Legally it could only be a question about possibly getting deported back to the UK in the case of a conviction. However I am not sure about that. There is sort of free movement between the UK and Ireland, and that way before both countries have entered the EU. Brexit doesn't change that. British citizens have even voting rights in Ireland, once resident in the country, - the same goes for Irish living in the UK.
I thought I had responded to a post that raised the issue of Bailey being an Irish citizen and I was merely asking if that was true. In legal matters, I'd think that could be important. I do not think it has any bearing on his guilt or innocence.
What's that got to do with the price of chips?
Totally irrelevant.
Irish citizenship does or does not add weight to one being a murderer.
Is Bailey an Irish citizen? I ask because I know many Brits that have lived here decades and aren't citizens.
It could also have been that way.
A rage killing by somebody who's killed for the first time, - leaving lot's of traces and DNA around, but having the unexpected luck of dealing with a totally incompetent police force not gathering evidence.
It would have been a lot of coincidences in favour of the killer, but I honestly don't believe that's happened.
The killer came specifically for Sophie and he knew she was there.
It seems to me the killer was extremely lucky tbh
A lot of truth in that
Could have worn gloves and long coat and if he didn't bleed he would know any blood was not his. Maybe she scratched at his coat, the one he burned
A report from 2008 quotes Dr Harbison "I took scrapings from the fingernails of both hands and placed them in plastic bags . . . A number of hairs, almost a dozen, were adherent to and even wound around fingers of the right hand. Because of dried blood these were removed with difficulty and some of them parted. I found one long and one very short hair adherent to the back of the left hand." Bailey gave gardaí a sample of his DNA in January 1997.
Also quotes Liam Horgan, the Garda superintendent in charge of the investigation, confirmed in a telephone interview that three sets of DNA tests have been conducted "over time, as the technology improved". The tests have been inconclusive so far, but Supt Horgan said the samples, held in a secure place in Dublin, could still yield the identity of Toscan du Plantier's killer. Several years have passed since the tests were last conducted. "Some blood samples are so minuscule that they could not be analysed. As technology advances, we can go back to it," Supt Horgan said.
I don't believe the killer had to know of the pump and block. he just searched around for something to finish her with. He may have had a torch
As far as I know the scratches Sophie had, were from somebody else? It's hard to imagine that these scratches were administered by somebody wearing gloves? Maybe the scratches were from the brambles and briars only?
The posted link also mentions something interesting:
"If Sophie was running for her life it would be difficult to catch her, especially if her killer was drunken.
The blows that were made, were almost all against her head and were accurately aimed.
Finally, the killer used a concrete block from the pumphouse to deliver a final blow to the victim. It took considerable effort to obtain this block. The block could not merely been picked up from the pumphouse, it required lifting and breaking the wooden and asphalt felt "lid", moving the outside corner block and then retrieving the desired block. Moreover it required that the killer either knew or saw that the block was loose and not cemented in place. He needed enough light to accomplish all this. Doing this in the dark, even using the light of the moon would have been difficult. If there were clouds then I would argue it would have been impossible."
This would imply that Bailey would have to have chased after her, in darkness. And we know that Bailey drank quite a bit that night.
I am also guessing that if there was a chase, Sophie would have outrun Bailey. I don't know why I think that way, it's just a hunch. This would imply the killer was physically active, pointing to either a professional or semi-professional, or even a Guard.
Also regarding that pumphouse and the cavity block. If he did it in complete darkness the only way this could have worked, is that he knew that pumhouse very well and has been to the property often. Meaning the killer could find anything in the dark, so familiar was he with the surroundings.....
And if it was early morning the killer would have to have lived with the risk of beeing seen. He must have guessed that Sophie hat a reason for visiting, possibly to most likely had a schedule to keep, people doing repairs on the house, a cleaning lady was apparently expected as well...
I am also wondering why Dr. O'Conner didn't narrow down the time of death? I would have expected that.
Who says anything was cleaned up? The killer might have worn gloves, especially on a cold night. No dna from anyone except Sophie was found under her fingernails, which admittedly sounds crazy, but the ballistic boys from Dublin who tested it were unlikely to be involved in any sort of cover up. It seems to me the killer was extremely lucky tbh. Also, testing then for fibres, dna etc, is not what it is these days.
For those reasons, I also tend to believe, it was a morning killing, but since there was no confirmed time of death, it's also partly a guessing game.
