Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

babybuilder

bingobars wrote: »

Baileys car would have been a hotbed of evidence. Ok ok investigation was not great but why never discussed???

Was thinking that very thing myself. Keystone cops. Why are they never ever held to account?

MoonUnit75

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Chief Supt Con Cadogan of the West Cork Garda Division, who heads up the murder investigation, told The Irish Times Mr Bailey was “perfectly entitled” to write to the commissioner seeking a review of the original investigation.
But he pointed out the case had already been the subject of at least three reviews , one by Chief Supt Austin McNally in 2002, one by Assistant Commissioner Ray McAndrew in 2005 and one by the Garda ombusman (Gsoc) which reported in 2018.
“All three reviews found no evidence of any conspiracy to frame Mr Bailey - Gsoc found there were failings in the Garda management of the original case but they found no evidence of any garda trying to pervert the course of justice.
“In fact, Gsoc was quite clear and I quote: ‘There is no evidence to suggest that Ian Bailey was ‘framed’ for the murder or that evidence was falsified, forged or fabricated by members of An Garda Síochána’.”
Chief Supt Cadogan said Mr Bailey in his original complaint to Gsoc relied on comments by DPP solicitor, Robert Sheehan, in a 2001 review regarding the Garda investigation being flawed as evidence of Garda corruption.
But he pointed out Gsoc was quite clear following its seven year long inquiry, which involved interviewing some 55 witnesses and reviewing the original file, that Mr Sheehan’s criticism of the Garda file was not evidence of corruption.
“Gsoc noted ‘This critique is the opinion of the DPP and is not evidential in and of itself. There is no evidence within the critique that members of the Garda Síochána had attempted to pervert the course of justice’,” he said.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ian-bailey-seeks-new-review-of-garda-investigation-into-du-plantier-murder-1.4572952

With due respect, what's the point of your post???. Nobody, but nobody, is denying it was a very "flawed", dare I say it 'amateurish' investigation......thats what it was. Ultimately, the guards put all their "eggs" into one basket......' this Bailey chap ticks all the boxes, he'll do'. If gsoc/ guards drive on with another dozen 'reviews' it ain't ever going to change the end result....the whole investigation was handled dismally. / it was flawed from the off

dublin49

just finished watching Sophie,Much more informative than Sheridans one,I found most of the witnesses convincing and am more of the view that Bailey did commit the murder.

dublin49

dublin49 wrote: »

just finished watching Sophie,Much more informative than Sheridans one,I found most of the witnesses convincing and am more of the view that Bailey did commit the murder.

I'm definitely of OPPOSITE view...... that NF documentary was totally one sided, a lynch job without any answers, that kangaroo court thing in France......when IB solicitor was asked if he'd watch the trial he said ' what's the point, he'll be found guilty' . He was right on the money there

odyssey06

dublin49 wrote: »

just finished watching Sophie,Much more informative than Sheridans one,I found most of the witnesses convincing and am more of the view that Bailey did commit the murder.

Cross check some of the witnesses names versus how the DPP evaluated their evidence:
https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/30/

If Guy Girard is one of the witnesses, ask yourself why he took several years to 'remember' his evidence in connection with a murder.

dublin49

odyssey06 wrote: »

Cross check some of the witnesses names versus how the DPP evaluated their evidence:
https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/30/

If Guy Girard is one of the witnesses, ask yourself why he took several years to 'remember' his evidence in connection with a murder.

I would imagine the DPP was never goin to allow the shambolic investigation into court,for Bailey to be telling the truth ,lots of ordinary locals need to be lying for no apparent reason.I dont see me changing my mind now and that probly goes for all on both threads.

odyssey06

dublin49 wrote: »

I would imagine the DPP was never goin to allow the shambolic investigation into court,for Bailey to be telling the truth ,lots of ordinary locals need to be lying for no apparent reason.I dont see me changing my mind now and that probly goes for all on both threads.

They don't have to be lying.
People don't remember nearly as well as they think they do.
They misunderstand, misinterpret, remember things in the wrong order.
They notice things after a murder has been announced they didn't notice the previous day.

ctrl-alt-delete

I'm just baffled how you lose a gate?

odyssey06

odyssey06 wrote: »

They don't have to be lying.
People don't remember nearly as well as they think they do.
They misunderstand, misinterpret, remember things in the wrong order.

Or to use the new phrase "HERD IMMUNITY "

OwlsZat

bingobars wrote: »

Baileys car would have been a hotbed of evidence. Ok ok investigation was not great but why never discussed???

He thumbed a lift home the Saturday from Murphy's house. He was on foot when seen at the bridge. Not sure he was even driving at the time.

I got the impression that his relationship with Jules was partly because he had o money and she would have a place for him to stay.

