The question on whether the killing was planned or unplanned leaves a lot of room for interpretation. With utter certainty, I would say, that at least the encounter between the killer and Sophie must have been planned.
He had a reason to go to Sophie's house, but why?
He also knew that she was there, but how did he know that? - maybe he was close to her and even local , maybe a phone call prior, etc...
Also regarding the possibility of being seen or even having witnesses, the house of the Richardson's was in plain view of the gates and that pump house, so he must have been sure, that the house was empty at the time of his visit? How did he know that?
If the murder would have been fully planned the murderer would have brought a weapon? Anything from a gun with a silencer to a baseball bat could have been it. However he managed to either get or lure Sophie to the gates, or where those bricks by the pump house were, which he used as a murder weapon, meaning he must have known they were there and he must have had a reason to lure or get Sophie to the gates?
What was the pump house used for? To get water pressure and running water for the houses in the area? Possibly?
What if the killer knew this and tampered with the pump there, Sophie wanting to take a shower in the morning, shower not working or not having pressure, Sophie getting up, goes straight down in night gown and laced up boots to the pump house to investigate and killer is waiting. In that case the killer also must have known that the pump house supplies drinking water plus the necessary pressure for the houses in the area and the killing was most certainly planned.
Various things point towards a morning killing (read previous posts).
Lets assume that it did occur in the morning..
If, as suggested.. Sophie was eating her breakfast, what drove her to lace up her boots and go outside?
It probably wasn't a knock at the door, as she would have answered it in her slippers / house shoes, one would imagine..?
There was no struggle in the house, no blood spots anywhere down the lane or the field in front of the house..
This suggests the attack took place down by the gate (logically thinking)?
The murder was not planned... The killer used what was in the vicinity at the time, in this case, a loose block from the pump house..
Now... Sounding like Columbo here.. Who would know there was loose blocks on the top tier of the pump house?
The plot thickens..
Whatever brought Sophie out of the house that morning, she dressed for it (laced up her outdoor boots). she didn't close the door behind her, which suggests she was saying her piece and that was that, intended to come straight back in again.
An argument occurred, it got out of hand, a dreadful deed occurred through sheer rage..
Most killers would run a mile once they realised their victim was dead. The adrenaline kicks in, they need to get as far away from the scene as fast as possible, daybreak is coming, people are getting up... The killer is covered in blood, time is of the essence...
But the opposite happens..
We are led to believe that the blood soaked killer walked up the passage to close Sophie's front door, leaving a smudge of Sophie's blood just below the handle that probably came from the killers sleeve??
Now... Moments previously, Sophie was (we assume) screaming for her life.. The killed bludgeoned her with a concrete block, he is covered in blood.. There is a dead body on the driveway, daylight is coming.... What does he do?
Walks back to Sophie's house to pull the door closed? What if the neighbours had been woken by all the commotion? What if they were on the way down right then?? What if he was seen..??
This dude took his time.. Was he secure in knowing that he was the only man in the area that morning?
Maybe he was?
Just wondering, but is it known if that suspected / mentioned Guard from Bantry was at the murder site, early on during the investigation? Would he have been on duty on the next day?
Seems to be a curious lack of evidence in the house at all. Still it is said that her diary and a axe/poker were missing from the house.
there were no continuous drips of blood as would happen if she was carried to the gate. There was one on a stone in front of the house. She ran in front of the house and across the field/grass not down the lane. the blood on th dor was hers. probabaly she was struck at the door touched the bleeding part and then tried to get back inside. the killer was not inside there were no footprints or any evidence he went in
There were amny wounds inflicted on STDP. Some may have been with a sharper object that a brick? I don't thinka brick was mentioned at all just a large building block that needed 2 hands to wield.
Well, there must have been a reason for the blood stain at the door. Either Sophie was injured there and then ran down to the gate and murdered, or she was only beaten to death near the gates and then the murderer went to the cottage after the murder and caused the stain there? Only what would he be doing there? Looking for something?
It could easily have been that the murderer picked up that brick on the way to Sophie's house, knocked her unconscious unexpectedly by a blow of the brick at her entrance door, causing all that blood there, then carried her down near the gates, and delivered further blows. A strong man, like Bailey, could have done that.
and the bloodstains on the ground from blood she would have lost on the way down were found where?
Yes I get ya, but he didn’t get prosecuted, the extradition attempt failed, it didn’t even get to court here. We all know the french conviction was a show trial.
so why exactly does it worry you? Our gardai are corrupt, I completely agree, but our justice system is fair, and in this case it prevailed.
Was wondering where the other thread was..why did they close it?
If there was actually solid evidence beyond reasonable doubt that Bailey was at the murder site, handled the murder weapon and killed Sophie then I wouldn't care less about him, like if he was rotting in a jail, any jail French or Irish, whichever is worse is preferred.
Otherwise Bailey is to remain a free man, both in Ireland and in France and not to be harassed by police or courts, the public and the media.
Sadly for reasons unknown the admins of this board closed the thread regarding the SKY documentary by Jim Sheridan. It's the better documentary. I didn't like the Netflix documentary either, as it doesn't seem to go too much into depth.