However, if it was a morning killing the time frame for cleaning up the murder site would have been very short. That would be the only objection I would have.
Some compelling reasoning there for a morning murder.
“The stomach contained a recently ingested meal apparently mostly fruit including yellow skins and possibly nuts" ... Her husband Daniel said that her habit was to have a glass of wine with cheese. There were partly consumed cheeses covered with glass on top of the fridge in the pantry and a stoppered half consumed bottle of red wine, which matches Daniel’s observations. The half full bottle of wine in the pantry indicates about 3 glasses have been drunk. This would allow a single glass of wine each night of her stay, Friday 20th, Saturday 21st and Sunday 22nd. This would also match the 2 empty glasses on the draining board and one with dregs on the mantlepiece. One glass per night. It doesn’t make sense, especially for a French person, to eat fruit like oranges together with wine and cheese... If she consumed one or more units of wine before bedtime and died no more than 2-3 hours afterwards alcohol should be detected in urine.
I lean towards a morning killing for a few reasons, but was fully convinced after reading this recent Reddit thread.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderAtTheCottage/comments/vml384/was_sophie_killed_in_the_morning/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
I think your comments do make sense, albeit none of us know when she was actually killed. If it was around 2 to 3am in the morning, she would have slept briefly forehand. It's unlikely she expected to meet somebody after her last phone call, the one she had with her husband. So whoever killed her, came unexpected to Sophie. He knew she was there, she did not know who would want to meet her at this time of the night. It would also not have been a neighbourhood dispute or a dispute with another local, - than would have taken place during the day. The killer arrived to meet her, with intention to kill, not to confront, not to argue, not discuss repairs on the house, that not at this time of the night.
The thing that still bugs me about Bailey: He did cover crime, as a journalist, back when he lived in the UK. He would have been aware what DNA can be used for, and would have known that the Irish authorities would send samples to the UK if they lacked knowledge, training or technology. He would also have known how to clean up a crime scene, even though, given his personality or what we've seen of him, it's also a bit hard to imagine.
Also, Bailey had absolutely no motive for murdering Sophie.
This all however takes planning and to me everything about this killing points to planning, even though the killing looks or is meant to look like a random rage killing.
It's hard for me to imagine that Alfie or Shirley could have killed Sophie. Alfie at the time didn't strike me as physically fit as well, but he could still have done it. If they did, it would have been Alfie, and Shirley went along, Alfie possibly being coerced into doing so, possibly drug related and Sophie knowing to much, or planning to do something. Both Alfie and Shirley would have known with utter certainty that in the whole area they would have been alone, they would have known with certainty that the Richardson's were not there as well, and they knew that Sophie was there. They would have known that from midnight until 6am or 7am they would be completely alone with Sophie and could operate in complete security.
Regarding that often mentioned "Guard from Bantry". Is it known if he knew Sophie from an earlier visit? Did they meet on occasions as well? Did Sophie complain he made advances towards her? If Sophie complained about drug trafficking in the area, why aren't there any records? Not in Bantry or Bandon, but maybe in Dublin? Sophie wasn't a fool either, if she wouldn't have gotten anywhere with the local Guards, then Dublin or Cork would have been the next stop....
And then there is the question as to why the killer cleaned up the crime scene, possibly to most likely the body, but left a blood stain on the door of Sophie's house?
I am aware that given what happened, Marie Farrell can't be really trusted, but she's seen a man by the roadside that night. But the thing is, she could easily have seen the killer together with the man driving her home, that night on Kaelfadda bridge. Only thing, this man wasn't Bailey or couldn't have been identified as him. How easy is it to positively identify a man at night, in the dark, in a dark coat? This could have been anybody as long as they had a certain size.
Footprints were probably destroyed by Shirley's car going by.
DNA may have been new in Ireland, but I believe they sent it all on to Dublin or even to the UK for tests. Also Bailey volunteered his DNA. I also couldn't imagine that the forensic pathologist from Dublin could have been bribed or coerced. So his accounts and statements are most likely correct, same of lab reports about DNA.
About the rest of your statements, I have the same thoughts. If the killer arrived by car, he would have parked further away. However this would have meant, it was a planned killing, not something unplanned. (I've always thought it was a planned rather than unplanned killing, even though many users here would disagree on that....)
