Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
And to continue with the gloves angle... it was December, he could have worn gloves and long sleeve shirt when out and about and no one would have seen the scratches. Instead, seems like zero attempt made to conceal them.
The scratches theory is such crap.
I've already mentioned how my family had some land planted with conifers and it was quite possible to get scratches when working with them. Quite often the scratches would take time to swell up and then die back down to nothing. It was actually normal to not even notice them really.
Secondly, if Bailey did get the scratches whilst committing the brutal murder, why was none of his DNA, none of his hairs or any other forensic fragments not left at the scene? Now if you think that maybe he was wearing gloves which protected him from leaving his DNA then how would he have gotten the scratches?
Lastly, if AGS thought the scratches were important to their case, why did none of them think of getting a few photos of those scratches? I understand that cameras weren't as common or popular as they are not but you did still have disposable cameras available quite cheaply. Instead they seem tonhave gotten one of their kids to draw something, just to further highlight their approach to this case.
I think it's not so much the dna aspect but that a large chunk of the Garda theory is based on the fact that he didn't have the scratches in the pub on the Sunday night and he did have them by the Monday.
If there are statements to say he did have them on the Sunday then it would remove a big plank from their case.
You're a vulpiphile so. Foxes stink at mating time, could have set the dogs off.
Around Christmas time is exactly the start of foxes mating season.
I'm a foxwatcher (love them!!) and those dark frosty nights are just when I would be on the lookout.
I don't see them too often at this season - they seem to be quite private about their sexlife - but you can often hear them; foxes have an impressive range of vocalisations - screams, wails, hisses, squealing, chattering - and that distinctive alarm call which is unmistakeable once heard; like a repeating siren.
The banshee screech is likely to be a vixen calling for some male attention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blvBBdvCgN8
Sometimes like a baby screaming in my experience :(
Hmm, January is mating season so according to that link, that is the time the foxes are noisiest. If it was an early start to a mating season, we'd have expected the dogs to go react on more than one occasion? So to me, my instinct is that the source is likely to be something else.
Yeah I knew an elderly neighbour once who was talking about hearing a banshee cry out at night - it was a fox alright but he still remained convinced it was a banshee - poor lad, long gone now.
Depends on the time of year.
Article below mentions that it sounds like a woman screaming..
I wonder though, would a fox crying out be such an unusual occurrence as to upset the dogs that much?
There were reports of a fox crying out too, it sounds somewhat human and it may have been. Could have triggered the dogs
Then if crying out surely someone would have heard? Maybe not who knows as it was isolated afterall - yeah all good points- it’s like this whole case has points to it that can neither be proven or discounted 😀
Bailey's version of the scratches and tree is also supported by Jules and Saffron Thomas.
According to the DPP report:
* On Sunday 22 December 1996 Bailey was seen by a local farmer, Liam O’Driscoll, “pulling a Christmas tree. He was accompanied by one of Jules’ daughters at the time.” There is no doubt but that Bailey cut the tree on Sunday 22 December 1996 and in fact dragged it home.
* Richard Tisdall in his statement 190B recalls seeing scratch marks on one of Bailey’s hands on Sunday night 22 December 1996 (prior to the murder but after the cutting of the tree and the killing of the turkeys).
* On 28 December 1996 Gda. O’Leary asked Bailey how he cut his hands and Bailey explained while cutting the top off a tree to make a Christmas tree. Bailey then took off his jacket and Gda. O’Leary noticed that the scratches were on the backs of both hands and up as far as both his elbows. Bailey’s willingness to assist the Gardaí is indicative of innocence. He made no attempt to conceal the scratch marks. As distinct from his observation the previous day Gda. O’Leary says that they were not cuts only scratches and they were healing up.
It should also be noted that multiple witnesses say Bailey after the murder and did not notice scratches e.g.
* Con O’Sullivan a butcher who alleges he met Bailey on 23 December 1996 does not refer to seeing any scratches on him.
* Ronan Collins and Dylan Fairbairn on 24 December 1996 were in Bailey’s house and neither noted the scratches on Bailey. (After the murder).
