Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
In absence of all the evidence it is very hard for me to believe that Bailey waited all that long for Sophie to return to her cottage just to kill her. Even more unlikely that Bailey had a sexual interest in Sophie. Her trip at Christmas was also out of the ordinary, few would have known. Alfie, Shirley, the Ungerers, the bar keeper and or somebody whom she met at the bar, and the caretaker of the house and her family in France, possibly also Bruno, the ex lover.
I only see two real motives:
The ex husband wanting to avoid a messy and costly divorce.
Some discovery about drugs and the Guards / neighbors being in on it, or somebody, possibly a Guard having a sexual interest.
What happened afterwards and is known with certainty:
Both behaviors would signal a motivation to do something or prevent something from happening in the investigation.
I'm saying if she was killed at 8 am a rebuffed night caller is unlikely.
We don't know the time of death.
There's no point in creating narratives based on nothing anyway.
I'll tell ya odyssey you're a gas man referring to jibes in light of my previous engagement with you which I won't be repeating
You were firing out copious amounts of jibes with every response
Not to mention engaging in discussion in a disingenuous manner
I'll leave it there
"Learn to read" - i have learned when someone knows they have lost an argument they resort to such jibes.
I dont know the circumstances of when OJ made that offer or what powers differ between here and there. What I do know is when Bailey made that offer, it points to his innocence. He had no way of knowing what he did or didnt leave at the scene in a crime scene at night whether scratched or not. We are supposed to believe Bailey did it in a drunken rage then to believe he had presence of mind to know what evidence he did or didnt leave? Doesnt add up and never has.
And its not my opinion alone but the DPP assessed it that way also re the offer.
I am arguing as to the balance of probabilities of Baileys guilt. I am discrediting the scratches as a factor in his guilt and his offering of DNA points to his innocence in that balance.
I am pointing out that AGS looked at Bailey by fair means and foul and came up with nothing solid towards his guilt - weak flimsy debateable circumstantial evidence. No positive evidence of his guilt. No real motive. No actual witnesses as Marie Farrell is an unreliable liar. I dont find their version of events to be plausible or credible. So on balance of probabilities I think him innocent.
I have no idea what argument you think you are trying to make.
Ok to argue your points
A few screws loose ? That's just irrelevant heresay in the absence of a specific mental illness diagnosis
What is the issue with a confession to a teenage boy if he's a reliable witness ?
Yeah I think confessions should be treated with a decent amount of weight tbh especially if the person has full mental capacity and is the chief suspect , being a bit weird doesn’t really stand as a reason to wash those confessions away in my mind. Another confession was to a couple.
They seem to be ignored by the Bailey lovers!
You're not making sense there
The large time window for death means the late night caller is unlikely ?
Why
He had a few screws loose so it's hard to give it much weight.
One of the confessions was to a teenage boy he was giving a lift to.
Personally I think he's innocent but it'll never be solved.
They do have evidential weight here anyway forming an opinion
I assume they're also admissible in court
Don't see why drunken ? Confessions should be ignored
Was it Aaron Brady made drunken confessions recently and they were a big factor in his conviction
She could've been killed at 8 in the morning for all we know, so a "rebuffed late night caller" is unlikely.
We don't know the time of death. It can't even be estimated with any accuracy.
Why does nobody hold any weight to his actual drunken confessions lol. Black humour it was put down to , well that’s a bit insane when you were the chief suspect in a murder case, aw yeah let’s admit I did it for the craic, that’s gas stuff. Or him writing in his diary that he wanted to Kill his partner.
I never said Ian Bailey was scratched at the scene. I just said his scratches were suspicious. You should learn to read.
I'm saying as a crime journalist he may have knowledge of DNA evidence. Maybe he did get the scratches from the Christmas tree and turkey but knew he left no dna at the crime scene so had no fear giving a DNA sample. I'm just saying giving a DNA sample voluntarily doesn't prove innocence.
OJ Simpson may have given a dna sample voluntarily. Does that prove he was innocent?
The assumption is the working theory of what likely happened
IE: she rebuffed an amorous late nite attacker and was killed in a rage
The approximate time of death is not the assumption or relevant to the assumption
Can you see that.
The approximate time of death merely needs to fit into the time of death window which it does
I'm counting at most 2 assumptions
Your first paragraph is 1 the Garda working theory on what happened based on the crime scene
The rest aren't assumptions. I'm weighing up the circumstancial evidence and drawing a conclusion albeit to a lower standard of proof than needed in court
My verdict in conclusion is that Bailey likely killed her
However it's not proven as the eyewitness evidence is fabricated and inadmissible (I believe that's right?)
They weren't just looking for DNA. They found nothing tying it back to Bailey. No hairs, no fibres, no skin. Nothing.
How could he have known he left no DNA behind if as you claim he was scratched at the scene? Statement without foundation.
The claims contradict themselves from one to the next.
We have evidence from a dermatologist that there were no visible scars only a few days after the murder, this does not suggest briar cuts or any kind of deep cut and is consistent with Bailey's version that he got light scratches cutting down a christmas tree.
By far the most plausible explanation is that Bailey wasn't scratched at the scene.
All of these things in the balance in probabilities indicate Bailey's innocence. They remove the scratches as a factor pointing towards his guilt in that balance.
