Or was the gate in the position it is showing in the photo and she was trying to climb it from behind the wall and managed to get over it only to be caught right beside it ( first photo with body in the briars ).
Because to get to the dump she'd have to drive right by the corpse. Be a fairly strong indicator of guilt to claim not to have seen it.
You know the story about Ian Bailey and you're saying let's be realistic? Shirley knew that her neighbour was around. She saw what looked like the dead body of a woman with blonde hair, most likely murdered and wasn't sure who it was? Shirley wasn't a young woman but managed to run screaming up a field and a lane, that would have been strenuous. I'm not sure if she knocked on Sophie's window then or later, why I don't know. Given the nature of what we are expected to believe about the prime suspect, questioning the veracity of this version of events is reasonable. Nobody said anything about bloody clothing which can be burned. A metal murder weapon is a bit harder to dispose of. I don't think anybody suggested people were running to the dump while leaving a body at the side of the road.
I guess it would have made that aspect of it obvious, but still leave the authorities none the wiser about who she might be confronting. Seems less risky to me than actually being caught with it - unless you were worried there was something other than fingerprints of yours on the poker.
I disagree on your point regarding trauma - Anyone who I know who has found a dead body ( accidental, sudden or suicide ) have been deeply shook up that day. Finding your neighbour murdered would be an horrific experience - it would be very unusual not to be in shock. There would also be the threat that a murderer could be loose in the area. She should have been too shook up even to drive let alone get in a car on her own. Heading off on her own to the dump ( something that didnt need to be done ) is abnormal behaviour in the situation. But then again everyone in relation to this case behaved abnormally so it very well could mean nothing.
Sorry for jumping around. Was the pattern of the blood stains on the gate ever explained or surmised? To me they look like smears as if a hand was holding them and moved along the bars in a lateral movement. The gate was obviously open when Shirley left the morning of discovery but could it be that the gate was closed during the chase and Sophie attempted to climb it which would fit in with the blood being on the top 2 bars only? If the gate was open when the blood was deposited it could only be from her using the gate to try and stay upright as she was falling? Still think the gate has a story to tell with the argument over whether it should be left open or closed, the amount of blood on it and it subsequently going missing or deemed irrelevant.
Let's be realistic here for a minute. Unless you took time to peruse the body you would not see the shattered face. And by all accounts Shirley didn't take much of a look. She saw a body with blood around it and raised the alarm.
Regarding trauma, people come across bodies all the time, car accidents, suicides, natural deaths. We don't all go into a state of shock unable to function for the day. Especially if our day is already planned out, most people just tend to get on with the day and maybe process it all later that evening.
Also, is anyone seriously suggesting that they killed her and then planned to take the murder weapon and bloody clothing to the dump while leaving the body and block lying there by the fence?
Perhaps she was taking that to the dump too but it all fell out when she opened the gate
You would hope that both were checked but how thoroughly were they checked if given in such a short time span she was back on the road and on her way to the dump.
Between the gardai arriving at the scene and Shirley driving off on her way was just probably over 2 hours. The car and rubbish should have been left at the scene.
Wouldn't that make it too clear that Sophie had armed herself before confronting somebody?
While it's all hypothetical can you imagine what they'd have made of it if Jules had said that about 12 that day she took some rubbish to the dump?
May well have been daylight at the time, probably was in fact.
Would they have to get rid of the poker if it came from the cottage? Why not just wipe the prints and leave it by the body?
Unless they'd been hit with it and were worried their blood was on it?
Irish Times Friday Jan 3rd 1997.
"There was still no sign of a blunt weapon used first to repeatedly strike the French woman around the upper body and head. Sgt Horgan said gardai had extended the search area around the house."
One has to ask if this wasn't the missing poker from the house. Whoever used it had to get rid of it and if hidden well enough in a car it wouldn't be found.
It could well be the reason the murderer wanted to go back in the house.
Weigh up the risks. Incriminating evidence in your car that is almost certainly going to be searched by Gardaí at the scene versus driving out to dispose of the evidence in darkness. It wouldn`t have to be the dump.
Not necessarily. They could be spotted while out and about and then how do you explain driving past the body and not reporting it? Or explain what you were doing at the dump...would look immediately suspect. Or someone else may discover the body in the meantime, how then do you explain leaving and passing the body on the way out?
No they weren't. The body was not blocking the lane. In fact it's said in one of the documentaries that Shirley had driven past it before she stopped the car, because she didn't immediately realise what she had seen.
Also the fact that we know Shirley drove out later that day, even though the body wasn't moved until the following day, demonstrates that a car could pass. She may have even had to drive past it again going back to the house after being out later in the afternoon.
