Ian Bailey RIP - threadbans in OP

I think the issue here is there isn’t one.

Sophie was not that well known a victim. There are all sorts of rumours about affairs etc but no one seems to really know who she knew and who she didn’t. It’s hard to build a scenario when we don’t know who she knew locally, who she was close to, who she liked/didn’t like, why she disliked the people she disliked.

Bailey could well be the murderer but surely when you weigh up all the evidence against him, you’re at least thinking - Jesus that’s not much.

I don’t think this murder should have been as hard to solve as it has proven. The Gardai were too slow.

Whoever committed this would have had blood all over them. If they drove, the car would have had blood all over it. The Gardai should have been ruining Christmas and searching every vehicle and home.

Yes, there is a dearth of real evidence.

Motive though, is key.

If sex was the motive, then it fits in with the Bailey theory. But if sex wasn't the motive, then the Bailey theory goes out the window.

And there is nothing whatsoever, in the known evidence, real or circumstantial, to suggest that sex was the motive.

Yes,

If I was the husband and I wanted to murder my wife, I would definitely try to find a third party to do it rather than attempt it myself.

If she was planning a trip to Ireland, then I would view that as an ideal opportunity.

And I would brief the third party to make it look like anything other than a planned "hit".

Lastly, I would absolutely refuse to go to Ireland afterwards......why take the chance of being suspected and arrested?

Why would it point back to him immediately? If a hitman does a good job, there's no way to know they were French, etc. The fact that his wife died would surely immediately put him in the spotlight and he seems to have wriggled free of the noose, so to speak.

Also, hiring a less than adequate hitman as a way to distract attention is incredibly risky. If Daniel wanted to have her killed, he'd want to make sure of it, anything else.is going to bring attention his way. So if he hired a hitman, he would have made sure it would go off perfectly so that it couldn't be linked back to him.

If the hit itself was sloppy then a proper investigation would have uncovered it. I know the Guards weren't great but surely the French courts would have uncovered something before bringing it all the way to a conviction for Bailey.

Either there's massive incompetence on a transnational scale or a massive conspiracy on a transnational scale because I don't see how else Bailey would be convicted in France.

FWIW, the French conviction always troubled me. While my inkling is it was Bailey, I haven't seen enough evidence to conclusively prove it.

I don't believe Bailey should be convicted because he is the most likely suspect, there needs to be evidence for it, but there's never been enough to convince me it was someone else. Again, the hitman theory was promoted by someone who was a.prominent suspect.

Whether he did or not, it was always in his interest to put out another theory and lead the investigation in a different direction.

Yes, all good points and the hitman theory is definitely a long shot. Motive is the only circumstantial aspect that raises it as a possibility.

But.....if it was an organised/planned hit....... it would be a very clever move to make it look like something else.

EG. If Sophie had been shot, then the focus would have been very much on such a theory.

I think that anything that looked like a planned hit would put DDP into the suspect list....purely on motive.

If he did hire a third party then it did not, necessarily, need to be a professional assasin. And there is no way to be 100% certain that a plan like that goes smoothly.

Certainly, if it was arranged by Daniel, Ireland was a better option than France.

As a theory, its a long shot. But so is the Bailey theory. Cases of husbands offing their wives are not at all uncommon, whereas cases of men walking through the night, attacking strangers in their own homes and walking home again without leaving the slightest trace anywhere are rare.

Because he would have a strong alibi....not in the country.

He could not, unless he agreed, be questioned.

He could not be easily arrested on suspicion.

He hadh is support network at hand in France, if needed.

When two jurisdictions are involved in an crime, it is a huge impediment to the investigation.

Exactly, you only have to look at Blanch at Xmas to see that.

If I was to come up with any theory that I think is any way plausible, it relates to a possible affair or relationship.

As stated above, there is a lot of anger and hatred in the attack and murder. Maybe there was something more to the relationship with Bailey. Maybe they had slept together.

But I don’t think the murder itself is the result of someone looking for the ride and getting rebuffed. There is too much rage in the act.

I think this was the act of someone who despised Sophie, maybe because she was going to tell their wife etc. Who knows. Don’t think we will ever know.

So what's the angle then? Daniel knew the French wouldn't be interested in pursuing any French links, to the point that they'd convict an innocent man over twenty years after the fact and when he himself was long dead?

I don't see any evidence that he was so influential and important that the French state would be in cahoots to go that far for him.