Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

Lots of unlikeable people, even people guilty of other horrible crimes or behaviour, arent murderers and people who come across as nice can be murderers... people need to stop reading too much into irrelevancies.

You dont have to like him to support his 'cause'. If you are sitting on a jury you're not being asked whether you want this person as a friend but whether you think they committed the crime they are accused of. Im sure many of the innocent people who end up in jail are unlikeable. If police are going to try to hang a crime on someone they rarely pick the nice guy nobody has a bad word to say about.

The Guards had no real evidence on anybody to link murderer to crime scene.

What I've always wondered is why the Guards have focused on Bailey and tried to frame it all on him instead of other suspects. The Guards would probably have had it easier to frame somebody else and celebrate it as their "success" as opposed to chasing to pin it all on Bailey with little to no success...

They could easily have tried to frame Leo Bolger as he had a criminal background and known to have been involved with drugs before. Bolger would have certainly had a harder time to defend himself in a court of law given his previous offences and leniency from the judge would not have been expected. Nobody would have believed him as well.

They could also easily have tried to frame Alfie or both Alfie and Shirley as they were close to the crime when it happened, neighbors, had disputes on occasions as well, also Alfie having a known drug habit and doing incontrollable things under influence. The fact that they denied hearing anything that night is one of the least credible parts of their story.

They could have tried their luck with Martin Graham. He was a transient, ex-soldier struggling in civilian life, having no financial means at all, sleeping in barns, taking occasional drugs and also no real network or money to defend himself with a decent lawyer in a court of law. The Guards would have had an easy game framing him.

In all of these cases they could have tried to build a bigger case on motive and they certainly would not have needed to coerce Marie Farrell to lie in court.

On Bailey they've had known violence towards his partner, being drunk on occasions, as well as a bad personality but as a well known and respected journalist they must have known that he would certainly have put up stronger resistance to getting framed.

So, why did they pick Bailey? Just because he was English and had an unpleasant personality? And why is the motive for Bailey always sexual and sexual rejection by Sophie?

"there`s nothing of substance linking him to the murder"

Isn`t a confession something of substance. How about multiple confessions? We have a known to be violent man, who had been drinking whiskey (according to Jules he became a different person when he drank spirits), who expressed a desire to go up that laneway at 1 am to his partner.

Shortly afterwards he got out of bed, left the house and nobody saw him again for several hours. He had a scratch on his forehead next morning that wasn`t there the night before, scratches all over his hands and lower arms that nobody saw in the pub the night before.

He bought bleach two days later, lit a bonfire over the Christmas period and burned clothes, footwear and a mattress. Jules is on the record as saying he was a hoarder who never got rid of anything. It`s clear he had a desire to get rid of something that Christmas.

At least you`ve moved on from "no evidence" to "no evidence of substance". Small steps.

Books don't really answer my questions. I think, I've asked them often enough.

I still don't know why Bailey's motive is always supposed to be of a sexual nature? No book ever answers that.

"Books don`t really answer my questions"

How do you know? You haven`t read any. The fact is you turned up on these threads last year asking questions that were so basic, it was obvious that you knew almost nothing about this case. Ever since then you have spammed the threads with a conveyor belt of nonsense and now a year later you admit you haven`t even read a book about the case.

I see this very much the same way.

Bailey also doesn't even need to explain where and how he's got scratches on the head or hands. No fancy stories about killing a turkey or chopping down trees, nothing. Maybe a fight with Jules, it doesn't matter as it doesn't prove murder.

As his DNA was never located at the scene of the crime ( police incompetence or collusion or mess- up or otherwise, doesn't matter) Bailey doesn't even need to give an explanation. And he volunteered his DNA early enough. Whether he took a gamble on this on the off chance, or not, is a different subject, but circumstantial at the most if at all.

Fact is, to date he can't be linked to the scene of the crime.

Also, there are loads of people not having a solid alibi for that night.

So, it's about Foster's book, then. OK, I can see where the conversation is going.

...buy the book, boost sales.....new revelations are in the book.....

I will not buy this book by Foster, nor would I suggest anybody should by this book. It was just written by somebody jumping on the train and wanting to make money.

Also, who was driving the car, or was driving under influence of whatever, doesn't prove murder as well. Maybe Bailey drove under the influence, without any accidents, nor arousing suspicion, - it doesn't matter. The car was checked, no blood, nothing, thus it's hard to believe the car was used to get to the crime or leaving the crime.

I do know what matters, I think. However I don't know it all, - also I don't have access to all the information and I'd hardly say they are in a book.

To date we don't have a motive, only speculation of possible motives.

To date we don't have an accused to be linked to the scene of the crime with solid evidence, DNA, fingerprints, fiber from clothes, etc.

To date we have no conviction in Ireland beyond reasonable doubt, the ones at least we would be used to.

It only shows how little we all know about the crime, authors of books included.

Sadly, the only real solid certainty we do actually have is the police corruption and collusion and the coercion of witnesses.

In this case, it's probably easier to prosecute the police than the murderer.

excellent points.

also excellent points.

Except in Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany they would have picked you up at 3am in the morning marched you off to some secret location, "made to talk", sign some confession under duress, to be sent to some labour camp where you were worked to death, or starved, or possibly both.

Ireland isn't quite there yet, not even the Bandon Guarda station.

The authors of the books are not any better informed than you or I. They have researched what is in the public domain regarding the case and drawn their own conclusions. One author has even used fictional events to make his theory believable. By all means read the books but you are a fool if you believe everything in them.

You also dont need to have read any of the books to be well informed in this case.

Sorry now Jim, but how did you imagine there are comparisons between our nation in the late 90’s and Stalins Russia or Hitlers Germany?

Our nation has a functioning democracy, we are a proud republic despite 800+ years of oppression.

Ian Bailey would have known perfectly well from his journalistic experiences that the 28 hour delay in a pathologist arriving at the scene of a murder in 1996 (that he had attended before the pathologist arrived) could not have incriminated him.

You mention due process, proper evidence, credible witnesses as if you know what you are talking about. You obviously are away with the birds man. Ireland is now ahead of the game when it comes to these principles and the protection of victims.

Case in point, the Gardai which you obviously hate for some reason known only to yourself have recently secured convictions and jail sentences for some of their own members that have been found guilty of coercive control.

Coercive control is an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim.

I’m not a weak female Jim, and a keyboard warrior or bully like you will never harm, punish or frighten me, Jim.

Never.