From August, Jules ain't for turning..
There is no way Jules would have covered for Bailey. She had 3 young daughters living in the house with her - if he was the murderer she would not have had him in the same house as her kids. No mother would put her children at risk from a murderer. Neither was she financially reliant on Bailey - in fact he seemed to rely on her financially. If she was in fear of Bailey all she had to do was say he murdered Sophie and he would have been locked up and out of their lives.
Im afraid those people hoping Jules will now ' reveal all' are very wrong.
The McBrearty case. Morris tribunal. 2 months before this murder. Utter corruption, very similar tactics.
The only difference between the cases really is they could afford a private investigator and to fight the Gards and the state, which they did and won.
A deep delve into that case is needed for anyone who thinks we're conspiracy theorists.
Tbh with you, there's much more reason to believe a garda coverup than a Jules coverup. Like, what has she ever done to be accused of lying & aiding a murderer, sweet **** all. Seems like a decent individual by all accounts. Now, the gards on the other hand, I think there's ample reason to believe a coverup from them, I mean its hard to find another investigation in recent times which had so much incompetence & corruption but some posters still believe that, ah sure, they were only doing their best & were right to try & stitch up an innocent man because he's not a likeable individual. Beggars belief.
Agree. I find it really annoying when I read things like "Jules can open up now, she's no reason to lie". The reality is she's got absolutely nothing to say and nothing to hide.
The same people that mock about a garda cover up say there was a cover up involving Jules! Hypocrisy much.
Like Jim said, there didn't have to be a huge garda cover up, just a few key players, and looking at the case in depth, it's quite clear that the same ones who coerced and bribed witnesses, complained that their colleagues were "too honest" and dealt with Marie Farrell are the likely suspects.
Well, they've been split up a while now, at least 3 months I believe and there hasnt been a pip out of her. Also, in the documentaries, especially the Jim Sheridan one, she seemed utterly convinced of his innocence & was one of the first reasons why I started to believe Bailey was innocent of this crime. I refuse to believe that after all those years of living with someone, that Bailey wouldn't have given at least some serious hints to her that he committed the crime. But zilch, nada, nothing, either that or she is an extremely convincing liar which I don't believe to be the case.
Also, in relation to your doubts that there was a massive garda coverup operation. No one has ever said there was a massive coverup, there didnt need to be. All it took was a few (even 2 or 3) senior officers in the locality to steer the investigation in the manner it went. There was no coverup from Forensics in Dublin because there was hardly any forensics found at the scene at all aside from Sophie, either the scene was purposely cleaned up before Forensics arrived or the perpetrator got extremely lucky. Either could be true. Then we have the disposal & losing of key pieces of evidence.
You say there's no evidence that a Gard committed this crime but there's no evidence that Bailey did either. You again, like other previous posters are attempting to convict him off previous domestic violence issues with Jules which is nowhere near enough to paint someone as a murderer.
I understand your point. However Jules motive to talk wouldn't be about "getting off the hook", - she is not a suspect in the case. Also 25 years onwards, it's hard to believe that a judge would take her statement serious, also memory fades during such a timespan. I also believe that she was questioned extensively back then, even in custody for a while, and she would hardly state she lied back then and is now telling the truth.
Whoever did the murder got clean away. The lack of absence of evidence fuelled the speculation and the Garda's corruption, incompetence and the exclusive focus on Bailey hindered a broader approach.
" but nothing concrete to connect any to the murder"
Apart from the block!
Have we ruled out a beggar on horseback? It could explain a lot...
No, thought it was apt with so many ifs and buts and wild flights of fantasy in the thread.
There were initially in or around 350 potential lines of investigation, narrowed down to about a dozen or so named suspects at different times in the media but nothing concrete to connect any to the murder, nothing more than ifs and buts, rumour, innuendo and wild speculation.
Wrong thread fishy? 😂
If wishes were horses
Beggars would ride:
If turnips were watches
I would wear one by my side.
And if if’s and an’s were pots and pans,
There'd be no work for the tin smith's hands!
Honestly don't believe that would happen...if Bailey were guilty, Jules had more than ample reason and opportunity to testify against him...she steadfastly stuck with Him, which cannot have been easy...She knows he's not guilty....
Your forgetting there woudnt have been any house searches done by the gardai until at least a month after the murder. Plently of time for anyone to dispose of a murder weapon or clothes.
If IB did do the murder i wonder now that IB and Jules are recently split up she may feel the need to unburden some new information. Would a possible written statement from her that shes helped IB cover up the murder be enough to convict him. She may in turn strike a deal with the authorities to get herself off the hook.
Good points.
There's alot of crime scene and autopsy photos I believe.
If the bottle can be traced to a suspect that wasn't supposed to be there it may be very relevant. Well work looking into.
You are more likely to find traces of the perpetrator on the victim than the other way round.
Stamping on the victim at or just after the time of death left an indelible mark which could be matched to the footwear of the stamper.
It's unlikely that any useful images of the body were kept and even if they were, I doubt any boots from potential attackers were collected and kept.
The state of the pathology dept. in Ireland at that time was pathetic, matched only by the incompetence/corruption of the Gardaí.
It's easy to research the state of the pathology dept. in the 90's an early 2000.
How many crimes were "solved" by fitting up an innocent person?
and how many more would there have been but for the DPP throwing them out?
I doubt there will be any new evidence in this case.
