Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
Nor do you know what those pagez contained. Thats the whole point!
The Bailey evidence is weak, flimsy, circumstantial. What is there to disregard really? Not a single piece of solid positively incriminating evidence.
If you put some of the other suspects under the same spotlight who knows what volume of flimsy evidence could you drum up.
And did the actual culprit get away unknown as the Guards over focused on Bailey and didnt fully investigate alternative scenarios for the murder, especially those involving a morning murder.
Instead we had Guards wasting time on a Marie Farrell wild goose chase.
A report was prepared on a shoe print found at the scene... and then whoosh... no mention of the report. Is that incompetence? Or something else? It's a pretty safe bet if the Guards though they could use the shoe print against Bailey the report would not have been lost. Wine bottle, also gone. Gate destroyed. If they couldn't use it against Bailey, oops. That is not an investigation, that is trying to fit someone up and disregarding evidence to the contrary.
I believe we've moved a step forward here all of a sudden
She ran from the house with the hatchet
The killer had to remove it as his blood was on it
Maloney speculated she struck him on the hand , did he have a gash on the hand which he later remembered was caused by a turkey
Maloney stated that he knew immediately that bailey was lying at that point
All speculation
Didn't Jules state that Bailey had a new cut to the head that morning
Is it possible the killer knew to take it then, his blood on the hatchet
The hatchet I stated above may narrow down the likely scenarios. It seems that may be the case
And even after all that... they have no real direct evidence against Bailey for the murder. Just flimsy circumstantial evidence and that was when they were trying to pass of Marie Farrell as a witness.
But there is less evidence against anyone else.
That's what I don't get, people disregarding the Bailey evidence for the sake of something that has no evidence at all.
And don't blame the lack of evidence on anyone else on a missing page from a book.
You have no idea what that page did or didn't contain.
Like Bailey, Buttimer and the Bandon tapes, it might not be the sliver bullet you hoped it to be.
If Sophie struck her assailant with the firewood hatchet, that would certainly explain why the Gardaí were so interested in Ian Bailey having a cut to the head.
I wonder if this cut was still visible in the Christmas Day video? Did any doctor ever examine it? Would a blow from a hatchet produce a different sort of laceration than a gash from a turkey claw? (I'd imagine so)
The hatchet has never been seen since. The blade wouldn't burn in a bonfire, of course. If it ever turns up, it could be very revealing.
Sure they did a lot wrong here no denying that
On the getting it wrong. Sure they that do sometimes but not all the time
Spot on.
Touché!
Kerry babies case shows the Guarda can get it very wrong.
Were dealing with what's possible or likely/unlikely here
Bjsc has stated that the random killer or the French hitman are unlikely.i agree with that
That's not leaving a whole pile of other theories .A neighbour at the gate in the AM
Doesn't seem there's much else that or bailey or ANother nite caller
The gardai tried to fit up the witness evidence to secure a prosecution among other shenanigans
They still likely had the right man
If they were so correct why did they have to cover their tracks and destroy the record of how the suspects were whittled down?
The 'facts' we know are a function of the Garda investigation that was incompetent and unsafe if not outright corrupt.
Can you 'get your head' around that?
That's my assumption as well that they got the theory right about what occured
If yave ever dealt with experienced gardai they're no mugs
You know what it means.
It means that the best case can be made for Bailey being a suspect over anyone else given the facts we know.
You don't know that "no one else was investigated".
You are just making that up.
All we know is that Bailey emerged as the prime suspect and in 27 long years no one else has.
And no one has made a case for anyone else being a "better" suspect other than Bailey.
I don't understand how some posters here can't get their heads around Bailey being a good suspect, and instead preferring to focus on conjecture and fails information like "Shirley was allowed to drive to the dump" etc.
It's one thing to believe that Bailey didn't do it, that's fine, it's a different thing to disregard him completely and pretend there are no facts that makes him a suspect.
It's as if some posters are afraid that the stupid, country bumkin Gardai from Cork and Kerry might be correct all along.
