Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
But I'm sure you'll agree that talking to a patient in person is better than reading their diary. Even if you won't admit it here.
So theres basically no reason to believe in a garda conspiracy.
That was one avenue I'd wondered about but it seems completely illogical now.
I mean theres no hard evidence.
And many who didn't also…
With access to criminal history, court recordings, hospital records, a large quantity of private diaries, police interview records, public interviews, a professional could diagnose a mental disorder.
And 3 of them did. In 2 separate teams. On 2 separate occasions.
With at least 1 Irish judge describing him, in court, as a violent man.
Maybe for a normal person there is no apparent motive. But Bailey saw the world through the eyes of a narcisstic mental disorder, with alcoholism and regular drug use too.
That is the requirement. Not just a conspiracy involving gardaí either but also multiple locals who in the intervening years marched into court and repeated their initial statements.
The gardai don't prosecute crimes, they bring forward to the DPP for prosecution. By focusing on Bailey they eliminated the chance to prosecute anyone else. Any information released on others would create a public witch hunt, on potentially someone else who is innocent. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Which of the three times that the DPP determined there wasn't evidence for a prosecution do you mean? Did the DPP get it wong evry time?
I dont know.
Is it a garda conspiracy?
"Theres a science for diagnosing mental disorders"
Which involves talking to the patient usually.
By 3 shrinks that never actually met him.
Theres a science for diagnosing mental disorders, and they followed it.
Do you think that they were lying? Putting their life long credentials on the table, in the public sphere. For their peers and authorities to destroy? To invite public ridicule?
Do you think maybe you know better than they did?
Quite a few people on this thread has stated something to the effect of "Bailey is guilty. It's a fact."
Has a single person said something like "Bailey is innocent. It's a fact."?
I don't think anyone has. All we are asking for is a bit of evidence or substance to the claims that it's a "fact" that he is guilty.
But we are the unreasonable ones, apparently.
"It would be good to of any other suspects, but unfortunately theres little detail on other possible ways this crime could have been committed. Bailey eats up all the limelight, probably because he fits the crime so perfectly."
Know?
Do you know of any other suspects that might have the means, motive and opportunity? Why is there so little detail on them, do you think?
"I didn`t even read the rest of your post"
No surprise there.
Motive is possible but there were far more logical motives that don't require multiple assumptions to be made.
Means, probably 90% of the adult males in the vicinity, and perhaps more than 50% of the adult females could have carried out the crime.
In terms of logistics, since the gardai say it was around a 2-3 hour round trip, anyone within 3 hours drive of the crime could have committed it, which opens up perhaps half the country.
Opportunities. I don't know of any alibi in the vicinity that would be solid.
"Just cos you can`t see it is of little consequence."
I have nothing to do with it. The fact remains that no sufficient evidence was ever found to even bring Bailey to trial. That's the only fact that matters.
I didn't even read the rest of your post.
Just cos you can`t see it is of little consequence. Don`t go thinking that just because you have found a small cluster of like minds online that you are part of a microcosm where your view is expressive of the majority.
Was it yourself that was on about the 99000 odd kms of roadway in Ireland recently? Did you never stop to consider that the lane way leading to Sophie`s house probably amounts to about one of those kms and that on the the night she was murdered, a woman beater(who didn`t mind using a weapon when he was dishing out his beatings), who lived a mile or so up the road from that laneway, who had expressed desires in his diary to murder multiple people, told his partner that he wanted to go up that laneway, then got out of his bed and disappeared for several hours, turned up in the morning with a least one fresh scratch on him, went on to take all the actions in the following couple of days that a murderer who needed to dispose of bloodied clothing would take and then went on to tell people he committed the murder afterwards.
That one km of roadway out of your 99000 odd. What are the odds? Yet here you are and a few others like you bleating "no evidence". Dream on.
His mental disorder...
