Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

"You seem to be getting frustrated"

Jaysus. Am I? I hadn`t noticed.

"the theory you expound needs there to be, at a minimum, a credible association between IB and STDP to hold any water."

No it doesn`t. It only needs Bailey`s own version of their relationship, i.e. he knew of her, basically who she was and what she was. I`m arguing with you about it because you deny there is any evidence of a relationship. You claimed you are a defender of justice. You`re not. Denial of reality is denial of justice.

"it needs Bailey to be a raving sex maniac"

You obviously haven`t read his diaries either. If you have though, you are yet again spinning a false narrative.

"who cannot accept rejection"

Narcissists do get nutty when rejected. Most are relatively harmless. Bailey was a violent narcissist. I note you claimed that Colette Gallagher rejected him and he didn`t go apeshit. Colette didn`t get a chance to reject him. Jules interrupted them. So yet another false narrative.

"a prolonged and bloody assault"

Prolonged? Really? I`d say it was all over in a minute or two.

"without being seen or heard"

In the middle of nowhere with the nearest neighbours tucked up in their bed.

"whilst avoiding any transfer of forensic material either to....(his clothing)"

If Bailey is the killer, he clearly burned the incriminating clothing.

"or from his person or clothing."

You`ve just exonerated everybody. It must have been the horse wot did it.

"There is no evidence of any association..."

Denial of reality is a denial of justice.

"No sightings of them...yada,yada,yada....."

You`ve just listed off a variety of circumstances that all sides of the argument would accept and you`ve ignored that several witnesses describe a relationship of varying degrees that in all cases goes beyond him "knowing of her".

"There is no evidence of his presence at the crime scene"

Yes there is. Not only that but at around 1 am he expressed a desire to go up there and asked Jules to come with him.

"He had no motive to kill her"

If he took the trouble to go over there, things needed to progress in line with his expectations or else he was liable to lose the plot.

"He may have done it, but it`s no more than a very remote possibility."

Your grasp of probability leaves a lot to be desired. Don`t ever become a bookie.

"Well, think about it. If he drove, and if his coat and boots were so contaminated that he had to burn them, then it is logical that a transfer of that contamination to the car seat, pedals, steering wheel etc."

I don`t need to think about it. I`ve dealt with this problem (not blood but mud) several times myself. It isn`t rocket science. You strip down, remove your shoes, roll them up in the clothes clean side out, pop it in the boot and drive home in your underwear. I wasn`t trying to get away with murder, just trying to keep the vehicle interior clean. Bailey was a former court reporter and knew all about forensics and blood contamination.

"Clothing is on the record as having been seized by the Gardaí."

So what? Bonfire came first.

"Isn`t the purpose of this board to discuss?"

Ah yeah. But you come on here a lot recently and present falsehood as fact and deny the existence of fact.

"your position that he is definitely responsible, that his guilt is an unchallengeable fact, that no other possibility exists, that any suggestion to the contrary is without merit, is equally absurd."

Jeez I don`t remember saying any of this. I`d appreciate if you wouldn`t attribute things to me that I haven`t actually said and if you wouldn`t call me absurd for saying things that you choose to attribute to me that I haven`t said.

Knowing of her is completely different to knowing her - surely you know that and can see the difference. Knowing of her is different to having any kind of link with her. No concrete links between Bailey and Sophie have been established - none. Please please dont come back and mention Guy Girard, or some young lad thinking he seen the two of them chatting at a festival ( when the witness didnt actually know Sophie).

Tibruit you seem like a reasonably intelligent person therefore you should know that Bailey cannot be convicted on the basis that there is very little evidence that he was in involved in this murder. Thats the truth - just because he is a horrible individual, had scratches on his hands, happened to have gotten up out of bed that night, happened to buy bleach, happened to have lit a fire, happened to be on the airhill rd etc does not mean he is a murderer. Have you never bought bleach, have you never got up during the night, have you never lit a fire, have you never scratched your hands. Remember anyone could find themselves in this position (including you Tibruit) so we have to ensure that justice prevails and that people cant be convicted based on flimsy information.

