of course unsaid but methinks implicit in the term "straight forward directions" is that the directions came from France.
I suppose if you can't refute inconvenient facts you can only try to deflect them by trying to make a joke about them. It doesn't make them any less true though.
I wouldn't make any assumptions. I would implicitly exclude the assumption that the murderer had to be someone local though.
Source?
According to this she had a business in Schull for a year prior to the murder, and a stall in the run up to xmas 1996 in Cork City.
Her use of the word 'stranger' to describe the person she saw implies an awareness of people she had seen around Schull previously ie she was not a stranger there herself.
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5da0484c4653d07b2518fd85
you said the house could be found with straight forward directions,so the perpetrator starts looking for directions in the nearest town and probably has to ask more than one person for directions to a specific house that the next day is the subject of a murder.Hardly plausible ,is it.
Well the only person who was pushing the French Connection angle was Ian Bailey in his newspaper articles. And he was still pushing it as late as the libel trial. His theory involved a corsican hitman.
But I can't see anyone seriously believing that. You would have to believe it was a hitman because Daniel has an alibi.
Also, hitmen, as such, do not exist. It's a creation of movies and tv shows.
Let's say you want to kill your wife... Who do you call? Where do you find the number? Where do you go to find your hitman?
Why would they need to ask some randomer for directions?
The house could be found with straightforward directions.
Directions. There is a clue there.
the weather wasn't bad for preserving DNA. very cold first night. cold helped preserve DNS in Marilyn Rynn case
That will come as a surprise to the people in jail either for hiring or being hired to commit murder.
If you must try to engage in the classic reductio ad absurdum fallacy I'll try to explain as simply as I can.
If, and that's an assumption which may or may not be correct, the murder was carried out by someone from outside the locality by direction of someone (local or otherwise) who had motive to kill Sophie, the murderer would have been given a description and/or photo of Sophie and instructions on where she lived.
You are correct in that it is hardly plausible that they would have had to traipse around the locality asking every Tom, Dick and Harry if they knew where this French 'wan lived, only, they had to kill her and they were having trouble finding the house.
It doesn't alter the fact that the house is not difficult to find, either through personal local knowledge or with simple directions from someone who knows where the house is.
so are you saying Sophies house could be found on line with no assistance from anyone
And of course it is possible someone could have killed Sophie using objects at a distance and left no trace
how do you mean at a distance?
For an explanation see the post above your own.
Probably wasnt the best word... I dont mean as a projectile weapon but without directly putting hands on her. Always indirect contact using an object / weapon. At least that appears to be the case from the description from autopsy etc but open to correction on that.
Nope. Just that the assistance doesnt have to have come from a random person in the locality.
Back to basics on it... Directions could have been received from Sophie herself, or anyone who had previously been to Sophies or Alfies.
It's obvious the point that I am making. She and Alfie both had vague recollections that cast Bailey in a bad light and would have been well aware of the implications. It could be innocent enough, they were probably compromised between the dope charge and possibly feeding information about the murder to people.
FFS. Turn off the coast road at Kealfadda bridge, about 3/4 of a mile up turn left. The house is the first one you come to. A child could find it on a tricycle.
Buy an ordnance survey map if you're still unsure.
eh thats after it has become world news,I am at a loss how a non local would find this house without assistance ,or an address,I sense you want to move off this as the natural explaination for the original remark was directions came from France,
You're at a loss? Quite. You've heard of the OSI and black markers
You're the one that first brought up that such directions came from France.
The posts before that were just correcting the erroneous belief that the house was difficult to locate and therefore the murderer must be local.
"Thanks for the directions but I've ended up killing Alfie by mistake!"
There was one case I read about in the US where the murderers were told to do it by their employer and given directions. They took a wrong turn without realizing it, went to the wrong house and killed the person at that house.
Police were baffled until they figured out the killers took a wrong turn.
I don't really understand why the killer would have loads of scratches on his arms/hands. I doubt he/she was scrambling through briars. I get why Sophie may have had as she might have tried to climb the ditch to escape and looks like she was pulled back. I'd imagine it was quite possible to kill her without getting a scratch. Far too much emphasis is put on the possible scratches on Bailey's hands, it certainly seems exaggerated by Det. Dwyer and others. And the scratches are definitely not from Sophie as otherwise she's have DNA under her fingernails.
Yes. I agree. The killer didn't necessarily have to have scratches on his hands. He may have.
Ian had scratches on his hands from a tree, he claimed. Don't forget also, Ian had a scratch on his forehead from, he claimed, the turkey.
Jules, while in custody, told the gardai the scratch on the forehead was not there when she went to bed, but it was there when she woke up in the morning. THey didn't show this in the documentaries, but....
Jules: "I can't recall Ian coming back to bed. I remembered him getting me coffee at 9:00am and as far as I can honestly remember he did not come back to bed all that morning. I saw a scratch on his forehead. I am sure and have no recollection of seeing this scratch on his forehead on the Sunday. The scratch was raw and I asked him what happened as it was fresh and a bit bloodied and he said he got it from a stick. It was a jagged bit of a mark. He did not elaborate where he came into contact with the stick."
Is Jules saying he claimed the mark was from a stick in the ralph riegel book ?
Why would he change his story?
Scratches, matches, batches.... Who care's?
Bailey was cutting down the top off a tree and slaughtering turkeys... Both these activities will produce scratches to some degree.
That's that one sorted.
If Bailey was the killer, and wanted to maintain an appearance of normality the following day..
Yeah, he would show up at the communal throwing one's self into the sea spectacle... But, he'd wear a pair of gloves.
It's the middle of winter, it's baltic weather by the coast, the man is renowned for his long black coat(s).
Would he not just have easily donned a pair of gloves to maintain the charade?? I mean, we are expected to believe he brutally murdered a woman several hours earlier, wants to keep up the pretence of his normal routine, rolls up at the pier spouting poems... But leaves his murderous hands exposed..??
C'mon.....
The Nick FOster book includes parts of Jules' statements from her arrest on 10th Feb. I think they weren't available when the other books were written. The documentaries didn't include them either and the DPP just glossed over them.
Basically Jules talks about how Bailey was on Hunt's hill saying he might go over to alfie's, saying he had a feeling something bad was going to happen, then at home when he got up during the night and didn;t come back and in the morning had a fresh scratch on his forehead. Plus how he told her to stick with the story of their movements on 22nd even though it was untrue.
We have plenty of reason to believe the Guards used their imagination quite a bit in relation to statements. But as with witness statements about Bailey's admissions, things to do with scratches, getting out of bed and going out for a walk, all are simply the kind of circumstantial evidence the DPP could see wouldn't last five minutes in court. The Guards aren't stupid either, so would have been aware of this. So why did they put together a hopeless case?
Ian Bailey wasn't the only one thinking there might be a French element to the murder. It wouldn't have taken long for that to dawn on the investigators along with the realisation that it was going to be extremely difficult to catch a killer who was out of the country. Enter the annoying English bol*ox and his stories, so that's how the public met fall-guy Bailey. No harm done(a bit maybe), a few arrests and the media will do the rest.
I find the silence deafening on the fact that the Guards have recently asked their French counterparts to interview someone about an alibi for the time of the murder. Is it because they already have evidence relating to this person?
Is it even possible to see Alfie's place from anywhere along the road? I'm not sure it is. Where exactly is Hunt's hill?
I have never come across any roadside vantage point in the area where you can see any of the three houses at the end of the lane
That's what I thought.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