As diagnosed by a shrink that never actually met him? 🙄
I dont know about that. (no motive)
I think there is over-emphasis on Bailey, yes, fair enough. But also good reason to believe that he had means, motive, and opportunity.
Means: the physical capability, and his close proximity. Which shouldnt be underestimated, a lot of people simply couldn't have committed this crime out of logistics and weak physicality. Instantly huge numbers of people look a whole lot less suspicious. Not Bailey though.
Motive: I've tried to explain this previously. His mental disorder is exactly the type associated with this victim.
Opportunity: His alibi is dubious and has changed on occasion.
There is indeed no physical evidence against Bailey, thats been repeated all too often. But we can still at least suspect without evidence, thats how most investigations start out - you wouldnt have any investigation without suspicion first.
But as far as I can see he had means, motive, and opportunity.
It would be good to have details of any other suspects, but unfortunately theres little detail on other possible ways this crime could have been committed. Bailey eats up all the limelight, probably because he fits the crime so perfectly.
There is flimsy circumstantial debateable evidence but no actual positive evidence Bailey committed the murder.
No motive.
No forensics.
No witnesses.
Nothing putting Bailey at the scene.
No explanations for other items found at the scene such as boot prints, DNA, thre tracks.
Which equals in short:
There is no evidence Bailey committed the murder.
I find it helps when commenting to clarify that one is posting only about suspicion, rather than attributing guilt to any particular person.
This disclaimer can help to prevent the predictable repeat posting of there being no hard evidence.
You're allowed to suspect, and theorize. This is a place for speculation.
What facts? All you have are assumptions!
If it's so factual and obvious, etc, why can't it be proven in a non show trial setting?
The most repeated one liner on this thread is "no evidence" Bailey committed this murder. You say it regularly. It is a clear denial of factual reality.
From this post, and 'chooseusername's post all Im seeing is that she had plenty of social contact in a small town. Even if largely passing/superficial.
Theres no hiding a wealthy and socially prominent background in such a place. These responses have only shown that the basic details were almost definitely out about her. A local woman housekeeper, that alone may as well be a megaphone in a church. Do you know what aul-ones do? … they gossip.
The contents in chooseusernames link are humorous in a way because they show the compendium of petty little details which get stored away by typical small town locals.
"Alfie Lyons and Shirley Foster and her own housekeeper, who all confirmed that we (she?) came with a number of different male companions."
"In Crookhaven, Publican Billy O’Sullivan and his son Dermot knew her for two years. They both spoke fluent French."
So a mutual contact point for the greater west Cork area conversed with her in her language over two years.
Do you think maybe he knew she was married to a famous film director? Could that maybe have come up in conversation once or twice? Possibly passing it on as he spent his working life with a bar full of small town folks.
Yet some seem to doubt that her fancy rich background was known locally. Come on. Anybody who wanted to know who she was undoubtedly knew.
Oh yes and Bailey was a small town journalist, lived within walking distance and knew her immediate neighbor.
My opinion which I'm entitled to just like you. You clearly don't agree with it but that's life, not everyone is going to agree with you unless they all get banned and you are left with similar thinking posters, anyway I'm done here, this should have been closed long ago, no one has anything new to offer and it's possible never will, good bye.
Of course youre welcome to share your opinion. But do you actually have anything of substance to share?
Im just expressing my opinion, I thought that was allowed.
So your approach to discussing this tragic case is to repeat old tropes and throw out one liner nonsense? Do you actually have nothing of substance to offer us?
Mistakes were made, that's why there wasn't enough evidence
The evidence gathered and put forward by AGS to the DPP was unable to withstand the slightest level of scrutiny. Pick anyone else in the area and I'm sure you could gather similar amounts of flimsy evidence against them.
What we do know in terms of evidence is that the approach used by AGS appears to be compromised. With pages torn from the jobs book and evidence gone missing, along with allegations of witness tampering, it was always unlikely that Bailey would have seen the inside of an Irish courtroom!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
