We are relating to each other right now.
Alfie knew Sophie to say hello to and by his own admission to introduce other people to. He had a relationship with her as a neighbour and 'knew' her, although I imagine she'd have wanted little to do with him. Ian Bailey is emphatic that he didn't know her while there has always been a suggestion that there might have been something deeper going on in secret.
I don't believe IB knew her. It sounds like she wouldn't have had the slightest bit of interest in him and if she'd had any, I can't see why she'd have kept it secret. She used get bored, by all accounts, with the glitzy world of international cinema. He was reciting what was, by all accounts, boring poetry to people in pubs around Schull. In your wildest dreams is the expression people used in situations like this.
I also wouldn't have much trust in Jules.
in what sense?
I don't know the answer to that, nor do I have a speculative explanation.
Alfie having a supposed relationship with Sophie? I'd find that rather unlikely, as Alfie had Shirley.
Besides that, I often thought that Shirley knew a lot more and I also wouldn't have much trust in Jules.
I would only guess that Jules hat more of a social life, her daughters coming over and visiting thus she would have probably been the more cautious one. Nothing like that is known about Shirley.
I cannot see how he killed her either but I don't know he didn't and i am not a fan. It is an insulting term and a childish way to argue such an important case
There are no facts in this thread then since everything, including the DPP report is as we know/were told/read them/saw in documentary. If we knew all that went on in the DPP decision we might consider something else factual.
Maybe you don't get my point. Even the disputed introduction of IB to STDP is taken by many people as evidence of a relationship, while we know that Alfie most definitely had a relationship with her. Is Shirley to be trusted but Jules Thomas isn't? Why would that be?
You're suggesting that everyone has opinions, like we just watched a football match, and so there is a kind of equivalence of validity. If you look at my posts you will see that I accept the (more than one) DPP's opinion in this case. The office of the DPP has repeatedly said there is no case to be made against Ian Bailey. Insofar as there is a neutral arbiter of justice in this state, the DPP is the office that historically stands above all others and I am aware that it too is not immune to accusations of political corruption. Its remit is straightforward; review evidence, bring charges or don't. It is dispassionate. If the DPP is wrong in this case, people might like to consider what that implies.
Facts are facts. Not 'facts as we know them'. or alternative facts
Can someone remind me... Who owned the house before sophie? how long was it up for sale? was there much interest?
Anything sus about the previous owners?
The reference to those with an opposing view as "fanboys" is indicative of a certain mindset and is vaguely insulting.
I cannot recall anyone on this thread uttering positivity of any kind towards Ian Bailey.
I believe that Bailey is an arrogant, "up his own arse" unpleasant, boorish wife beater who should have spent time behind bars for what he did to Jules Thomas. So, I'm no "fanboy". In fact, I wouldn't give him the time of day.
But, like many others, who, I think, would also hold him in contempt, I don't believe that he killed Sophie. Because I can't see any convincing evidence that he had any association whatsoever with her, was present at the scene or had any motive to do it.
I was merely showing appreciation for a well structured and thorough post. If you read my own post, it's clear that I don't agree with @huiwe878778
Honestly @mamboozle the same things I said in that post apply to you. You don't know for a fact what happened that night any better than anyone else. You have your opinions and that's it. You're coming across no better than @Moonunit but on the other side of the fence. None of what @huiwe878778 said can be considered a "conspiracy theory", they just stated the facts as we know them. They believe that points to Bailey's undeniable guilt, I don't.
No, I don't think so.
Alfie would have had a couple of "advantages" to Bailey. Alfie would have known exactly when she was there and when not. Alfie would have heard cars coming and going. Alfie would probably have known when she would do the shopping or when she went to bed, or if she was an early riser. Remember, Sophie's house didn't have curtains in many rooms so light would have shone outside easily.
If Alfie did it, he would fit more into the drug-gang motive theory than the husband hired hitman theory. Also if Alfie did it, then Shirley would have known. I don't think he could have hidden blood all over him from Shirley.
But again, that's only theory, nothing proven at all.
The 'fanboy' terminology is ridiculous.. I don't know if Bailey did it not. And nor does anyone else here.
But this is a fascinating case to discuss as there are so many elements to it. And we should all be able to discuss it without resorting to name calling.
I wrote earlier that Sophie's son had been 'thrown out' of Daniels House and someone queried the source - Ian Bailey said this in his tv3 interview and I remember reading it years ago too (although possibly I was reading that Bailey had said it.. I don't remember).
