Cough, sneeze, wretch, spit and sweat where? Where would they collect that? The rock or the gate? Would they get samples from those in the 90s
They would have been able to get DNA from saliva anyway, if there was any available of a large enough sample.There were tiny blood spots to tiny to analyse
I've written this before.
If Bailey's DNA is nowhere on Sophie's body or the murder site to be found, then he could never ever have gotten these scratches in connection with possibly murdering Sophie. I don't think that Bailey would even ever have had to answer how he'd gotten the scratches, - if his DNA can't be linked to the murder site or the victim, then that's it.
The situation would be way different, if Bailey's DNA was indeed all over the murder site and Sophie's body. That would have been a straight conviction for murder everyone would have understood in both Ireland and in France.
Bailey would also have had to bandage his scratches, stop them from bleeding, and clean up the crime scene? That alone, I find impossible, after a couple of drinks and also him bringing bandages to the murder site....
Jules drove, for a good reason..
Jules didn't drive Bailey drove. Jules says in the RTE PBH doc that at closing time "Ian went and got the car" Jules was drinking too
hiking for one hour to get to, and another back, - all without being noticed?
Who would have been there to notice him?
I don't think Bailey had less than 4 beers that night
where did this come from.
The scratches were supposed to be on his hands too. If he was wearing gloves, he wouldn't have got scratches.
If he got scratched there, why was there no blood \ DNA etc evidence left by him.
It doesn't add up and never has and the DPP knew this.
Gloves don't cover your arms. He may have reached over when the body was there to get something, would not have been in the briars during the attack just because she was. He says he got the scratches from trees on his property, btw. All of this is BS theory. All of it, from everyone on here. The drugs angle being the most crazy, imo.
I know it's hard for you to accept that Bailey isn't the murderer... Especially as the French courts have already convicted him of the same... But it just ain't so kiddo...
The circumstantial evidence that you rely on has already been debunked multiple times - Sorry about that, time to get over it and move on.
However, like yourself, a broken clock is right twice a day too..
You read me correctly - There is no DNA evidence against Ian Bailey.
And yes, there is no circumstantial evidence to support bringing Bailey to trial.. As per the last 25yrs plus has clearly defined..
You are like the keystone cops of the day, you waste your time trying to fit the crime to the suspect, and not the suspect to the crime...
You Sir.. Cannot be taken seriously.
He had no motive to go there with murder in mind.
Regarding somebody whom she knew there is something which comes to my mind:
The way the house is built, Sophie would have seen through the windows who was knocking at the door, any of the two doors the killer could have been knocking on. And assuming now that she wouldn't open her door to a stranger at night, she would have known her killer, - possibly quite well.
But again, that's only speculation from my part.
I think the events you describe are most likely what happened that night , They just make the most sense,
But i also don't think it was Bailey but someone else ,
I think it was someone she knew very well for her to walk down the drive way with them, I think if it was Bailey and the first time they had meet she'd have closed the door & locked herself in as she didn't "know" him , she'd have had more fear ,
It's at least not a motive I could ever see or understand to be likely.
There could certainly have been a motive for Bailey, one we all don't know about and can't even speculate about? Maybe there was an ongoing feud between Bailey and Sophie which we also don't know anything about? It's not impossible to have been that way. No irony there from my side, and more than 25 years onwards, that's hard to even consider.
And if it was just killing somebody just for lust of killing's sake, then Bailey could have chosen any other victim in the area.
Also the effort of the murder would have been big for Bailey to handle that night. How many murderers would be able to spend the night in the pub, a longer night of drinking, then kill somebody leaving no trace at the murder site, and hiking for one hour to get to, and another back, - all without being noticed? I don't think Bailey had less than 4 beers that night, and then there is also Whisky to consider. Jules drove, for a good reason....
And then there is the "spur of the moment" murder-idea, but that is also hard to understand for me, as Bailey probably didn't even know Sophie was there in the first place. She rarely if ever came around Christmas, - so if Bailey knew Sophie was there, it would have been by accident. Yes there have been reports Bailey rang Sophie's office repeatedly in Paris, possible freelance work for Bailey, however that was never confirmed, - no phone records etc.....
If there was ever such a thing as a business proposition between Bailey and Sophie, she would have set an appointment, during the day. Bailey would have been seen or otherwise noticed coming and going, most likely by Alfie or Shirley.