I agree but DNA technology was very new back then and the crime scene was out in the elements.
So I don't think the lack of forensic evidence proves his innocence.
I think the briars were cut away and sent to a lab in England. I wonder if they can be tested again?
I wonder also if her nail scrapings can be tested again.
Anyway, I'm not saying Ian Bailey is guilty.
I'm just saying that based on the facts of the case, it was correct to treat him as a strong suspect.
I don't think there's enough evidence to convict him either.
I don't think him voluntarily giving a DNA sample is proof innocence either.
He was a crime journalist so he might've been confident he left no dna behind.
There's a theory that she was killed in the morning cos there was no lights on in the house and she had a bread loaf out.
It was impossible to estimate a time of death, so it's only an assumption she was killed at night.
Also she was in a dressing gown and boots, which doesn't really prove anything.
The initial assumption contains several unfounded assumptions in itself... the time of the murder, reason (rebuff), location (back door) rage.
Add onto that the assumption about the reliability of Ian Bailey's alibi - is there any evidence to place him somewhere else?
Your lack of belief re. cutting a tree and killing a turkey for Christmas, despite both being confirmed by other people.
Assuming he was probably lying about knowing Sophie despite there being no more than a possibility Alfie pointed her out at a distance sometime and no evidence of him having any association with Sophie.
It is a tower of assumptions built on a foundation of assumptions, each assumption making it less likely the 'conclusion' is correct.
I agree about friends or visitors to Alfie Lyons house. That should be a strong line of enquiry.
For all we know some psycho was at his house and spotted her either that Christmas or another time.
If you think about the Venn diagram of people who knew of STDP's existence, where she lived and that she was in the house that Christmas, the number of people must be very few. It must be a few people in France and a few in Ireland.
We know she went for a walk by the castle the day before she was murdered. She visited a couple who were friends, then she went to a pub for tea and scones. The barman was the last person to see her alive (besides the killer). The barman knew her briefly but might not have known where she lived.
That's assuming the murderer was in that Venn diagram, of which we can't be certain but it is probable.
We don't even know if Ian Bailey is in the Venn diagram as we don't know if he knew she was in the house that night. But he stopped the car on the way back from the pub and saw a light on in Alfie Lyons house, so it's possible. It's also possible he saw her in a shop in the village.
I don't see the relevance of the dermatologist. We know for a fact he'd scratches. Briars are variable in scratchiness. Older ones are less scratchy than newer ones. He may have had light gloves on.
Because Marie Farrell saw Bailey on foot at Kealfada Bridge.
Now Bailey lived 2.5 miles from Sophie so for him to return home via Kealfada Bridge would mean a 7.5 mile round trip. On foot? !! staggering!
Briars tend to draw blood so wouldn't heal up that rapidly and would leave behind DNA evidence. Scratches by fingernails would also capture DNA. So for him to have been injured and to leave behind not a trace of DNA would be pretty unlikely. Also as pointed out in the CA thread, he voluntarily gave a DNA sample which I can't see anyone doing if they were at the crime scene and sustained them there.
How was it ruled out?
I listened to the podcast but can't remember that bit.
That was ruled out, listen to the west cork podcast. Very good and would make you think it was a cluster **** by the gardai deliberate or not I don't know
No it's an assumption not evidential
What most likely happened in this scenario
Exotic visitor battered to death at her gate etc.
I think I only made 1 main assumption but open to correction ?
IE ;Was the working theory correct
The problem being that there is no evidence to support that assumption.
Stacking one unsupported assumption on top of another repeatedly does not make any sort of a reasonable case.
I didn't mention time of death. The time window
doesn't change anything I posted
My assumption is a late nite caller at what exact time I don't know
Late nite fits into the time window between midnight and 1030
You are the one that said that ' you dont know the details' - so how can you have an informed opinion if you dont know the details?
You need to familiarise yourself with all the events - Bailey was originally arrested based on Marie Farrells alleged sighting of a man fitting his description at Kilfada bridge . She then backtracked on this and said it wasnt Bailey, that she was forced to say things by the gardai. She was a key witness who told lies - Why did she lie and what did she gain by telling the lies?
I'm ignoring Alfie because I believe the working assumption that the gardai had was the correct one
So he's not relevant to my posts
Well lets look and another theory - logically and clearly.
Did Bailey definitely have an association with SDP? - no
Did Alfie Lyons definitely have an association with SDP? - yes
Did Bailey have a plausible motive to attack Sophie? -no
Did Alfie have a plausible motive to attack Sophie? - yes (they were in ongoing fractious dispute.)
Did Bailey definitely know that Sophie was at home? - no evidence that he did
Did Alfie definitely know that Shirley was at home - yes
Was Bailey definitely present at the murder scene - no
Was Alfie Lyons definitely present at the murder scene - yes
Did Bailey have an alibi? no
Did Alfie have an alibi? -no
Did Bailey have suspicious scratches - yes
Did Alfie have suspicious scratches - yes
Why did Alfie and Shirley see and hear absolutely nothing on a clear cold night with no background noise?
Why did Shirley drive their car to the dump after discovering Sophie's corpse?
Also, there is a distinct possibility that the attack happened in the morning, rather than at night.
I don't think Alfie did it. But I do think that of the limited amount of evidence available, there is at least as much pointing at Alfie/Shirley as there is at IB.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
