Also strange that Bailey was reportedly wearing his big thick black coat but also somehow reportedly ended up with scratch marks all up his arms from briars at the same time..
You have attributed words to me that I didn`t say and then criticized me for saying them. You are ridiculous.
Poster is clearly not worth engaging with. Living in cuckoo land.
what are the source of the rumours? did you ever try to trace them to source?
Yeah, the coat would have protected Bailey from the brambles and the briars. Maybe he really got the cuts from killing three turkeys and cutting a Christmas tree. It's not impossible. How often do you kill turkeys? I'd say it's something you don't do every day of the year, and if one doesn't have the experience, it's easy to get cuts.
I've already said, it's speculation. Did you not read my post a bit back?
I'm so confused
Good lord. Local rumours. Do you live in the west of Ireland??
I'm hopeful there's more substance to these rumours in recent times however.
Yes, it is admissible and a jury is allowed to take confessions into account, the only requirement is that a judge must warn a jury about any lack of corroborating evidence. If the only evidence that a person committed a crime is that they confessed to someone and that person has testified, the jury has to understand that there may be no corroboration of this in other evidence.
Here’s an example of an informal confession being taken into account, the suspect was found guilty. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/witness-says-kerry-man-told-him-he-had-killed-teenager-1.213989
Schrödinger's coat - he was wearing it but he wasn't wearing it. It couldn't be found according to Dermott Dwyer but was taken and examined as evidence.
Thank you
Also, the blood stain on the door looks like from somebody's hand brushing against it whilst pushing down the handle to go in afterwards to turn off lights possibly not to draw attention to the house before daybreak. You'd imagine the handle would have had prints on it unless of course gloves were worn also...
No one was seen killing Sophie, we don’t know whether the killer was wearing a coat or not. According to MF, there was a man in a coat over 1km away and we don’t know if that was before or after the murder. We know Sophie was wearing a dressing gown and long pyjamas type clothes but still got scratched on her arms.
All the while leaving not a trace on the briars of skin hair or blood.
And the briar cuts magically healed by new years.
And Bailey made zero attempt to conceal them despite it being December when gloves could have been worn without suspicion.
Yet being careful enough not to leave any fingerprints or forensics at the scene.
When you say the statement is ‘out there’, out where exactly? Was it brought up by Bailey’s legal team as evidence that gardai were neglecting other leads in his case against the gardai and the state, if not, why not?
This is another inexplicable aspect. This person, if he was not simply a figment of MFs imagination, would have been a key witness. He could have reinforced -significantly - the case against Bailey or, conversely, holed it below the waterline. I believe there was a good reason why MF was allowed to defy the law in this way but I'm not convinced it was to protect a colleague. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that should the Gardai have wanted her to identify him, they would have done so. It is possible that they knew anyway.
A few days ago you were asking here if anyone knew any locals down there, did you make door to door enquiries or are these people you are in contact with online?
It exists. I've seen it but can't quite remember where.
The previous one from 1996 is missing tho.
Worth noting that IB has actually contacted him over the years too, according to my sources.
Is that really any of your business???
I could ask you if your Gardaí, which seems quite obvious to me, but I try not to get personal with randoms on a message board.
I think you’ve answered my question, thanks.
No I haven't 🤣
Why do you care? You have your comfortable narrative, so unless you doubt it, why does my opinion matter?
Yes, you'd have to wonder how a man could have so many apparent cuts on his hands but none of his blood could be found on the briars.
You're clutching at straws using a case like that. The DPP had a look at all of these uncorroborated (unless you're saying something has more credibility because a couple/partners agree) statements and politely said "Lads you are f*"&ing joking"
We know Sophie was wearing a dressing gown and long pyjamas type clothes but still got scratched on her arms.
Yeah. She was battered, chased through the dark fields, had her clothes shredded by wire and brambles, and her head crushed with a block. So hardly the same scenario as the man chasing her. Also, where do you see the description of the scratches on her arms?
Also, where do you see the description of the scratches on her arms?
Jim Sheridan chose to show photos of her arms showing scratches during the autopsy.
And Judge Moran heard them in the flesh and said they were credible and he accepted their evidence.
A couple of weeks ago, a poster came on here purporting to be a local. Apparently it is well known locally that Shirley revealed some years later that a dishevelled Bailey came to her door the night of the murder. Which local rumour should I believe? The answer? None of them. You do a disservice to the dead garda and his family.
Not to mention Marie Farrell 'saw' him stumbling around Kealfadda bridge 🤪
Absolutely, rumours are just that.
Sometimes, they go back to a solid source however, which can be corroborated.
I think the poster you mean actually came from reddit 😬
Gardabots out in force lately, maybe folk are getting dangerously close to the truth..
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c2d01dc58c93157b55e4469cba109cf9.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bd89cdce15309a6ec2dff928c865017a.svg)
