Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
Bailey could easily have heard that she was alone
The answer here could still be where she was being followed? Days leading up to murder if perpetrator knew her which was still highly likely..knew she was alone on this occasion and then would have made his appearance that night. The idea of him going back up to house to check if someone there would be further risk on them but knowing already prior is more likely.
It still makes no difference. The DPP are only as good as information supplied to them. The information as we know it is from totally flawed investigation process focussing solely on one individual which the DPP in it's only role review that evidence and confirm if it's liable to bring or warrant a case for conviction. Everyone keeps saying the DPP didn't do this or didn't do that...but they only act on information provided. It's did guards do this or do that is what issue is..and in lost cases that guards didn't do required. So we are not here to criticism on any party but reality is the evidence gathering people are guards and we do not have enough evidence so that's it. Maybe as we have said multiple times new significant evidence comes to light...Ie DNA , most of all other material we have is circumstantial which again won't sway DPP enough.
With all due respect, nearly everything is not possible, and the possibilties have varying degrees of likelihood, we should look at the various possibilities, and weigh up their likelihood. That is purpose of an investigation, that is the purpose of a cold case review.
Anyway, that's my thoughts, and I'm totally ok with other people having their own opinions, as long as those opinion are held in good faith.
At the point where Sophie is not dead, she is a witness to assault. He would have been handed in to the police regardless.
At the point where she is dead, there are no witnesses to assault, but there may be a witness to murder, the killer would want to know.
I've put the theory out there, you don't have to believe the theory, but do you believe it is possible? Yes or no.
I didn't take it as a personal attack
Nearly everything is possible in this case because of the amount of unknowns
Somehow I don't believe he'd be taking a break from the attack and going back to house with the intention of giving himself up if there was a witness
I wasn't trying to play you, I was providing feedback for you, if you take that as a personal attack then I apologise, it was not intended that way.
Do you believe that the sequence of events is possible though?
That he would take a break from a rage fuelled attack
The risk that Sophie would get away
That he would hand himself into police if there was a witness at the house
I don't believe that theory
Play the ball not the man
I'm not believing that sequence of events
You see @tomhammer.. , this is where people may interpret you as being closed-minded, as you are not putting yourself inside the mind of the killer. It's not clear to me whether you are choosing not to, or unable to.
In the mind of the perpetrator, wherever the altercation initially happened, it is possible that there was somebody fast asleep, that woke up after the altercation kicked-off. The perpetrator did not know if there was a person and/or if they were a witness or not. All options are possible at that moment in time, and they had no way to know. If there was a person asleep, and they woke up and saw the altercation in process, they then become a witness. The perpetrator would have had to check if there was a witness, before they took the fatal blow, imo.
Also, if that person was a little kid, as an example, maybe they would try to stay hidden, under the bed, afraid. The killer would want to know.
They looked, and saw that there no witness.
My point is this evidence wouldn’t get a look in by the jury - whilst they may convict on something very clear like Baileys DNA at the scene, or very credible eye witness statements amongst other things, it would never act as a piece of evidence to sway a jury - the stronger pieces of evidence would always be front and centre and if these don’t stack up, they wont convict -
meaning this evidence will never be a central point of consideration for the jury- they will always treat this with caution - if they agree guilt based on the stronger evidence it may act as reassurance for some (or may not) but it will never be something they will rely on to make their decision in the first place.
Might it encourage them to find a guilty verdict? Possibly initially for some jurors with limited skills of decision making but my view would be the defence as well as the judge may set them straight on this testimony and warn them around the challenges of making a decision based on this.
If they're asleep in bed they're not a witness
Anyone alerted to the altercation would already be out the door
How would the perpetrator be sure there was no witness without checking, they would likely have been asleep in bed, and this was the first time she ever travelled alone.
I believe the altercation started at the house
Therefore there was no witness as he would already have been involved
Bombshell! I am blown away seeing this, I hadn't realised that the block was on the inside corner (where the field is). I had presumed that it was the same side as the missing block from the video. This all starts to make sense to me now.
Why would the roof be ripped up and the block be taken from that side, when there is literally exposed blocks on the other side?
Because the block is on the line-of-way between where Sophie is, and the back of the house from the perspective of coming down the hill from the house.
Why was there a stain on the door, and blood in the field?
I surmise that the killer knocked Sophie out/almost unconscious, went up to the house to check if there was anyone else there, a witness. At this point it is assault, a vicious assault, but not murder, if there was a witness, you may well just fess up, say it was self-defence or whatever. Jail but perhaps even a suspended sentence.
Why use a block from the far side of the pump house when it is furthest away from the body, and other blocks are in the vicinity?
Because it is the first large block you find when walking back towards the body from the house.
Upon finding out there was no witness, the perpetrator came down lifted up the roof, picked up the block, and smashed it onto her head to ensure she died, cold, calculated, murder.
Nope. This posts bears no relation to I wrote. Do you have an expertise in criminal law? So on what basis do you criticise my criticism? By the standard you have set in your own post, you have just invalidated your own criticisms.
Can you point us to posts where an understanding of the role of the DPP is demonstrated in the criticisms? Would you care to provide your understanding of the role of the DPP? If someone is critical of the DPP, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the office, how it is invalid for other posters to point this out?
