Ian Bailey RIP - threadbans in OP

Right, so you have no suspect, you are not willing to speculate, but you will have a go at anyone who speculates if Bailey should be a suspect or not.

Not a very positive contribution.

If Bailey is the wrong answer, then it is a positive contribution.

Even if you don't have the right answer to a question, eliminating wrong ones is 'positive' in that sense.

Bailey should have been investigated by the Guards at the outset, the problem was the tunnel vision they engaged in, and when it got to the shenanigans with Marie Farrell that's when someone should have had the sense to shout stop and take a step back.

I think the active focus post the DPP rejection should not have been on Bailey but elsewhere and on forensic advancements (which may point back to Bailey or elsewhere). In that sense I don't think he should have been an 'active' suspect at that point. If he is your only suspect, you need to keep looking.

I said rejection. Once again putting words in people's mouths.

Bailey was alleged to have blacked out and attacked his first wife, it was mentioned in one of his court cases - go find it if you could be bothered, although I know you're not.

He blacked out when attacking Thomas.

Its entirely possible he blacked out attacking Du Plantier also.

So no sexual motive, just blind violence that he was known for.

I couldn't be bothered reading or replying to any more of your comments, so say hello to ignore.

Went up to the house after 3am to do this? And why would Sophie open the door to him? And why would he think she would at that hour?

I find it difficult to credit. If it had happened earlier in the night, and say Bailey on his way home from the pub wandered by even at 10pm maybe.

It seems like it wouldn't have been the first rebuff Bailey got, yet no record of any violent reaction to them in the past.

In terms of blacked out, he was able to beat up Thomas, yet wasn't able to remember it. I would say a blind rage possibly came over him.

There was some form there with blacking out.

And on that note, I'm going to leave it at that with this thread, as I've little more to contribute apart from what I already said.

This is obviously just conjecture but I think an aspect of the case that points away from Bailey was the nature of the murder itself.

I don’t want to go into the details again but it was a sustained, frenzied attack. Whoever did something like this is likely to possess some serious personality disorders.

A murder this brutal doesn’t feel like it was prompted by her closing her door on someone like Bailey. I feel like it was someone who knew her, someone who she was perhaps previously in a relationship with that she had ended and this person had a deep sense of infatuation and rejection combined with an extreme anger disorder.

We’ll never know but it feels more likely than anything linking Bailey to it.

“Conjecture” is all we have so no need to apologise for it- there is no one person here on this thread who “has the answer” but many forcefully believe they do- maybe they did it😀

I posted earlier around the nature of the injuries - with the body of knowledge on murders throughout the world that police forces have access to , there’s almost certainly clues there - not definitive by any means, but certainly indicators of the reasons why this person was murdered in the manner that they were.

Questions such as why kill vs seriously assault?

Why the use of weapons (brick etc) as opposed to hands?

Why the nature of the head and facial injuries?

I’ve no idea the answers to any of those questions but I’ve no doubt there is a body of knowledge out there that could very possibly help. I’d say the FBI and the like would certainly have a view - they mentioned at the start of this investigation that they were starting afresh - well for me, the true beginning is to start with exploring the injuries incurred.

I once saw him out at the market in Skibbereen. In the car park. He was selling wooden dildos amongst other things. Seriously.

Definitely a niche market.

I had thought Ciaran Hinds or Patrick Bergin, depending on budget... but time has moved on. Ian Bailey was 40 or so at the time of the murder, died at 68. Lived 28 years under the shadow of guilt.

Did the killer lay hands on her at all I wonder? If someone of Bailey's build were to grapple with Sophie - a good foot shorter than him and slightly built - it wouldn't last long. I've often thought that Sophie may have been the initial attacker and the intruder either a slight male, maybe young or a female, then retaliated. Jim Sheridan, for his forthcoming film had some American pathologist look at the pathology reports and he reckoned Sophie may have been asphyxiated. How he could tell from reports I don't know, but I believe Sophie was stamped on around the chest and neck and had a broken thorax.

Blood spots in the eyes indicate choking. Petechiae I think it's called.

But her neck bone (can't remember what it's called) wasn't broken.

So it looks like an attempt at choking.

I think choking someone to death takes longer than one expects.

It takes 10 to 20 seconds to choke someone unconcious, but it takes a few minutes, maybe 3 or 4, to choke someone to death.

So maybe she was choked unconcious.

There was folds in the front of her pyjamas with no blood drops but other blood drops were circular, so it looks like she was bent over. Maybe she was unconcious at this point.

"Bailey was alleged to have blacked out and attacked his first wife"

This is the problem with much of the 'evidence' against Bailey - it's either complete fiction or wildly misinterpreted. His ex wife was quite clear that Bailey never laid a finger on her - and she hates his guts! Yet this is the kind of nonsense that's spun.

It could absolutely lead to unconscious bias - certainly when the documentaries came out on Netflix etc it was pretty much a national pastime talking about them for many. The levels of engagement are very similar to any reality series on TV- so yeah, people will “take sides” , “defend” their adopted favourite “character” as well as “change sides” if new information comes to light etc etc - it’s actually quite macabre but I guess it’s what we humans have a propensity to do .

If this case is ever “solved”, there’ll be a couple of days of frantic activity when people have their final say- then the thread will go dead- and similar to the end of the film, The Truman Show , people will go looking for their next reality fix

ONE unsubstantiated media report based on hearsay by an unnamed person.

The report was published once and over 20 years ago. No-one, not even a rag like the daily mail have ever brought it up in the past 20 years.

I think you can safely assume it was bs.

Some context - it was alleged in one of his court cases.

Was that the court case that Bailey won because the newspapers could present no evidence to support their allegations that Bailey had been violent to his first wife?