Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
You're actually confirming a large part of the problem with the changing alibi stories
Even if the changed stories are true it cannot be confirmed that he also didn't kill sophie the same nite he wrote the article
If I recall bjsc raised the issue of the gate/car so I agree it's highly possible
Also agree there was no evidence at the scene tying bailey to the crime
Some of 'em, not all. (But you haven't heard me RANTING!)
I'm not ruling Bailey out, OR in; I am only saying there is nothing found to support his possible guilt, and that his version of what he was doing on that night cannot be independantly verified.
It appears VERY probable that the killer used a car; why else would a gate be found wide open to the fullest? Pedestrians don't do this. The gate was always kept shut by the three households who used that lane - because of livestock. That's why I think that the killer used a car.
I don't actually know if the police took samples from the footwell of every car within a five mile radius; but maybe they should have!
Could you summarise what points you're making there , those rants can be hard to decipher ?
You're stating the killer used a car
You're ruling out bailey as the killer
Any issues with Jules and baileys alibis changing is irrelevant to the case
Are those points you are trying to make ?
But there was an actual witness to him getting a scrape on his forehead, - when killing a turkey.
Witnessed by one of Jules's daughters - who never particularly liked Bailey.
And it doesn't really matter what Bailey said, or didn't say, about his own movements that night; since there is no possible way to verify or confirm the story. He was not seen anywhere near Sophie's house, a couple of miles away. No trace was left at the scene, or was ever found on him or at the house he shared with Jules, or on their car.
And such violence was used in the murder that certainly there MUST have been blood left on the killer's shoes and therefore on the floor of the vehicle that was used. A footprint on Sophie's neck! So much blood spilled, that her blood was found on the wide-open gate.
Bailey may as well have insisted that he sleep-walked, or levitated, for all the difference it would make to solving the sequence of events that happened at Sophie's house.
I believe I'm correct in saying that both of them couldn't remember he had arrived back that morning after writing all nite and had coffee before he received the call about the murder
Then she remembered that he had been gone for the nite and had returned with a new scrape on his head in the morning
Then he remembered he had been gone the whole nite writing
I'll tell ya that's some alibi stories......
What likely really happened....
So bailey commits the murder and returns ,writes up the article to cover himself with jules
He tells Jules to say he was in bed all nite , they won't believe he got up to write the story
She changes her story under pressure from gardai and says he was gone all nite
Bailey then resorts to the saying he left to write an article
Brought the work back to the house in the morning had coffee with Jules and got the call about the murder
And then both of them said he had never left the bed that nite
This a few days later
In the DPP report Bailey is noted as having breakfast in the Murphy's house, and he slept that Saturday night \ Sunday morning.
Mark Murphy states that he drove Bailey home at about 2 p.m. on 22 December 1996.
He and Jules drove home (I think she drove) and went to bed without stopping to talk to anyone on the way. He got up later to do some work.
Is there an account of what Bailey did on the Saturday night, how did he get home, did someone give him a lift, where was he dropped off etc?
IF he was the murderer, one scenario (that has no basis in fact at all) is that maybe he went to her house on the Sunday morning on his way home from the party and was politely told where to go. Maybe this festered with him and he went back Sunday night to try again or "assert himself".
Clever move by Sheridan to feature a fictional jury
Cliffhanger >$$$
Colm Meaney to play 1996 era Bailey? Something about the reports and the description of Sheridan's docu-drama don't add up. Unless there's different actors for different periods.
Colm Meaney to play Ian Bailey in a biopic. I suppose it’s fitting, a real life arsehole to play a deceased one.
"I did but I've been left feeling dissapointed because you felt above the need to actually reply to simple facts about the case which throw your belief into massive doubt!"
1 your problem
2 yes there's doubt and plenty of it
There "may" be disturbing parallels with this case
Then again it could be like the Jill Dando case
If i recall they most likely got the right man there
The Colin Stagg case is a classic example of the police feeding misinformation to the press and the public, resulting in and innocent man being convicted in the court of public opinion and subsequently hounded mercilessly.
There are disturbing parallels with this case.
Maybe post some content of your own
I did but I've been left feeling dissapointed because you felt above the need to actually reply to simple facts about the case which throw your belief into massive doubt!
Attractive likely has something to do with it, I've said that a few times
I never mentioned sex
Im posting my opinions and theories all day long
So the fact that she was attractive had nothing to do with it? So why did you mention it? Why not write "A short young visitor brutally beaten to death in an isolated area"? or "A French visitor brutally beaten to death in an isolated area" or "A young visitor brutally beaten to death in an isolated area"?