* Persons who dealt with Bailey on the days after the murder was committed, such as Conn O’Sullivan, Eddie Cassidy and so forth do not mention noticing scratch marks on Bailey’s hands. Mike Browne a photographer was with Bailey for a substantial period on 23 December 1996. He describes the clothing Bailey was wearing. He makes no mention of seeing the scratches on Bailey.
Perhaps someone was crying out for a long time? Also one dog barking triggers dogs nearby to join in.. I would think that most would think that the attack was 5-15 minutes long and was one incident. Perhaps it continued over a prolonged period in two stages with Sophie hiding in the field for a time and even a killer calling for back up?
Where were these people located I wonder in relation to where the murder took place? Certainly some dogs will react to prowlers and others won’t - if the barking was unusual in all 3 instances then yes it would have made for interesting reading - but why barking for 3 hours? If a prowler say was progressing from point A to point B, then the dogs should really only have barked for a limited time and at different times you would imagine as the prowler moved passed the homes of these people?
Edited due to having got my days/dates wrong.
If there was statements in undisclosed documents stating Bailey had scratches on his arms on Sunday night, would it be of any great significance?
Considering the lack of DNA at the scene, is that not sufficient to somewhat if not necessarily completely disregard him as being present at the scene?
The Dogs angle is interesting as per the web
'Dogs have much more sensitive hearing than humans, hearing sounds four times farther away than we can. They can hear higher frequency sounds, can more easily differentiate sounds (e.g. they may recognise the sound of your car) and they can pinpoint the exact location of the sound.'
If related to the murder it would imply a late night or very early in the morning attack(s) 12 to 3 or so..
I wonder were these dogs left outside that night as many dogs are in the country. Or were they barking incessantly inside indicating they may have wanted to go out?
I wouldn’t discount this “evidence” as I know certain dogs will only bark for particular reasons- you’d need to speak to the owners to really establish in each case the circumstances and how well they knew their own dogs
Just a question - we know that Bailey did cut down the trees on the Sunday and kill the turkeys, I don't think that is disputed. We also have a number of statements referring to the fact that he didn't have scratches on the Sunday night. However we have already discussed the fact that AGS only submitted evidence, both to the DPP and to the French authorities, that bolstered their case against him. We also know that there was a great deal of information that was not disclosed. Do you think it possible that in that undisclosed material there may be witness statements that say that Bailey did have scratches on his arms on the Sunday night?
While a good point about the lack of DNA evidence on the briars- there most certainly would be some given he was scratched. Even so, it’s still a mystery - the drawings appear to replicate briar marks - if Bailey signed off on these as accurate (and I don’t know if he did) it wouldn’t have taken much to replicate them again .
in terms of second point, I’m critical of the past Garda investigation in 1997- as im sure most people are- as we don’t know the approach of current Garda review, then jury is out from my perspective . If they continue to submit the quality of evidence submitted previously, and as discussed by the DPP, then really I’ll have lost all faith in this investigation- but I’d be leaning towards Bailey not involved as there’s just too much convolution to the whole thing. It was never up to Bailey to prove innocence, it was up to authorities to prove guilt and they haven’t come close to doing that
It’s not that I’m saying “someone else did it” per se- more that given the extraordinary number of hours, months, years devoted to investigating Bailey, if the evidence is as flimsy as previous, then it’s clear Gardai should have widened the net on day one and kept “an open mind” throughout - if the evidence doesn’t stack up yet again then we’re no closer to the truth and quite simply, the list of suspects is whatever the armchair detectives say it is, simply because there will be nothing to prove otherwise- so you can take your pick between an ex lover, a neighbour, some mafioso druggie person, either French or Irish, a known prowler, a Garda, an unknown prowler or whoever else has been talked about.
I'd say a lot of people were having premonitions that night (from the DPP report):
David Bray at 12.45 a.m. on 23 December 1996 noted that the wolfhound which he minds was unusually upset.
