Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

Alison Day was murdered near Hackney Wick railway station in 1985.

13 different samples of fibre were lifted from her clothing, all of which could be traced to clothing owned by her attacker, John Duffy.

This was 10 years before Sophie died.

And Alison's body had been submerged in a river for two weeks.

So no, its not unrealistic to expect that Sophie's murderer would have left some detectable traces. And the technology/processes did exist to isolate and identify.

How do you account for the almost miraculous feat of detailed recollection IB had when he just found out his alibi was rumbled by his own partner though? IB suddenly remembered he got up to write an article downstairs, and then (conveniently covering all bases) remembered he also actually left the house for some indeterminate length of time in the middle of the night. His account of leaving the house has differed significantly, sometimes he left in the dark to go to write, sometimes he says it was the next morning after it got light.

No, there were 50 distinct wounds identified in the PM report.

It didn't happen in 30 seconds. And, it is worth noting, not only were no incriminating traces found at the scene, none were found on Bailey's clothing either.

Its simply not possible for an attack of this nature to occur without some trace remaining.

I refer you, once again, to Locard's principle. "The perpetrator of a crime will bring something into the crime scene and leave with something from it"

There comes a point, where piling improbability on top of improbability, if on top of if, maybe on top of maybe, becomes absurd. To posit that a drunken man would walk three miles, in the middle of a cold December night, to attack and murder a woman that he didn't know, for no reason, in a frenzied barrage of blows with a concrete block, and contrive to leave no trace whatsoever, anywhere, is stretching it. It is possible - but it is only, just, possible

Even the circumstantial evidence, such as it is, is tenuous.

Correct. Apart from the unidentified blood found on Sophie's shoe, and of course, any fingerprints, fibres, DNA traces which may have existed on the missing gate and on the 21 (yes, 21) other exhibits lost by the Gardai. Including Bailey's coat, which, had he been wearing it at the time, would have, inevitably picked up some blood spatters.

There were traces.

And there were exhibits taken from the scene, from the house, from the locality and from Bailey. Some or all of which may have had traces.

Unfortunately, all, with the exception of a bloodstain (unidentified male DNA) were lost by the Gardai.

The were bloodstains on the gate. I don't know whether there were fingerprints on it or not, but it would be, I suggest, odd for there to be no fingerprints whatsoever on a gate like this...how was it moved?

His coat was seized and subsequently lost, by the Gardai, that is on record.

The last comment, like much of the "evidence" is speculative.

No skin cells on the concrete block, no DNA traces on Sophie or her clothing ( apart from the unidentified male bloodstain) No fibres, no hairs, no blood, no saliva, no hairs.

Nothing. If there had been, even the tiniest most tenuous, physical element to link Baily to the crime, the Guards would have found it.

I agree that the AGS performance was unacceptable.

The only question is, was it "cock up" or conspiracy?

One error/oversight - it happens, two - bad luck /sods law, three - hang on, what's happening here, 4,5,6 - fur fox sake get a grip 7,8,9 - sound the fire alarm.

The GSOC report, timid and partial as it was, detailed approx 170 such "errors and omissions"

That’s quite a lengthy and largely irrelevant rationalisation, let’s get back to the facts. Bailey was arrested on the 10th of February 1997. He is interviewed by Dermot Dwyer. Bailey is told a witness saw him at Kealfadda Bridge around 3am. Bailey said the witness must be mistaken because he was in bed all night.

While still under interrogation Jules is brought it separately and said IB got out of bed and came back in the next morning with a cut on his forehead that wasn’t there the night before. She makes no mention of him writing a story or having to have one in the next day, despite telling later interviewers that he showed her the story that he spent all night writing. When this is put to IB he contradicts totally what he had said just minutes or hours earlier, that he did in fact get out of bed and had even left the house.

There are multiple points of reference that Bailey had for that night, he played music in the bar, he had mentioned in earlier statements getting out of the car to look at the moon on the way home. The murder happened that night, he apparently pulled an “all nighter” to get a story written, he believed the story was due in the next day but found out it actually wasn’t. Yet you believe it’s plausible he forgot pulling an all-nighter to write a story for which he believed he had a known, fixed date to have in on the next day. A murder also happened that night.

I think you are either being extraordinarily naive or extremely generous in making allowances for his lack of alibi and for previously giving a false one.

I’m not trying to ridicule your attempt to explain this away, but it’s not a case of accounts differing in detail, they are totally incompatible with each other.