@tibruit I understand you're selective about what you'll answer but anyway. If the DPP's first report is very persuasive in accepting the truthfulness of what Ian Bailey says he was doing on the day of the murder and Shirley contradicts him, she is mistaken about something that would prove to be damning for Bailey. Why would she persist with her version of events knowing how serious it was?
20 witnesses, 100 witnesses, doesn't matter how many there are if they are of the calibre of Marie Farrell, Leo Bolger, the French witnesses of the miraculous memory, Martin Graham of the police drugs bribe, Bill Fuller of the terrifying encounter in the field, Alfie Lyons of the sound sleep and the 90% certainty, the people Bailey supposedly confessed a brutal murder to yet kept on drinking with him ...
Three times the DPP has looked at this tissue of evidence, and three times has seen right through it, probably in part because they saw the Garda log before it was tampered with.
There was a cop conspiracy, the only question is for what purpose - to deliberately frame an innocent man, to shield someone, to get a result to cover up their initial mistakes, or to try to get Bailey at all costs because they had some evidence he did it that they couldn't reveal in court (for whatever mystifying reason).
Anytime I've seen him interviewed, he says quite the opposite..
You obviously mean real thick stupid Ian who goes around telling people he murdered someone. Again ignore the DPP's report.
You will bend over backwards to make your case. The Guards fingerprinted and took hair from people. One can presume that they had DNA and fingerprints from around the scene but obviously it isn't much use if it's from someone who had reason to be there. So stop being silly.
I am making no assertions like you are in the case of Bailey. I am asking people to consider everything within reason about people who were in the immediate vicinity of the murder. I'm happy it makes you uncomfortable.
In red corner we have Honest Ian. In the blue corner we have over 20 witnesses who directly contradict Bailey`s statements and must all be part of a keystone cop conspiracy.
Murders tend to be brutal. In 2019 a 64-year-old farmer with no previous convictions killed his 73-year-old neighbour by driving the pronged forks of a teleporter into his car. That was a neighbourhood squabble. People go out of their way to make sure that there isn't proof lying around so to say there's no proof is ridiculous. There is far more probability that Alfie and Shirley did it than anybody else. But people seem to be reluctant to ask the kind of questions that should have been asked. Like how come they stayed around the scene when they realised that there was a murderer about and they might be next? Why did they both go to Sophie's house when a glance would have told anyone that she was the victim? f
For all that Bailey's supposed returning to the scene of the crime is a classic trait of a murderer so is attempting to contact a person you know to be dead because you have killed them but it makes you appear innocent.
Could she have been seeing someone out (or insisting they leave) ??
Was her car parked in such a way as to easily facilitate a guest's car ??
If you're talking about four witnesses.
There is Alife Lyons of the "90% sure" I may have introduced them very briefly in the garden one day. Whatever 90% sure means. Sounds like covering himself in case he is contradicted.
One of them is Leo Bolger of the suspiciously light sentence for serious drug dealing and the suspiciously vivid recollection of a casual introduction.
Two of them in France miraculously remembered years later some connection when it was convenient for the French authorities ... not when Sophie was murdered, not when Ian Bailey was arrested. Yeah right.
And regardless she did not know him in the personal sense. I don't consider I know someone who I was v briefly introduced to in a semi-professional capacity. The strongest that could be said is that she knew who he was, if Alfie's "90% sure" testimony is to be believed.
There is zero evidence of any personal contact by Bailey with Sophie - no letters, phone calls, nobody saw them alone together, not a shred.
Zero evidence to support the idea she knew him well enough to open the door to him at 3am aside from general principles of opening to door to someone in an emergency.
Doors locked, Sophie only dressed for "stepping outside" and presumably with no keys on her person.
Presumably she decided to venture outside for some reason, leaving the door open behind her.
There may have been an initial injury, followed by an attempt by Sophie to go back indoors.
The blood on the handle may have been transferred there, either from Sophie's or her attacker's hand.
Maybe I'm only stating the obvious ??
There is no new debate about Alfie. It is all going on in your delusional mind. You have been telling people that there is DNA and fingerprint evidence associating Alfie with this murder. Yet when I ask you what it is, you tell me to use my imagination. The fact is that there is no evidence associating Alfie with the murder. Nothing to prove he lied about anything, no DNA or fingerprints at the scene, no footprints, none of his hair. You are also making Shirley an accessory to murder. She is still alive.
If it was Bailey, then there are four witnesses that have testified that she knew him. I live in a rural area and the natural assumption for a 3 am door knock is that there was an emergency that needed attention. So for example, a knock on her back door might have Sophie thinking that Alfie had taken ill, especially if there was no car. Sure who would walk all the way out there at that time of night? Oh wait....And don`t forget, Alfie, Shirley and Sophie were on good terms. Mrs. Hellen said so.
