Why would a person making a short trip to Ireland, bring three years worth of diaries with them..
If there were very personal or sensitive information in the diaries then I could see how a person would want them with them rather than leave them behind. They may not have been particularly bulky either.
I think the idea is that the diaries would contain information relevant to the murder. That could be information about her state of affairs with Daniel or of her meeting with a man on her current trip. So the implication is that the killer removed them or else the Gaurds removed them to cover up a link to one of their own.
That's if they actually ever existed of course.
If it was as you described, and Alfie and Shirley didn't hear anything, or stated that they didn't hear anything, then why didn't they come forward with what they've heard in the night? Because they were in it too? Or because Alfie did it himself? ( or had orders from the drug ring, to do it....)
And I could hardly imagine Ian Bailey killing Sophie, Sophie shouting loudly, and Alfie and Shirley denying that they heard anything? If it was Bailey and Alfie and Shirley heard Sophie, they would have come and try to rescue her? one would imagine....
I dont agree with the theory that she was hit once fatally initially and was quite afterwards as the scene was one of where she fought back and fought particularly hard. Clumps of hair in her hands, bruises and marks on hands and under her fingernails .
I think they did know, Alfie lyons himself was arrested for it & Leo Bolger subsequently, both got off with extremely light sentences because no doubt they were helping the gards with their investigation into painting Bailey as the murderer.
The blood stain on the door handle came from the killer imo, I believe the killer initially finished STDP then went back to the house with Sophies blood on his hands/knuckles. She could have got to the gate for a multitude of reasons, most likely one trying to flee the killer. She was screaming for her life no doubt, thats why its strange the neighbours didnt hear a thing.
Interesting point about three years worth of diaries...
I presume someone might remove the diaries if they knew Sophie kept a diary and thought they might be named in them - and there is no other link to that person eg letters, traceable phone numbers, sightings by other people.
Its clear she liked reading, she liked being on her own, I think she planned a longer stay initially. I dont think bringing three diaries is that strange, maybe she wanted to review her last three years in the comfort of her isolated surroundings in West Cork. We know she liked her own company & liked reading. I don't think its a crazy stretch to think she would have brought some diaries.
I dont think the murderer removed them as he would have had to have looked for them while probably being soaked in blood and leaving ample DNA/fingerprint evidence everywhere. The real question is why did the most likely remove them, probably destroy them and not account for them.
Agree. Nothing justifies the violence against Jules, absolutely nothing.
However women can ALSO be abusive in relationships, mentally, emotionally, financially, even physically and sexually but due to the likely hood of men being physically stronger, its less common.
I'm not victim blaming whatsoever, but I will say nobody knows what went on in that relationship except the 2 of them.
More and more men are coming forward nowadays to report domestic abuse in its various forms.
This is are all good points which gave me the opinion that Shirley knew a lot more than she admitted.
Alfie and Shirley not hearing any noises at night, is something which bothered me also a lot, but I always tried to explain it that the killer may have hit Sophie with a rock totally unexpected from behind. She never knew what was coming and most likely trusted the killer and knew him well.
Also, did the police never investigate Alfie for growing drugs on his land? Did they know about this? Or where do we have that information from that Alfie was growing drugs on his land? They arrested that farmer Bolger but never Alfie? Why?
Sophie's blood was found on the gates as well as near the door handle of the door to her house. So if she was injured there, but died on the side of the road, how did she get there? And not be screaming for her life? Or was the blood stain near the door handle caused by the killer, as he was full of blood, trying to maybe wash it off in the sink in Sophie's house? And if the killer did wash his hands in the sink of Sophie's house, he probably had a good look around, looking for diaries, maybe wiping his fingerprints off somehow?
Lot's of questions here.....
If true... And I have my reservations..
Why would a person making a short trip to Ireland, bring three years worth of diaries with them..??
A bit bizarre isn't it?
In the unlikely event that it is true, why would somebody remove them from the cottage?
Thats sexist crap, plenty of men are subvervient & dominated by a female partners in this country too. You just dont hear much about it because its a shameful thing for a man to admit this to anyone. No doubt they are finished, Jules Thomas doesnt strike me as a very subservient type of individual. She raised three young girls pretty much on her own, came to West Cork on her own and created a life for herself, could have left or kicked Bailey out over a period of 25 years but stood by him in his fight against the newspapers & then the state enduring plenty of abuse. She's an extremely strong character, stronger than Bailey imo because she doesnt have any addiction issues and is a realist.
If my missus asks me to pick up a Daily Maily from the newsagents
I have to buy a few porn mags in which to hide it.
When she says " what did buy that filth for?"
I say "you asked me to".
