Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
It is not a plausible motive. The sexual motive is entirely speculative and there is zero evidence of any kind to support it.
Sophie's body showed no signs of sexual interference.
Bailey said a lot of things.....he told a sub editor that "I did it to further my career" His clumsy attempts at black humour cannot be taken literally.
The DPP described his "admissions" as "sacrastic retorts", "black humour," "sarcastic responses" "of negligible weight" "reeking of sarcasm, not veracity" and the "antithesis of an admission"
In fact, the way Bailey constantly mouthed off is the exact opposite of how you would expect a guilty man to behave.
The investigation certainly was flawed. But, more than that, it was prejudiced. Flaws can be brushed under the carpet as mistakes. Prejudice is far more sinister. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the conduct of the investigators is that they attempted to frame an innocent man. Fortunately, for Bailey and Irish justice, they were also incompetent in this.
Had there been one real piece of evidence to link Bailey to the crime, however slim, tenuous or oblique, it would have emerged by now. And it hasn't.
I'm no more biased than you are. But there's evidence for my thinking. The DPP's summary shows the weaknesses in the evidence.
I don't know if Bailey killed Sophie or not. But I do know, from reading the DPP's summary of the evidence against Bailey, is that the evidence doesn't stand up to robust scrutiny. It doesn't even stand up to mild scrutiny. The fact that the French used that same sh1te evidence and found that it wasn't sh1te leads me to believe that the French judicial system is far inferior to ours.
Anyway, I've a life to live. If you believe that evidence isn't sh1te, we've no more to discuss.
How is it a ridiculous question? You outlined it as a "likely" scenario for murder.
If it's a likely scenario for murder then the broad pattern of the murder should have cropped up again and again. But apparently it has not.
We see random attacks by serial killers. We see robberies or attempted sexual assaults leading to murder. We see husbands knocking off wives to be with mistresses or vice versa / and or to avoid expensive divorces \ claim life insurance - sometimes using hitmen (more so in the US). We see women being attacked while alone walking home. We see witnesses disappeared.
What you call "Hollywood scripts" seem to have actually come up far more often than what you think is "likely". So your statement about what is "likely" is based on nothing, it is without foundation. What local people think "likely" simply speaks to their ignorance of crimes rather than what is actually likely.
We don't see the pattern outlined for this murder coming up.
It’s what they were not handed!
What were they handed?
I did answer the question. I'm just saying that your question was ridiculous. I don't know of a murder identical to Sophie's, same as I don't know of a murder identical to Aisling Murphy's.
Can you give me an example of a scenario matching what AGS outlined for Aisling Murphy's killing? No. So they must have the wrong suspect arrested. That is just a mental leap.
The scenario Bailey outlined is very plausible and far more likely than some of the Hollywood scripts people are inventing. Local people even think it's the most likely scenario and that was before knowing of Bailey stating that he did it.
No, the French were handed selective evidence.
I've read it before. The French authorities looked at the same evidence and found that it was not sh1te. You're letting your bias make your mind up for you. The truth is that none of us know who is right or wrong.
Was Sophie killed going for a jog? Nope. Relevance - ZERO.
So nope, you don't have a scenario matching the AGS outline of this one.
The rest of your post includes the obligatory shout of "nonsense" to deflect attention away from the fact you couldn't actually answer the question.
And also taking as fact that Bailey made a statement when you don't actually know that, or the full context of the conversation.
My point stands and you've provided exactly zero evidence to contradict it - this is not a "likely" scenario for murder.
You want an example of a murder identical to this one? Oh no, you've got me, I don't know if a murder exactly like this one. What sort of nonsense are you spouting?
Aisling Murphy was killed going for a jog, I can't think of another case where that happened so maybe it wasn't the suspect they arrested?
The scenario I mentioned for Bailey was taken from a statement he made! I didn't just make it up. That's the most likely scenario. Even local people thought the same.
Here, set aside 20 or 30 minutes and read this. It looks at each piece of evidence against Bailey and either rules it in or out. It looks pretty sure to me that the DPP know what they are doing. They've looked at the evidence in detail, have proof that they looked at it in detail, and ruled that it is sh1te (mostly).
Anyone who has lived in the country side would know that it's not odd at all that you don't hear everything.
I outlined a specific scenario - the one outlined by AGS. I asked for an example matching that scenario.
Noted you are unable to. Nor has anyone else on the thread. This speaks volumes that this is not a "likely" scenario for murder. Could it have happened that way with Bailey or AN other as perpetrator. Yes. But it's clear we are not in "likely" territory.
If it's just some man randomly murdering women that's bringing in serial killer territory. It's not the scenario you outlined for Bailey and don't pretend otherwise.
So less of the obvious deflections like "are you serious" when it's obvious you have to dramatically shift the goalposts from post to post.
What are you talking about? I said the DPP could be incompetent, same as the French authorities. None of us know! You're letting your bias conclude that the DPP know what they're doing and the French authorities don't.
Odd though that Alfie didn’t hear Shirley scream or the car horn blaring, and he was awake and up and about.
..
It's hardly accurate to say that the Irish DPP is part of the pro Bailey faction. You are clutching at straws in your last few posts. I see now that you think the Irish DPP is incompetent. Have you read the DPP breakdown of the evidence that was posted earlier in this thread? It doesn't look like the DPP is in any way incompetent.
If I find it, I'll post it again.
Maybe in a City or Town where that happens often. Not in the countryside at least around here it would certainly attract attention..
Go 100 yards from your house in the middle of the night when you know people in your house are asleep.
Make a racket, shout, scream for a minute.
See do you wake them up.
I'd bet you don't.
I'd say they always felt bad about that. If they had heard something they could have done something to help.
Again, we're not in court, we're not investigating this case, we're not involved. We're just giving our opinions.
It was Josie's opinion that it was a local man who had a crush on Sophie. This fits with the Bailey statement. I'm not going to put Bailey in handcuffs, don't worry. I'm just stating that this is another factor in showing why Bailey is the number 1 suspect.
Where is the blood spattered gate?
And Alfie and Shirley didn't hear a thing, nothing.
You're right. None of us here know or are experts in all this. The French system could have got it wrong but so could the Irish system.
Yeah, that's what Bailey described. She may have made a fatal mistake opening the door to Bailey and after a verbal argument and then physical, she ran off screaming, Bailey couldn't calm her down and lost it, he had to finish her off.
This is the version of events described by Bailey.
You don't think some men randomly murdering women is common? Are you serious? Even in Ireland where murders are rare we've seen a fair amount of it.
Jaysis I really really hope you are not in the gardai, legal profession or judiciary.
You are ready to convict a man of murder on very very flimsy information. I could say that you knew Sophie, I seen you in the area and you told me you did it - do you think it would be fair to convict you based on heresay.
I doubt anyone here is an expert on the French legal system, but I was following it in-passing and it was a parody of justice. No defence was offered up for Bailey and it's fairly obvious that political pressure was brought to bear to bring it that far. It was not a fair trial or interrogation of the evidence as we know it. My understanding of the system is that if evidence is submitted by prosecutors and is not challenged it is taken by the court as fact.
Mick Clifford covered it and came to the same conclusion.
There is doubt over whether they met and you're ignoring this part of Josie's statement:
"It is probably somebody who had a crush on her, who must have seen her and went out of their way to see where she lived."
This fits in with Bailey's statement:
"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."
There is a plausible motive. Bailey has stated it. You can't keep ignoring that. The investigation was flawed and they clearly tried to correct that through dodgy tactics after. This in no way exonerates Bailey. It just shows AGS to be completely incapable.
![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)