Martin Breuinger confirms that the wolfhound was unusually disturbed between 12 midnight and 2.00 a.m. on 23 December 1996.
Geraldine Kennedy states that her dog was barking mad from 10.30 – 10.45 p.m. on 22 December and continued this for about three hours practically non-stop
The dog owned by Derry Kennedy and his wife was unusually upset between 10 p.m. on 22 December 1996 and 1.50 a.m. on 23 December 1996.
You will note these disturbances occur while Bailey was still in the pub, or on the way home from it with Jules. Earlier than any Garda scenario presented for Bailey.
I dont see what it indicates in either direction?
Its just nonsense. It neither implicates nor exonerates him to any degree.
It's not evidence as such.
It's just something Bailey said in a court under oath.
It's Bailey being Bailey to a certain extent and does nothing to help convince people that he is innocent.
Who the fcuk would say something like that in court and expect it to be of benefit to you?
As I've stated many times the information we have about Bailey is not enough for a charge, but it's much better than the information we have on anyone else.
Why is the fact that he had or said a premonition included in the list of "evidence" against him?
Also his physical attributes seems a very tenuous item to include?
The fact that the two above items are included in such a list really starkly indicates the absolute lack of anything useful to connect him to the murder.
There’s only two aspects that prevent me, as an independent observer, like we all are basically, from totally ruling out Bailey.
But yeah I agree that there’s pretty much zero evidence of a middle of the night “romantic - intentions” calling to her house motive- its bizzare to say the least - had Bailey clearly been in contact with Sophie- even just one eyewitness account of them having a discussion in a pub for example- it might sway me somewhat - but right now, bar an alleged introduction in a field, there’s no evidence they had any type of connection - either as acquaintances friends or relationship
Well, that's a fundamental issue.
The only plausible motive that fits the "bailey is guilty" theory is sex.
But there is no evidence of any sexual element to the attack.
If, as some do, you start with the premise that Bailey did it, then you have to accept that the motive was as there isn't really any other plausible motive.
But as there is no evidence to support that, then its logical to conclude that the motive was something different. And if the motive was different, then it points the suspicion in another direction.
So given that there is so little evidence against Bailey in any case, and no evidence whatsoever of a sexual motive, then the Bailey theory is highly improbable. Possible, of course, but improbable.
In terms of motive for Bailey, is the guards position or theory that his “advances” were rejected?
Do we have anything solid on that?
If Bailey knew Sophie, where’s the proof? Even if the Alfie introduction were true, it doesn’t mean he knew her- only that he was briefly introduced to her- an event so insignificant he couldn’t recall it, it could be argued.
If he didn’t know Sophie, how then did he find himself out at her gate late at night or early morning? Was he on walk about?
Thanks for that,
Now another one if I may;
"Jeremiah Scully, the local oddball who lived the other side of the hill behind Sophie's house."
There's very little on him, I know you said he was questioned and his boots were examined.
He lived just over half a mile away on what was the original track from Dunmanus to Sophie's house before the road to Kealfada was established. Why was he an "oddball", did he have an alibi, why was he considered a suspect so early on, and later discounted?
It's amazing really that a man with a hand injury giving him grief since he was 12 was a successful chef, which is a very hands on role. This injury or his arthritis and feebleness didn't stop him running his drug operation either.
I seen video footage of Alfie on a french documentary and I wouldn't describe him as feeble, frail or elderly. He looked in reasonable shape to me.
So what we have in December 1996 is
- Alfie with a bandaged hand injury caused by an injury 50 years ago .This appears not to have been verified by a doctor at the time. I would hope though if this was genuine that Alfie had sought medical help for this injury throughout his life - so this could be verified by medical records.
Bailey with minor cuts on his hands allegedly from cutting a Christmas tree. There is a witness that verified that Bailey cut the tree.
Which story is more believable?
And also if Alfies hand was visibly 'deformed' (was that the word used) surprising this wasnt generally mentioned about Alfie as it should have been noticed by anyone who came across him. Poor Alfie with the gammy hand.
He did well to run a restaurant with it.
![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)
