Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
Is it likely that Bailey knew she was alone? She didn’t always come to the house on her own and had tried to get relatives to go with her for this trip.
Could he have been sure that his hike across the fields in the middle of the night wouldn’t end up with someone else answering the door?
So where is this long list of assaults on different woman?
Nowhere.
This is just scurrilous nonsense especially since in and of itself proves nothing.
It is neither necessary or sufficient evidence of murder.
I take two points;
Arrived early to the scene.
Acted strangely at the scene.
He was actually late to the scene if you think about it, over 4 hours from the time the body was found and he living just a couple of miles away. Story of the murder was in Cork city before noon. Saffron Thomas heard about it in a cafe in Schull at 11 am and hungover Bailey arrived 2:20.
"Acted Strangely" was how one of the Garda lads called it because Bailey was in a suit, I mean really!!
I expect he is too cowardly to fight in pub. He went crying to the Gardai when he was assaulted.
Woman is all he would hit. Then only when no man around
In the latest news on this the Gardai said they were interviewing people in the UK.
It would be great if these people were Jules Thomas's children and that now that their mother has left Bailey they may have information that previously they were not willing to talk about out of fear for themselves or their mother.
So its not incriminating and a person may have such scratches for entirely mundane reasons.
Your circular reasoning contradicts itself and is a recipe for miscarriages of justice.
Not when I was prime suspect for a murder that I admitted to other people that I did, no.
You ever had scratches only your household contacts would know the explanation for?
I take this one point to show how dangerous your whole line of thinking is here.
Yeah but this oddball
Then came back to reclaim the bottle of wine and other items?
Strange if he gets so violent so easily why has he no record of a caution or charge other than the domestic abuse.
Doesnt sound like a man who gets into an uncontrollable rage after a few whiskies, given he was known to enjoy a few drinks in the pub.
Expecting to be getting in with the French cinematic crowd and being rejected could have at least been a good motive for murder. He then gotten in a rage due to the Whisky drinking before and killed her when she rejected him.
It would look as if she walked with somebody she knew to his car, which was probably parked by the gates?
I found the part about the drinks
The barman said he served Bailey four or five times. Last time Bailey bought a bottle of Guinness, a whiskey and small bottle of wine. IB drank the whiskey in one go.
The wine was probably for Jules so if he ordered the same each time -my speculation here -he had at least 4 Guinness and 4 whiskeys and he took a bottle of Guinness home.
Bailey is a big man and used to drinking but it's a good few drinks especially the whiskey in relation to his claim it makes him violent.
Lots of miscarriages of justice in small towns have involved the local oddball, especially if a blow in. They are all odd in their own way.
The fit up jobs tend not to focus on the boring guy no one has a bad word to say about or 'one of the lads'.
In the annals of crime where would you find another Bailey?
Good points. There were several suspects to start with. They were eliminated on investigation but the more Bailey was investigated the more red flags he threw up
Ian drove. J said so in one documentary. He would not necessarily be asleep after whiskey. Unless he got up and wrote the article he says he wrote in his sleep and sleepwalked to the studio to type it.
I can't recall how many whiskeys he had. At least one went straight down the hatch according to barman
What I said is not all Gardai are corrupt and not would cover for their own.
Edit I meant not all would cover for their own
Maybe she just told him how shite his poetry is and he lost it?
he was probably expecting to be getting in with the french cinematic crowd and saw himself as a creative equal, because he seems delusional like that.
I don’t really get the general consensus that he hiked up there on the freezing cold for sex either.
Yea, she either went down to the gate to check something out or heard something at the pump house went out to investigate and ran down through the field from there.
Sophie was most likely the last person through the gate Sun evening, and would have closed it. The postman didn't need to go through the gate as there was a letterbox outside the gate, if he did have to go through the gate to deliver a parcel, he would have closed it surely. That gate in the lane served all three properties there and while Sophie might have wished it kept closed she had no control over it.
Of more interest to me is the fact the other gate, the one by the pumphouse into Sophie's lawn from the lane was open in the morning. That was her own gate into her private property and anyone opening that gate would be much more suspicious.
The fact the Sophie put on her boots and walked down to the gate would not align with the idea that a drunk eejit that she had never met turned up at her door looking for a good time.
She went down the lane because she knew the killer somehow.
I don't know. As far as I know it was a bit of an argument between Alfie Shirley and Sophie on keeping the gates closed or open. However, I find it unlikely the murder was the result of a neighbor dispute about a gate.
Does anyone know anything about the state of the gate the evening before? Was it open or closed when the postman came ? Did whoever was last in or out that night shut it behind them? Shirley Foster said she found it unusual that the gate was open that morning.
I think this attitude is not very constructive in this case.
In my gut feeling Bailey didn't do it either. Yes it's possible, but by my experience in life, it doesn't sound very plausible. A longer hike after a night out in the pub and then demanding sex from a women he barely knew? And killing her if she doesn't give in to his demands? It's not realistic at all, plus on top of all, there is no evidence to support this? Do we even know for sure, how much Bailey had to drink that night?
Only circumstantial evidence like his violence towards his partner he was living with? But still that doesn't prove murder in this case.
In this case, I don't think it is necessarily the most likely reason. I say this because of the incompetence and malpractice of AGS in this case, and the inherent difficulties of following up properly on lines of inquiry involving another jurisdiction.
The endless "Bailey did it" was one of the prime reasons why the case was never solved, - that kind of thinking was too narrowminded.
But you only think it was narrow-minded because you have no other information.
You don't know what other lines of inquiry were followed until Bailey was arrested.
You don't know why those other lines of inquiry did not lead to arrests.
The most likely reason that they didn't lead to arrests was because the people investigated were not involved.
I don't know what your remarks on rationality has to do with the question I asked. My question speaks directly to plausibility.
There's nothing rational about a murder? I really don't know what point you think you're trying to make. A husband getting rid of a wife to avoid an expensive divorce and marry a mistress... The husband is thinking rationally based on their internal logic there. They are operating from (morally repugnant) but understandable motives.
If it is so plausible a theory, why are there so few other examples of it as a scenario \ motive.
To suggest your scenario is plausible i.e. probable is without foundation.
No, evidently your scenario is not plausible. Possible but not plausible.
There's no evidence of sexual assault here. Sexual assault followed by murder of the victim is common.
That case has evidence of a deliberate planned attack. No suggestion, at least in the information I could find, that the perpetrator went there under any pretence that they would be welcome?
You also keep going on the same way. Incidentally, I don't see Gemma as credible at all. I also don't think that this theory originated with her. You're just quoting Gemma to make this theory less credible and tricking into believing, it's all exclusively her concoction.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e68aa2b0e039b12ade8384a2f42841c6.svg)
