Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

Continuing on to the dump just 4 hours after finding a dead body is weird alright, but I think it says more about the laisse-faire attitude of the police early on than it does about Shirley.

Have a look at the interview with Shirley in the French Documentary linked below and see if you think she is in your opinion the type to cover up a brutal murder, it starts about 35 mins in;

I agree Alfie and Shirley probably knew more than we think they knew.

We don't know to what extent they were investigated by the Gardai, but they were obviously eliminated on some grounds.

Alfie admitted using the house for water in the past but it was not Sophie's place then.

It has never been established that Alfie used Sophie's bath, it was a suggestion made by Josie Hellen that Alfie got in through an unlocked window.

(There was no love lost between Alfie and the Hellens, so was this an attempt at deflection)

This led to Sophie changing the door locks suggesting Sophie must have thought otherwise and entry was by the door.

I would suggest whoever used her bath would have good knowledge of her house - power, water, boiler etc. and also had access to the keys.

The difference in the treatment of Bailey and Alfie was probably down to Alfie telling the truth and sticking to it from day one, whereas Bailey didn't.

All that said, I do agree that Alfie and Shirley knew more than they said. I don't know how or why the Guards eliminated them as suspects and never considered revisiting them as potential suspects later on. It would be hard to believe that they both heard or noticed absolutely nothing that night, unless the luck was totally in favour of the murderer. Like he knocked her unconscious without warning, Sophie not making a sound etc...

Regarding Shirley's trip to the dump I'd say that's genuine and honest even though it gives a lot of thought. If she was going to the dump to get rid of any real murder evidence, she could easily have transported the body, or together with Alfie they could have disposed off the body in the sea, thrown Sophie over the cliffs. etc... They would also have known the area intimately, known which cliffs, which parts of the coast, etc...

If done so, they could have done that while it was still dark, say at 5 or 6 am, and that without any potential witnesses, also the Richardsons were not there. It would also have been more than a while until the body was discovered. I think anybody would have noticed something strange by 10 am, caretaker not getting an answer, husband in France trying to call, later on, not showing up for a flight, not returning the rental car, 24 hours and everybody knew Sophie was definitely missing.

The murderer having 24 hours advantage, plus the body may still not have been found. 48 hours later, maybe they found her, after drifting in water, washed ashore somewhere. Forensics having an even harder time to establish time of murder and absolutely no evidence connecting murderer to victim.

If Alfie and Shirley did it, I'd say chances are high they'd gotten rid of the body as well.

The fact that they were only 2 people close by that night should have meant they were treated as chief suspects iniatally. Based on what happened the morning of the discovery of the body indicates they were not treated as suspects by the Gardai which is strange. The facts also still remain that:

• The trip to the dump may have been an innocent trip but she should not have been allowed to go at all - thats the important point. Why couldnt it have waited? Why did Shirley still want to proceed to the dump given that she should have been shook up? There is always going to be that doubt there as to what she was disposing of. Given she was allowed go on her dump trip at lunchtime means there is no way the gardai checked out the rubbish in detail or that something wasnt concealed in her car.
• Shirleys car should have remained at the scene
• Why didnt Sophie run toward her neighbours house and scream her head off - she was more likely to get their attention and possibly her attacker may have been scared off. Now she probably wasnt able to think this out and just ran and maybe it was easier to run the other way. But again this raises doubts against her neighbours
• Both Alfie and Shirley didnt think that the body could be Sophie. Now I get that they didnt look closely at the body - thats understandable but based on the size of the body ( Sophie was a small lady), the hair colour and given that she was their only neighbour how could they not have considered that it could be Sophie. They could argue that they didnt know Sophie was at the house but they lived so close to her house that it would be impossible not to notice that she was staying there - car parked outside and lights on in the house.
• Not hearing anything - their house didnt seem well maintained and probably had single glazing. Sound carries alot in the silent nighttime countryside. I still live in the country and have a well insulated house with double glazed windows - I am still able to hear a dog barking for example in the dead of night. Now I do have good hearing though. I suppose this depends on how good Alfie and Shirleys hearing was. I often wondered did they see and hear something that night and chose/paid/threatended to stay quiet.
• Motive - Sophie and Alfie had issues in the past re property and definately were not friends.
• If this murder happened today a criminal psychologist would be bought in. Both Alfie and Shirleys behaviour on that morning would be considered very unusual and would be called into question. Their reaction and actions that day definately wasnt normal. Of course Baileys behaviour in the days after the murder would also be called into question but it could be argued that he was doing his job as a journalist.

All the above could dismiss a case against anybody else ( including Bailey) for this murder. All of the above are probably innocent incidences but Im sure you would have to agree that the Gardai messed up with their initial investigations bigtime and how a defence team could use this in court.

A cover story for what exactly?

It's just a speculation, like all the other speculations. And I am speculating in any direction, to keep it as openminded as possible. We don't eve have a clear motive for murder here.

And yes, everything is crazy about this case, especially how she was killed. Killing somebody with a stone and a cavity block is probably a very rare form of murder. I'd say shootings, stabbings, strangulation, poisoning and even beating somebody to death with a baseball bat are probably more common.