And Bailey hiking for one hour, completely drunk, arriving at Sophie's at 2 or 3am, to discuss business, freelance work, recite poetry, or demand sex or being sent packing with a bottle of French wine and then he finishing her of in a rage without leaving traces is more than unbelievable to me.
So you`ve moved on now from saying that there`s no DNA evidence to saying there`s no circumstantial evidence? Right so. Never took you seriously anyway.
deleted
you keep repeating Bailey had nothing to gain and no motive as if it were fact. you do not know that. Any killer who loses his head and kills someone ultimately does not gain. That does not stop him losing his head and killing someone. an example is the 'one punch' scenario where one punch causes someone to fall, hit their head and die, possibly a manslaughter conviction. what does the killer gain except a prison sentence?
The fact a person does not gain if they lose their head and kill someone does not mean they won't if provoked/insulted /rejected or kill in the heat of an argument.
I am often at odds to understand why there was no DNA and no further evidence found at the crime scene?
Either the killer knew that the police were so incompetent they would never collect any useable evidence or the killer was really that careful during the murder and the possible later clean up of the crime scene? In the end, I think it's unlikely the police didn't collect or were not able to collect anything in evidence at all, they must have had something, albeit very little.
However since they sent some samples over to the UK for examination, as far as I know, and still didn't find anything they could match to the killer, I would be inclined to say, it was the killer's accomplishment not to leave any evidence at all rather than the police not collecting any evidence. This would imply the killer acted carefully, experienced, and would also imply that the killing was planned, rather than unplanned, and that one regardless if the beatings to Sophie's head look unprofessional or not.
Also, Bailey would have known that at some point DNA evidence would be sent over to the UK, - he covered crime as well, and he would have known that in the UK dealing with DNA evidence was far more advanced than in Ireland.
One also needs to take into account that Bailey would have to have hiked for nearly 1 hour to get to Sophie's, and that in pretty drunken condition, and either murdered Sophie without leaving any evidence, or cleaning up the crime scene carefully, still under the influence of alcohol and then hike back and clean himself up.
It's a scenario which I see as highly unlikely and then all that effort for a murder he had nothing to gain from and a woman who was barely at her home in Ireland.
If he wasn't in the briars and was wearing gloves that would protect - how did he get these infamous scratches?
And why if he typically wore gloves, do we have all this talk of people observing his hands in the days after? It was still winter.
So you've actually removed one of the pieces of circumstantial evidence AGS relied on in their case versus Bailey.
What are the odds of a drunken buffoon not leaving one scrap of evidence at the crime scene?
Nor the studio?
Nor his residence?
Not one item of blood stained clothing could be linked to him from the murder.
It's just so beyond the realms of possibilities...
Besides being the first person to offer his DNA to the Guards, his Partner and her daughters and friends sharing the house, seen no change in his manner or demeanor on the morning of the murder, nor the subsequent weeks, months or years since...
I can but only imagine... If I brutally slain a young Mother in cold blood, and the worlds media had invaded my village on a witch hunt, searching for the killer, using the latest technology to nail their man etc....
Would that not have a devastating effect on one's mental well being?? Trying to hold it all together..? Trying to not let the mounting pressure break you?? The paranoia about having left evidence at the crime scene?
Not only did Bailey not flinch for a second, but he headed off to the Christmas swim, reciting poetry with his un-gloved hands for all the world to see... He was in great spirits...
Not a man on the verge of a nervous break down, nor a sleep deprived dithering wreck looking over his shoulder every other minute, quite the opposite in fact.
Love him or hate him... Logically studying Baileys demeanor after the murder, he was a man doing his best to be relevant to the investigation, he wanted his neighbours to see that he was indeed the important investigative journalist that he claimed to be (aspired to be), how could he not be a part of the Country's biggest murder case right on his front door...? This was his time to shine....
The tabloids were looking for his reports, he was the hottest potential journalist of the moment, this was his shot at the big time... With an ego like Baileys, this was the opportunity of a life time... He couldn't just be a by stander, an average Joe.. Some other Fleet Street hack would steal the lime light...
I'm not saying that Bailey engineered his his own path onto the persons of interest list, but he certainly didn't resist it either.
Bailey is a very complex character... When this murder landed on his doorstep, it was a gift from the God's for Bailey's journalistic ambitions.. What should have made him, destroyed him.
