Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
For the record, I'm not. I believe that evidence is important when accusing someone of murder.
Bootprint, fingerprints, fingermarks, tire marks, DNA profile. All evidence not from Sophie found at the scene. None of which points to Bailey. But you just ignore actual physical evidence, and give out about others ignoring your opinions and speculation.
For the season that's in it 😁
This never gets old
Is there anything in particular which makes you think it was a conspiracy?
OK you're trolling.
Mod: Warned for backseat moderation
Theres been a lot of batshit crazy theories
Of course Bailey is apparently behind a lot of these theories
The horse theory, the bantry Garda theory, the drug theory
The French hitman theory would be one of the least crazy theories if not for the fact that there is absolutely no suspicion in that regard from family etc
It would make sense a French hitman using a block and pointing the finger away from the husband
Anyhow I doubt AGS took it seriously as the rumor of a French connection originated with Bailey
Bailey has some similarities with the Satchwell husband now that I think about it and we know how that has ended
"Bailey isn't a perfect fit, but he is perfect for a fit up."Make this make sense. Why exactly is he perfect for a fit up?
"Bailey isn't a perfect fit, but he is perfect for a fit up."
Make this make sense. Why exactly is he perfect for a fit up?
See post 10034
"It wasnt a question of evidence."
I stopped reading here. Please don't ever sit on a jury.
Doesnt matter. That he'd hospitalize a woman repeatedly is an insight to his lack of boundaries.
Its proof that he was mentally unstable, addicted, a recividist, lacked compassion, lacked shame.
These traits along with his narcissism are check marks, one after the other, of a murderer.
Take your list of 'how manys' and go through the probabilities.
How many men are alcoholics WITH a history of domestic violence WITH the crime scene within distance WITH presence at the scene the next morning WITH narcissistic personality disorder WITH the physical capability.
And you'll see the numbers whittle down to just 1 i'd imagine.
He makes for a very suspect individual. And if you disagree you're disagreeing with basic logic, established psychological trends, the French courts which convicted him of this crime in absentia, the local gardai.
Which is fine. Just offer a better explanation if you can, otherwise you're just a heckling non-contributer. And not worth any attention.
Mod: Warned, uncivil
It wasnt a question of evidence. The question was about how suspect Bailey looks. And the answer is incredibly suspect.
Should we go back over why hes the most suspect looking f*cker since a toddler with an empty chocolate box, or a dog sat on a chair in front of a missing roast.
If there was evidence the thread would be closed by now. Do you think people come here looking to know about the mountain of evidence. Everyone familiar with the case already knows theres insufficient evidence. You announcing it on repeat doesnt help. Maybe offer something.
…
And yet this repeat history of violence only relates to one particular woman, in the heightened atmosphere of a close domestic setting.
Where's these records, which should be many, of Bailey's rage episodes over the years, towards others… given how frequently he went to the pub?
Did he arrive suspiciously early at the crime scene? What time do you think a journalist living the area should show up at? The DPP report looked at this exact point, and didn't find anything suspicious in Bailey's arrival on the scene.
You want to list how many alcoholics were in the area? How many men with a record of violence? How many were in a pub the night before? Or just had a drink? Who possessed physical strength? You seem to think they are important points. Seems a wide net.
Bailey isn't a perfect fit, but he is perfect for a fit up.
Ok, where's the evidence?
A perfect fit for the Gardaí, a patsy. Bailey was a Persona Non Grata around the area, an outlier, a blow-in. Locals would throw him under the bus without qualms. They would circle the wagons for a local from a respected family.
Someone with a repeat history of violence/alcohol-related violence, to the point of an extended hospital stay for his wife, almost causing her permanent vision loss.
Living within 3-4km distance of the victim, arriving suspiciously early to the scene the next day. In an otherwise sparsely populated area, and putting his reason for arriving among the first to the scene down to chance.
He clearly was also a clinical definition narcissist. A trait which is statistically over-represented in homicide, and sexual homicide.
Rage episodes also being associated with this disorder. The murder details suggest rage killing.
And afaik narcissism is consistent with returning to the crime scene.
Physical strength/capability was also a factor in the crime, and again he also wouldnt be ruled out in that regard.
And someone above mentions Bailey (bad drunk and alcoholic that he was) went to the pub the night before.
If you cant see thats the perfect fit in terms of suspects then you need to tell me what is.
Yes they were incompetent or worse fabricated witness evidence etc
Does that mean they got the wrong man , wrong theory , no
I believe they have this right PROBABLY
Does the CCR team adopt the same methodology and errors as the original team , UNLIKELY
Most likely if reports are true is that the review has led them back in the direction of bailey
The Gardaí were seriously incompetent in this case. That's true. That doesn't mean they were wrong in thinking it was Bailey. Their incompetence probably saved him from years in prison. We don't have a whole pile of evidence because of the botched investigation. What we do have points to Bailey with possible assistance from Jules.
