Ian Bailey RIP - threadbans in OP

Nothing is clear as there is no solid evidence for any of a number of possibile scenarios. We do not know why, by whom, or exactly when Sophie was murdered. Without knowing that, objectively there is little reason to select one possibile scenario above another.

Observation and memory are highly flawed.

One person is likely to give slightly different accounts of an event, especially in details, if asked to describe it at different times over a time period.

Two people are likely to give slightly different accounts of the same event, accounts which are too similar might point to collusion.

In either case a lack of variation, either over time or between two people might point to a well rehearsed and remembered story.

It’s human nature to misremember things. Having one story that you never deviate from seems more like something you’ve concocted in your head, and are sticking to, rather than actually telling the truth.

we all have false memories.

https://new.nsf.gov/news/true-or-false-when-memories-play-tricks#:~:text=These%20distortions%2C%20or%20false%20memories,criminal%20carried%20a%20gun%20rather

Interesting.

We've heard from Jules in the last week in various interviews and articles.

To me, she came across as articulate- and indeed honest in what she said .

Might you be saying that she currently genuinely believes what she says, comes across as credible but all motivated from a syndrome?

I’d challenge that on the basis that she (eventually) dumped Bailey unceremoniously back in 2021 and had blanked him ever since. That to me are the actions of a strong woman who finally found her voice - apparently she had some assistance from one of her daughters friends who is a psychologist (I read that in an article last week)

She obviously and wrongly convinced herself for many years that standing by Bailey was the right thing to do- but to me, she still comes across as articulate and honest in what she says. I guess none of us know, but I’d be very surprised, as I think many would, if she did a complete 180 turn on her current stance on his involvement with the murder and/or the degree to what she knew about that.

Bailey was like a lot of "wife-beaters" a coward. Perfectly willing with a few drinks taken to beat up his petite defenceless partner, but unwilling to stand up to a man his own size.

So no he wasn't a hot heat in public because that would mean a level of bravery he wasn't capable of. Beating up defenceless women in private with few if any witnesses around was what he was more known for.

My view is that there isn't the evidence to build a solid case against anyone and without compelling new evidence the case is unlikely to ever be solved.

The DPP has reviewed the case in 1997, again in 2001 and again in 2003 and each time has determined there isn't the evidence to support any prosecution.

Where did I mention control? Its clear the murderer lost control

And also where did I say in my last post that he was clearly responsible for the murder?

I pointed out that Bailey was known for attacking and beating up defenceless women after a few drinks, that's all. You seem to have drawn a link to the murder yourself there. Funny that!

When you have to resort to this level of disingenuousness, it is just self discrediting.

You know what you were doing, don't pretend otherwise.

So after numerous posts alleging Daniel might be responsible, questions to answer and so on, you now say he's probably innocent, something I and others have argued all along.

You also defended Bailey's memory of his alibi, despite him changing the alibi only after he heard Thomas changed hers.

You've said all along that Bailey was not a known hot head despite him being convicted in court for violence towards a defenceless woman. You gave some guff about him not starting fights in the pub, when his violent outbursts have always led to attack women in private.

And you wonder why I think your contributions here seem to be one long wind up?