Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
If you listen to the West Cork podcast Bailey talks about how he brought Jules coffee in bed and also the article and read it to her or something like that.
Yet all this is forgotten when it's time to tell the Gardai about it.
From vague memory, someone correct me if I'm wrong
1. Bailey arrives back into the house the morning of the murder and deposits the written article on the kitchen table
2. Not very long after he gets a call regarding the murder
3. Not very long after that he visits the scene
Somehow in interview a few days after the murder he's forgotten this sequence of events ?
You'll have to rewite that as it doesn't make sense.
It doesn't matter what you work colleagues remember about Saturday night or not so lets not bother with them , lets look at Bailey.
There was a vicious murder in the vicinity and he was one of the first members of the public on the scene.
So this murder is front and centre for him from Monday afternoon seeing as he is the local journalist and this is big news.
Yet a few days later he misrepresents what he did the night of the murder in a Garda questionnaire.
How could that be, how could he get it wrong about what he did the night of this murder.
It's not as if it was sprang on him, he would have been thinking of the murder since he found out about it on Monday afternoon, surely he would have gone over in his head and with Jules what they actually were doing the time the murder may have occurred, that's naturally what someone would do.
If it was a random week where nothing happened yea, I'd give someone the benefit of the doubt about not remembering what they did at the weekend, but this was a big week in Schull, and he knew that questionnaire was coming.
But you also have to look at another piece of incorrect information that he gave.
At the time of the questionnaire he said that on the Saturday night he went home after the pub, but he subsequently changed that only a few days later to say that he went to a house party and thumbed home at around 6am.
So early on in the investigation he gave incorrect information about what he did the night before and the night of the murder, but only corrected what he did the night before.
It's incredulous to think he could suddenly remember Saturday night, a night of no consequence but not remember Sunday night.
And all this about Sunday night came out when Jules said it to Gardai 6 weeks later, it's not as if Bailey was racking his brains in the days and weeks after the murder and then remembers what he did Sunday night and volunteered it to the Gardai.
Ok I see what you're saying
However..
Bailey was allegedly gone most of the nite writing an article ?
That same morning he hears of Sophie's death and later visits the scene
While in interview he can't recall that arriving back into the house that morning with the article and not long after hearing of sophie's death and visiting the scene was all a continuation of the same night/morning/day
Not plausible imo
Which is exactly what happened in the conversation with my three colleagues, memory was jogged. The point I am making is that had the police questioned them individually, two of them had no idea what they had done until the third jogged their memory. Had the police then interviewed them a second time after their memory had recovered, did that make them liars in their first statements? Of course not.
Open to correction but if i recall both Jules and Ian forgot what happened that nite
The nite of the murder
Then they both remembered
Colin Stagg was the only suspect, look how that turned out because others we did not hear about were not investigated properly and the police were convinced that they had their murderer.
If you can link to bjsc stating a night time killing is far less likely ?
Your ramblings above on percentages and likelyhoods are hard to follow
By coincidence I was talking to three work colleagues about their night out, two of them could not remember what they had done Saturday night. The third was telling them to jog their memory. One could not remember how she got home into bed.
Are you suggesting that it is not possible for people to forget what they did on a drunken night? Because I am fairly confident that we all here have an abundance of anecdotal evidence to say otherwise of our own experiences and those of friends, family and colleagues.
It makes a nighttime killing far less likely, if the scenario you have outlined for the murder is a night time one.
If both are viable options, it reduces the likelihood of a nighttime killing by 50%, all things being equal.
And the indications to morning murder from factors such as the contents of stomach suggest they are not equal.
No
I'm aware of bjscs comments on the possibility of a morning murder
I don't recall her opinion making a nightime killing 'far less likely '
If I recall ,it was more that either was possible
And bjsc has also put forward opinions on the failure of the Guards to properly investigate a morning murder scenario, and opinions as to why a time of death in the morning is probable, and the use of a vehicle.
Something which makes the scenario for someone like Bailey as you have outlined far less likely.
Yet you seem to disregard those opinions (likewise based on experience and expertise).
Which suggests you are just cherry picking and reinforcing your own predetermined opinion.