Now I am not 100% convinced myself that he is innocent - but I have not heard any hard evidence to convince me he is guilty. In fact when you look at all the events surrounding the Gardai investigation it looks like Bailey may also be a victim. You cannot look at this case and think the Gardai done a good job and didnt use corrupt tactics - you just can't. There are more plausible suspects who had motive. Also the area seemed to be home to several dodgy characters with shady dealings going on - Ive never seen such a gang of dodgy characters involved in any other crime investigation. If this was a movie we would all think its far fetched - but its not - these events really happened

Tibruit when looking at this case you simply cannot look at Bailey alone. Why do you not explore other theories? Why do you not question how the Gardai investigated this crime?

Do you remember that conversation we had a couple of weeks ago about you and that planet?

"Knowing of her is completely different to knowing her"

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

"Why do you not explore other theories?"

I have, in some detail, here on Boards as it happens.

"Why do you not question how the Gardaí investigated this crime?"

I do. There is no doubt that the Gardaí stepped over the line in this investigation. It doesn`t mean that Bailey didn`t do it.

Do you really think that a Garda role in one of the most high profile murders in the history of the state could be so easily covered up for over a quarter of a century?

Hundreds of Gardai with impeccable records who have been involved in some shape or form in the investigation all keep a for decades secret to protect who exactly?

Because it is weak circumstantial evidence, each of which can be disputed either in fact or relevance.

Lots of murders go unsolved where there is no one else. You dont just pin it on whoever you have the most evidence against. It is a recipe for miscarriages of justice.

But remember the quantity of such weak evidence is a factor of how much focus AGS had in Bailey.

Had they shone a similar spotlight on others in the locality we could find lots of circumstantial evidence on them too.

What stands out to me is Bailey was put under that spotlight and not a single piece of solid quality evidence was found connecting him to the murder.

But who says a similar spotlight light was not shone on others in the locality by the Gardai, but turned up nothing in a short period of time.

And thus we don't here about it.

The reason Bailey is and has been in the spotlight is because there is so much circumstantial evidence against him, that is just not there for others.

If there was really a better suspect than Bailey don't you think we would have heard about it by now, some journalist would have found enough for a tv show, a book, a podcast?

But there is nothing.

We just dont know.

Why do we hear so little about alfies hand.

Or this young man who left the area after the murder.

There is no better suspect but it proves nothing about Bailey's actual guilt in and if itself.

Murderers can get away with murder, leaving zero evidence to them of any kind.

Was anyone else subjected to the same scrutiny as Bailey?

Leo Bolger ; Knew Sophie, did work on her house, had horses on Alfie's field, so still coming and going around the place, the only access to his horses was along the back of Sophie's house close to her back door, happened to remember Alfie introducing Bailey to Sophie....

Wolney; no alibi for the night, history of domestic violence, lived closer to Sophie than Bailey, headed back to Germany shortly after the murder.

The "Man from Marseilles"; also lived closer to Sophie, knew Sophie and his conversation when he met her was inappropriate and upset her, knew where she lived- he had viewed the house she eventually bought. Died by suicide shortly after the murder.

The Man in the Van; Marie Farrell's car-share around the locality on the night of the murder, never found.

Alfie Lyons; Lived next door, heard nothing that night, had disputes with Sophie about the shed and the gate and also about drainage causing problems along the rear of Sophie's house.

Boundary issues with local farmers; she had about 16 acres spread around the locality in 9 different lots, including commonage.

Both French ex-husbands and lover.

and so on.

Of course they 'believed' Marie Farrell wasn't she telling their own story.

But the only place I'm hearing about any of the people you list is here.

No one, journalist, film maker etc has made a case big enough to put any of them on the same level as Bailey.