The axe is interesting if indeed it was taken during the crime
Maloney speculated that she struck bailey with it at the door and ran- presumably he got that from a garda source
If the encounter took place only at the gate it would send strange that she would bring an axe down to the gate for protection, that's pretty extreme
Sorry. Didn't phrase it very well. Harbison's conclusion was that the block was used to deliver the final blow - having been carried from the pumping station. If that was the case, firstly it's unlikely to have ended up where it was and secondly the blood on the block is mostly contact staining (wet blood in direct contact with a surface) if the offender had, as suggested, fetched the block from the pumping station and dropped it on Sophie's head there would have been no opportunity for it to come into direct contact with wet blood. There would be splashing but no solid patches of staining with voids ( clear areas) in between.
Hope that makes more sense. B
The addition of the wire- it's actually sheep wire, much stronger than chicken wire, was probably later and Sophie's doing.
The photos of the gate on the morning show it wide open with no block or stone needed to keep it open. The sheep wire is just visible on the lower 3 or 4 bars of the gate. The wire would drag on the ground and tend to keep the gate from swinging closed or open.
" It was used as a weapon to deliver the final blow, given where it was located in relationto her, then Sophie's blood stained body could not have come into contact with it after that time "
I'm sorry, and I'm not doing a Tommyhammer here, but I just don't understand this last sentence.
What on earth does “Bailey is the best suspect” even mean?
He’s the most talked about and likely the most investigated by the authorities yes.
But even throughout 27 years of being talked about and investigated the evidence against him still falls far below the threshold of credibility .
The “best” for what? Fodder for a discussion forum?
The only reason Bailey is center stage anywhere is because no one else was investigated to the degree Bailey was- which is more the pity as it’s pretty clear now that the evidence Gardai have relied on all of these years doesn’t amount to a hill of beans
Bailey only stands out because you want him to.
What sort of daft argument is that.
Here's one for you
"Bailey doesn't stand out for you because you don't want him to".
As for looking for justice for Sophie,
I'm not.
I'm just looking at the facts of the case that we know and coming to the conclusion that Bailey is the best suspect.
That's certainly a reasonable hypothesis.
I'd guess that the block was being used as a "doorstop" to hold the lane gate open, whenever a car would be driven through. And if that drawing is a correct drawing of the scene, the body of the deceased lady is lying on the opposite side of the lane from her own entrance...just as though she had run across to close the opened lane gate, and got into an argument with someone at that spot.
Could this be what happened? Or was the attack earlier, in the field that she had run across?
Or she could have been lying against it when she was hit with the flat stones. Both are more than viable options.
Absolutely.
Thanks.
And a rather dark question, to followup on the block being in situ - but could the murderer have hit Sophie's head against the in situ block, rather than the block wielded as a weapon?
The only mention of the block (sort of) is Alfie who says the gate was held open and closed with chicken wire. It.would appear that the blocks may have been missing for a while as other photos show brambles growing in the gap. The photo of Sophie from the home video appears to show a different block missing plus the lid is in place but I'm not sure what the date of that was.
My personal opinion, based on my experience and on the advice of former colleagues who specialise in blood pattern analysis, is that the block was in situ at the time of the attack. The blood on it is much more indicative, for the most part, of contact staining. It was used as a weapon to deliver the final blow, given where it was located in relationto her, then Sophie's blood stained body could not have come into contact with it after that time.
Thanks, the police sketch is correct then. The block is not from the corner of the pump house nearest the lane, which makes it more baffling. Do you have any photos of Sophie’s gate and the area around there?
There was a poster in a previous thread, since closed, that was at Shirley’s party the year before the murder. She spoke about the difficulty they had finding the place. She was a passenger in the car and got out to either open the gate or close it after them, or perhaps both, I forget now. But she did say she had to move a half-block with her foot to either close the gate or to keep it open. They’re still here on Boards as a mod, but probably got fed up with the crap on here. There were some weird posters on it, so nothing changes really.
But relative to all other potential suspects he stands out like a sore thumb.
If you actually want to pursue justice for Sophie then you cannot start off with a mindset of "how do we pin this on Bailey?" which is exactly where you're coming from
The French murder trial didn't require a standard of proof and went with the rubbish AGS sent them. It was ridiculous to suggest it was a valid trial.
And again, there is nothing linking Bailey to the murder unless you're referring to the stupid bits of sarcasm
Oh I would say a conviction for murder is a definite link albeit not to the same standard of proof required here
Is there anything linking anyone else to the murder?
![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)
