Ian Bailey of West Cork and Sophie

What his words say

If you don’t know the background you can read about it here. Ian Bailey has always denied any part in the murder.

Ian Bailey has recently appeared on Irish TV. Let’s look at the words he uses:

Interviewer: People watching this tonight they think I’m interviewing, many of them, a violent killer who has literally gotten away with murder

Bailey: Ah well I’m not. Um and you know I was falsely accused and falsely put in the frame from I think almost day one and it’s you know that was 25 .. coming up for 25 years ago and my life and my partner’s life and a lot of people’s lives have been completely you know disrupted but I can assure you or your listeners I have nothing to do with this crime.

At first glance, this might appear as a firm denial, but it has many hallmarks of a weak denial.

Answer the question

It’s not a great question that he’s asked. In fact, it isn’t a question at all but a statement. But in its construction, it is giving Ian Bailey the chance to say he has not literally gotten away with murder.

If this is put to the killer, he may feel he hasn’t gotten away with murder as he’s still answering questions about it now so even a guilt person can honestly reply “I have not”.

Bailey starts with “I am not” which we can assume relates to the insinuation in the statement that people feel he is a violent killer.

People don’t like to lie; they will perform many mental and linguistic gymnastics to avoid a direct lie.

In this case Bailey says “I am not” which is true for him if he, internally, thinks he is not a violent killer. In the same way as if you ask someone who has only smoked one cigarette ever if they are a smoker, they will reply truthfully, for them, “I am not”.

Move on to safer ground

He then talks about being “falsely accused and falsely put in the frame”. He’s moved on very quickly from his own actions to those of others. “I did not kill Sophie; I was not there when the murder took place” would be a strong denial at this point. Bailey instead talks about being falsely accused, again this may be true to him given there is a suggestion that the police investigation was far from perfect.

He then talks about 25 years of lives being disrupted. This has nothing to do with the question (or statement) and starts to paint himself and others as the victim. Let’s remember the true victim here, Sophie. This section does nothing but create distance from the accusation of being a murderer and attempt to gather sympathy.

Another thought is that if one’s life has been disrupted for 25 years, they could honestly say they have paid a high price and have not got away with murder.

Potentially, he’s also throwing in the 25 years line to give the interviewer a path of questioning that goes away from the murder and onto easier ground for him.

Bailey says a couple of “you know”s which can be a classic tactic of inferring the interviewer or listener should “know” these things as if they are plain common sense.

Create distance

Finally, he says but “I can assure you or your listeners I have nothing to do with this crime”. This appears strong but has a couple of parts which weaken it. Note it is not “I did not do this” it is “I can assure you I have nothing to do with“ which is much less direct.

And “this crime” rather than “this murder” or “Sophie’s killing”. Again, it is much less direct and creates distance from the actions. This is something that many criminals do. Thieves don’t steal money, they take it. Abusers don’t assault their partners, they push them.

On the face of it this is a denial but looking into the words used we can see it could be a hell of a lot stronger.

If you would like a deeper dive into the murder and the people involved try this podcast

Do you have any words you’d like to look at? Put your suggestions in the comments below or see the “about” section for how to contact directly.