Plus why then would someone, who had no history of it, traipse several Kms in the dark in order to beat up/kill a woman that he probably didn't even know was there alone?
You're rambling about sex attacks and other stuff
I never said sex was the motive for the visit or that there was any sex attack
I outlined what I believed are some of the inferences gardai would draw from the murder scene
An attractive young visitor brutally beaten to death in an isolated area
So you believe it's plausible ?
Is one of my points wrong or in what way are they not worthy of your reply?
The known facts are that are that there is no evidence Bailey knew the woman, no evidence that bailey even knew she was in town and no evidence that he knew she was in town alone. She rarely came to West Cork and when she did she was always accompanied - until this time!What AGS and you are suggesting is that a drunkard wandered the roads in the middle of a cold winters night presumably with the intention of sex and arriaved at her house. When she rebuffed him, she put on her boots and walked him back down the lane as far as the gate. How plausible is that in reality? Would your wife/sister/mother staying somewhere remotely accompany a stranger down a dark lane at night when they didn't have to?That's working under the assumption that the murder happened at night. The contents of the stomach and the layout of the kitchen points more towards her having had breakfast which would indicate a later murder which pretty much rules out the Bailey theory.The crime scene contains absolutely no evidence of a sexual attack - none at all! The crime scene contains none of Bailey's DNA despite the suggestion by AGS that he received multiple scratches doring a struggle. The crime scene did contain the DNA of A.N. Other but this has not yet been followed up on.As for the experienced gardai knowing what to do - why didn't they follow the advice of Prof. Harbison and remove the body from the scene to UCH in order to preserve evidence? Why didn't these experienced gardai not get a doctor on the scene to accurately estimate the time of death rather than wait for Prof. Harbison (which meant a delay of almost two days)?
The known facts are that are that there is no evidence Bailey knew the woman, no evidence that bailey even knew she was in town and no evidence that he knew she was in town alone. She rarely came to West Cork and when she did she was always accompanied - until this time!
What AGS and you are suggesting is that a drunkard wandered the roads in the middle of a cold winters night presumably with the intention of sex and arriaved at her house. When she rebuffed him, she put on her boots and walked him back down the lane as far as the gate. How plausible is that in reality? Would your wife/sister/mother staying somewhere remotely accompany a stranger down a dark lane at night when they didn't have to?
That's working under the assumption that the murder happened at night. The contents of the stomach and the layout of the kitchen points more towards her having had breakfast which would indicate a later murder which pretty much rules out the Bailey theory.
The crime scene contains absolutely no evidence of a sexual attack - none at all! The crime scene contains none of Bailey's DNA despite the suggestion by AGS that he received multiple scratches doring a struggle. The crime scene did contain the DNA of A.N. Other but this has not yet been followed up on.
As for the experienced gardai knowing what to do - why didn't they follow the advice of Prof. Harbison and remove the body from the scene to UCH in order to preserve evidence? Why didn't these experienced gardai not get a doctor on the scene to accurately estimate the time of death rather than wait for Prof. Harbison (which meant a delay of almost two days)?
You're still not making any points worthy of reply
Which sequence of events? This?
If he had nothing to remember (on the assumption that he had nothing to hide) then why would he quickly remember it? I often don't recall things from a few days ago - it really isn't unusual.
What you probably should be asking is if Bailey did do the murder, then why didn't he have a solid alibi in place before AGS came to him?
And I note that you continue to engae with me, yet conveniently avoid answering my points regarding bailey and how the crime scene doesn't point towards him!
Do you believe it's plausible he can't remember the sequence of events outlined above ?
If so , how
I've previously made comments in this thread about his alibi changing. I frequently forget things so I don't assume that it doesn't happen. Even the DPP didn't see anything odd in it!
As for my poinbts about the crime scene, this is a direct response to you describing the crime scene as "points in a particular direction, as the experienced gardai at the scene likely concluded" Which bit is not related to your claim or is it that you simply cannot defend the sh1te investigation that took place (which has helped you form your opinion on the case)?
Care to comment on the points above re: the alibi
Your post above isn't worthy of reply , you're raising lots of points which I didn't make in my post on the crime scene
You mean this…? This doesn't go anywhere near answering the question I asked 😏
As for the crime scene pointing in a particular direction, I'm not sure which direction you mean because yet again you're being somewhat obtuse and not actually stating any details.
So I ask you directly, exactly what direction does the crime scene point towards?
This was all a few days after the murder that he couldn't recollect the above events ?
So he's quite lucid and having coffee that morning after writing an article most of the nite?
Not long after he hears of the murder and then visits the scene
And he can't remember this was all the one sequence of events, the same nite>morning >day?
Are we to believe that ?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