Its not gone unnoticed by me anyway that posters are contributing very little constructive themselves
I post my theory of what happened
Who I believe is the likely killer
What I believe likely didn't happen
They are first impressions at the scene
Working theories , assumptions, i suppose
Bailey is not relevant in this regard
You'll notice i didn't mention his name once in the post
Plenty of massive assumptions being made there, none of which point at Bailey being the likely killer unless you already had him in mind.
We don't even know when she was killed so the Bailey theory is even more flawed.
Then only thing likely (to use your term) is that AGS completely messed this up from the outset and as a result we may never find out the truth. However, to make rhe bold assertion that Bailey is the likely killer is a belief based on absolutely nothing more than you want him to be it
We're dealing in conjecture here in this thread . We're not in the business of proving anything .
Bjsc for example is of the opinion that this wasn't a random caller killing
Afair she also doesn't believe the hitman theory
Those opinions are worthy of inclusion into the discussion of theories because of her experience and expertise and form part of my thinking on the matter
Agreed
Thats a possibility, same MO different killer
You do realise the list you mentioned could apply to any man that lived nearby, not just Bailey.
A rage killing of an attractive young visitor to the area
A local who likely knew/knew of her and had an interest or infatuation of some type
Maybe a big man capable of great violence against women
The killer likely called during darkness and likely unannounced
Those type of observations at the scene, maybe slightly different but you get the idea
Your second question I didn't make that point that I recall anyway so doesn't need me to answer it
What direction does the crime scene point in - What evidence at the crime scene points to anyone?
I answered this question as recently as last nite
Go back and look
I would add that the crime scene points in a particular direction, as the experienced gardai at the scene likely concluded
I'm not asking you for alternate theories though. I'm asking what has made you think that Bailey is the "likely killer" given that multiple DPPs have looked at the "evidence" provided by AGS and effectively torn it all to shreds and made the unusual public display of doing so?
I was actually going to post on this
The alternate theories posted are not convincing in the main imo
Ah I see you're asking me on Bailey, im not doing that debate again atm
I also have an open-mind as I view bailey as merely the "likely killer" based on what we know
ok, humour me - what exactly do we know that holds any kind of water?
Stop putting words in my mouth.
I'm not happy with the status quo, I'd much prefer that the case get solved.
But I am happy in my opinion that Bailey is the prime suspect and I am happy to acknowledge that there has never been enough evidence against him to bring a charge, and also that the French trial was sham.
I also believe that just because the Garda investigation was a mess it doesn't automatically mean that Baily can't be the killer.
You do grasp the idea that investigators will likely wish to "focus" at some stage in a review or investigation
If they didn't start with an open-mind, I would see that as a flawed review
I believe there's the possibility of a different scenario having occurred not involving bailey
I think we can all agree on your two points above. The only difference between you @drury.. , @Fr Tod Umptious etc. and the rest of the people on here is that you guys are happy with the status quo, happy to draw a line in the sand for whatever reasons….
Most of the rest of the people on here believe there is likely further information available, as well as further opportunity for testing of samples (no brainer imo), which may open up a new line of enquiry, or enhance an old one. Many loose ends have been left open. This would also include potentially further evidence proving Bailey's guilt by the way.
By definition, if the cold case team are open minded and continue to investigate open lines of enquiry (in particular the unknown DNA), re-interview witnesses etc. then further evidence can be found against the killer, Bailey or not.
To put it another way, some people on here want to find proof of the killer's guilt, and some people don't….
" given what was given to both the DPP and the French investigation,"
The Gardaí gave the French investigatation team their original files , which included Marie Farrell's statement about seeing Bailey at Kealfada Bridge, which was read into evidence at the French trial. Marie Farrell had retracted that statement by the time of the trial, so it should never have been part of the evidence in the first place.
Malachi Reid chose not to go to France, but his mother Amanda went along for the ride and believe it or not, was allowed to give his statement, which was read into evidence without being challenged. You couldn't make it up.
Im not going over all the old ground re evidence
I'll put it this way
Very unlucky for a man with 0 evidence against him to be convicted of murder in a french court
![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)