Odd question: What about if Sophie was killed somewhere completely different? Killer knew her well, picked her up by car, they drove somewhere, he then killed her, drove back and the body was then dumped at the site where it was found? It would at least account why no DNA of the killer and the struggle was found at the scene? Killer then going to her house, looking for something, causing the stain on the door, and then leaving.
Not alot was known, yes, but there was another crime committed in Ireland around the same time & by using forensics, they solved it. We werent Afghanistan then for gods sake. No foreign DNA was found under STDP fingernails or any other part of her body. If the gards were correct in what they were saying about the scratch marks on Bailey, no two ways about it, there would have been DNA evidence under her fingernails of him. On top of this, he offered to give his blood, hardly the actions of a perpetrator. The only logical conclusion in this regard would be that the perpetrator knew this & cleaned out her fingernails (so was extremely forensically aware), just like the way he went back up to the house after & left STDP's blood on the door, mainly to check if anything incriminating was left behind about him or any other witnesses. Maybe a diary that I dont believe they ever found but knew existed.
It all points to either a professional hitman or a Gard. Its inconceivable that nothing of note regarding DNA outside of STDP was left on the scene otherwise. It would be like winning the lottery id imagine for a murderer. This perpetrator knew he had time & the opportunity to clean the scene. I never agreed with the assumption that this was a morning killing despite some evidence to the contrary, I always believed it was committed around 2 or 3am. But I do believe the sighting of the ford fiesta the morning of the murder is relevant that was seen speeding away from the scene. I think the perpetrator took his time in removing any evidence of him from the scene but then wanted to get out of there like a bat out of hell.
The congealed blood that the gard supposedly noticed on STDP's nose, I wouldnt trust that comment especially given the level of their investigative abilities at the time. What looked like a mornings breakfast could have easily been a night time snack & also it would depend on her metabolism how quickly she was able to remove it from her system.
I think little was known about forensics or DNA in the Ireland of 1996, even amongst detective Gardai. I think the fellah that did her in would have known little about the subject either and had no interest in trying to decontaminate the site in an attempt to obliterate all evidence of him ever being there on the night. I ask you, how could that ever be accomplished in complete darkness and in dank weather conditions? What about footprints for example? We're any visible which could not have belonged to either Sophie or the Lyons' and, if so, were impressions taken of them in order to possibly match them to any Bailey possessed in his closet? He would have had time to destroy them of course. The same with regard to tyre tracks where thread marks did not match Sophie's car or Lyons' or Garda vehicles although this would be a long shot. If the killer arrived and left by car he would have parked it somewhere out of sight some distance from the house. It would be tricky enough to do U-turn at the gate or reverse the entire length of the boreen to effect a quick getaway.
Supt Dwyer is thick as mince read some law for yourself, and back up your statement rather than believing everything the village idiot feeds you.
That's exactly it.
Unless they can prove that Bailey's DNA is all over the brambles and briars, and over Sophie they simply can't convict him, not in Ireland, not in the UK, or in other countries with a similar legal standard.
Bailey even submitted DNA samples early on in the investigation, even voluntarily, - not because he was asked to.
Bailey doesn't even need to answer the question or provide an explanation on how he's gotten the cuts and bruises, or whether he slept the whole night, or decided to go to the studio to work, or decided take a night time walk to Kaelfadda bridge. This all doesn't make him a killer.
Well if we assume this is genuinely from the DPP report... it is one of the main reasons Bailey was never put forward for trial here. But French kangaroo courts have different standards of evidence!
1. Lack of Forensic Evidence linking Ian Bailey to the murder scene.
https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/30/
This is the thing. Unless Bailey's or that Frenchman's DNA are on the brambles or briars, there won't be much to convict any of them.
Bailey must have gotten these cuts on his hands from somewhere. Wherever he got them, he must have left DNA. Whether it was really cutting a Christmas tree, or killing a turkey, or from somewhere else is totally irrelevant ( it could easily have been another dispute with Jules and she not saying anything).
The pathologist clearly stated that there was a struggle between Sophie and the killer. If Bailey's DNA isn't on the brambles or the briars or on Sophie, it only means, he clearly hasn't gotten them there. This fact alone would exclude him from the murder scene.
I am surprised that this line of defence was never used at all.
Photos, drawings, eyewitness accounts of cuts on his hands could be explained away
unless he had cut his hands on briars at the murder scene and his DNA found on those briars.
