But why just Bailey "could certainly have flown into a murderous rage rendering him capable of obliterating her face with a concrete block"? Why not any one or two of a number of people who we know did know her well. Alfie, Leo, Shirley, Finbarr etc.
Just because of some ridiculous theories and lies by people like Detective "Colombo" Dwyer( his arms were destroyed with scratches) were a list of 50 suspects reduced to one after two weeks. TWO WEEKS?
If you genuinely feel that this was a normal investigation and you don't have an ulterior motive, you can't be helped.
I suppose my liathroidi must be of a fair size. :D I question the DPP's report the same way I question any report in any case. If you intentionally rely only on the DPP's opinion, then you will inevitably come away simply agreeing with him.
If you look at my initial reply to you, I pointed out one very important point on which the DPP was very stupid and which indicated to me that he was not familiar with murder cases or the behaviour of murderers. I could point out other stupid assumptions he makes.
Who are you to question the DPP's report?? If you think you're so smart, back it up. To make such an outlandish claim that our DPP's report at the time was "stupid", you'd want to have fairly big qualified "liathroidi" to challenge this. Its a valid question if you seek to challenge. Cat got your thonge or
Sounds like you didn't read anything I said.
I was replying to your post in a friendly way and I agreed with some of the things you said.
I said the DPP made a number of stupid statements and assumptions in this report and I stand by that. Elsewhere in his report, he makes some good points. His decision not to charge Bailey, despite the pressure, was the right one.
You call me "arrogant" and ask who am I? Who are you to ask me who am I? :D
You may have seen that someone else posted a link where Shirley is talking to a French documentary maker. However much she dislikes being thrust into the limelight and is shy and reserved, it didn't stop her casting aspersions on Bailey when she would have been well aware that there was no real evidence of his having done anything.She did accompany Alfie to the libel trial, where he gave his 90% certain evidence. Just as much as, according to Dwyer, Bailey was trying to distract people suggesting a French angle to the killing, Shirley and Alfie were trying to distract people from themselves suggesting Bailey had something to do with it.
Im not even going to go through the majority of your replies to my post because I value my time but the fact that you call the DPP's report "stupid" says alot. Who are you? but an anonymous poster on a internet forum calling out the DPP's report at the time. That's ridiculous for any rational minded person. You have zero credibility, zero authority, zero real evidence & zero real understanding of this case in comparison to the DPP. Typical of the "Bailey did it" posters. Your arrogance knows no bounds, typical behavior of individuals who like to condemn people in trial by media but go missing when the truth comes out & they are completely contradicted.
I've been doing some research on his newspaper articles and he always used Eoin Bailey, even before the murder. In one article I found, he was credited as Eoin O'Baille. He has barely any articles published before the murder - just a tiny review of a hothouse flowers gig and another of a ronnie drew gig. These were in the Southern Star, hidden away in the back pages on someone else's Entertainments page. He says in an interview that he specialized in reporting on musicians and makes it seem as if he did many articles like this, but there are only two - hothouse flowers and Ronnie Drew.
In fairness to him, he also had a large article about the Michael Collins movie (it was released in 1996 and premiered in Cork) in The Southern Star.
The Cyberpub article was the only one he was ever asked to do for the Tribune before the murder, probably because no other reporter could be arsed in 1996 to write about the Internet.
Prior to the night of the murder, he was doing the sort of thing you would do when you're in school and working on the school magazine/school newspaper. (At least that's what I did when I was in secondary school :D)
IMO, prior to the murder, Eoin Bailey was not a working journalist. He is trying to make it seem as if he was a journalist who just turned his attention to the crime that happened nearby, In actual fact, he wasn't a proper journalist since the 1980s in England and even then, he was mostly just writing local filler articles for sale to other newspapers.
Decent article, very well researched and he seemed very informed. If all info was to hand could well have been a quick job but there's a richness to it that suggests it was anything but.
I've yet to see any poster here who is utterly convinced of Bailey's innocence.
I've seen quite a few in this thread just recently.
The posters who come on here convinced of Baileys guilt have yet to make any reasonable points as to why he should have been charged apart from claiming the DPP's report was a joke.
I agree. There was definitely not enough to charge and the DPP made the right decision. However, I would say that the DPP makes a number of stupid statements and assumptions in this report that indicate to me he is not very familiar with murder cases and especially criminal behaviour.
they'd be happy for an innocent man to go to prison just because he isn't likeable in their minds. This is how miscarriages of justice happen.
I agree. If you look at forums dedicated to the Jonbenet Ramsey case (as a good example) there are so many people who were angry that the DA in that case didn't charge them. It was submitted to a grand jury, the grand jury indicted them, but the DA decided not to indict them and was heavily criticised. I think the DA in that case was the only level headed person involved. Authorities should only charge someone if they are sure the person is guilty.
Simple fact of the matter is Bailey had no motive
You will find many cases that have no apparent motive. On TV everyone has a motive, but in real life it is much more complex. This crime is not an unusual one. It's just that you never see crimes like this on TV because they are so mundane. Sometimes they barely get reported on. For example, there was a prostitute (Belinda Pereira) savagely beaten to death in an apartment in Dublin a few days after Sophie's murder, but nobody paid much attention and her killer was never found.