I only thought the matter came up again, not because of Alfie's death, but because of the trial in France. I don't know about Sheridan or the Netflix documentary, however it's hard to find unbiased journalism anywhere in the world, so why would this be any different.
There is no proof that Alfie or Shirley did it, same as there is nothing to proof that Bailey did it. I would find it hard to believe that Alfie and Shirley had a motive, I would also find it hard to believe that a neighbourhood squabble resulted in a murder so brutal in the way she was killed. At the same time, I will always find it hard to believe that Alfie and Shirley didn't hear anything at all that night, - whatever the reason may be, and maybe there is a perfectly good explanation for this, but it's still an unanswered question.
I think people should consider how the debate has opened up on this case now that Alfie Lyons has died. Why all the documentaries this year? Especially the joke Netflix documentary with a range of contributors like Michael Sheridan, Lara Marlowe etc., who obviously don't like Bailey and appear to believe that because of domestic abuse he's a murderer. If that's the case we have thousands of murderers in Ireland. Michael Sheridan is like the Garda press officer.
Bailey has always been and still is used to distract people from looking at others. I also heard about the infamous Guard who knew Sophie, from people who live close by. The deathbed confession might be pushing things a bit, but it could be that he was troubled for allowing the murderer go free for his own selfish reasons.
@tibruit You believe that a woman alone in a country house was woken at 3am by banging on a door and decided to put on some boots to go out and see who was there. She could have asked who was there from a top window, she could have picked up the phone to call the Guards but she did what any sensible person would do. Go on tell us the rest.
If you asked someone to do something and they answered "I will, yeah" would you expect them to do what you asked?
You should look at the DPP's report. I know it's like a science book to a fundamentalist Christian like yourself. I thought since you hadn't been around lately you might have been persuaded of the absurdity of your take on things.
Sure there's no evidence, when people go to the trouble of taking a scissors to cut it out of a book.
The idea that people who find a murdered body might have something to do with it. Did you ever in your life? Madness
What do you know about it?
You mean apart from the fact that he said he did it?
And how exactly do you know there's no evidence for any of this?? Because you don't know about it??
I'll tell you what there's absolutely no evidence for, either in the public domain or the garda files.
IB being guilty.
Who are the "others" that know about this guard? The fact is that this is all classic Chinese Whispers. There is no evidence at all that Sophie knew this guy. No evidence of a physical relationship, no evidence that she made a drugs complaint to him and no evidence of a death bed confession by him, or anybody else either. No evidence that Alfie had a bandaged hand, no evidence that Bailey came to Alfie`s door on the night of the murder, no evidence that the Gardaà tried to pin it on the innocent Englishman to get Alfie, the guard or anybody else off the hook. There are some people here as mad as a bucket of frogs.
I pulled that out of one of the books.....Sheridans I think. There is no doubt that the doors were locked. It was widely known at the time. Even Bamboozle linked an Irish Times article that said the doors were locked several pages back.
No idea. I just can't imagine the entire force including the Dublin boys were in on it.
There's one name that always crops up in any coercion or dodgy behaviour in this case including bandon tapes so I'd say him for a start.
The most plausible scenario in this murder involves Alfie. He was aware of the comings and goings, so any investigation into him was going to mean revealing things, like the Bandon guard, that would have been embarrassing.
His alibi and silence would have meant he couldn't be convicted even if they believed him the murderer. So there was no serious investigation for a number of reasons.
He was the person who told Bailey about blood on the back door, kicking off the idea that there was an attack at the house. He was later prepared to half remember damning evidence against Bailey.
Any forensics that put Alfie and Shirley at the scene could have easily been explained away in court.
Who else is remotely near having reasons they might be a suspect?
AGS knew when they surveyed the scene. Fiesta seen speeding away. Doc Martin boot mark beside the body.
'Evidence' for the former is very tenuous. Story first emerged in a tabloid article nearly 20 years after the crime that provided no source. Even if it was true would the guards have known it when surveying the scene? So would they have concluded with certainty it was one of theirs based on the print resembling a Doc Marten beside the body? I was probably wearing Doc Martens back then...
A few key players protecting one of their own. Is that business as usual?
Of course you have and will be again. We've loads of time
There's very few on here have been offended by your childish attempts at acerbic wit.
But to quote yourself;
"Â No worries, we've loads of time"
Well, others know about this gard so your grand. Still doesn't mean it will ever come to light as it should unfortunately. Like others have said, it's basically hearsay in terms of evidence. Doesn't make it any less true, just hard to prove.
Think I quoted the wrong person there sorry!!
Agree
I also don't think it was a "huge cover up", there were likely a few key players who knew they were protecting one of their own, some ineptitude thrown into the mix, lower rank lads just doing what they were told and a VERY convenient loudmouthed journo who knew to much and drank too much for the perfect fall guy.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a04babac7ef9d681628a280d81c51a1e.svg)