In truth, he couldn't navigate his way around the reporting of a murder next door without making a complete hash of it... Let alone the manipulation of a murder scene that removed all evidence of him ever having been there...
This is exactly, why I think Bailey didn't do it at all. He also had no motive, nothing to gain from Sophie's death, neither financial, nor sexual, nor drug related.
You assume because the bottle of wine was thrown in the bushes away from Sophie's house that the killer was local? I hope you're not actually serious.
The bottle of wine is very hard to work out but that logic is complete nonsense.
Who's to say the killer was in the briars himself?
Cough, sneeze, wretch, spit and sweat where? Where would they collect that? The rock or the gate? Would they get samples from those in the 90s? Assume it happened early in the morning. Sophie hadn't been in Ireland long. Hour time difference with France. She may have woken up a little early, had breakfast and that eejit arrived at her door. It being deep in winter, it wouldn't have been bright until later.
He may have been wearing gloves so no worry about the bare hands. That time of year, it was pretty likely he was wearing gloves.
He could have lost hair, if living on the west coast good luck getting a strand of hair to stay anywhere on your property for more than a few minutes.
I doubt the killer planned it. Wearing gloves was likely out of necessity rather than premeditated. The killer likely got rid of the clothes he was wearing. Possibly discarded that bottle of wine which he likely drank out of but may have only handled with gloves if he wasn't allowed inside.
The footprints is an interesting point. You would think anyone would have left footprints on the grass verge to the side but seemingly there were none or at least not by the time the body was discovered.
He's a woman beater, a sadist, a narcist and a violent drunk. I would never say he is not a killer, has plenty of potential to be given his character.
Has anyone heard from those involved in filming the Sheridan documentary and the level of involvement Bailey had with its production?
@tinytobe I don't think anyone cleaned up the crime scene. There was blood splatter from the rock, if the marks on Sophie came from the briars there would be no skin under the nails. The only thing possibly cleaned up would be the bottle which someone f*cked into a field fairly far away from the house. I would suggest if the bottle was present and discarded by the killer then the killer was most likely local and not an assassin. Otherwise, would you hold onto the bottle and get rid of it much further away from the crime scene? Unless you were frantic, your safe house was somewhere in the area and you knew you had to get rid of it before you get home in-case the Gardai come knocking at your door.
@flanna01 Nah, I just threw those in as my observations. The circumstantial evidence has been detailed by the podcast, documentaries and others on here.
Bailey volunteered a sample of his blood and DNA to the Guards, he didn't have to.
Any man that's had a few beers too many will tell you, it's not easy to recall the previous night's festivities, in fact it can be quite challenging.
Am I really sure I collected every clothes thread caught on the bryres?
Did I touch something with a bare hand?
Did I leave a foot print somewhere?
Did I drip saliva from my mouth?
Did I cough, sneeze, wretch, spit, sweat.......
Oh my God... I have a thick shock of long black hair... Did I lose a follicle?, is my hair at the scene? Even one, invisible to the naked eye, strand of hair...??
Can't remember too much, I was blotto,,,
Anyway, I'll just go down the nick and give em a sample of my blood & DNA.... Fingers crossed.
Bailey is not your man - He didn't kill Sophie.
He's an attention seeking ambulance chaser.... He's a woman beater, He's a drunk, He ain't no killer!
😂😂 Very good. I think you are probably too artistically talented though for AGS.
I've done a drawing of Alphies dog bite if any AGS members are actively looking for new evidence.
It could have happened this way, especially the fighting scene you have described here. However I would not agree that there is more pointing to Bailey than to anybody else. If Bailey showed up at Sophie's door it would not have been a quiet encounter. His breath of alcohol would have caused most certainly a reaction from Sophie. This would mean that Alfie and Shirley heard something, that is if they were telling the truth.
Bailey could of course have done it, but I don't think that there is more circumstantial evidence pointing to him, than to anybody else in the theories which have been mentioned here. And then there is the open and unanswered question why none of Bailey's DNA was ever found at the crime scene or on the body, especially as his cuts are supposed to have happened during the murder? Also, could Bailey cleaned up the crime scene after having had so many drinks and not missing anything at all?
Just getting to and from Sophie's would have been a challenge for Bailey, considering how much alcohol he had before, and what was his motivation for doing so? Sex? or companionship? money? maybe some freelance work? and that to be discussed at 2 or 3 or 4am in the morning? I honestly don't think that that's realistic at any stage that night, even a narcissist like Bailey would have known that this would have no real results in his favour....
