Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
They watched “A Few Good Men”.
Possibly retrieving drugs from the nearby shed (the one Sophie originally though was hers). To me this seems like most likely scenario. And given Leo Bolger and Alfie Lyons were involved in the drug scene (with Bolger busted for a large growing operation some years later) I was always more suspicious of them than Bailey.
Apologies I misremembered, the film they watched was "A Few Good Men".
I can't recall where I read it, some timeline or other- maybe Crimeguy, a bit of Googling should find it.
12 Angry MenCoincidentally I believe it was the film Alfie and Shirley watched on TV the evening before Sophie was murdered.
12 Angry Men
Coincidentally I believe it was the film Alfie and Shirley watched on TV the evening before Sophie was murdered.
Where did you hear that?
Was it on video, or was on the irish Tv Stations or the British ones
I've seen the movie. It's a good one.
That's the sad part, - like all those books written about that. No real help to clear the matter up, no new facts, just the same blabber and hints that something "may have happened" apparently nobody thought about….
If they had any courage, they would write books or film movies about how the French judiciary sentenced a man for murder in absentia without any real evidence.
Probably nobody has the courage to do that.
One thing is for sure, Sheridan is going to make money out of it and try and spin every angle possible, the truth is irrelevant.
Part of it is supposedly based on the classic film "Twelve Angry Men". The story of a jury deciding the fate of a youth charged with murder. All bar one have decided he is guilty based on various prejudices and influences and dodgy evidence, the one played by Henry Fonda has a reasonable doubt, so a unanimous verdict can't be reached. He questions all the witness statements and one by one the other eleven change their minds and a unanimous not guilty verdict is returned. The jury in Sheridan's film is deciding if Ian Bailey is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the murder of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier.
Edited, after a reminder from Monkie Socks (post 7194 below)
The film Alfie and Shirley watched on Sunday evening on TV was "A Few Good Men" apologies.
The night of the murder, exclusive story, what "really" happened, etc….
There might be some 'new' angles or questions but unlikely to be any slam dunks so even more debateable fuel for the fire...
Understood, but there won't be anything new.
Just the usual, maybe this is true, maybe it's not…… kind of thing.
Yes, that's a good summary.
He is also bringing in some experts to re-examine evidence e.g. the autopsy, the crime scene reports.
What can he really do? Make money. Speak about the stories and theories we also have. Raise a couple of unanswered questions? (Let's remember, he also has no evidence as well….)
I think he has a genuine interest in the case, posters here do, so why not him - but it is filtered through a professional prism.
I can guess how Sheridan feels
$$$$$$$$$$
I'll watch it, though….
Yes quite probable we will never get any clear outcome.
The next one from Jim Sheridan will be a docu-drama with reconstructions and a cast has been put together to play the main participants... not sure how I feel about that tbh.
https://m.imdb.com/news/ni64080798/
I think it's not a surprise to anybody to think and say that this crime will never be solved.
It will be subject to many speculations and people with commercial interest, writing books, filming documentaries, etc…
How many books have been published so far?
We have two documentaries by now, correct? One by Sky, one by Netflix? Isn't Sheridan doing another one?
There was talk of it being re-examined with more modern techniques to look for forensics, but that's gone quiet.
Nevertheless, anyone whose fingerprints had been found on that cavity block would be substantially more interesting than anyone whose fingerprints were not.
None were, btw - apparently the surface doesn't take prints well.
Sure, the person would have to be there in order to touch or otherwise handle that cavity block.
But yet, it could have been anybody as well, the cavity block wasn't locked away, wasn't accessible only to an exclusive group of people.
It's not that the cavity block is a registered firearm, which is kept under lock and key by the registered owner.
Anybody could have touched the cavity block prior to the murder? No.
It was on her property and not something that would be handled normally. A person would have to be someone who visited her so if there was DNA that wasn't from those few it would be very significant.
This is what I've been writing for a long time.
There is absolutely no evidence to ever convict any suspect beyond reasonable doubt.
The likelihood of Bailey being the killer is as strong or as weak as all the other suspects.
In absence of any decent evidence only possible motivations and behaviours can be considered. However one or the other is neither more nor less likely as there is no evidence pointing more into this or that direction.
Even worse, DNA won't help either in this case. The murder weapon, being a cavity block, was in plain sight, and could have been handled or touched by anybody prior to the murder as it was accessible to anybody.
The case is also complicated as there are too many lose ends.
Competency was also not one of the traits those had who tried to solve it.
As written, any qualified physician should have been able to give at least an approximate time of death at least to the point of whether it was around midnight, or in the morning, regardless if the body was out in the cold or not.
Suppose the vagrant Martin Graham lied about having received drugs from the police, suppose Marie Farrell lied about being coerced by the police, we still have the Bandon Garda tapes as well as lost evidence. So competence was also not something the Gards had in this case as well.
I literally posted it the last time you asked a few posts back
When I think of it. It might have been more correct to say "either 0% or 100%" rather than "between 0% and 100%" as statistics apply to a population, not an individual.
Any individual either was the killer or was not the killer, there is no in-between. Distinguishing which should be based in solid evidence, not unfounded belief and how much effort it takes to hammer a square peg into a round hole.
That is a list of ALL percentages that are possible to exist, by definition. From 0 to 100. Didn't take a great effort.
Probability of this murder being committed - 100%; it did happen.
Probability of it being done by a Martian - 0% - they don't exist.
The horse theory - maybe 3% - no hoof prints, and horses can't throw rocks.
Probability of the killer being an able-bodied man - much higher than it being an elderly woman. Etc. You get the idea.
Experience and statistics have to count for something, when there's not much evidence to go on.
I could probably keep on for another while if I tried hard. I believe the original garda investigation had a list of over 50 people and even that might not have contained the murderer. Without evidence there's nothing to support any one above another or indeed any other person or motive.
Any opinions of your own besides sniping and waffle
Where's the percentages
I would assume this, take your pick that. "informed" by my own opinion.
You sound like a West Cork Garda
"You know the 'Mystery' Man Bailey is a line of enquiry brought to you by Bailey?"
Bailey is the reason that Bailey himself was in the frame to begin with. Wandering around acting odd, and being a mouthpiece. Other than Bailey's own idiocy and bombastic nature, what exactly did the gardai do to find any evidence against him at all? If he had of kept his head down, he never would have been considered.
I do not know it that exactly. Wolney had some kind of East German background, but may even have fled from East to West in his early years? He and his wife may have come to Ireland in the early 90ies, the marriage ended in divorce, the reasons for the divorce are not known to me.
Apparently Wolney played in a pub which was also visited by Sophy before her murder, either on the evening before the murder or a day or two before? There were no witnesses which could state that Sophy spoke to Wolney in the pub.
The police will probably have interviewed him, but seem to have ruled him out as a suspect later on. Why they ruled him out I don't know. Apparently he had no alibi and lived within some walkable distance from Sophy's cottage.
That's all I know on Wolney. I don't even know if the person to whom Wolney said that he'd done something terrible was interviewed further, the likes of what else did he say?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