I also gave slightly wrong directions for the house - thank you for the correction.
I am neither so fascinated with the possible drug ring, nor am I pushing any agendas here.
I am just stating that the possible drug ring and Sophie seeing something she shouldn't have, knowing something and being prepared to do something would be a strong motive for murder. It was known that Sophie didn't approve of this activity.
There has been known drug trafficking in the area, on the rather isolated coast lines and isolated harbours.
Also drug trafficking can be very lucrative and financially rewarding, and given the fact that real good career perspectives were very limited in the area, it was probably a good way to make a bit of money in some sideline.
Murders in the drug scene are in general known for their brutality and to send a message.
And then there was that case where the Guards actually gave this ex-British soldier in the area drugs in an ill-fated attempt to get close to Bailey.
I would personally rate the drug ring similarly high in financial motive for murder as the husband / hitman theory.
I think an unplanned fit of rage and murder would put paid to any notions or grievances and the attention drawn by this case would make any grievances and disputes very minute, and trivial in hindsight, especially to the killer.
Sophies house remains with her family, there was never going to be any buildings or large developments just ordinary land disputes & old fashioned people chancing their arm with the blowin... they are happening in every parish every day ...some are low profile some are high profile & some lead to deadly conflict ...
@huiwe878778
There is more credible evidence that Alfie Lyons was more likely to have been guilty of this murder than Ian Bailey?
I have to say this but what is it with you and this 'drug ring' you're so fascinated about ? It's like you're trying really hard to push this agenda.
There are people here who will keep banging on with long discredited lies as if it's 1998. Never mind, more than one DPP, GSOC, the Bandon tapes or High court evidence where evidence is heard that a jury is not allowed deliberate on. They will refer to recent articles about people in the gutter press as if they were gospel truth.... Come to think of it😀
What about one of the new age travellers using the bath? Would they have bathing facilities in their camp.?
He quite possibly did leave some, but look what happens when you cover the body with plastic, instead of a tent and when it lies there for two nights in December
Cold does not destroy DNA. in Marilyn Rynn's case it actually preserved it. Covering with a plastic might transfer some DNA but not all. And while the local grda did not know much about murder the forensic guys from Dublin did. I'm sure they would have checked the plastic cover too. I do not know whether he killed her or not so i am not a fan
Great post.
In a night dress?
Not a chance
I've considered motives regarding the property and any form of property dispute. However, as I have written in one of my previous posts I could rule them all out, simply because nothing happened after Sophie's murder if she was in the way of somebody's aspirations or plans. No re-zoning, no new planning permission granted, nothing was ever built new or extended, and apparently for 20 years or longer not even a change in ownership until Shirley sold a couple of years ago.
Only thing that seems to have changed is that Alfie's house is newly painted in a different colour. Also a newer house had been built way way further down Alfie's and Sophie's which I guess may have happened a good 10 or even 15 years after the murder?
If there was a dispute like that, we would also have learned about it.
@tinytobe
Motive's
I'm putting forward another motive...
Sophies house property, land sale, right of way was being invaded and encroched upon to varying degrees.
I can't agree with you for saying "fair play" to someone for regurgitating an absurd conspiracy theory. People speak about the DPP's office like this was their first case when they bring a high degree of sophistication to their remit. No one can say that Ian Bailey is completely innocent of this crime any more that they can say the local priest or doctor is. All one has to ask is whether he is any more likely to be guilty. The DPP's office, where all the people whose livelihood depends on answering questions like this work, have given their answer. People have all sorts of reasons for maintaining the fiction around Bailey, some may be sinister but a lot of them are undoubtedly financial. For a lot of 'newspapers' it's the gift that keeps on giving.
I believe that if Bailey had been allowed continue his investigations we might not have found out who killed STDP but we would have heard some things about that part of Cork that the powers that be would prefer we didn't.
I would want to think it could have been Bailey if we could actually establish a stronger motive for him. This would have to have been something other than rage.
Why would Bailey want her dead? Was Sophie in the way for Bailey, his career maybe? and if so, why? What would be the financial benefit to Bailey? We all don't know that, even worse, we neither have DNA, fingerprints, hair or fiber of his clothes linking him to the murder scene. We don't even know the time of murder. Bailey wouldn't have used Jule's car, thus he must have hiked there, but building up a rage and an anger during a 1 hour hike and an evening in the pub doesn't sound credible at all and that all with the risk of being seen on the side of the road, or Sophie not even opening the door to him.