The circumstantial evidence points to Ian Bailey..??
How do you make that out?
He wore gloves and had numerous coats?
You're onto something there.... Didn't make that connection.
Oh Lordy.....
What if a drunk Bailey showed up to her house. She answered the door and asked him to leave. Being a drunken' fool he started blathering on and taunting about not leaving, he asks for a drink she gives him the bottle of wine on condition that he leave now then he went down to the end of the driveway but wouldn't leave from there either so she got pissed off, possibly grabbed something to intimidate him with and in a huff marched down with the door open behind her because her only intention was to clear him off. She tells him to f*ck off home. He gets furious and swings at her, she tries to avoid it but got caught in the brambles to the side and got scratched up, he finds the stone and bashes her while she's struggling to free herself from the brambles.
She may not have even screamed loudly if it was someone known to her who was drunk. She may not have seen the blow with the stone coming if she was preoccupied freeing herself from the bramble. She may have been annoyed rather than scared not expecting this person to be so violent. He gets the bottle of wine and anything she may have brought out and maybe even goes back up to the house trying to figure out if there was anything he did by the doorway that could trace him back but then gets out of there, throws the bottle away.
IB is a text book narcist with an alcohol problem and an anger problem. He had been to Alfie's before. He definitely saw her (though he goes back and forth on ever seeing her in the flesh), he definitely would have at least heard about her. Narcists have a tendency to want to be in circles with people perceived as accomplished. The wife of a French producer. A woman who was considered artistic while Bailey considered himself artistic. Jules was a victim of his. Many abused spouses are manipulated by abusive partners. She didn't remove herself from the relationship with him for so long but that doesn't mean she really believed he was innocent. She clearly tried to cover for him and they got caught out re: her not actually seeing him until he arrived back to the main house in the morning.
Anyone else notice throughout the documentary, when IB was out and about he was usually wearing gloves...he also seemed to have numerous coats.
All this thread is, is speculation because there is no evidence other than circumstantial and the circumstantial evidence points to IB more than anyone...at least for now. The one thing we can all agree on is that Marie Farrell is a f'kin wagon!
One thought, I have had over the years, is why would the killer have lured her outside of the house in the first place? - if that is what happened at all. Would not any murder have been less obvious and more concealed if the killing would have taken place inside of the house? I would suggest if the killer wanted to kill her inside the house, he would have known how to pick a lock or pick a window? From a security point of view the house does not strike me as very secure.
A professional hitman would have most likely done it in silence, would probably have picked her lock and overpowered her and killed her in her sleep, - maybe one or two hours after the lights went out and she was in bed. Sure, it would have been this and that, but even a professional hitman could have made the killing look like an amateur, like a rage killing. It is hard to say....
And what would have happened on the next day? Shirley doing her shopping and just driving by, not noticing anything? The caretaker coming over, knocking on the door but no answer? The killer would have had some advantage, if the body was not discovered so quickly?
The door was open anyway, if the killer was a man, he could easily have carried the body back to the house and make it look as if she was murdered inside the house. The police would then never have looked for DNA near the gates as well, they would never have had any idea that it all occurred there.
There were horses next door, it was reported. If there was a dog next doorit would probably bark. I know that a neighbours farm dog always barks when I open my gate. I am about 250M away too.
If she were found naked or semi-clothed, that might have been of significance. You could deduce a sexual assault may have been committed upon her. Otherwise, no, I wouldn't attach huge significance to what she was wearing. If she had been wearing a hat, anorak, jeans and boots, well, so what? You might deduce she had returned from taking a late night stroll or was about to take an early morning one. In that particular scenario, it would not make one whit of difference to the course of the investigation.
What animals though and who would have they belonged to? I don't know how different the layout of the adjacent land was in 1996. It was mid-winter so unlikely cattle or sheep were grazing or even a horse or two. It is an eerily quiet spot to visit at any time. Speaking as a man, if I were living there on my own on a December night and heard strange noises outside I would be scared shi- -ess.
" find it interesting that baileys cuts for people to find him guilty are definitely defence marks but alphies dog bite or open wound is totally innocuous."
2 gardai at the scene looked at Alfie's wound, they also asked Dr O'Connor to check it and they agreed it was an old wound.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
