Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
If you had been convicted of murder despite a complete lack of evidence against you, would you go?
I didn't realise he'd be entitled to a re-trial if he entered France.
I wonder how that would go today? He might as well go there and find out.
All that publicity!
Bailey loves the attention so much, I think he'd leave a confession letter on his deathbed whether he killed Sophie or not.
Having watched a recent Ch4 documentary on the horrific slaying of that British-Iraqi family in the Alps, I would have very little confidence in French police and their investigative "techniques". What was obvious was their desire to point the finger anywhere but France.
They seem particularly prone to jump to conclusions and are too eager to chase down rabbit-holes in order to justify their mad hat conclusions. Of particular concern was their total unwillingness to accept that their "investigation" was flawed from the outset. If you haven't seen this documentary I would highly recommend it.
Not really back in the headlines as such, but a Sunday Indo filler piece, so nothing new but gets his photo published- again.
I don't think that Bailey did it either. However it could have been possible.
I think the murder was most likely something sexual, like relationship/ex lover/ex husband/horny guard or something drug and corrupt guard(s) related. I would be inclined to think the latter as the behaviour of the guards was way to obvious, the Bandon Garda tapes or coercing witnesses or offering drugs to get a possible confession.
Bailey was neither dealing drugs and he was also in a relationship, nor would killing Sophie have meant anything financial to him, other than maybe writing an article. But he wrote so many other articles it wouldn't have mattered financially to him anyway.
Well I dont think Bailey did it but if he did... pass up an opportunity to leave a letter with his words and no doubt a poem and be back in headlines? Hmm I think a confession letter is possible.
There isn't anything convincingly new in this case.
Strange men from foreign countries, unshaven, in dark coats driving some other character's car at odd hours or men in dark coats loitering in alleys, publicans or patrons in a pub having heard or said something at some point. Somebody having seen an unidentified male with Sophie here and there. A vagrant sleeping in a barn, another vagrant hiding or sleeping behind a bush somewhere in the area a small time drug dealer or drug user in between. All nearly 30 years ago and half of them possible witnesses under the earth already, no new evidence which is usefull in a court conviction.
I guess the next ironic "big event" will be some Jim Sheridan documentary, but there will be neither new evidence nor confessions, but some theories which we spoke and speculated about already.
Suppose it was really Bailey, would he be the type to do a deathbed confession? I think he'd be more the type to take his secret to the grave.
Guilty as charged,
Isn't it all speculation anyhow
You gave them that on a plate Flannel !
I don't know what the fcuk is going on but the thread seems to have turned into 'lets make up shyte' about the case this last page or so.
Oh I wouldn’t be so sure ‘Old Bailey’ isn’t hangin’ around here somewhere! Sanctimonious?! Moi?!!
I've posted on the thread to me this seems to have signs of person(s) used to violence going there to threaten \ intimidate and things getting out of control and leading to murder.
That could be in relation to threatening Sophie about X (drugs? land dispute) OR the angle you allude to here.
No idea what you are on about
If you are going to comment on 7 month old posts then I'll guess you are really digging into this thread.
I'd except your post count which is currently 8 to go through the roof.
Or they were going to kill the ones hiding out and Sophie saw them and went out to them and they had to kill her then. Probably something like that
Maybe they put the plates on because they were hired to kill Sophie and wasn't to do with the two hiding out
I think you get the point I am making...
This is a thread on boards, not the Old Bailey - Take you're sanctimonious comments elsewhere.
I think you might be unclear on the difference between fact and evidence.
He's had new inside information from the get go...
Back in the early days it was the Husband, then it was the dodgy cop, then it was the geezer in the hire car at Bally de Hob, and now his latest fixation is the bloke in the beret hat...
Take with a good pinch of salt now....
however, I really don't think he had anything to do with the murder at all... I do think he milked it for all it was worth though.
He claimed to have new information
Think he's also complaining about the publicity
Think he just loves it
The very fact that Bailey hasn't even been interviewed by the new team speaks volumes.
Plus he's been shouting from the rooftops that he is more than willing to assist the review team in any way he can...
It comes across as Bailey being desperate to be in the spotlight again, and the review team having absolutely no interest in him what so ever...
"Its the job of the prosecution services to present the facts, we are all looking forward to that day.
Well, most of us. All bar the defendant. perpetrator."
(ftfy).
Don't hold yor breath, I assume you're referring to the former chief suspect, who has not even been interviewed by the new team.
No, the first job of the prosecution services is to assess if the evidence warrants a prosecution.
In this case the DPP has determined that no prosecution should be brought.
But there are no facts bar the murdered body besides the gate..
There is an ocean of circumstantial evidence that can be twisted and molded to meet any outcome you prefer... But not hard evidence like the type that would convict a person.
Its the job of the prosecution services to present the facts, we are all looking forward to that day. Well, most of us. All bar the defendant.
Go to the Guards then if you have proof?
But of course you havent.. when you respond with deflections and vague insinuations. Its your theory based on your reading of what facts are available. Dont confuse the two and present it as statements of fact.
There is enough confusion already on the thread about some of the 'facts' due to all the different media sources (Irish, UK, French, print, TV) as it is.
Well I don't have proof but I just have a feeling..
You know yourself sure. Blood stained clothing, a small axe head, et cetera. With attempts made to destroy evidence by fire.
![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)