Wouldn't bet on Bailey not being atractive to women
This is an excerpt from John Montague's article in the Guardian (link above) ;
We learned from our former housekeeper that Bailey and Jules had broken up. Then he wrote us a different kind of letter, still grandiloquent, but painfully vulnerable as well: ‘Dear John, A chara’ - Gaelic for ‘friend’ - ‘It is under very sad and tragic circumstances I write to you and it is difficult to know where to start. On 2 May, Jules and myself were coming back from a party - I was driving and an argument broke out. It ended in a fight - we had both been drinking and were very tired. I unintentional [sic] hurt Jules, and her daughter called the guards... [I]t’s all quite awful - Jules is deeply upset - neither of us in spite of what has happened want to part and I love her stronger than ever... Please don’t think to [sic] badly of me. I never intended to hurt hurt [sic] - it was the drink and I am now resolved to abstinence.’Jules was indeed hurt. She had been taken to Bantry General Hospital and needed reconstructive surgery on her jaw. Jules later told us that Bailey had suffered a blackout that night, caused by the abundance of poteen he’d drunk.She did not press charges against him, although the gardaí told us she could have.
The taking of fingerprints would be classed as gathering forensic evidence. Nothing was found on the gate. It was as simple as that. So, what were they supposed to do with it? Keep it for an indefinite period? It was a large bulky item occupying too much of a confined space. I don't know why such significance is being attached to the "missing" gate.
You need to do that still, maybe in the 90's, I think Ireland has moved on a little bit since then.
Regarding Bailey, he achieved a masters in law, and was a good journalist before this, ie, hes not stupid, hes not going to buy bleach in the days after the attack in a local shop, hes not going to have a big bonfire outside his house when he can easily dispose of the items in other ways and else where & hes not seriously going to admit to killing Sophie if he did do it to a bunch of randomers he barely knows while also showing his scratched hands locally to people in the days after the attack.
The above are about the most stupid things you could do if you ACTUALLY committed the crime. And even though he might be a pain in the ass, he's not stupid.
Well, apparently, they are no longer together and living apart but I suspect this may be untrue. Some women may become completely subservient to and dominated by an abusive male partner. Maybe it's a mutually convenient relationship now given both are no longer young and attractive and seem to have addiction issues.
They could have done more in my opinion. Sophies blood could very well be the only blood left on the gate but how about gathering fingerprints off of it. Who's fingerprints were the most recent on there. What fingerprints are on there since it last rained etc. That alone could mark out a time period in which all fingerprints could have been placed on it. Were there boot marks on the rungs where the gate was scaled rather than opened. That would indicate the gate was closed and she was home at the time as Alfie likes the gate opened.
They also claim that the house didn't yield any forensic evidence but we already know there was someone using her bath. And of course the housekeeper would have cleaned the bath afterwards but she hardly would have got rid of all skin-cells and hairs that may have been shed when the person was drying themselves off. And yet we are told nothing was found. Did the person not touch a wall, a windowsil, the glass pane of the window, the toilet seat, the handle of the flush, the cistern, the sink taps etc. I just don't buy it.
Agreed. Just like going to a pharmacy to buy condoms. You can't go in there and put a packet of condoms on the counter on their own. You have to buy a whole heap of other products (vitamins, toothpastes, dental floss, deodorants, etc) to deflect from the real purpose of the trip to the pharmacy. These trips cost me a fortune!!
I believe that is the killers knuckle blood print on the door, I think he opened it after the murder, went inside briefly to see if anyone else was there & then left, not to go searching for her diaries, there is no way he would wouldn't have left substantial DNA evidence if he did go searching. Whoever committed this crime was reasonably forensically aware.
The attack itself was savage initially but in the aftermath they acted like they knew what they were doing in making sure they didn't leave a trace of themselves. Again this would point to a senior gard in the locality. And would explain the destroying of the diaries by the gards subsequently and the refusal to mention them.
It wouldnt point to a sex crazed drunken Bailey roaming around the countryside at night looking for his first murder victim before calmly washing himself off down by the bridge before making a substantial walk home and then making coffee for his partner in bed in the morning before reporting on the crime. Dont think so.
It's interesting as it reminded me of the below section #5 Premonition from the DPP report which mentioned barking dogs but not foxes ... but that reference could be something more, pinpointing the time of the attack? A scream could be mistaken for foxes but not a bark. Although google tells me that December for foxes is when "nocturnal vocalisation reaches its peak" so possibly the foxes set off the dogs.
However the following six statements, five of which were not submitted with the original Garda file, indicate the following:-
1. David Bray at 12.45 a.m. on 23 December 1996 noted that the wolfhound which he minds was unusually upset.
2. Martin Breuinger confirms that the wolfhound was unusually disturbed between 12 midnight and 2.00 a.m. on 23 December 1996.