Regarding motive, when a man kills a woman that is not his wife/girlfriend/relative, it is usually a sexual motive. When a rapist attacks a woman and she fights back and he ends up killing her, he usually will not rape her. Does that mean there is no motive? Of course not. The motive is still sexual assault even though there is no sexual assault. Some crimes can not involve sex at all but still be sexually motivated. Another example, the UK killer Levi Bellfield. He attacked some women as they walked home at night and bludgeoned them with a hammer. No rape. No sexual interference. But those were sexually motivated crimes. (The Yorkshire Ripper was another with a similar MO)
his behavior in the aftermath (reporting on the crime for weeks, taking two court cases against the state & media)
I would give, as a good example, the behaviour of Ted Bundy - he had a public rivalry with the DA, courted the media, claimed he was being framed by overzealous and corrupt cops, acted as his own defence attorney at trial etc. In Ted Bundy's case it is the behaviour we would expect from a narcissist who wants to maintain and exert control.
its highly unlikely he even knew her.
We have Alfie and Leo Bolger and other witnesses. But even if we didn't believe them, whether Bailey knew her or not is immaterial. By his own admission, he knew of her. You can murder someone you don't know personally. Plenty of murders are stranger murders, especially crimes against women in which the motive is sexual.
no DNA evidence of his was found at the scene
Due to TV and movies we have come to expect DNA in every case. In actual fact, most cases don't have DNA evidence. Circumstantial cases are regularly brought in court. Some people have indicated that it was unusual that in Sophie's case, no DNA was found. The fact is, in similar murders, usually DNA is not found.
there's no credible witness statements,
there's no credible witness statements
Because people choose not to believe certain witnesses. For example, we have 4 witnesses who say Bailey had a fire around the back of the Prairie over the 25th-26th period.
To top it off he was happy for the investigators to take his DNA & was willing to conduct a lie detector test.
The DPP, in one of his stupid statements said his willingness to give DNA was indicative of innocence. A huge percentage of cases in which DNA convicts are cases in which the killer voluntarily gave his DNA to the police. Guilty people regularly do this.
Guilty people also regularly agree to be polygraphed and regularly fail. It's very common for murderers to say they will take a polygraph initially, but when push comes to shove, they end up not taking it. In Bailey's case, his polygraph comments are clearly empty words.
its certainly highly unlikely behavior from someone who would have carried out this crime.
Well, I would disagree. Among other things, I would expect the killer in this crime to 1. Be obsessed with the crime and in the aftermath of the crime be trying to find out what the police are doing and how much they know. 2. I would expect him to comply with requests for DNA/hair because he would believe refusing those requests would bring undue attention to him. 3. I would expect him to claim he is willing to take a lie detector.
Agreed - Anybody claiming Bailey is 100% innocent is blinded.
I personally don't think he murdered Sophie for a number of reasons. The 'against bag' certainly out weighs the 'he did it bag'.
And as mentioned numerous times, his character is somewhat tarnished due to several domestic violence issues in the past.
But anyone who researches the subject and it's array of characters, will soon discover that a number of other locals had a propensity for violence too..
You see, the fact of the matter is Chicorythick or whatever you're called, I dont need to substantiate, the man tasked with deciding whether people are charged or not for crimes such as this backs up pretty much everything I say. He's independent, not a corrupt judge or another one of our many corrupt gards. And if you dont like that, that's your problem. Not a shred of hard or credible evidence has linked Bailey to this crime. Now, I know this must sicken some people but its the reality. Bailey is no more of a suspect than at least another ten others in this matter.
You cannot substantiate most of what you contend in the second paragraph of your post. He could certainly have known her very well indeed and,although not motivated by any particular reason to kill her in a planned fashion, could certainly have flown into a murderous rage rendering him capable of obliterating her face with a concrete block. His behaviour in the aftermath and during the investigation does not seem that unusual at all. Better to hide in plain sight, particularly in such a small community. What else was he going to do? Abscond and leave the jurisdiction?
His bylne here reads Eoin Balley. Should be Eoin O'Baille, as he liked to be referred to around that period.
Thank you
I dont think the violence at the scene necessarily shows someone who had a deep personal hatred towards her. I think it could easily have been someone who has high on drink or drugs, took exception to being rejected & then reacted overly aggressively. Then realizing what he had done, he probably felt the best way for him to get out of this mess, was to finish her off in the manner that he did. Panicked then, got in his car & took off like a bat out of hell. Someone who understood DNA evidence was unlikely to catch him in this case given how the attack was carried out.
I think if it was someone with a deep personal hatred, it would have been someone known in the community or to her family & friends. Someone she had been seen with on numerous occasions, a boyfriend, relative, work colleague, husband, etc. We know she didnt travel here too often on her own so I think a local boyfriend type is unlikely but it could have been a local acquaintance who had the "liathroidi" to try it on with her in the middle of the night. She was speaking on the phone with her husband literally a couple of hours before she was killed so its unlikely she was properly romantically involved with anyone here. If I remember correctly, DTDP even mentioned they were discussing the possibility of having kids on that telephone call.