The Gardai likely never made a case big enough for them to be on the same level as Bailey either because there was nothing to make a case out of.

And as for the "man in the van" with Farrell.

If you are willing to believe that she had a man in the van then you have to be willing to believe she saw Bailey.

You can't pick and choose what you believe of her evidence just to suit your narrative.

I personally don't believe any of it.

In fairness she wasn`t telling a Garda invented story. She may well have been pressurized to identify the man as Bailey but there were firm grounds for believing the first two sightings were Bailey. The Kealfada story was first told to Gardaí by the anonymous Fiona. They even went on Crimeline asking for her to come forward.

Did “Fiona” say she saw Bailey on Kealfada bridge?

Do you mean on the bridge specifically or just the general area of the bridge? Anyway, either way I`m not sure. As Marie, she didn`t have him on the bridge in her statement. He had walked past the road up to Sophie`s house in the direction of Goleen. I think the Crimeline appeal was shown on one of the docs.

I don`t see how the Kealfada sighting could have been "concocted with the urging of the Gardaí". If that was true and they did it to implicate Bailey, then they surely wouldn`t have had him walking towards Goleen.

She made the statement about the shop and Airhill sightings on the 27th of December, which was well before she contacted Gardaí as Fiona. The other thing about the Kealfada sighting is that if the Gardaí helped her make up that story or even believed she made it up, then why did they send a man up to Longford to try and identify her lover boy?

Yes that part is odd alright. All I can think is she did see someone there. That meeting on Jan 28th in Garda Kelleher’s house was also odd, in that no notes were made.There were 2 other Gardai there ; Fitzgerald and Slattery I believe. I don’t think Bailey’s name was in the frame for the Kealfada sighting at this stage. A couple of days later Dwyer says to Bailey “I’ll put you on or near the scene”

Lo and behold a report by Fitzgerald done from memory on the meeting at Kelleher’s house appears on the 7th Feb stating that Farrell had said at the meeting that the man on the bridge was Bailey.

He would say that, wouldn't he!

But you or I are not privy to the amount of investigation that went into other subjects that resulted in their exclusion.

Some assume that because the Gardai fixated on Baily they did not investigate the others.

That's not necessarily the case, the evidence collected in investing others may have turned up absolutely nothing, compared to the man with the scratches, the bonfire, the night out of the house, the history of drunken violence, the confessions to random people.

People read books and watch tv shows and then come on to places like this and they think that they have found something new that the authorities did not know or do, like investigate people other than Bailey thoroughly.

That's true, but there's plenty information on the investigation into Bailey, statements to the media by the Gardaí. Leaked information, photo opportunities of arrests. Even the Cute Hoor, Dwyer holding court in his armchair, all to convince the mob they have their man.

Which goes towards your last point. The books, tv documentaries, newspapers etc. need this drama to sell their story.

For instance, the West Cork Podcast is often quoted on here as if it's the only authority on the case. Yet it devotes just half a minute- yes 30 seconds-towards the end; episode 12 I think titled " Loose Ends" to 2 local suspects. They are not even named, just "the German" and "the Frenchman". Leo Bolger dismissed as a Bull McCabe type character because he wanted to buy land from Sophie.

Edited to add, I don't believe the German, the Frenchman or The Bull are any more likely suspects than Bailey , but were they investigated thoroughly enough?

I don`t see what`s funny about it. Needs must.

Not a week before then, but three days before the visit. Otherwise you are accusing Fitzgerald of fabricating it. The Gardaí had associated Marie Farrells Airhill man with Bailey two weeks before that in mid January. I don`t know when Ceri Williams first told them Bailey was across the street while Sophie was in Spar. But if Fiona said that it was the same man in the three sightings (and there is no reason to think that she didn`t, Marie still maintains this now), then the Gardaí would have been clear in their own heads that the Kealfada man must have been Bailey on January 28th.