3. Geraldine Kennedy states that her dog was barking mad from 10.30 – 10.45 p.m. on 22 December and continued this for about three hours practically non-stop.
4. The dog owned by Derry Kennedy and his wife was unusually upset between 10 p.m. on 22 December 1996 and 1.50 a.m. on 23 December 1996.
5. Michael Gallagher refers to strange people being in the area on 23 December 1996.
6. Sheila Barnett noted an unusual man in the area earlier on 23 December1996.
This evidence suggests that there could well have been unusual movement in the area where Sophie was killed in the early hours of the morning. Bailey and Jules were drinking in a pub in Schull at the time the dogs initially became upset. Later, Bailey was with Jules Thomas overlooking the scene from a distance and he says he got a bad feeling. This was during the time the dogs were unusually alarmed. Such a sense of foreboding is not considered incriminating. Bailey may have sensed the activity below him which also alarmed the dogs.
I wonder did they find any fingerprints? Or was it clean and no (almost none except her own) were found. If a clean up was done it shows no great hurry.
No. See article below some interesting comment.
https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2000/mar/12/life1.lifemagazine10
Was there a time reported for that?
The missing diaries is a very interesting piece of information if true. I remember Jim Sheridan speculating that the blood on the door (Sophie's) indicated that the killer entered the house after the murder. If it was to remove 3 diaries then that is a very specific target to be searching for. In my opinion it does not support the theory of a lust crazed killer going berserk after a rejection. it indicates a far more methodical state of mind.
According to a newspaper report an (unnamed) neighbour says they heard a screaming that night but put it down to foxes.
Do you know where the source of info came from that Alfie Lyons had bandages on his hand?
This is an issue which has given me a great deal of "pause for thought"
Bannasidhe, who is/was personally acquainted with both Alfie and Shirley and whose posts are well balanced, unbiased, and, to me, have the ring of truth about them, does not entertain the idea that either could have been involved. I'm inclined to accept that.
However, what is interesting, is the comparison of respective evidence you draw.
On the face of it, there is more evidence to implicate Alfie/Shirley than there ever was to point the finger at Bailey.
Yet I can find no report of either/both being under any serious suspicion.
No evidence of any association between Bailey and Sophie, but AL/SF obviously knew her.
No evidence of Bailey at the scene, whereas Alfie/Shirley were both there.
No apparent motive for Bailey, while AL/SF had ongoing issues with Sophie.
A seemingly damning issue of Bailey's hands being scratched. But Alfie actually had a bandage on one hand. Bailey claimed that he got the scratches from cutting a tree...an act which was witnessed, whilst Alfie blamed his injury on a dog bite. Although they didn't actually have a dog.
And one last point which I find hard to accept, is that neither Alfie nor Shirley heard or saw anything.
I am of the opinion that none of the three were actually involved, but of the two theories, the key points are more indicative of AL/SF involvement than that of IB.
Yah, its bizarre, the last thing on anyones mind I'm sure if they saw their neighbours face mutilated would be going & getting the shopping. Maybe she just needed to get away for a while but still, strange & she must have had to pass the body again after nearly being traumatized by it previously.
I never really believed Alfie or Shirley had anything to do with it but definitely they should have been looked at more closely.
There was nearly as much grounds for bringing Alfie in as there was Bailey imo, not saying he did it, but with some robust questioning like they did with Jules & Bailey, they may have got more information out of him.
Its more the fact that surely someone discovering a body in such gruesome circumstances would be absolutely traumatised by what she seen and in a state of pure shock.
Add that to the fact that to the best of her knowledge theres a murderer on the loose who just brutally killed your female neighbour mere hours ago. I'm not 100% sure but I she might have said she was on her own too when she encountered Bailey in his car.
"A critical feature of the case is the manner in which it was investigated by the Garda. The Director of Public Prosecutions subsequently described that investigation as “thoroughly flawed and prejudiced” against Bailey. The DPP decided not to prosecute as there was insufficient credible evidence to warrant prosecution. Instead of facing up to the consequences of the Garda failures, the Government has allowed the prosecution of this murder to be shipped offshore to France."
"Do you know the 'laneway'/boreen? "
The one I called the cul-de-sac 3 times in my post?
"So this at speed thing gives the idea that he went past at 50mph."
No, just too fast for that particular lane.
"Lunchtime" and "at speed" are open to interpretation .
I have no idea of Shirley's state of mind that afternoon, no more than yourself.
I have no idea what that last paragraph has to do with it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bd89cdce15309a6ec2dff928c865017a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a04babac7ef9d681628a280d81c51a1e.svg)