Anyways, I didn't once here his explanation for his matress burning or soaking the coat beside the shower and then burning it. There's no doubt enough evidence for a Jury to convict. It's more a case of why didn't the DPP want the case to be taken?

ctrl-alt-delete

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

I'm just baffled how you lose a gate?

Like it wasn't a handy gate like a side gate or a doggie gate.....it was massive!!!!!

OwlsZat

odyssey06 wrote: »

They don't have to be lying.
People don't remember nearly as well as they think they do.
They misunderstand, misinterpret, remember things in the wrong order.
They notice things after a murder has been announced they didn't notice the previous day.

If your trying to make out like a lead suspect in a murder "misremembered" not getting up the exact time of the murder or that he was in fact that he slept on his friends couch the previous night then your wrong. He's literally misremembered his movements at the exact time of the murder and the previous 24 hours.

If he had the correct movements and some incorrect timings. All good but to "misremember" two facts that implicate him in the murder. Naa not for me. I'd be calling that deliberate lying to try to avoid getting charged with the murder. Possibly the biggest red flag on earth.

odyssey06

OwlsZat wrote: »

He thumbed a lift home the Saturday from Murphy's house. He was on foot when seen at the bridge. Not sure he was even driving at the time.
I got the impression that his relationship with Jules was partly because he had o money and she would have a place for him to stay.
Anyways, I didn't once here his explanation for his matress burning or soaking the coat beside the shower and then burning it. There's no doubt enough evidence for a Jury to convict. It's more a case of why didn't the DPP want the case to be taken?

The evidence you have come across hasn't been challenged by a defence barrister.
If serving on a jury, you wouldn't convict after hearing one side only.

No motive.
No forensics.
No eye witness placing Bailey at the crime scene.

An extremely unreliable eye witness putting him (or maybe not him) in the vicinity, who wouldn't stand up to any kind of cross examination.

Circumstansial evidence most of which the DPP discredits on closer examination.
See "14. Fire on the Thomas property"
https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/30/

Gussie Scrotch

OwlsZat wrote: »

He thumbed a lift home the Saturday from Murphy's house. He was on foot when seen at the bridge. Not sure he was even driving at the time.

I got the impression that his relationship with Jules was partly because he had o money and she would have a place for him to stay.

Anyways, I didn't once here his explanation for his matress burning or soaking the coat beside the shower and then burning it. There's no doubt enough evidence for a Jury to convict. It's more a case of why didn't the DPP want the case to be taken?

You can read the DPPs reasoning here :https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/

OwlsZat

Ken Mc Carthy wrote: »

Like it wasn't a handy gate like a side gate or a doggie gate.....it was massive!!!!!

If you were Sophie's family you'd be raging and rightly so. Love to hear the gates last known movements. Makes you wonder was Bailey blackmailing someone in the Guards to do some of his bidding. Loosing it is frankly implausible.

Loosing the gate, and the DPP not taking the case leads me to suspect something greater was at play.

. There's no doubt enough evidence for a Jury to convict. It's more a case of why didn't the DPP want the case to be taken?[/QUOTE]

SERIOUSLY??? Did you even watch the documentary??? It would be been laughed out of court, acquitted in under an hour. The dpp had nothing to "run with"

Gussie Scrotch

OwlsZat wrote: »

If your trying to make out like a lead suspect in a murder "misremembered" not getting up the exact time of the murder or that he was in fact that he slept on his friends couch the previous night then your wrong. He's literally misremembered his movements at the exact time of the murder and the previous 24 hours.

If he had the correct movements and some incorrect timings. All good but to "misremember" two facts that implicate him in the murder. Naa not for me. I'd be calling that deliberate lying to try to avoid getting charged with the murder. Possibly the biggest red flag on earth.

No body knows the exact time of the murder.

OwlsZat

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

You can read the DPPs reasoning here :https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/

Thanks for that will definitely read. Am I wrong in saying Graham Dwyer was convicted on circumstantial evidence?

Gussie Scrotch

OwlsZat wrote: »

Thanks for that will definitely read. Am I wrong in saying Graham Dwyer was convicted on circumstantial evidence?

Sorry, don't know. I'm not familiar with that case.

acequion

Just found this thread which seems very interesting.

Can anyone tell me how long it will stay on Netflix as it says "limited series" and how many episodes are there? Thanks a lot.

Nozebleed

There has to be a local guard involved in this murder, maybe along side MF, someone well established in the community who has influence a land owner.

IB is a horrible man, i genuinely think his demeanour is odd, he's a typical nob but an innocent man in fairness.

was there any input from local politicians in the documentary? who were the local politicians at the time?

sigmundv

acequion wrote:

Can anyone tell me how long it will stay on Netflix as it says "limited series" and how many episodes are there? Thanks a lot.

There are three episodes, which is what 'limited' refers to.

