Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

Xander10

The person accessing her house when she was away, using her bath and snooping around her stuff.

Pity she didn't set up the camera to trap them. After she changed the locks, it appears to have stopped the access.

tibruit

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think he was drunk and had a blackout.
That's why his account of his actions is all over the place.

We don't even know what time Sophie was killed at.
It could quite possibly happened in early morning - the food found in the stomach suggested breakfast. In which case Bailey has a clear alibi.
.

It would have to have been very early. The doctor was on the scene at 11 am and noted that rigor mortis had set in. This usually begins approximately 4 hours after death, but in colder conditions it would take longer. It got down to 2 degrees that night so she was probably killed before 5 am. She spoke on the phone to her husband shortly after midnight. She was killed at the same time that Bailey was out of bed.

Windmill100000

tibruit wrote: »

It would have to have been very early. The doctor was on the scene at 11 am and noted that rigor mortis had set in. This usually begins approximately 4 hours after death, but in colder conditions it would take longer. It got down to 2 degrees that night so she was probably killed before 5 am. She spoke on the phone to her husband shortly after midnight. She was killed at the same time that Bailey was out of bed.

Rigor mortis averages 2-4 hours I think.

Watched both with an open mind. Had only read about the story in passing interest whenever it’s been in the media. Read up a little since.

I’d be absolutely open to the theory that it could have been Bailey. But I just don’t see it. Both docs seems to have a differing opinions. Sheridan seems to want to exonerate Bailey, the Netflix one pushes him as chief suspect most of the way through, but as a previous poster mentioned about the creators, neither seem to take a genuine neutral stance.

A lot of the Gardai behaviour doesn’t add up. Too many important things lost - how do you lose a blood splattered gate? I know the gardai’s incompetence is accepted as a given in this, but I dunno, it doesn’t add up. Some of MF’s allegations and theories would do with some exploration into Gardai behaviour in this case.

I’ll have a listen to the pod and see if that pushes me in either direction. I wouldn’t lean any way between whether it was IB, the husband or a member of the community being protected.

odyssey06

tibruit wrote: »

It would have to have been very early. The doctor was on the scene at 11 am and noted that rigor mortis had set in. This usually begins approximately 4 hours after death, but in colder conditions it would take longer. It got down to 2 degrees that night so she was probably killed before 5 am. She spoke on the phone to her husband shortly after midnight. She was killed at the same time that Bailey was out of bed.

It can start within 2-4 hours, and yes low temperatures can delay it - but 'violent exercise' can cause it to occur more quickly according to this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/rigor-mortis

So it could have happened at 7am or even 8am.

tibruit

Windmill100000 wrote: »

Rigor mortis averages 2-4 hours I think.

2-6 depending on the temperature. 4 is the average. It can be 2 hours in warmer conditions. That`s my understanding of it anyway. It was just above freezing on the night in question.

tibruit

odyssey06 wrote: »

It can start within 2-4 hours, and yes low temperatures can delay it - but 'violent exercise' can cause it to occur more quickly according to this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/rigor-mortis

So it could have happened at 7am or even 8am.

Bailey still doesn`t have an alibi at 8.

Henry...

Darc19 wrote: »

It's important to know that one of the producers of the Netflix doc is a friend of the Du Plantier family.

And that Ian Bailey has not been convicted of any crime

Nozebleed

has marie farrell ever been questioned about the murder? she was in the area at the time of death and seems a little bit odd in fairness. just as odd as mr.bailey

Foweva Awone

My theory is that the mystery man in the car with Marie Farrell was in fact Ian Bailey.

They were having some sort of an affair, they had a fight, and she dumped him out of her car at or around that Kealfada bridge. He's pissed off and drunkenly decides to make his way to the French woman's house, possibly to try it on with her. Gets rejected, gets violent with her, takes it too far.

Marie Farrell hears of the murder the next day, immediately suspects Bailey as she knows he'd been in the area and in a bad mood, so she decides to report him "anonymously" so her husband won't find out what she was up to.

I don't think it's much more outlandish than any other theory!

odyssey06

tibruit wrote: »

Bailey still doesn`t have an alibi at 8.

I thought I read he was home at 9am... and there was no sign of his car at the scene so that's a bit of a stretch to cover on foot in that time.

odyssey06

Foweva Awone wrote: »

My theory is that the mystery man in the car with Marie Farrell was in fact Ian Bailey.
They were having some sort of an affair, they had a fight, and she dumped him out of her car at or around that Kealfada bridge. He's pissed off and drunkenly decides to make his way to the French woman's house, possibly to try it on with her. Gets rejected, gets violent with her, takes it too far.
Marie Farrell hears of the murder the next day, immediately suspects Bailey as she knows he'd been in the area and in a bad mood, so she decides to report him "anonymously" so her husband won't find out what she was up to.
I don't think it's much more outlandish than any other theory!

But her original evidence against Bailey was all over the shop... she actually said the guy was the same height as her husband who isn't ballpark same height as Bailey.

"The 2001 DPP analysis examined the quality of Ms Farrell’s evidence. It found that she had given different physical descriptions of the man whom she had identified as Bailey. The man on the bridge, she said, was the same man whom she saw in Schull a few days later."
“Marie Farrell’s powers of observation and identification are diminished even further by virtue of the statement she made on January 22, 1997. She describes the man she saw in the town who she later purports to identify as Bailey as being very tall. This contradicts her description of the man as being five foot 10 inches in height as stated by her on December 27, 1996.”