The only other two strong motives we know are:
The husband with the financial motive of avoiding a divorce and cashing in on the life insurance of his wife who was apparently in the early stages of pregnancy. The husband was probably also not too interested in having a child from a cheating wife he wanted to divorce anyway. Husband wanting the marriage to her to be over, but wife not, and also wanting his child? Separating the whole du Plantier estate? Child support payments? etc... Sophie's death would have been very convenient to her husband, and also financially rewarding.
The drug ring Sophie had possibly uncovered and wanted to do something against that. She would have been clearly in the way of somebody's racket, which we don't know who else was involved in? - possibly a corrupt Guard? maybe Alfie? or that farmer who grew cannabis? This scenario would not only have involved one, but possibly more people or a whole "network" who wanted her dead.
Any kind of casual sexual relationship Sophie may have had or is alleged to have had with somebody whilst in Ireland ( the German musician or that unknown Frenchman ) would most likely not have had any financial motive attached to it. In the worst case rejection could have resulted in rage and murder, however that's a bit too strong the way she was murdered.
Ralph Riegel points out in the Jim Sheridan documentary how when Marie Farrell lost all credibility in the high court, the only circumstantial evidence, laughable as it was, for IB being near the scene of the crime that night went as well. The DPP focuses on Detective Garda FitzGerald on page 16 and it isn't to praise him for all his efforts.
Some people would even go so far as portray the DPP, more than one, as Bailey fanboys. But by first deciding there was no charges to be brought, he was sparing the Garda blushes and very likely allowing some of them sidestep a court case that might have seen them having to resign.
Ian Baileys troubles should be seen for what they are. A warning to be very careful when you go poking your nose in what are matters best left to the 'state' to deal with. People are quick to dismiss the likes of Gemma O' Doherty who got kicked out of her job for annoying the powers that be. Maybe journalists ought to behave themselves. Barry Roche has popped up on a few of these documentaries, he started out on the Examiner alongside Eddie Cassidy but his measured views have seen him progress. Exemplary.
It's actually the 2nd left after you turn right at Kealfadda Bridge, but that's splitting hairs :p
I do agree with you though...the house wasn't/isn't hard to find at all, unless you are hopeless with directions. And this still stands taking into account the area was likely quite different back in the mid 90s, compared with today. Dwyer's claim is absolute nonsense, but I wouldn't expect any less from him going by his blatant lying on the recent documentaries.
What you can't dispute is that the place is very, very remote. You hear that it is but you only get a true impression once you go there. Once you turn off at Kealfadda Bridge it is a very small/minor road, and the lane leading to the house even more so. It is not somewhere that you would 'happen upon' by chance.
Out of curiosity, has anyone ever put together all the so-called facts of the case, referencing their source and validity? I really feel this would be of huge benefit. So much is mentioned here without the ability to properly reference the source, so much so that at this stage a lot the 'facts' are, in reality, just hearsay and supposition.
Fair play to you for putting together such a comprehensive post.
I see where you're coming from about the weight of the circumstantial evidence and how it points to Bailey. But the problem is there is absolutely nothing concrete in any of it. It's all hearsay. One man's word against another. None of it proves his legal guilt, but I don't think it's correct to say that it points unequivocally to his actual guilt.
That is just your opinion, and that is all it will ever be, unless Bailey confesses or some concrete evidence turns up to prove his guilt. Many people have been tried and convicted before on circumstantial evidence only to be exonerated years later by hard evidence. He needs to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To my mind that needs to be the case in and out of the courts. As things stand there is a reasonable doubt.
The "fanboy" language is unnecessary. There are people here who's opinion of Bailey's innocence is as strong as yours is on his guilt. It would be very arrogant to say that they are wrong and you are right. If you read back through the entire thread you will find there are actually not too many who are convinced of his innocence entirely, myself included, hence we are exploring all the possibilities and trying to get a better understanding of what other possible suspects exist. Not to eliminate Bailey, but to have a better understanding of the case. It is not for us to pass judgment, that can only be done by a jury of his peers. If we are going to personally pass judgment, then at least we should do it with as much information on the case as possible.
Well, maybe she was bringing things from France she wanted to have in her Irish house. What's so unusual about that?
@timeladsplease....I have read and watched & listened to alot (probably more than I should), and alot of these sources both contradict and misshape "evidence"
My point about the spot of blood found in the paddock need not necessarily have come from sophies body ... but possinly from the killers lothes or the head of an axe...? carried by the killer
And yes i've probably read most of this forum... Not just jumped in...
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