Thanks for that one. So it's the hatchet not the poker. Suppose the hatchet was used to deliver the first blow to Sophie, unless it can be found, traced to the killer as well as to Sophie, there is nothing one can ever do that could hold up in any civilized court to convict somebody.
Suggesting the killer was local, like Bailey, or Alfie or Shirley they would at least have hiked to any cliffs to throw the hatchet into the sea thus disposed of the murder weapon. It's unlikely that it will ever be found there. If the killer was using a car, like a Ford Fiesta and was from Bantry than the choices to dispose of the hatchet would have been even greater.
The bottle of wine or who was using the bath tub is only a minor thing one can speculate about, but in relation to a conviction it's basically nothing.
I don't think the poker was actually missing. It was just the hatchet.
Oh they thoroughly searched jules place and the studio, took most of Ians clothes and lots of other items. Not a trace of Sophie anywhere. Some items were further tested down the line too.
Sure.
Just for the exercise, what would we need to really convict somebody, 25 years later?
How about that poke for the fireplace which is still missing. Suppose it's ever found, with Sophie's blood on one side, and the finger prints of say Bailey at the other end of it? It'll be a good piece of evidence for a conviction, eh. Then we wouldn't have to speculate whether Bailey walked for nearly one hour over to Sophie's, killed her, and then back again after a night out in the pub, we actually had real evidence.
I presume Jules' house has been searched, same as Alfie's and Shirley's, and if Bailey really did it, he would most likely have discarded that poke somewhere, or thrown it into the sea, and wiped his fingerprints of before....
'hey don't exist now, and neither did evidence in form of DNA, fingerprints, hair, etc....' Thta's where forensic advances could make a difference between then and now.
The thing is, 25 years on, there won't be any new revelations, certainly not by any writer, journalist or poet. I also don't want to kill anybody's show here, but I can safely say that anybody should refrain from any future books on the subject like "Sophie's murder, what really happened, - the exclusive story" etc.. and that kind of talk.
Mysterious man, stalker, prowler, with dark coat, upturned collar, smoking a cigar/pipe and wearing a hat, having a full beard has been seen days before the murder at odd hours in the area....blablabla....... Bailey had never written such a book, as there was nothing he knew for certain, and the same would apply for anybody else who would attempt to do that, other than making money.......
After 25 years, I doubt they will ever be able to connect any murder weapon to the murder and to the site so that it could hold up in any civilized court. They couldn't do that 25 years ago, they can't now. Any witnesses or credible witnesses didn't exist back then, they don't exist now, and neither did evidence in form of DNA, fingerprints, hair, etc....
The problem is that the case has now gained significant popular opinion further to the TV documentaries in particular.
In a situation like this you will always have cranks emerging from the shadows. Opportunist journalists will gladly latch on.
It could be anyone that was in the area at that time and ended up in a prison.
I would genuinely laugh out loud if that is the source of his new 'revelations'.
It is surprising that everyone seems utterly stumped as to who this ex prisoner source might be though. After all the endless wild and crazy speculation, no one can even hazard guess.
Like a prowler who was in the area, who states years later that the row started over a bottle of pilfered wine..?
And gives an exclusive to Nick Foster..
Mad Ted.
If Sophie put up a fight, than she most likely would have screamed, even more strange that Alfie and Shirley didn't hear anything. That is, if Sophie screamed at all. Maybe she was hit from behind unexpectedly, knocked unconscious and her wounds are just made to appear that she put up a defence? It's not impossible.
I don't think that forensics in Dublin did a bad job. They would have been from too far away, and sort of immune from whatever was going on on the peninsula. However I have my strong doubts about the local Garda. Getting Marie Farrell to a wrong whiteness statement, to supplying Martin Graham with drugs to get close to Bailey is a very clear indication of corruption and idiocy. In other countries any police officer or chief of police would lose their jobs over this.
Since you're mentioning rumors, on that one I agree with you strongly. We have absolutely nothing, on anybody, however that includes Bailey. No evidence and no witnesses connecting murderer to crime scene, no deathbed confessions, nothing. As we have nothing and everybody believes something must have happened, stories, speculation and theories are in abundance.
The story about a deathbed confession by a sexually overactive Guard is as realistic and credible as a drunk poet, writer and journalist hiking for 45 minutes one way and back to kill Sophie brutally, after one good night out in the pub drinking or the French hitman hired by her husband to cash in on the life insurance, or the ex lover or lovers from wherever they were from or Alfie or Shirley or the Ungerers being involved in some form or part of drug trafficking. Even the opinions on whether the murder was planned or unplanned differ greatly.
Thus rumors speculations and other theories will live on unless the unlikely event happens, and some new evidence turns up totally unexpected.
Your powers or deduction are frighteningly good. Ever thought of joining AGS? Are you any good at drawing sketches?
...
So there is no evidence for scenario A and no evidence for scenario B, but we should all just accept scenario B?
Bailey did not have 'defence wounds' on his hands and face. If he received wounds from Sophie during the assault, where's the forensics under fingernails etc etc
And the DPP was satisfied Bailey's scratches happened the day before as he described them.
There's no evidence of Bailey at the crime scene or in Sophie's house either. No motive.
Can you give us a list of all the known woman beaters in the area, their movements and whereabouts on the night in question, if it's such a key indicator of someone's guilt?
Can you give us a list of all the people who have made a joke in bad taste about the murder in the area?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a04babac7ef9d681628a280d81c51a1e.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bd89cdce15309a6ec2dff928c865017a.svg)
