Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
I am suggesting that there is a lot in his diaries that could be viewed as incriminating. Why would he not destroy that too? It would be odd to remove diary entries of Sophie yet leave the rest in there when he could have simply burnt the lot.
Agree , there's a few possibilities . The posters shooting down opinions are actually the ones talking nonsense themselves as very little here is established fact.
He didn't kill her , a strong possibility depending on your viewpoint
I merely think he likely killed her
As I posted previously maybe he was hiding an interest . It didn't leave his mind at all in word or print . It happens.
Maybe the interest was mild or he only vaguely knew of her existence and it kicked off at the house.
People are not always straight up in this area .
I could preface each statement with a warning that it's a fact or just my opinion.
Or I could add AFAIK after any statement that is opinion rather than fact.
Or I could finish each post with,
"This discussion is mostly speculation and opinion"
But I won't, most on here are smart enough to know what is fact, and it gets a bit tiresome after awhile.
Anyway, just for you Tommy,
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/g-kCy3VpuhU
So maybe stop spreading HS like this as fact when it's wild speculation
"The idea that he was lying and pretending not to know her is nonsense"
Alfie and Shirley and the bolgers were thick as thieves "
"Alfie would find it difficult to contradict "
Htf would you know any of that ?
Answer is you don't
It gets tiresome for intelligent posters
Thats at least partly why I resorted to stating what is fact , opinion and imo bailey likely killed her etc.
Posters are stating nonsense such as ;
"Alfie and Shirley regularly when tending their horses. Alfie would find it difficult to contradict Leo's story about the introduction, hence the 80 -90%."
And that's merely the FIRST sample post of chooseusername i looked back at
I mean alfie said he was only 90% because of his relationship with the bolgers ? Ffs😁
At least have the decency to state it as wild speculation
There are some facts, for example there is the fact that the Gardai did remove the pages from their diary, the jobs books. Based on your opinion I would have thought this is far more incriminating on them than what Bailey MAY have done.
If I was to speculate I would say that 80-90% from Alfie is sufficient evidence for a libel case, vs a criminal case which is a much higher bar than that. He didn't want to perjure himself.
I have already stated that the garda were corrupt
Explain what you mean there ?
Would U agree with chooseusername that he deducted 10% because he was friendly with the bolgers,😁
The gardai believed they had their man
They tried to bulk up the case to secure a prosecution
I've no issue with that
“Bulk up” is another word for lie, cheat and stitch up - even the DPP in their past assessment of their work, couldn’t put it politely
Mostly correct imo
I would agree with this, however I don't think of the Gardai as a single-minded entity. I imagine there were a few people in the guards who believed he did it, and probably a few who wanted to follow proper procedure etc. in case he didn't. By the time they realised they wouldn't be able to convict Bailey (whether he did it or not), they also probably figured they wouldn't be able to convict anyone else either, and have been stuck in limbo ever since.
I just mean that Alfie probably wanted to walk the line between being able to say publicly Bailey/Sophie had been introduced, without having to say it in an actual criminal case. A lawyer would never ask someone to testify in a criminal trial at 80—90%, that is very reasonable doubt.
I'm not sure what Alfie's motivations were in all this though, it's just a kind of bizarre thing to say imo, kinda like Marie Farrell.
Agree with first paragraph
The rest of your post seems speculative
They realised they couldn't secure a prosecution , yes , a conviction i dunno ,it never reached that point
I'd assume the CCR team work with an open mind and see where the reinvestigation leads rather than focussing on who the can or can't convict
You're right, I should have said protection, they perhaps could have achieved a conviction if they got him in the dock alright.
*prosecution
Well soon find out when Sheridan's docudrama starts
Apparently he's doing a mock trial with bailey in the dock
It would all depend on the jury really, in a mock or true trial, I wonder who he's going to have 😀
If true it's a masterstroke
Based on 12 angry men. Sheridan will be juror no one, the foreman.
Bailey will be found not guilty.
And that’s a fact.
It would be interesting viewing, for sure; plenty of drama!
But I think it would be a sad mistake to focus on only one suspect to the exclusion of all others.
There are other possibilities…other suspects to investigate.
The Guards fixated on Bailey, and with some reason, initially, no doubt; but they never managed to compile even a chargeable case against him, in spite of strenuously exerting themselves - even to the point of malpractice - for years.
Other possibilities really DO need to be explored.
Sheridan can (and should) only publicly discuss Bailey or 'mystery men' for obvious reasons, same goes for everyone on here really.
I wonder what could have been written on those job book pages which the Gardai didn't want anyone to see, any ideas? I understand they were from around the time Bailey became a suspect.
Again , it's this assumption that because we didn't hear about any other suspects we think that other possibilities were not explored.
The reason we don't hear about others is more than likely because there is nothing to make them suspects.
This is incorrect, it does not imply innocence of other suspects. In fact the reason that we don't hear about other suspects in this case I would expect is that no one wants to take the risk to completely destroy someone else's life unless it is 100% certain they are guilty. There are a plethora of reasons that we don't hear about suspects in almost all police work too, it's basic level stuff.
Posted already
My assumption was that the CCR team look at other possibilities
They're not doing their job if they dont start with an open mind and simply follow the existing trail to bailey
The news reports suggested that they had focussed on bailey at some stage in the review
It's probably just a broader details about the evidence and more information on other suspects and competing theories. I don't think there would have been a 'slam dunk' on anyone at that point, just things would have opened up more possibilities than their original story.
At the end of the day, a lot of assumptions have to be made for Bailey to be guilty and the less things that point in other directions the better chance of a conviction. Doesn't mean he's innocent, just that it would be harder to prove guilt.
I believe the word "suspect" is being bandied about incorrectly here
Suspect ; " A person thought to be guilty of a crime or offence"
I believe the correct term here should be "persons of interest"
These are other persons who are potential suspects
I should amplify my post since I may have misled some…
I meant that if Jim Sheridan stages a mock trial of Mr Bailey only, he might gain viewers but this is very unlikely to be a dispassionate assessment of all the available facts that are known about the murder at the cottage.
After all, if Bailey did NOT commit the crime, well then, someone else did.
![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)