If I in a post in a thread critical of an Irish judge in a case for not conducting an actual investigation during a trial before them - are you saying other posters should not point out that I don't understand the role of the judge? Are you saying you would let such criticism stand? And if a poster did so, would you consider that an insult? On what grounds? I think when written out like this, we can clearly see your criticisms to be without foundation.
Is someone allowed to make whatever claims they want about the contents of the DPP report, and not be challenged on them? Multiple posters have queried specific claims the poster made about the report, pointing out that having read the report no such claim could be found within it. Does that show a reasonable understanding of the contents of the report by the poster making the claim? How is that an insult to point that out?
Do you think it is fair and reasonable to criticise a report as flawed and containing errors, as a criticism of its preparation at that point in time, when the criticisms are written with benefit of hindsight based on information that only emerged years later?
Do you think it is fair and reasonable to criticise the DPP report, for not discussing certain information, when the DPP report can only assess the evidence presented at that time by the Guards? Do you think that shows a proper understanding of the role of the DPP?
Do you think it is fair and reasonable to criticism the DPP report for not conducting its own investigation into points of dispute? Do you think that shows a proper understanding of the role of the DPP?
The DPP report can be criticised, but for the criticisms to be fair and reasonable, they must reflect an understanding of the role of the office and the information available in presenting the report.
The DPP report is far from perfect
I said it here weeks ago
You are claiming another poster lacks a proper understanding of the DPP/the role of the DPP. However, unless you have expertise in criminal law, which I don’t think is the case based on your posts, why criticise someone else for expressing their view on inadequacies in the DPP report doc. There are serious issues in that DPP doc, and it demonstrates concerning attitudes in the DPP Office during the relevant period. I don’t think it’s fair or reasonable to insult other posters because they are critical of a deeply flawed report.
Your claims about the DPP report have no credibility. You have demonstrated multiple times you have not understood the report, the scope of the report or role of the DPP and posted misinformation to the thread based on that.
I counted four posters (including myself) who asked you to clarify your claims about the bloodstains on the door. You failed to do so and just disappeared, then return to the thread making similar claims about errors about the report despite the total discrediting of your claim.
At one point you eventually conceded what you claimed was an error in the DPP report could not be their error in fact, as you judged it with benefit of hindsight and information they could not have known about. Yet... still return to the thread making the same discredited claims about errors in the first 3 pages.
Here we have a similar claim made without foundation... How do you know the DPP ignored the wound on the forehead? The DPP addresses the elements of the Garda case presented, based on evidence that could be presented to a jury.
How does the DPP report presented at a point in time (2001) know about what Bailey will say "down through the years"? Do they have a time machine?
The lower courses appear to be standard 4inch blocks on the flat, the top 2 courses are the larger cavity blocks.
If the Police sketch above is correct that is the corner that the gate closed on to.
Edited;
Edited
Yes but in saying people said he met her but still cant confirm if this was case similar to Alphie on 90% theory. It's not defining that he knew her maybe he potentially met her...it still doesn't prove anything.
The case can still never reach a jury regardless due to lack of DNA. Whilst i still thinking building up file on circumstances where he could or may have met her and bring other evidence with it could be useful, it doesn't get us any nearer without DNA. This is where parts of case could have worked..had she written his name in his diary , had she told friends about meeting him etc..one friend in France said she had.. but was too many years later..so it never adds up in way information should.
You know looking at the picture from the aftermath, it looks like the perspective is a bit off, but in the home video, it appears block 2 is around the same size and shape. It's hard to say for certain if block 1 is, seems like it would need to be slightly smaller, to fit, but probably is about the same size as the others on the row.
Like each row has different sizes too, its wild how many sized blocks there are around there!
According to this police sketch the block came from the field side of the pumphouse;
Having said that, they've got the pillar with the post box in the wrong place!
So if one block is already out of position is that the one by the body or is that the block that's still in situ in the photo.
Looking through the Kouda Kaas website you can see a bunch of other cube shaped rocks lying around, posting an example here:
In addition though if you look at the home video, I think you can see block number 1 is already out of its location in the pump house, and block number 2 is still in place, pretty sure I saw this mentioned somewhere before, it;s hard to keep track.
My understanding of Hearsay evidence is it can be presented in court for consideration but it can't be presented as an uncontested fact. Which is why it should be put to a jury for consideration.
The point is she alleged along with others that Bailey told them he met her.
Thanks, I understand your point of view and you are entitled to it for sure, but don't agree. I would say it is possible Bailey could have been convicted if he had gone before a jury though, he was his own worst enemy. I don't believe he was guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, but he could have been convicted. He convinced countless number of people he was guilty already, what's another 12 (or even less if it didn't have to be unanimous) 😀
I would concede that Yvonne Ungerer's evidence could reasonably been addressed, if it was available to the DPP.
Hearsay -:and just read out loud what you’ve just written and tell me it’s credible
Here's an old map;
Just over one km, A lot closer than Bailey.
Nope, wrong. The Yvonne Ungerer evidence.
Yvonne Ungerer at p.3 of her statement no. 46B says that "in another conversation I
had with Bailey he said he knew Sophie the deceased, that he had met her when he
was up at Alfie's one day. I don't know for sure if he saw her one day at Alfie's or met
her another day or whether he met her the day he first saw her while he was working at Alfie Lyons'."
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