That could not be explained away so easily.
I don't think an Irish court would convict somebody based on who has seen whom in 1996 and 1997. I don't think any whiteness can be accurate anymore. Marie Farrell is by far not the the most trustworthy and credible whiteness, why believe her now?
Lot's of people moved on, passed away. Sure, they could ask Shirley again if she really didn't hear anything that particular night, but Shirley would have no motivation in changing her story, if she was hiding something.
One thing we could possibly speculate on, is maybe there will at some point be some kind of death bed confession?
I don't think Jim Sheridan knows the address of the bespoke Frenchman. If he knows the French media would also be swarming around the place. And even if he did know the address, but what do we get, a picture of an old man? Maybe even a name, if we're lucky. A picture of a house or apartment building somewhere in or near Paris? And when questioned, all he needs to do is state " I can't remember this and that anymore....". 1996 is a long time ago.
And what about DNA from this cavity block? There could be any DNA on there, contractors who put it there, touched it, or handled it in any way, some maintenance worker later on, taking a closer look at the pump, maybe Alfie's, Shirley's, or anybody visiting Sophie.
And then there would be the question about the location of the trial? France? or Ireland? And if France, would it be a kangaroo-court like in Bailey's case? The best the prosecution could do, is match his DNA to possible DNA found in or around Sophie's house, but then he would say, he visited that place before, just not at the time of murder. And then there are travel records, flight records, PNR records, but even those might be inaccurate, or nonexistent today and would still not prove anything. I think they are kept for 5 years maximum. Travelling from France to Ireland is not automatically murder.
Supt Dwyer said one doc no photo as he was not under arrest. read some law
He obviously didnt do it. Be great to catch the real killer
I don`t think they have anything new. They just have a witness (Marie Farrell) who has identified from a photo, a Frenchman as the fella that was across the street when Sofie was in her shop. They have to be seen to follow up on it.
Sheridan was clearly planning to go down this route when he was making his documentary. For instance, when he interviewed Marie Farrell, he says to her.... "The thing they got from you is a statement to say you saw him outside your shop and at Kealfada Bridge." She replies "Yes." The problem here is that there were three sightings and Sheridan failed to mention the second of the three on the Airhill Road.
The reason for the omission is because this second sighting was clearly Ian Bailey who was indeed on the Airhill Road early on the morning of the 22nd. This causes all sorts of difficulties for Sheridan`s French killer hypothesis. Marie Farrell in a February `97 statement said about the man at Kealfada Bridge...."He had his two hands to the side of his face, but I could see his face...I immediately recognized this man as the same man I had seen at Main St Schull on Saturday 21st of December 1996 and at Airhill, Schull on Sunday 22nd of December 1996 and which I referred to in my previous statement."
I wonder if Sheridan currently has a camera focused on the abode of this French guy, hoping to capture dramatic footage of the arrival of the Irish questioners. If this individual has a strong alibi, surely we are reaching a point where Gardaí need to start charging individuals for wasting Garda time.
Anyone interested in the m-vac DNA extraction technology should check out this video
Do you think you have to put someone under arrest to take a picture? are you actually serious or on the wind-up?
This is the same person that willingly gave their DNA. Obviously if asked he would have had his hands photographed to do the same.
The stupidity of the child-like drawing made by AGS actually beggars belief.
True, but this means, either somebody knew how to clean the crime scene, or the police / forensics didn't take any DNA at all. Both unrealistic scenarios which make this murder even more mysterious. The only thing we know is that Sophie was fighting for her life. The forensic scientist has attested that several times. Even more strange, that Alfie and Shirley didn't hear a thing.
What I am wondering, if, suppose it was Bailey, what would the motive for violence against Sophie have been? If he "went too far", how "far" did he intend to go, and why did he want to at all ?
I mean, if he wanted to be just violent towards a woman, he could have taken it out on Jules again, - but he didn't. He opted to hike over to her house instead, but why? That is if he did it......
Also, her cuts and bruises indicate a fight and none of Bailey's DNA was found on her body or fingernails at all, - meaning Bailey couldn't have been the killer
No one else's DNA was under her nails either so lack of DNA does not clear Bailey
Alfie and Shirley were in bed by 10:30.
Shirley saw the outside light on by the back door of Sophie’s house, which was not visible from Hunts hill.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
