Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
So no issue then I take it
All too easily shot down- and that’s been the problem for the last nearly 30 years now - just on one of those pieces of so called evidence - “did he know her?”- not one person is 100% certain they even met once no less “knew her”- not one person. And that makes it just all so unbelievable that he would march up to her door at stupid o clock looking for sex- it’s not even a feicing theory it’s so bad - it’s just balderdash 😀
I quoted a case in America previously on this thread where a loner man was found guilty of multiple murders of women over a period of time and states - he singled them out from a distance and murdered each one in a similar fashion - so it’s possible this murder could have happened that way- but it’s so bloody unlikely it was Bailey that did it in that way - unless he was a serial murderer- but that would then need the assistance of the UK police
It is a balderdash theory that "he marched up to her door looking for sex"
The only people saying it are the pro bailey mob
Total red herring
He was so horny, he marched across the countryside in total darkness and murdered someone with a giant rock, leaving no trace of physical evidence.
But apparently his libido dropped massively after that night and he never did it again.
Is that the theory?
🙄
Again with the "pro-Bailey" sh1te!
Do you have an issue with circumstancial evidence
You've replied twice without answering this time with 😌 whatever that means
Leaving no trace of physical evidence?…no one did and she was still murdered by someone…
I already got shot down once on this but he was also clearly a malignant narcissist. She was someone of relative notoriety for the area at the time. A narcissist could want to hang around in the rarefied air. She was an artist, he fancied himself an artist. He knew she was there alone. I was shot down on the notion that she was of relative notoriety with suggestions the locals didn't know who she was but thats not true. There were locals interviewed in the documentary who talked about her and for Bailey's faults, the man was a journalist, he would have been in the know more than most. Not to mention it was suggested that Alfie told Bailey about her.
Id say bailey knew plenty about Sophie . Fancied himself as someone who would be of interest to her
As you say he had an inflated view of himself and drink taken
No suggestion or evidence that he went looking specifically for the ride that nite
Nope but the DPP clearly does with what they were given in order to bring Bailey to trial.
The "evidence" collated by AGS was a massive load of crap and pointed only towards a shoddy investigation. You were the one to introduce Lucy Letby, who was convicted in a completely different jurisdiction with stronger circumstantial evidence (despite its flaws) but please don't let that stop you posting your nonsense!
I didn't! I responded with 🙄 because if I didn't know better, you're trying to troll anyone who claims that it should be wholly an evidence based approach (without dodgy police practices) unlike the original investigation which appears tonbe completely based on target fixation! But as trolling is against the rules, I presume this is not the case
Finally got there
You're saying you don't have an issue with CE
It wasn't at all clear up to now
I'm unsure why you'd think that. Many murder cases have seen convictions based on circumstancial evidence.
However, the circumstantial evidence put forward by AGS to support their belief that Bailey murdered Sophie was unbelievably poor to the point that the DPP's office made the unprecedented point of publishing their rubbishing of every piece of evidence put forwards in a manner that took a scathing blow at the entire AGS case.
So I'm at a loss as to why you think you've scored a point by me saying how I may not have an issue with circumstancial evidence
Jaysus this was my query on this if you have an issue with circumstancial evidence or not
There was physical evidence. We've been over this. But no evidence that Bailey murdered her. That's the part that ye just can't get into your minds. It's just impossible for some reason.
He said he murdered Sophie on a number of occasions. He lied about his whereabouts on the night of the murder. His whereabouts can't be backed up by anyone for a number of hours on the night. He gained new injuries on the night of the murder. He burnt a number of items behind his house soon after the murder. He had a history of being extremely physically abusive and sexually inappropriate to women. He stated a believable motive for the murder.
For the reasons above and others, Bailey has been the leading suspect in this case and it looks like the cold case team also see him as the leading suspect. But for some reason you think you know better?
All I know is:
Can you change either of those statements?
You ignored this part of my post:
So no hard evidence then. We're in agreement.
All of which the DPP's report rubbished.
Why do you refuse to counteract any of the below?
Maybe I am mistaken then but from what I read in the Irish Times, they were unable to get a proper sample off the gate or rocks - or at least a proper sample for the technology used for analyzing the samples at the time. Their DNA testing was inconclusive as a result but they were hoping to reanalyze again with more advanced technology as part of the latest investigation.
Bailey claimed there was DNA found that was not his or Sophie's but that was not stated by the investigators or confirmed, it was just stated by Bailey. All of that to say, it does not suggest the DNA evidence definitively said it was not Bailey just that it could not be used at the time to identify anyone. There was physical evidence but none that could be used to identify any culprit at the time.
What is definitively true - the Gardaí made an absolute shite of the investigation and of preserving the crime scene. The state pathologist also had a lot to answer for.
(You clearly can't, I'll leave it there as you just don't seem to get it.)
Ok, so no evidence for Bailey. Agreed.
He seemed to intentionally put himself in the frame and keep himself there…because he was a malignant narcissist. Plenty of circumstantial evidence but need more than that to convict. I can understand why the DPP didn't bring a case forward.
Yes, never said there was DNA evidence but also not daft enough to suggest Bailey definitely did not murder her just due to an absence of conviction by the Irish justice system that fluffed the investigation. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out he had nothing to do with it but also wouldn't be surprised if it turns out, he was the murderer.
Oh yes and hopefully the new team are sorting that out but the circumstantial evidence pointing in his direction can't be disputed and it's why he has always been the leading suspect, rightfully.
According to Maloney the bailey case wasn't wasn't handled by the DPP himself but an aggressive jobsworth type who had beef with the DPP office
Apparently this is the way the office worked .Cases were shared out and this helps explain why the case was dismissed in the manner it was
Anecdotal but as worthy of mention as most of the rubbish that gets posted here
Mod Edit: Poster warned for trolling and baiting
Covered this a thousand times already.. Do please try and keep up with the thread:
There is a reason why the DPP threw the case against Bailey out. Basically, it's because there is not one iota of evidence against him to back it up - It really is that simple.
I haven't a clue if Bailey killed her or not? He might well have done for all I know? However, the evidence is not there to support such a conclusion.
There is more circumstantial evidence against Alfie Lyons being the murderer than it being Ian Bailey, and I don't think it was him either.
All debatable on memory loss
Was it actually several weeks before he was quizzed on his whereabouts . I thought it was sooner
Bailey was allegedly too drunk to stumble over to Sophie's , if in fact he walked
Yet he was well fit to remember his pressing newspaper article and get up to write it that nite
Article conveniently left on kitchen table for his alibi with Jules that morning
So that nite of the murder he was up writing and then I believe discussed the murder with Jules that morning with the new scratch on his head
Then he was off to the crime scene and a busy day ahead
Yet he somehow forgets all this and these events shortly after
Everything with Bailey is supposedly easily explained away if you choose to do so
The accounts of them having met
Ah alfie sure he was only 90% sure in court !
The confessions, sure he didn't mean it !
You're trying to minimise all of the above but you're failing miserably. As we saw in the McGregor case recently, the DPP are not infallible. The cold case team are assessing everything, they have looked at Alfie Lyons, they have looked at all the other conspiracy theories and it looks like they have come to the conclusion that it most likely was Bailey who committed the murder. Maybe you should send them a link to this thread and tell them to keep up.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
