Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
Of course I have no idea that the murder was carried out this way. Only the murderer does. I think Bailey is the main suspect based on the evidence and based on his statements. They were not made up. And why wouldn't Bill Fuller be running away from who he thought was Bailey? Bailey made his spar statement to him soon after the murder so it would make sense that he was scared of him. The statement you quoted backs him up!
How was his health? Was he pretty much confined to his bed or a chair? What if someone was with him?
What’s more likely, a violent assault after a, protracted, land dispute or a drunk oddball trekking over miles on the off chance he might get a ride when he doesn’t even know if his intended is there?
Like with Gussie, I don’t think Alfie, or Shirley, did it but the evidence and theories against Bailey are weak. Throw in the Garda mismanagement and the whole thing stinks even more.
Not quite....they decided that the evidence was so weak, it didn't even merit testing in a court of law.
Looking purely at the behaviour of the Garda at that time I would suggest a large part of their motivation was to cover something up, to collude and to frame somebody, rather than getting to the bottom of this with facts. Bailey was an easy choice for them. The hated Englishman in Ireland. Perfect picture.
There was often speculation that the murderer was a Guard from Bantry and his motive was described as sexual. I would never rule that possibly out.
Or the drug trafficking theory, lot's of open possibilities as well, plus maybe the Guards being in on it, - also some evidence pointing that way. After all, it was them who supplied drugs to one transient to get close to Bailey.
Or suppose it was the husband wanting to avoid a costly divorce. If the Guards were busy trying to frame Bailey, the hired killer by the husband had an easy game.
I think you're missing my point Musicrules.
If the circumstial evidence - that which is in the public domain - is sufficient to hang Bailey, then it is also sufficient to hang Alfie (more so, in fact). The value of the circumstantial evidence against Bailey was best put by Eamon Barnes who described the entire investigaton as "thoroughly flawed and prejudiced"
I think neither are guilty. Violent histories are not particulary unusual in West Cork, or sadly, anywhere else. And Bruno Carbonnet had already attacked Sophie at least once.
Bailey had no motive. Some others did.
Nope, it's just confirmation bias. You have no idea if the murder actually was carried out this way or with that motive. You are seeking evidence to support it rather than taking a step back and saying does this get us closer to the truth.
It's not a 'plausible' theory. It may be how it happened but it is unlikely as an explanation for murder.
So Bailey said he did "it". Except what "it" was was never said. Latching onto that as evidence towards murder is against just confirmation bias.
Bill Fuller is a highly suspect witness and as explained the statement in and of itself objectively is not positive evidence against Bailey.
This Bill Fuller?
On the 20 February 1997 Bill Fuller, his partner and child had gone to the causeway at Kealfadda Bridge in order to pursue his own investigation of the murder. He was with his wife and child. He saw a man whom he thought to be Bailey and this caused them to run away in blind panic believing the man had seen them. They ran a considerable distance until they reached Toormore Beach where they ran along a lane way which led out onto the roadway to Goleen. Screaming and roaring they ran in front of the first car to approach them.
Again, we're not in a court of law here. I'm giving my opinion based on the facts we do know. It points towards Bailey. That's my view. And trying to claim it's a big conspiracy against him just doesn't wash.
That's true but we don't even know for sure what connection Bailey had with Sophie. There's major doubt over his claims of never having met her.
Again, you're picking and choosing what you want to believe. We shouldn't believe Bill Fuller now but if he said something in favour of Bailey, then you'd believe him. So this was Bailey's theory, he came up with it and it is entirely plausible. In fact, it's the most plausible theory out there. And was it also the AGS of other witnesses putting words in Bailey's mouth when he broke down crying and kept saying he did it and went too far?
...all of which the DPP has decided doesn't prove anything against him.
But all of that is trumped by Alfie's health ruling him out. As well as having no history of violence. On the other hand, Bailey has the violent history, a motive that came from his own mouth along with the long list of circumstantial evidence already mentioned.
Cui bono? In most cases the person responsible already has a close connection to their victim.
I don't know the answer to those questions. And as I said, I don't believe Alfie was the killer.
My point is this: If the circumstantial evidence is the sole metric, then Alfie is more suspect than Bailey.
