or where to contact moonie by pm. you are not a mod here. so it is none of your business.so join moonie on ignore.
I am leaning towards a morning time frame as to when the murder was committed.
1) Her last meal was muesli - A typical breakfast food
2) Her bed was unmade - Suggesting it had been slept in
3) She was partially dressed / boots tied up but no socks on
4) The first Gard on the scene noted that the blood from her nose was still wet (not conjealed)
5) She was alive at midnight talking to her Husband - Found dead at 10am
The impression is that she was in bed at some point during the night, and probably phoned her Husband from the bed. it would be logical to assume she had retired for the night and was not expecting any visitors?
She had changed bedrooms to be nearer the boiler (warmer), so one can deduce that she hadn't planned on snuggling up to a male friend for the night?
We also know there was no sign of a struggle anywhere inside the house, and no trace of having had company either (the wine glasses could have been draining for days).
There was an exposed loaf of bread on the kitchen top, possible being prepared to be cut for breakfast. After the muesli maybe?
We know her boots were laced up, so she was in no mad panic before she opened the door to a caller / or heard something outside that startled her?
If the first Gard on the scene is correct, then Sophie's bloody nose suggests that the murder occurred within the last couple of hours? Given the cold temperature at that time of the year, the blood would only stay wet for a short time.
If it was a morning murder... Who does that rule out? Or more importantly, who does that rule in?
What about a scenario in which Sophie had put her boots on to go outside to her car to fetch a bottle of wine sometime after her last phone call with her husband?
Or a bottle of wine that was in someone else’s car, if there was someone with her that night. (Someone being in the house with Sophie that night would tie in with the witness sighting of her with a man in the passenger seat.)
You are posting this on the thread. Use PM if you want to talk to Moonunit in private. You post a comment on a public message forum then get upset when someone replies.
You feel you are being harassed because someone replies to your comments? Wise up.
and it is your business because? keep to the issue of the thread and mind your own business about me
never heard of it before today
Do you have a link to evidence that shows when rigor mortis was observed?
Absolutely - but most things are "if" in this case unfortunately.
Yep, definitely a possibility but I think less likely than more.
Yes, all good points. But she was there on a break and was leaving if not the next day then the day after. If she was there alone I can completely understand eating a bit of bread and muesli rather than breaking out the pots and pans to cook something. Then you'd have a lot more cleaning up to do, or leave a fair bit of mess for the housekeeper on Christmas week. So I think the muesli and bread were supper after she ate in the pub earlier that day.
The way I see it, you drink a glass of wine before bed to relax. Maybe it's just me but I have never washed a wine glass in the sink and left it to drain before going to bed. If I was drinking it it would be to unwind, doing the washing would only defeat the purpose and she also had a housekeeper who seems to have looked after these kinds of things after she left. Two of the glasses were already washed and on the draining board. One glass appears to be on the mantlepiece and may or may not have been used that night. So why wash two glasses and leave one? IMO there's a maximum of one glass to account for on that night, and even then it's far from clear it was used that evening.
Yes, ok. That could make sense. But again, it's "IF" she drank it the night before.
This is one question I would really like to see answered conclusively.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e8040f74ccd8f7c0f1f8b2804da972be.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bd89cdce15309a6ec2dff928c865017a.svg)