Alfie and Shirley had a station wagon, they could have covered the boot up with something and put Sophie on to of that covering, and later on transported her to some remote site, and dumped her into the ocean. This all would have happened with considerable ease to them, as they knew the area intimately, remote coastline and cliffs, operated under the guise of darkens and time was also on their side. Later on they could have cleaned the car thoroughly, just to be on the safe side, - but then their car wasn't searched or examined.

On a latter note, from an emotional point of view, I don't think that Alfie and Shirley would have been capable of such an act, but theoretically speaking, if they killed here, they could have proceeded that way. Maybe Alfie would have needed a lot of Cannabis to calm down, and Shirley as well? Not impossible to think of.

It's also entirely possible that the killer was somebody completely different. A woman, somebody like her housekeeper, perhaps? She was expected later on that morning, wasn't she? What if she turned up early, probably a brief phone call to explain the situation, then had a word or two with Sophie about the upkeep of the house, a conversation getting into an argument resulting in a rage killing? In this case the housekeeper would have known that Sophie was home, would have known the area, and her DNA or fingerprints would also have been expected around the house and neither would her car have been suspicious, if she was seen.

Maybe Alfie and Shirley were totally innocent? Maybe there is a real credible explanation why they haven't heard anything that night? It's not impossible that there isn't.

Suppose, if the killer was a professional or a hitman, would he have chosen the cavity block and the stone? Or would the professional killer have intentionally killed this way, just to distract from any professional killer theory to a layman making it look like rage? One thing would probably be sure, is that it is most likely indeed possible, if hit unexpected like from behind with a cavity block or a stone, one might go down without any noises or screams, - the killer may have known this, or was it only coincidence?

Or was it really a rage killing with a cavity block and a stone, whatever was coming in handy and was within easy reach of the killer? Was the killer only planning to see her that night / morning and killed her in a rage? And if so, what triggered that rage? And if it was rage, why would there not have been any noise, anything for Alfie and Shirley to hear? ( I would agree that their house was most likely single glazing and one would probably even heard a dog barking from a distance at night) Who would be so much in rage in the middle of the night or early morning to kill somebody in an unplanned fashion and get away with it so clean?

All questions leading to further speculations.

The thing is, we can't judge Shirley. Did she live a moral life, or an immoral one? Did she abuse drugs on occasions, influenced by her husband? What was her background in these aspects? We don't know.

We know that Bailey was on occasions violent and drunk.

We know that Alfie abused drugs on occasions.

We know that Sophie slept around and so did her husband.

We know that one Guard from Bantry as sexually overactive and had a complicated personality.

But we know nothing of that sort of Shirley, nothing at all.

And the odd thing is, she only discovered the body while looking in the rear view mirror? How many people are glued to their rear view mirror driving down a country lane? I mean, she must have noticed something driving by, or when she was approaching Sophie's body? After all, it was a narrow country lane, and she wouldn't have driven over Sophie's feet, she must have seen something ahead, and driven by extra carefully?

Something about this is also not really right in Shirley's story come to think of it.

They did it

Haven't visited this thread in ages but the above sums up the **** that is being repeated.

Full of waffle and lies.

If he had the potential to fly into rages with little provocation, why does he have no other record for violent behaviour other than domestic abuse incident? And even then, his previous wife reported no such issues.

Do you have the whereabouts of all people in the area with a record for violent conduct accounted for???

In this drunken state, he is supposed to have gotten up - then on a cold winter night either he treks across country to Sophie's; or drives but parks the car elsewhere. Then carries out this rage assault and leaves no trace. Doesn't sound like drunken behaviour to me.

Pull the other one.

I've always had a rather positive opinion of French authorities and the judicial system, however in this case, my opinion of these matters in France are sadly negative.

What I don't understand is why did Bailey never challenge the conviction by the courts in France with the European Court of Justice.

I'd say they would have overturned the French ruling with ease, considering they had no evidence linking him to the crime. Or was that a financial matter and Bailey not able to afford a lawyer?

He was supposed to be so drunk he couldn't control his rage.

And yet he trekked in winter across country at night to the cottage?

Or drove there yet had there wherewithal not to drive up to the property so as to leave traces of the vehicle there?

Your story doesn't add up and never has.

Some of those red flags were of Bailey's own doing.

Why else would he have gone into the Garda station 4 days after the murder on the pretext of telling them about a party arranged on the Sat before the murder. The Garda writing the report actually wrote "(Suspect?)" on the 27th Dec. report.

Then there was the alibi, he would have to destroy Jules' alibi;

'I got up and went to the (freezing, dark) studio to write a report', He couldn't say he stayed downstairs in the house as Jules daughter was out and may have returned home and not corroborated his story

Jules' statement then became this;

The chances are he never left the house that night, he got up early enough to work on his report which Jules saw on the kitchen table when she got up later. Unfortunately he misjudged the Gardai, thinking he would be just another suspect and could get close to the action. Instead they fixated on him and went all out to nail him.