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30928165.html

odyssey06

Plus are we expected Bailey was staggering drunk .. yet you can make it home by moonlight.
After a frenzied adrenalin rush attack.
This wasnt a route he walked daily and knew the terrain instinctively.

odyssey06

Remember it is the unlikeable types that are their own worst enemies that police hone in on when they need to 'get a result'.

tibruit

odyssey06 wrote: »

I thought I read he was home at 9am... and there was no sign of his car at the scene so that's a bit of a stretch to cover on foot in that time.

Given the prevailing temperature, she was dead before 7, and probably before 5.

odyssey06

tibruit wrote: »

Given the prevailing temperature, she was dead before 7, and probably before 5.

Even accounting for the effect of her fleeing and fighting for her life?

qwerty13

Foweva Awone wrote: »

My theory is that the mystery man in the car with Marie Farrell was in fact Ian Bailey.

They were having some sort of an affair, they had a fight, and she dumped him out of her car at or around that Kealfada bridge. He's pissed off and drunkenly decides to make his way to the French woman's house, possibly to try it on with her. Gets rejected, gets violent with her, takes it too far.

Marie Farrell hears of the murder the next day, immediately suspects Bailey as she knows he'd been in the area and in a bad mood, so she decides to report him "anonymously" so her husband won't find out what she was up to.

I don't think it's much more outlandish than any other theory!

IB fancied himself as an intellectual, and probably as a cut above the locals. I can’t see him going for someone like MF - I don’t think his image of himself would let him go for someone as ordinary as her.

cloudatlas

If her husband or someone else from france killed her wouldn't they be on flight or ferry passenger lists?

GerardKeating

cloudatlas wrote: »

If her husband or someone else from france killed her wouldn't they be on flight or ferry passenger lists?

Not if they came via the UK, easy to slip in unrecorded via the north. And did anyone actually check into this?

bassy

may do one for jo jo dollard as shes irish and must be deserving of it.

Windmill100000

I thought it ironic that IB was outraged that newspapers printed stories it might be him, but he had no problem pushing the idea it was a hitman hired by Sophie's husband.

I really don't know what to make of IB. He is an abominable drunk and I got the feeling Jules was afraid of him (understandable). On one of the documentaries she said she did not believe he did it ('Murder at the cottage', recent interview), in the Netflix one she said (in a statement at time of murder) she did not know if he did it or not.

I don't know if we will ever know the truth.

Muppet Man

Think jules really does know the truth, and now that they are separated, a lot more will come out.

whisky_galore

odyssey06 wrote: »

Remember it is the unlikeable types that are their own worst enemies that police hone in on when they need to 'get a result'.

Watched too many episodes of the Famous Five.

DeadHand

Muppet Man wrote: »

Think jules really does know the truth, and now that they are separated, a lot more will come out.

We'll hear little more and nothing new from Jules , I suspect.

She'll wash her hands of Bailey and the incident (insofar as that is possible) and move on from her life.

I didn't get the impression from her interviews that she was in any way manipulated or intimidated by Bailey, and likely has not been for a long time, even if she was at some stages of their relationship.

The impression I did get was that, though she no longer loved him, she had committed to stand by him until the nightmare was over and honoured that commitment. That is why as soon as the threat of extradition dissipated, she got rid of him immediately.

It didn't strike me as a scenario whereby a battered partner finally escaped her tormentor and will tell all. More a case of a woman moving on after doing what she believed to be the right thing. Her watch is over.

Jules strikes me as an independent, strong, moral woman. I think she fully believes Bailey is innocent and a massive injustice was inflicted on him. To the point she sacrificed a chunk of her life fighting the corner of a man she had come to despise.

bingobars

Foweva Awone wrote: »

My theory is that the mystery man in the car with Marie Farrell was in fact Ian Bailey.

They were having some sort of an affair, they had a fight, and she dumped him out of her car at or around that Kealfada bridge. He's pissed off and drunkenly decides to make his way to the French woman's house, possibly to try it on with her. Gets rejected, gets violent with her, takes it too far.

Marie Farrell hears of the murder the next day, immediately suspects Bailey as she knows he'd been in the area and in a bad mood, so she decides to report him "anonymously" so her husband won't find out what she was up to.

I don't think it's much more outlandish than any other theory!

Average foot speed over uneven ground, barring injury, is 4 miles an hour which gives us a radius of 6 miles

Gussie Scrotch

Windmill100000 wrote: »

Rigor mortis averages 2-4 hours I think.

Onset of rigor mortis can take anything from 1-6 hours.

costacorta

tibruit wrote: »

It would have to have been very early. The doctor was on the scene at 11 am and noted that rigor mortis had set in. This usually begins approximately 4 hours after death, but in colder conditions it would take longer. It got down to 2 degrees that night so she was probably killed before 5 am. She spoke on the phone to her husband shortly after midnight. She was killed at the same time that Bailey was out of bed.

Is it not strange to be talking to husband after midnight? Just wondering did he ring her and did he always do it previously at that time roughly or was it a coincidence that he was talking to her hours before she was murdered . His albi? .

Gussie Scrotch

costacorta wrote: »

Is it not strange to be talking to husband after midnight? Just wondering did he ring her and did he always do it previously at that time roughly or was it a coincidence that he was talking to her hours before she was murdered . His albi? .

He was in France, no question about that.

The only way he could have been involved is if he arranged a third party to kill her. He didn't do it himself

Mr.Crinklewood

costacorta wrote: »

Is it not strange to be talking to husband after midnight? Just wondering did he ring her and did he always do it previously at that time roughly or was it a coincidence that he was talking to her hours before she was murdered . His albi? .

Do we know who called who?

If he called her, it could have been a way to help identify the house? ( "I'll call at 0015" - light goes on...house identified..)

AdrianG08

New lead from none other than Marie Farrell

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/sceptical-gardaireview-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-murder-file-following-new-lead-40610650.html

Must be nothing on telly