Which is all very odd, you'd imagine the trauma caused by seeing that scene would make you want to stay far away from it, not go about your business and deliberately drive past it again very shortly afterwards. But who are we to explain what goes on in the mind of someone having experienced such trauma.
Would love to know what the people Shirley interacted with that afternoon when she was out and about had to say about her demeanor.
You can change the subtitles from French to auto -translate to English by clicking settings;
Below is also a good link for photographs of house/crimescene etc;
Only a fool would call the Gardaí to the scene if they had incriminating evidence in their car.
The car and rubbish for the dump was most definitely searched, apparently its in the statements according to those that have seen them.
The car may have been the ideal place to hide evidence - the house would be more likely to be searched than the car - they could have took a risk on this. The inexperienced gardai that arrived on the scene wouldnt have had a clue what to do. The problem would have been getting the rubbish out so getting it away from the house before reporting the murder would have been ideal - she would have had to pass the body and therefore would have had to report it before disposing of the rubbish. Putting the rubbish in the car could have been genius. The rubbish was long gone before anyone experienced detectives/forensics etc arrived at the scene ( she was supposedly back on the road before 2pm). They would just see Shirley as the unfortunate woman who found the body and not a suspect. The focus would have been on the body not on Shirleys car.
There is also the possibility that there was a guard involved in this and she was told exactly what to do and ensured the car would not be checked.
Im not saying Alfie and Shirley were involved - Im just speculating - being honest I dont think they were involved. Whats amazes me in this case is the high number of people in the locality who behaved oddly around the time of this murder.
They wouldn't have been able to get past the body given the way it lay in the laneway. So they were hemmed in with regards the car.
God help us! you don't get the point
That`s my point exactly Watson. Have you some evidence that they did drive out before calling the Gardaí.
Is that right Sherlock. If, hypothetically, they had a murder weapon like a poker or an axe and wanted to get rid of it very far away, would they have driven out before notifying the Guards of the body?
If someone had incriminating evidence, the last thing they would do is call the Gardaí before they disposed of it.
90% means he doesn't have to have any details of what was said which might sound a bit incredible. Best say that my recollection is really vague. I don't have much experience of how people react around murder scenes. It appears the best thing a perpetrator of a crime can say is that they didn't hear or see a thing. Wish I could help.
I've already told you that the fact that it didn't go to trial is highly regrettable, as it would have been a comedy. The Guards served up a dog's dinner to the DPP knowing it would be thrown in the bin, which was the outcome they most likely really wanted. They were being disingenuous telling us they believed it had a chance of securing conviction. Just like you're being.
That's exactly it, spot on.
Both Alfie and Shirley must have known way more than they've been saying. The police not investigating them properly only points to further police incompetence, or even corruption. But all this is no proof of anything, just a deduction, one of many.
In regards to the days prior to the murder it's not uncommon not to notice everything in minute detail as a neighbour. Alfie and Shirley will also have to have been out, done shopping, going maybe hiking etc... It's not that both were with their binoculars behind the window with intent of watching Sophie's every move, or maybe they were....
Thanks a mil for the link. 👍️
How would she know that the guard wouldn't check the car? It was murder, a lot of guards are coming to the scene. If something had to have been hidden by Alfie and/or Shirley, they would have hid that before any guards came. The idea that 1) both were aware of the killing and rang the guards with incriminating evidence in the car or 2) Alfie alone was aware, why would he let Shirley take the rubbish if he knew she'd come upon Sophie on the laneway? It doesn't make sense to me.
Alfie and Shirley's behavior at the scene isn't indicative of any guilt IMO. That doesn't mean they should be discounted, I agree they should have been investigated. But nothing that happened at the scene indicates any guilt. They did not act like people with something to hid or were aware of any knowledge of the crime.
Also, Alfie said he was 90% sure of introducing Ian to Sophie. If he wants to be part of framing Ian, which there is no evidence of, why not say 100%. The 90% seems like someone who is trying to be helpful with info he has rather than finger-pointing at one person.
This is another of those details where things are not so clear. Some accounts say Shirley's reason for going to Schull was to do some last minute shopping. The fantasy writer Sheridan says it was to dump some rubbish. What if going to the dump was mentioned in hindsight just in case anybody had seen her there?
If a person had incriminating evidence they would have to take a chance or the game would be up. Somehow there is a contradiction between the person being deeply traumatised by something in the morning carrying on with their tasks that afternoon like it was just another day.
Unfortunately, as the partner of the prime suspect in a murder case, Jules should be a bit more forthcoming. Twenty independent witnesses gave testimony at the libel trial that contradicted Bailey`s version of events. I`m just of the opinion that this should have went to trial. I have no interest in framing anyone.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bd89cdce15309a6ec2dff928c865017a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a04babac7ef9d681628a280d81c51a1e.svg)
