He died earlier from a heart attack, very curious guy whatever you think of him. If he didn’t kill Sophie Toscan du Plantier he certainly didn’t help himself by his attention seeking behaviour.
Had Alfie any guests that evening?
The only report I see is in the Crime Guy timeline of the postman.
22.12.1996 18:00
Postman Thomas Hodnett delivers letters to Alfie Lyons's postbox and sees lights on in the first floor and ground floor windows of Sophie's cottage
22.12.1996 21:20
Shirly Foster is closing her curtains and sees the outside light on Sophie's cottage is on.
They wouldn't know how much time they had. Sophie had arranged to meet Josephine Hellen at noon that day, for example. It could be reasonably expected that Josephine Hellen, or a family member, would call around to Sophie as this seems to be a frequent occurrence when Sophie was in the cottage.
What if the murderer walked past the neighbours preloaded dump rubbish after the event and lobbed in a murder weapon and went on their way?
You don't think given what happened in close proximity it was worth a search ?
I know in normal murder cases, public bins etc are thoroughly searched for clues/weapons etc , what's the difference ? That'd be like leaving the bin truck in around a murder scene to empty the bins !
I’m not “convinced” Bailey didn’t do it but I’m far from convinced that he did do it.
Regardless of who you’re “for” or “against” as a suspect, my main point was, you could place the top 5 most quoted reasons against each persons name and ask some randomer with no knowledge of the case who they believe looks the most “guilty”- choose one only or rank 1-5.
People would be very disappointed if their “person” isn’t picked 🤪
Yes, probably true.
And there is a possibility that he did do it. But it is a remote possibility.
But no other suspect has come under the microscopic scrutiny that Bailey has. Ther has been a very determined attempt to prosecute him based on poor quality and often manufactured evidence, constant media attention, off the record briefings etec etc.
And they still couldn't pin it on him.
There is no real evidence against anyone. So it comes down to an evaluation of the "circumstantial evidence" . But not all circumstantial evidence carries equal weight. So it becomes subjective. Hence the polarised opinions here.
It’s become like a game of Cluedo at this stage only much more complicated.
This isn't true
Would be almost zero chance of pulling a fingerprint from the block. A poker, decent chance of at least a partial.
Sorry, I’m not accusing the neighbours in any way. I’m saying a car already filled with stuff that’s obviously going to the dump would be a very handy place to stick something incriminating by persons unknown.
As I said before, no one is going to go through what they’re dumping. They’ll just drag it out at the tip and leave it.
The axe and the wine bottle allegedly played a part
Did bailey probably burn the axe
It’s an interesting phenomena alright- I do laugh at people who are “adamant” that X person did it or Y person couldn’t have done it - it’s a fools game to claim such things - theories are fine to create discussion but that’s all they remain
Not much more - the problem is the 5-6 people commonly named here cannot ever be categorically eliminated - so it’s pretty much then about going around in circles
Vera would have solved it..."Kenneeeee get me them phone records"...... "Yes ma'am on it straight away"
Allegedly by a couple of fantasists.
Firstly, that’s not called for.
Secondly, of all the regular posters on here, you’ve shown the worst level of knowledge of the case and grasp of the detail in this case. Constantly asking other posters for details rather than checking for yourself.
You’ve been happy to disregard people without the faintest idea about them. All because you think Bailey’s alibi wasn’t strong enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo1KWpghazo&t=134s&ab_channel=PeterHyatt
Ah! Godwin’s law, eventually!
+1.
There are posters here who think Bailey is guilty whom I profoundly disagree with but who debate honestly - no problem there.
This new (to the thread anyway) guy though is just firing out slurs left right and centre without acknowledging that others may have an honesty held different opinion and not engaging in any real debate. It's just bad faith posting and frankly comes across as some juvenile who won't listen to anyone. He's certainly not contributing anything constructive.
Who exactly are you referring to? Its an open thread, anyone can comment.
Re insults, they've gone both ways, as your last sentence demonstrates!
I try to avoid personal insults and generally play the ball, not the man.
Look at my quoted post - I'm talking about tomhammer. And I also play the ball, but that guy is just taking the piss.
(No problem with your contributions, even though I may disagree with them).
Clown poster believes bailey is innocent but no opinion of his own
Or none that he posted anyway
Contributed nothing to the thread himself
I wonder if the son on first tonite
CBA wasting all nite to hear him
Whoever this “clown” is - the believe that Bailey is innocent is an opinion.
So are we all clowns?
Before he died - Bailey was classed as innocent under the eyes of the law for the death of Sophie - it’s not a “clown poster” thing to believe -it’s fcking fact! Get over yourself
Means nothing
Bailey knew a public enquiry would clear him
There'd be allsorts of obfuscation about Marie Farrell and confessions and Garda
Doesn't make him any more innocent
He was innocent under the eyes of the law - there’s no degrees of innocent - your post is complete and utter juvenile
Is that the end of thread
Why are we here
Holy God put us here-don’t lose faith now 🤪
You just know he didn't kill her
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1751471ae521095b085946f3afd00e1d.svg)