Xander10

odyssey06 wrote: »

The evidence you have come across hasn't been challenged by a defence barrister.
If serving on a jury, you wouldn't convict after hearing one side only.

No motive.
No forensics.
No eye witness placing Bailey at the crime scene.

An extremely unreliable eye witness putting him (or maybe not him) in the vicinity, who wouldn't stand up to any kind of cross examination.

Circumstansial evidence most of which the DPP discredits on closer examination.
See "14. Fire on the Thomas property"
https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/30/

"She says that she noticed the fire on 26 December 1996.
After a period of four months her recollection could easily be in error as to the date."

Recalling a key date in Ireland, such as St Stephen's Day, incorrectly, I think is very unlikely.

So the DPP is leaning incorrectly on that one.

dublin49

OwlsZat wrote: »

He thumbed a lift home the Saturday from Murphy's house. He was on foot when seen at the bridge. Not sure he was even driving at the time.

I got the impression that his relationship with Jules was partly because he had o money and she would have a place for him to stay.

Anyways, I didn't once here his explanation for his matress burning or soaking the coat beside the shower and then burning it. There's no doubt enough evidence for a Jury to convict. It's more a case of why didn't the DPP want the case to be taken?

In my view the DPP was all too aware of the shortcomings of the investigation and the likely fiasco of the case collasping in court due to lack of adherence to due diligence and therefore as stated in "Sophie" he gave the benefit of all doubt to Bailey so he could rule insufficient evidence,bit like a bishop paying off a case to prevent reputational damage,Sophie missed out on justice for the perceived greater good.

tibruit

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

I'm just baffled how you lose a gate?

Depends where it was. Gates used to get lifted in the countryside as often as bikes get lifted in Dublin. Not so much any more with cctv. It seems ridiculous that the guards might have stored it outside, but there you go.

odyssey06

OwlsZat wrote: »

If your trying to make out like a lead suspect in a murder "misremembered" not getting up the exact time of the murder or that he was in fact that he slept on his friends couch the previous night then your wrong. He's literally misremembered his movements at the exact time of the murder and the previous 24 hours.
If he had the correct movements and some incorrect timings. All good but to "misremember" two facts that implicate him in the murder. Naa not for me. I'd be calling that deliberate lying to try to avoid getting charged with the murder. Possibly the biggest red flag on earth.

I was talking about witnesses, whose recollections are notoriously unreliable, the more so the elapsed time between the event and interview.

It's a red flag you know the "exact time" of the murder.
What was the "exact time"?
Because no exact time has ever been specified.

I expect some of Bailey's misremembering is down to being drunk and possibly having a blackout.

MoonUnit75

odyssey06 wrote: »

That's why you 'lose' the evidence, so GSOC can't find it.
What did the DPP say about the missing pages from the evidence book?

GSOC said the pages appear to have been removed sometime after the McNally review in 2002 as that investigation into the actions of the gardai would have noted them. They also re-interviewed many of the original witnesses and asked them if they recognised and stood over their original statements. The report mentions only MF, IB and JT questioning their original statements.

They sent the statements which MF said were filled in by gardai for expert forensic analysis and this did not show anything untoward or unexpected, the ink used for all of the writing on the pages matched and they also examined the indentations on pages beneath other pages, which did not back up her claims that statements were altered after she signed them.

MoonUnit75

odyssey06 wrote: »

I was talking about witnesses, whose recollections are notoriously unreliable, the more so the elapsed time between the event and interview.

It's a red flag you know the "exact time" of the murder.
What was the "exact time"?
Because no exact time has ever been specified.

I expect some of Bailey's misremembering is down to being drunk and possibly having a blackout.

Witness statements were given in testimony at the libel trial, statements that the DPP regarded as ‘unreliable’ in print (the DPP didn’t actually speak to any of them) stood up in open court, Judge Moran mentioned them by name in his judgement.

MoonUnit75

dublin49 wrote: »

In my view the DPP was all too aware of the shortcomings of the investigation and the likely fiasco of the case collasping in court due to lack of adherence to due diligence and therefore as stated in "Sophie" he gave the benefit of all doubt to Bailey so he could rule insufficient evidence,bit like a bishop paying off a case to prevent reputational damage,Sophie missed out on justice for the perceived greater good.

As above, the same investigation played out under cross-examination in Bailey’s libel case and stood up to scrutiny. The DPP was completely wrong IMO to disregard and discredit every single witness except the accused and those close to him.

Gussie Scrotch

dublin49 wrote: »

In my view the DPP was all too aware of the shortcomings of the investigation and the likely fiasco of the case collasping in court due to lack of adherence to due diligence and therefore as stated in "Sophie" he gave the benefit of all doubt to Bailey so he could rule insufficient evidence,bit like a bishop paying off a case to prevent reputational damage,Sophie missed out on justice for the perceived greater good.