The only alternatives we've heard are some mad conspiracies about drug barons, horny Gardaí or an incompetent hitman. Ludicrous stuff. And the only defence of Bailey appears to be some people sticking their fingers in their ears trying to ignore everything pointing at him.
Anything is possible as we don't know who killed her or the events that lead to her death or even time of death
The idea of a random caller/burglar is unlikely as is a dispute at the gate leading to this savage killing
Most likely is a person who knew of her presence and took an interest in this French lady and the initial late nite encounter led to a rage killing.
All speculation, but you have to look at what occured here and who the the victim was .
You can look at the lady dead at the gate and say we don't know anything therefore anything is possible but the available information leads to a determination of what likely occured as it most likely did with the investigating gardai
Now , did they try to manipulate the case to secure a prosecution . Yes they did .
The scratches are proof positive of nothing on their own. The family unit say they were there on the evening before the murder. It is a very specific thing to remember that there were scratches present on the evening of the 22nd when they were in his company throughout the Christmas period when the scratches were evident. Bailey went to the pub that night and played the bodhrán and nobody remembered seeing any scratches except a barman who remembered a mark on one hand, a description that isn`t reconcilable with what was evident on both hands after the murder. Just because he had scratches doesn`t mean Sophie scratched him. She had no DNA under her fingernails. The scratches would have come from the briars and they seem to have been similar (based on Garda drawings) to those that were present on Sophie`s arms in post mortem photos.
The Fiesta was examined after the murder, but that was when things were a bit more primitive. There`s a possibility, because of advances, that DNA might now be recovered from the block that was used by the killer and that would apply to the car too if it was still around. Sophie`s DNA in the Fiesta would be as damning as Bailey`s on the block. Unfortunately I doubt the Gardaí had the foresight to preserve the car, in part because they got it into their heads that he walked over there, based on Marie Farrells story.
I mean can you find even 1 post where i said he was guilty.
I can wait.
” Sophie didn’t scratch her killer “ . I thought that the scratches on Baileys hands were proof positive that he did it ??
Surely the Fiesta was examined at the time and nothing was found on it or in it ? I wouldn’t be praising the Gardai for their efforts in this case but judging by some of the posts here , you would have to wonder how they solved any case until the advent of DNA !!!
We can go round on this
..Bailey is the self confessed chief suspect
..The random caller/burglar theory is possible but not likely
.. We don't know that the CCR team are making the same mistakes as the original investigation team . Any suggestion of same is wild irresponsible speculation
No, seriously, I'd like to hear why Bailey is supposedly a perfect fit for the person (or persons) who murdered Sophie and why he and not someone else.
Anyone who is an oddball and has a history of domestic violence is a murderer, apparently. Oh, and they only murder just the once. Then it's out of their system.
Bailey just happens to be the perfect fit.
How So?
"it might not have been bailey."
Finally...
So the sum total of your posts is that actually it might not have been bailey.
Well no sht.
Bailey just happens to be the perfect fit. So youll have to either tolerate people focusing on him, or come up with a better suspect.
I dont think youll find one.
"Theres no hard evidence lads"
Well, there is. She didn't suddenly vanish. There was evidence from the murder scene. But none of it points to Bailey. That's the part that some of you can't accept.
Its gas posters pontificating on mistakes the CCR team are alleged to have made
All we know is the review is now supposedly focussed on bailey and building the case according to media
Now that does not mean that the CCR team don't know their job and ruled out everything except Bailey from the start
If I hear different I'll be the first to say they are not doing their job
My assumption is a CCR team know their job and go in with fresh eyes
Anything else is not a cold case review
There was a full moon, so it wasn`t dark. He wouldn`t have been under pressure time wise and it`s possible that the killer took the time to go up to the house after the murder because there was blood smudging on the back door. The crime scene wasn`t meticulous. There were footprints (unfortunately footwear was disposed of in the bonfire). But it was outdoors so no fingerprints. One of the forensics team said in a recent documentary that he required a teaspoon of blood back then. Finding DNA on a thorn was needle in a haystack probability in 1996.
Sophie didn`t scratch her killer which means she was probably initially incapacitated by a weapon of some sort. All in all I would have said that the killer may have been a little fortunate that he left no DNA behind but it isn`t surprising. Bailey may have been a little unfortunate with the bonfire but he had little option, it did it`s job and needs must.
I would like to know what became of Bailey`s big "thinking stick". He was seen with it in Schull on the Saturday before the murder and his old buddy Bill Fuller was apparently looking for it down at Kealfadda afterwards so it appears to have disappeared at some time in between. I would also wonder what became of Jules`s Fiesta and think that the Gardaí should have made efforts to get possession of it when Jules disposed of it. I think it is likely that Sophie`s DNA was on one or the other of those two objects.
Very low quality post
Where is the evidence that the CCR team discounted a random caller
There isn't any
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