I've yet to see any poster here who is utterly convinced of Bailey's innocence. I certainly ain't but I believe he is entitled to the presumption of innocence until found guilty in a court of law not some BS social media campaign. The fact that he wasnt even charged, speaks volumes. The posters who come on here convinced of Baileys guilt have yet to make any reasonable points as to why he should have been charged apart from claiming the DPP's report was a joke. Every now & then, their mask slips & they start talking about Bailey's domestic violence issues with Jules as reasons why he should be charged. That's simply nowhere near good enough, they'd be happy for an innocent man to go to prison just because he isn't likeable in their minds. This is how miscarriages of justice happen.
Simple fact of the matter is Bailey had no motive, no DNA evidence of his was found at the scene, there's no credible witness statements, his behavior in the aftermath (reporting on the crime for weeks, taking two court cases against the state & media) is extremely unusual with that of a perpetrator & its highly unlikely he even knew her. No amount of BS the so called anti Bailey crew come up deters from this. To top it off he was happy for the investigators to take his DNA & was willing to conduct a lie detector test. None of the above points to 100% innocence but its certainly highly unlikely behavior from someone who would have carried out this crime.
Interestingly..I see she owns a dog.
She's interviewed in this at 39:05
https://youtu.be/R2-n9bZ72g8
I agree with regards that every poster has their own opinion on the events that occurred in 1996. Each to their own, and let their views be respected.
Pro Baileyites are up for the same scrutiny as the Anti Baileyites - I see no argument there.
I think its far easier to eliminate suspects, than it is to name the killer (realistically, none of us really know anyway).
The viciousness of the murder has always stuck me as different. There was way too much violence used for a simple 'lost the head for a second' there moment..
The excessive violence was personal. Driven by a deep hatred, a hatred that can only evolve by knowing somebody intimately.
Even a violent road rage incident lacks the ferocity seen in Dunmanus that morning. In my opinion, Sophie had caused her assailant to deeply resent her, to the point of building up such a rage, that whatever exchange occurred that night / morning, was the final straw.
The fact that the killer ensured she was dead beyond doubt, may be an inkling that she could have identified her murderer had she lived?
It was a big thing then. Now everyone in the pub has a computer in their pocket
I'll just leave this here. Published in the Sunday Tribune on this day in 1996.
Could it be evidence of guilt or evidence of innocence?
Does it really matter if somebody creates a different account?
It matters because it is used to give more weight to their propaganda. Sock puppet I believe is the term
People should acknowledge if they have any contact with any of the sides in the investigation
The new names are adding a different spin to things, one or two posters actually research the topic before posting
and then are told they should not be posting or called fools or gaards because they disagree with the pro baileyites. Pro baileyites are watching and trying to stop anyone who says anything negative about IB
i'm happy you get some amusement in this virus ridden world tibbles
The content of the post is what's important. The viewer has the option to agree with the post or challenge it.
I have no doubt that a lot of the prominent posters that vanished overnight, did little more than create an alternative account. They didn't just stop reading and commenting on this thread and walk off into the sunset...
I's say 90% of posts are just a re-hash of already discussed topics (including my own). But every now and again, a new interesting statement is posted that whet's the appetite again.. The new names are adding a different spin to things, one or two posters actually research the topic before posting (quite refreshing), and then we have the die hards, to which no amount of contrary evidence will ever change their views.
Leo Bolger was a suspect early on. The gardai obtained a hair sample from him on 1st Jan 1997, the same day they collected one from Bailey.
3:58pm - Hair samples were collected from Leo Bolger by Garda Pat Joy.
4:39pm - Hair samples were collected from Ian Bailey by Garda Pat Joy.
According to the DPP, there is a notation in the garda jobs book on 2nd Jan indicating "Ian Bailey is Suspect No. 7".
Or why Alfie says when asked if he heard anything on the night of the murder, he says "not a peep,we heard no..pause..human voices at all". Look at that pause and the strange use of 'human' before voices.
In the days after the murder, there was a big deal made about two men who heard the cries of foxes during the night and the gardai believed this may have been Sophie. Ian Bailey even wrote about it in his articles.
You two crack me up. I hope it`s only a lovers tiff. So confirmation then (as if it was needed) that Scoobs was indeed Thompsonette.
Will you post the time and which part please
Sorry, I have no intention of watching any documentary.
I pop in here on the rare occasion to clarify things I have personal knowledge of and that is the sum total of my involvement. I'm certainly not going to participate in the Sophie Industry that has grown up since her death.
Shirley was a short, slight woman with long dark hair with grey streaks, in her 60s in 1996. She looked her age but in a good way, down to Earth way. Looked like exactly what she is - a kind, gentle, shy, teacher and artist.
This discussion is about the Jim Sheridan documentary. It's in the part about the libel trial, I'll get back with exact time.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
