no i don't. i was responding to someone who said they were sucpicious.it's obvious if you look back
That was you responding to a quote from my post.
That was me responding to your response.
That was your response.
That was my response.
That was your last response.
Now keep up.
i don't know what you are on about. if you don't like it ignore it. i am not wasting my time going back over posts. and you don't get to tell me what to do
what are these new statements you refer to?
I've gone back over the posts for you, You saying Alfie deciding to hear nothing implies you think he and Shirley were responsible for the murder.
Why else would you say;
If Alfie heard the screams and car horn then why did he not hear sophie. So if alfie was involved he could have arranged for Shirley to scream so he 'would not' hear it
has anyone read Killing Sophie by Elio Malocco?
A number of statements have been taken by detectives in the last few months.
According to the accounts I've read about the case, the head was totally bashed in, apparently beyond recognition. I'd say it is clear that the killer administered those bashes. It is also clear that Sophie was dead when this happened, he may even have it her, as she was already dead.
It's not impossible, but I'd say highly unlikely that she died later on.
Have they? Really? Where is the source for admitting they made a huge mistake and Bailey is presumably no longer a suspect? This is massive news, please share!
there is no source
I know. I was being sarcastic.
The circumstances would therefore suggest death the previous evening or night according to Harbison
I'd say, the killer wanted to kill, not hurt. The killer also wanted to make sure, the body was found. Thus I would suggest the killer had some kind of feeling of safety regarding his get-away.
If the body would just have been dumped behind the brambles and briars, I'd suggest it would have taken a while for the body to be discovered. First person to be suspicious, according to knowledge would have been the caretaker, who was to visit in the morning. Next would have been her not showing up for her flight, not returning the rental car, not answering the phone. This would have given the killer 6 hours or more to get ahead.
I'd say, the killer wanted to kill, not hurt
I think that's pretty obvious
By Ian Bailey’s own admission, spirits tended to affect him for the worse and his assaults on Jules Thomas tended to take place after he had been drinking spirits.
The killing of Sophie says the last drinks bailey got included a whiskey which he downed in one go. He then fumbled for change to pay and the barman saw no scratches
Can I ask an obvious question - one that I havent seen answered anywhere?
When, why and how was agravated burgalry by strangers ruled out?
When you hear about someone in a rural area, who lives alone being hurt or killed, its the first thing that comes to mind. Especially in the run up to Christmas when people have gifts etc in their houses.
People are frequently hurt and there have been some fatalities over the years.
Sophie sees strangers coming in her gate and goes down to see what's going on...............
Bailey told WCP that he had been drinking whiskey that night.
It's the overkill. Not much can be ruled out, but it would be a rare aggravated burglary that would leave a victim with their head crushed to the point that their own parents couldn't identify them.
Sorry. My last reply was to this post.
It’s unlikely she died Sunday evening, she was on the phone at midnight.
The fresh blood around the mouth and nostrils, combined with the evidence of breakfast cereal in the stomach ingested a couple of hours earlier would suggest death in the morning. Harbison did not see the body until 24 hrs later, so the evidence of the age of the blood was lost by then.
Strange indeed. I saw somewhere that the murder weapon wasn't recovered? Was the block used to hide some potential evidence?
To kill someone in that fashion you must hate them,
To hate them that much, you must know them.
Not necessarily. STDP was known for being outspoken & could be cutting aswell. As said before, she wasnt any shriking violet. If someone who had a high opinion of themselves made a move on her after they were under the influence of booze or drugs & then get got rejected & felt humiliated, the response could have been seriously violent.
I'm not so sure. There have been brutal random attacks stranger on stranger where similar violence is inflicted documented in the US.
Also, I can imagine a scenario where someone goes to the house, maybe to threaten Sophie, and she retaliates / puts up a fight ... they take that as an insult and respond in a rage with OTT violence.
I do not know when aggravated burglary was ruled out. I'd say, it just doesn't look like burglary. I should think a burglar would have wanted for the murder to be discovered a bit later than sooner, he would have dumped the body behind the briars or inside the house, closed the door, making things look as normal as possible for at least another 5 or 6 hours, - if the murder took place in the early morning....
If the motive was actually burglary, then the burglar would have staked out the place for a bit, and soon found out that the Richardson's weren't home. It would have been way easier there than at Sophie's.
Also, nothing other than a fire poke and a diary was missing from Sophie's house. If somebody went there, he went for a reason and the reason was the person staying there, not the items she kept in the house. I don't think any of the houses in the area contained real treasures or things of value.
Alfie and Shirley's house would probably and maybe have had some valuable items worth steeling as they lived there all year round.
There were no reported break ins in the area around the time of the murder.
some say there was an axe missing from the house that may have been used
Had her attacker gone there with sexual intent and been rejected I'd say their reaction would be more sexual violence.
If her attacker was big and strong, little Sophie would have had no chance.
That’s the general thinking but might not necessarily be the case. Plenty of murders are vicious and committed by strangers. Typically serial killers, but it still happens, same as random killing’s without motive.
That's hard to say. It could have been, but we don't know any of that.
One thing that goes against any sexual motive would be the time frame. It's a bit hard to imagine a woman considering sex with a stranger in the early morning or after a phone call around midnight with her husband. However the latter seems more possible than the first..... :-)
I dont know but its an interesting question, would he be the type that when shes on the ground possibly pleading for her life, he would get on top of her then, I dont think so. It seems like this person was an individual of status who would think rape is absolutely beneath him. The individual who committed this crime seems certainly sick but seems to be able to function normally in society & keep up a facade. Just my two cents anyway
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
