Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
Not following the logic there
The killer may possibly have known or suspected she was alone
If for some reason she isn't then events transpire differently and there is no murder or witness
Isn't that what they call fate , events transpire in uncertain ways
It is not pre ordained that Sophie will end up dead , she may escape or have company or things don't escalate during the encounter
As fate would have it she ended up murdered
This report gives a good explanation of why most of that evidence has been disregarded by the DPP.
Yeah, it seems clear there was no plan to murder Sophie. Something happened and the killer went into a blind rage.
I dont think the killer would have assumed or chanced that she was alone - it was Christmas afterall - nobody would assume someone ( a wife and mother) would be alone at Christmas.
The killer knew she was alone for certain in my opinion.
Good looking french stranger in town
It's the obvious scenario someone fancies his chances steamed and she ends up dead
Bailey the most likely , admitted the crime and various other circumstancials
Other ideas disputes over right of way and random strangers hitmen all highly unlikely imo
I agree. During one of his confessions, he outlined what happened and it's a very believable scenario, especially compared with the other theories. He spoke about it in the second person:
"You saw her in Spar and she turned you on, walking up the aisle with her tight arse. You went to see what you could get and she was not interested.
You chased her. It stirred something in the back of your head. It went a lot further than you intended."
Agree with that and with your long post re evidence.
And he was a journalist on a small town. Easy to find out she was alone
Such an obvious 'likely' scenario no one has been able to find many or any examples of it.
Whereas, disputes over property leading to murder, witnesses, hitmen... we see court cases murder trials about this here and in other jurisdictions.
Bailey to me is hiding in plain sight gardai just couldn't pin it on him , investigation screwed up no evidence
I reckon he revels in it now tormenting the french and the Garda
There was a highly suspicious moment in one of the docs where he was asked an awkward question and wouldn't talk can't remember now what it was
I think unlike some that the wine bottle was relevant. Either brought by somone as an offering or by Sophie to offer. It could easily have been used as a weapon too. Points to someone who knew her.
Bailey to me is hiding in plain sight gardai just couldn't pin it on him
To be fair, they did their best to pin it on him!
But the DPP never viewed the evidence as suspicious and the gardai went to substantial efforts to pin it on him. Also I've never seen any indication that the gardai considered any other suspects. Meanwhile the guy they obsessed over, they couldn't build any case.
No forensics all circumstancial
No witnessses
To be fair they didn't plant any evidence (DNA or items) which would have incriminated him.
Since the time of death isn't known - it could have been anywhere from around midnight to eight or nine in the morning, in theory it could have been anyone in the whole country - you could drive from Malin head and be on your way back in that time.
Why does it seem clear? Without knowing why she was killed it is unclear whether it was planned or unplanned, cold blooded or in a blind rage.
What are the chances that was planned
Much more likely to be an escalation
Who knows? Is there a reason to conclude it was much more likely to have been an escalation?
If it was an escalation who would have had reason enough of a dispute with Sophie for it to escalate to violent murder?
Without evidence, all one can say is, either it was planned or it wasn't planned.
If one were to go purely on chance / probability (US statistics admittedly)
it is six times more likely to have been someone she knew (partner, family, friend or someone else she knew) than a stranger (76% v 12%).
I posted my theory above
It's alright quoting those stats but she was a stranger here from another country
But you don't explain why you think it the most likely theory.
I've explained exactly what I thought happened and why
Go back and read my posts
She was a stranger those stats don't have as much relevance here
This has been covered. The DPP are not infallible. The investigation was flawed which could be the reason Bailey escaped conviction. We don't know who the guards did or didn't investigate.
It's clear that it was a frenzied attack where someone had lost control. Again, the Hollywood scripts of some hitman coming in and trying to make it look like a random attack or frail neighbours plotting to kill the foreigner to get revenge for some dark land dispute. It's just crazy stuff.
This has been covered. The DPP are not infallible. The investigation was flawed which could be the reason Bailey the murderer escaped conviction. We don't know who the guards did or didn't investigate.
FTFY😉
Yes, far too little is known about the whole circumstances. If the time of death was known, it would be different. Suppose the murder was really as "late" ( in terms of the timeframe from midnight til morning ) as 8 am in the morning, it's a bit hard to think it was Bailey. He'd have to hike back, shower, change, and be back with Jules and her family staying over, - something he most likely couldn't have done by say, 7.30 or 8am. And then the risk of being seen, blood all over his clothes.
Incidentally, when was Bailey seen in the morning of the murder for the first time and by whom? Is that known?
I am also surprised that they never established a time of death. It sould have been easy for any local doctor to do so, simply based on when rigor mortis sets in. So that's also a bit odd.
You don't know what a Hollywood script can be like? A man hiking at night in the wilderness could be very well part of it. Lot's of potential, evil things lurking in the dark, people get frightened in the dark...
Money can be a big motive for murder, also depending how desperate one is.
The infidel husband facing a costly divorce whilst already in bed with the next future wife would with utter certainty have been the financial motive number one. Remember his next wife got pregant quite soon, if not even before Sophie's death, and they married quite quickly after Sophie's death as well.
If anybody was running drugs in the area, the were in my opinon not big time dealers, - nobody seemed to have an excessive lifestyle and everybody knowing everybody else in that part of the world, it would have stood out easily. Even if Alfie and Bolger were running drugs, it was small time, their motive for murder was probably not any financial loss, but avoiding jail time.
Is it known how Alfie and Shirley made a living? Possibly only a small retirement from somewhere, nothing fancy. They didn't even bother renovating the house, - the next owner did so, when Shirley sold, - that much is known. So I am guessing Alfie and Shirley sure weren't having lot's of money.
If by that you mean
the presumed motive that bailey had in fact met her or seen her and took a romantic/sexual interest and was rebuffed , killed her in a rage
it's far from obvious or even realistic to think that someone steamed up, in a rage manages to wander the roads of west cork for half the night, commit the perfect murder, of a stranger, miles away from thier home, without been seen during their two hour plus walk, leave no evidence behind nor take any evidence / contamination from the murder scene and appear perfectly normal a short while after ? It's far more likely that evidence was not found because the investigation was not looking in the right place.
You seem to be trying to back fit a narrative to a predetermined conclusion.
One thing that's an indication for Bailey is that Bailey was known to have taken longer walks at night, - apparently howling at the moon.
This doesn't say, it's evidence for murder, however just an indication he would have found Sophie's house with ease if he was to hike there at night. He most likely knew back roads as well, or where he could cut over a field.
Repeating that it is clear doesn't make it so. There is no doubt that the violence was extreme but is there anything to indicate whether it was frenzied or coldly callous? It seems strange for a murder to have left no evidence of themselves in a frenzied attack. without evidence to point to one or the other, one should keep ones mind open to both possibilities.
There were only a few number of options.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