Also the "incriminated True Crime" podcast is done pretty well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH3zOMptXdw
He’s been giving as good, if not worse, as he gets. Most of his recent tweets are incoherent gibberish. “Bailey researched” let me stop you right there. He’s given out false information, doxxed various people, and believes anything he’s told off random Twitter accounts that claim to be troll hunters etc. hes done nothing but make an absolute idiot of himself.
Bailey interacted with this person via DM. the person has given several SS to others and they’ve since been tweeted. No, it wouldn’t have him arrested unless he actually met the person with the intent to have sex (which he attempted as you can see by the messages), even then, the law around this is pretty sketchy in Ireland.
it hasn’t been all released to the media yet but I believe it will.
The 2 documentaries didnt cover the entire details of the case. The netflix documentary was particularly poor and only wanted to convince the viewer that Bailey was guilty. They failed to mention alot of info pointing in other directions. As a starting point I suggest you listen to the West Cork Podcast as it covers the bad and the ugly concerning this case. It also focuses more on the Gardai involved which the documentaries failed to do.
If you have been following Baileys twitter account, you will see that he has been publicaly outing some vicious trolls that were stalking him on social media. He has practically named and shamed them (all had respectable lives outside of trolling it would seem)
A lot of posts he puts up are met with various degree's of hate (among many more positive replies)
Bailey researched, and hunted down the trolls that were posting all sorts of vile crap about him. He created a file, and has since handed it over to the local Gards to follow up (in conjunction with his legal team of course).
Does anybody really think Bailey posted them comments to an underage girl?
1) Like on social media?
2) To an underage girl?
3) Any tweet remotely relating to the grooming of a child, would have any man arrested instantly.
4) Yup, Bailey is down the Market today barking out some poetry he's knocked up.... A free man still!
5) Don't believe everything you read.. Think it over, process it, digest it, make an educated consideration about the validity of it.
Our children are the most protected age group in the country. If an underage girl was being groomed by a noted murder suspect, in fact, an infamous, notorious murder suspect.... Do you not think the Gards would have been all over it...? And the media..????
C'mon....
Ive never said I liked Bailey, I think hes a bit of an arsehole & if these posts are true, hes a real scumbag & should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
But this case is not entirely about him, its about irish people. Our rights & how its acceptable for an Irish police force to deliberately frame someone for a murder and then support a foreign force too. This case is bigger than STDP or Bailey, its relevant because it shows the corruption in the mutual systems.
I formed an opinion based on everything I've read and heard and watching the 2 documentaries
Sure I don't remember all the details now but I'm not buying any of the theories about Alfie or drug connections
I accumulated enough bits of circumstancial evidence to believe that bailey is the most likely culprit
And writings.
Lines up with his journal of drawings too. Bit of a sexual deviant.
Wow. You’re nice.
it was his account, I edited the Twitter screenshots. The ones up there have his profile photo on.
@Evergreen_7 Gullible as your username suggests.
Boards will probably delete this because it’s so vile.
just to reiterate, he fully understood this account holder was 15 years old.
Bailey sent this to an account he believed was 15 years old. She told him repeatedly her age. He wanted her to come to west cork after her junior cert and use this cover story. There’s way more explicit messages than this that have been tweeted.
please don’t defend this vile specimen, innocent of murder or not.
And I agree, there’s a lot of Garda corruption with this case and many others, however that doesn’t exonerate Bailey; it’s not black and white…the good guys vs the bad guys…they are all as bad as each other.
I get what your saying but it’s clear that Bailey loves the limelight because he’s a narc. Ive got no sympathy for him whatsoever, he’s gone to the papers any chance he gets playing the victim. He wouldn’t be in the limelight except he’s made sure he is. His carry on over the last year on Twitter only proves this.
I was on the fence until I saw this recent rubbish, not to mention the vile messages he sent to 15 year old girls that people have discovered and tweeted. You’d think he’d keep his head down, show some moral compass, but no. He carries on his games, taunts, ego centric tweets etc.
does this make him a murderer? No, there’s little proof he did it. But it proves he’s an absolutely vile individual who is entirely deluded by notions of grandeur and has absolutely no morals. By character, of course he fits the bill.
It surprised me, why this has never gone to the EU court of justice. I am surprised Bailey and his lawyers never considered that. Maybe it was a question of money which Bailey didn't have?
Agree - Malachy Reid also refused to give evidence at the French trial. His mammy went instead of him - lol.
Malachy knows Bailey didn't confess to him.
The same person who reported Bailey for allegedly confessing to the murder....
Well he had his serious drugs charges reduced to a puff of smoke by the Gards...
Not saying his miraculous dodging of a prison sentence was anything to do with his statement like.....
With full respect to you Kirk I think you need to study this case further to understand the goings ons and all the shady characters involved. Its evident from your posts here that you haven't researched the case thoughourally at all.
If Bailey has confessed to the crime, why did the DPP not even put him up for trial? Why did different DPPs look at the case multiple times and still not put him forward to trial?
There was no confession. There was a snarky remark to someone who was probably pestering Bailey about the murder.
What really shown a light on the French case was that they included Marie Farrell's original testimony but disregarded her subsequent ones where she completely supported Bailey. They picked & chose what they wanted to include, All of this has shown how ridiculous their judicial system is, for a country founded on Liberty, Fraternity & equality. They're full of it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
