Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
there were some footprints/bootprints that I don’t know if ever found the person they belonged to. Bridget would probably know if they did.
I recall they werent the same size as Baileys.
Hence we have heard very little of it.
Tunnel vision investigation if ever there was.
I happened across this webpage when looking up some statistics it might be quite interesting for readers on here, and probably could help either side of the opinion on Bailey depending on your pov (statistics are more for UK, but presumably pretty similar in Ireland).
https://news.sky.com/story/off-limits-who-is-most-likely-to-kill-you-11734990
89% of women killed by someone they knew
>80% killed in, or around their home
>50% killed in an overly violent manner (overkill)
Seems like the circumstances of Sophie's murder, statistically anyway, are not an outlier at all, in fact fairly typical
Except we don't know whether she knew her attacker or not.
I said it already .
He'll have a new angle they all do to get the viewership
Alternatively this mock trial he's supposedly doing with Bailey in the dock may be a cliffhanger thing waiting on the theoretical verdict
A who shot JR job
I don't know
What difference does anything make ?
I suppose that's what we're discussing or theorizing here
What exactly happened that day/nite
Nobody else except Alfie claims there was an association ?
That is patently false or an outright lie on your part
I'm always open to being corrected.
All your questions are easily answered and an alternative viewpoint taken to yours
I cannot be bothered as your simply regurgitating questions I have answered
I'll take your question on the emotional connection
An emotional connection can easily be formed by certain obsessive people . They may see someone or be aware of them and it spirals in their head
It's all an illusory connection. It's not real
It happens
Anyway the bailey mafia are out in full force to shoot down anyone who sees different so thats me for now
Anyone can claim anything, there's no evidence. In any case statistically it makes no difference whether he knew her well, or knew her in passing.
Oh I won't be doing it for you
This was covered and from memory there was multiple persons stating there was an association or a likely association
OK.
From memory, none of them recalled that at the time. Their memories \ recollections were either vague or strangely precise. Miraculous memories.
No one else can corroborate these "witnesses" mentioning it at the time of the murder \ initial arrest of Bailey, which is remarkable. It would have been the talk of the town, yet no one remembers Alfie or Leo Bolger telling them oh yeah of course Bailey knew Sophie. The French 'witnesses' are even less credible.
And nobody reported seeing Bailey alone with Sophie, not one piece of correspondence found, not one piece of actual evidence.
In fairness if they are interviewing new witnesses, that in itself is a significant development. A lot of people had thought they might just respin the same story and go down the same list of evidence and witnesses. They still might come out with the same story of course, but there is definitely more information out there, cold cases are often solved by jolting someone who wasn't necessarily talked to originally, or got things mixed up before. Also they do have that DNA evidence to revisit, which people are quick to dismiss for whatever reason.
You have not answered why you believe Bailey would lie about knowing Sophie at a party months before the murder. It does not make sense to me, so why does it make sense to you?
Nothing in Bailey's extensive personal writings either. Much is made of the horrific stuff he wrote in his personal journals, yet he wrote nothing about knowing Sophie. No perverted ramblings about her, that is just odd. Of course an alternative explanation is that he didn't know her, as stated at the party months before the murder.
Yes, Occam's razor.
The theory which requires fewest assumptions is most likely the correct one.
On all the key, substantial issues, Bailey is out of the picture.
No evidence that he knew her, no motive, no evidence of his presence at the scene.
Having said that, there is precious little evidence to implicate anyone.
And that's one of the reasons why I don't think Bailey did it… the Guards were all over him, fair means and foul… and all they could drum up with dodgy witnesses and weak circumstantial evidence.
He did know of her, and knew her "just to see" according the poster at the party in the Summer before the murder.
yes he definitely knew who she was and that her husband was a film director, because according to the poster he droned on about French film afterwards. It’s all in the original post on murder in the cottage. The poster of the comments does not appear to be active on here anymore.
Already answered post 7456 but sure keep repeating the question anyway
It was established here months ago that there was 4-5 (from memory) accounts of him knowing or likely knowing Sophie
That will be shot down of course and I'm not going looking back
You stated, "Alternatively he may he have simply lied and been low balling his knowledge of Sophie which I believe he did anyway subsequent to the murder".
You have yet to state WHY you believe he would do that months BEFORE the murder. I am not sure how I can make my question any clearer?
It seems likely that they had been introduced. Or she was pointed out, at a party. Or both.
All accounts seem to point to that vague sort of knowledge that one has of someone in the neighbourhood but who one doesn't really "know"
Bailey definitely did know Alfie Lyons, and did some gardening work for him from time to time. Only natural that Alfie should briefly introduce them if she had dropped across there on one of her visits. Perhaps the party was before that incident? These are brief and vague points of contact…and nobody has EVER shown that Ian and Sophie ever had any other acquaintance than this - in spite of strenuous attempts.
1st thing
Alfie said he was 90% he introduced them and there a was a few more witnesses
On your question, do you have a link to that post or anything where he stated he didn't know her so i can assess that independently ?
On the assumption that he did say that and why would he lowball knowing her
I assumed that he may have formed an interest and wished to conceal his interest.
People do this all the time , they don't tell you everything they're thinking
And as I stated previously 3 months before the murder. Maybe he simply didn't know her at that time
He may have simply seen her on the street later and became aware of her , took an interest and showed up at house
That may be all it took to pique the interest and he turns up at the house that night
As I believe likely happened
Alternatively he didn't kill her and persons unknown did
I lean to bailey mostly because I believe the garda theory is the correct one,someone showed up that nite.
I believe bailey was lying. I believe he's a liar.
There's also questionable evidence pointing in his direction
Am I convinced he killed her . No
For the sake of my eyes as purely a reader of this thread, can you continue to spell NIGHT correctly please as you did in the first line.
Seeing nite consistently is very irritating to read.
No
I deliberately use the Americanism. I prefer it.
It's not that I can't spell
Languages evolve and quickly.
There is no dispute that Alfie said he had introduced them. It is however disputed whether he actually did or she was merely pointed out. It was 18 months prior to the murder. This is what Alfie said in Murder at the Cottage.
"I could remember it, and yet memory is such an elusive thing that you can't always be sure what you're remembering is what happened. I could only say that I remembered it. I was 90 percent sure that that was what happened."
He doesn't sound 90 percent sure to me. In fact at the libel trial he stated "80 or 90 percent".
What does it matter anyway? Even if introduced them and Bailey simply has a different memory of something that was trivial at the time, it still does not mean Bailey knew her other than by sight.
The party post is on this forum, I do not have a link to it, perhaps others do.
You assume that he may have formed an interest? So why was this not written in his extensive private journals? Why is there nothing at all about Sophie had he became aware of her?
I assume
If your assertion actually happened
May have formed an interest
If he was lying and knew her
Note the lack of definites
This is all theorising, I'm not stating anything definitively as I don't know
But why make an assumption in the first place? On what basis do you make that assumption?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