And when did Bill Fuller make this allegation?
It's a paraphrase of the AGS version of events against Bailey.
I doubt Bailey said it, but even if he did say it, what is supposed to be incriminating about it?
Mr Fuller said he visited Mr Bailey in the days following the murder to tell him about rumours circulating in the area that he was responsible for the death of Ms Toscan du Plantier.
So what were these 'rumours'? I think you'll find they are a version of this same scenario.
And Bailey could have been repeating it back to Fuller but putting Fuller into the scenario.
So it is meaningless to talk of it as Bailey's "theory".
Even though we don't even really know if he said it OR if that's how the murder even actually occurred, you think it implicates him somehow.
This is confirmation bias writ large.
What was Alfie’s health like at the time? I’ve heard it said it would be laughable for him to have lifted a block above his head but would that really have been too much for him? It makes him sound incredible feeble.
Was there a party in the Lyons’ house that night? If so how long did it go on? Or who the guests were?
Alfie knew Shirley. Bailey had no known association with her.
Alfie was at the scene of the crime. There is no evidence whatsover placing Bailey there.
Alfie had a bandaged hand the morning of the murder.
Alfie had an ongoing dispute with Sophie. Possible motive. Bailey had no motive.
Despite a prolonged attack , yards from their door, neither Alfie nor Shirley saw or heard anything.
Shirley drove to the dump on the morning of the murder.
All the above is circumstantial evidence against Alfie. I don't think he did it either, but there is more "circumstantial evidence" pointing his way than Bailey's.
Added to everything else it makes him the most likely suspect in my opinion. That's all I've said. His actions, words, behaviour, admittances and the theory that came from his mouth points the finger in his direction. It's not a conspiracy against him. Doesn't mean he did it but he's top of the list of suspects.
And many cases where it didn't happen. Yet that doesn't reduce his likelihood of guilt.
The 'normal' thing for Ian Bailey to do, if he was innocent, was to turn up at the scene in search of a story.
So your view on it is plainly just confirmation bias without real foundation.
Are you saying Bailey didn't say the above or what are you getting at? AGS didn't make the statement, Bailey did, he came up with the theory. He made the statement above a few days after the murder don't forget.
No he didn't as far as I'm aware? Violence against women? Saying he did it? Suspicious marks and fires etc. And his health rules him out in my view.
On top of the other things I've listed, it adds to his guilt in my eyes. There are many cases of other cases where this has happened.
Were they? So why didn't they arrest him?
You are obviously unable to show that it was "his" theory, and not the accusation AGS put to Bailey -> so you're just making stuff up now.
I didn't say he was the most likely suspect. You asked for those other than Bailey who had similar circumstantial evidence against them.
And Alfie did.
So lock up every journalist who turns up at a crime scene if that is your definition of 'acting strangely'.
What utter nonsense.
If he didn't turn up it would have been said, wasn't it strange the journalist in the area didn't turn up.
It's utterly meaningless.
Killers do and don't turn up at the scene. In and of itself it adds nothing.
Maybe he had a bit more interaction with Sophie's than a sighting across a Spar. He wouldn't be going over to her house in daylight.
I think he's very unlikely based on what we know about him and his health. But if you think he's the most likely suspect then fair enough. I think Bailey has far more against him.
Well,
there are quite a few.
But Alfie Lyons springs to mind immediately.
Turning up at the scene, acting strangely and trying to get information about the case adds to why I think he's the main suspect based on the other things we know as well. The marks, the fire, the premonition, the history of violence etc. I'm giving reasons why I believe it was him. All you're giving is it's all a plot by AGS, we shouldn't believe them, unless they find something that assists Bailey that is.
You can't even come up with alternative suspects.
Well that's what he told Bill Fuller. He then said it sounds like something you would do and Bailey said:
"Funny you should say that, that's how I met Jules. I saw her tight arse, but she let me in."
Members of AGS were there when Bailey said: "You did it. You saw her in Spar on Saturday. You saw her walking up the aisle with her tight arse. You fancied her. You went up there to see what you could get. She ran off screaming. You chased her to calm her down. You stirred something in the back of your head. You went too far. You had to finish her off."?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
