the DNA is viable, the only issue with it, from the cops perspective, is that it doesnt match ian baileys.
it also doesnt match anyone in the system and back then they wouldnt have had cops dna on the system (to rule them out in forensics). so the killer is most likely a one time criminal and most likely dead. the missing evidence and jobs books makes it look like it was a cop
What was the supposed motive or reason for Bailey to kill her? Was there an affair alleged or an attempted sexual assault ?
Donāt be telling art that. Heāll explode bailey like.
What about the guards actually finding his sinister long black overcoat, with no incriminating evidence, yet suggesting to everyone that he burned it in the fire?
Presumably that he was a proven violent man against women.
I think what they suspect may have happened is Bailey had his eye on her. This beautiful Parisian who was a rose in the midst of nettles in comparison to some of the uneducated boorish locals. The story goes that he had plenty of whiskey and on drive home he scouted her place across the bay. He noted to his partner that he could see Alfie Lyons house which was right next door to STDP. He might have wanted to see was there a light on or was there any activity. He supposedly left the bedroom according to Jules Thomas around 2-3 in the morning and she didnāt see him again until 9am next morning when he brought her coffee. Bailey said he got up to finish an article that was due Monday morning. He may have wanted to recite some of his poetry that he carried around with him to STDP and she may have rejected him or belittled it which sent him into a rage. His 3 violent assaults on his partner were alcohol induced as well and he hospitalised her. The attack on STDP had similar head injuries. It was a crime of opportunity and passion really and not premeditated like a hitman. I dont know the modus operandi of a hitman but I doubt they rely on a concrete block being nearby to carry out a murder. The Garda involvement is a total red herring and based on total conjecture perpetuated by Gemma o Doherty. That tells you all you need to know.
The cops still seem clueless as to what actually happened when Sophie was killed.
The house seemed in perfect order, there was evidence on Sophieās blood on the outside door of the house and the attack took place at the gate. She was wearing night clothes with boots thrown on it appeared.
Given the lack of upheaval in the house it was appear that there was no disturbance there as you would expect with an unwanted romantic move that would cause her to run. Another theory is that she opened the gate for someone who attacked her there and then. But how would her blood, and her blood only, get on the door of the house?
The carry on around this part of the investigation is very strange and suspicious if you ask me. Sheridan had to go looking for a report on the fingerprints analysis which cleared Bailey but had a set of unknown prints detected - it wasnāt supplied to the DPP but to the French trial!! Whatās that about?
Something doesnāt add up in terms of what happened and the guards are right in the middle of it in terms of potential suppression and framing. I really hope they did it to cover up their own utter fuck ups rather than covering up what they know actually happened.
ive already calmly explained how wrong johnny is.
its more than likely to be an unassuming fella that murdered her that exploded in a one off, never before seen type of rage. most people owuld probably say hes a pillar of the community
so flatty, where were you on the night of December 23rd, 1996 ?
I sold a brick to an English oddball down in cork.
so you were in west cork and had access to something that couldve been used as a murder weapon. ()means and opportunity
all we need now is a motiveā¦
Why then was not an trace of Bailey detected at the scene?
Nothing.
Covered in the oddball bit.
I didnāt have it. I sold it.
but everyone in cork is an oddball, so by extension youre an oddball. fair enough
after the fact
Were two wine glasses on the sink evidence that she had had company ?
She could have used both.
Again - surely fingerprints could have been taken from them? But nothing.
sure they only founf the wine bottle 4 months afterwards, and even then, it disappeared from garda evidence
We are talking about the mid 90ās here. Iām not sure those guards would have ever investigated a murder scene. Its widely accepted that they fucked up from the very beginning. So to answer your question how can you find trace of someone if you dont know how to collect or preserve evidence. We cannot rely on evidence because it was a botch job. And besides Bailey was one of first to arrive on the scene and duly contaminated it. Quite how Bailey arrived on the scene miraculously enough having had very limited information is another thing. He got a tip off from paper he was working for that there had been a murder of a woman. Some vague details around 1.40. Then at 2 pm he said he watched RTE news and saw that a foreign national woman had been killed. He said he pulled into local post office to find out more but this is refuted by witness testimony. It is highly dubious that he watched the news, got his camera and other bits and gleaned exactly where to go. The timeline doesnāt allow for much deviation. It just seems implausible.
what part of no bailey forensic at the scene are you struggling with? (Ref DPP report)