No,

They analysed, forensically dissected and comprehensively demolished every single facet of the case presented by the Gardai. Line by line.

Not only that, they heavily criticised the approach and methods used by the Gardai to in their attempts to achieve the required outcomes.

Its right here in black and white: https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/

OwlsZat

Xander10 wrote: »

"She says that she noticed the fire on 26 December 1996.
After a period of four months her recollection could easily be in error as to the date."

Recalling a key date in Ireland, such as St Stephen's Day, incorrectly, I think is very unlikely.

So the DPP is leaning incorrectly on that one.

I get the feeling she was telling the truth initially. The sighting she gave of him thumbing from Murphy's house the prior Saturday was later confirmed as correct (when Bailey seemed to reverse his original story).

The question again goes to why did she redact because it was hardly Bailey? She would have just gone to Guards. Seems it was a different pressure.

Also when she wouldn't name the person she was with why wasn't she held in contempt of court or charged with perverting the course of justice. Again the law profession making strange choices....

dublin49

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

No,

They analysed, forensically dissected and comprehensively demolished every single facet of the case presented by the Gardai. Line by line.

Not only that, they heavily criticised the approach and methods used by the Gardai to in their attempts to achieve the required outcomes.

Its right here in black and white: https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/

dont agree.as moonunit above correctly points out all the witnesses prevailed in libel actions and their evidence was deemed credible and Bailey found in a court of law to be a man of violence,

Gussie Scrotch

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

As above, the same investigation played out under cross-examination in Bailey’s libel case and stood up to scrutiny. The DPP was completely wrong IMO to disregard and discredit every single witness except the accused and those close to him.

No Bailey's case against the newspapers did not represent a vindication of the "witness" statements as per the book of evidence.

And the DPP are, without question, the gold standard when it comes to the assessment of evidence. Professionals, fine legal minds.

They didn't disregard anything.....And there was no hesitation or uncertainty in their explanations. They saw no evidence that would convict Bailey or justify a murder charge. Because there simply was none.

Gussie Scrotch

dublin49 wrote: »

dont agree.as moonunit above correctly points out all the witnesses prevailed in libel actions and their evidence was deemed credible and Bailey found in a court of law to be a man of violence,

Its not a question of whether Bailey is a man of violence.

Of course he is.

The question is whether he murdered STD.

OwlsZat

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

No,

They analysed, forensically dissected and comprehensively demolished every single facet of the case presented by the Gardai. Line by line.

Not only that, they heavily criticised the approach and methods used by the Gardai to in their attempts to achieve the required outcomes.

Its right here in black and white: https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/

I've read the link and I disagree with the findings/summary they are making. The main reason for not taking the case I can see. Is Jules testimony was unlawful meaning it couldn't be used in court to show IB was lying about his movements the night of the murder. This is huge tbh. The very night of the murder and we can prove you mis-remembered your movements.

Also very interesting how Jules talks of IB being a different person when drunk on Whiskey. He was fresh off a big bender the previous day where he slept on a pals couch. Then went at it again the day of the murder.

In the summary also explains about soaking shorts used while killing turkeys. Nothing about the Italian student who was staying with IB and the large winter coat she saw soaking beside the shower.... I also don't agree with the logic of burning a mattress right outside your own back door either. Total nonsense.

Makes me wonder was IB naked under his winter coat and gloves when he called to the house to suggest a bit of giggy giggy. She said no thanks nd he lost the plot chasing her around and ultimately ending her with a hatchet which was never found. Maybe thrown in the lake? He was certainly careful about destroying all other evidence.

I find the DPP didn't take the case because so much of the GARDA work was unlawful/amateur. Not because IB isn't guilty.

dublin49

OwlsZat wrote: »

I've read the link and I disagree with the findings

I find the DPP didn't take the case because so much of the GARDA work was unlawful/amateur. Not because IB isn't guilty.

I agree with this,dress it up as insufficient evidence rather than let it go to court and be thrown out on a procedural issue.

Gussie Scrotch

OwlsZat wrote: »

I've read the link and I disagree with the findings/summary they are making. The main reason for not taking the case I can see. Is Jules testimony was unlawful meaning it couldn't be used in court to show IB was lying about his movements the night of the murder. This is huge tbh. The very night of the murder and we can prove you mis-remembered your movements.

Also very interesting how Jules talks of IB being a different person when drunk on Whiskey. He was fresh off a big bender the previous day where he slept on a pals couch. Then went at it again the day of the murder.

In the summary also explains about soaking shorts used while killing turkeys. Nothing about the Italian student who was staying with IB and the large winter coat she saw soaking beside the shower.... I also don't agree with the logic of burning a mattress right outside your own back door either. Total nonsense.

Makes me wonder was IB naked under his winter coat and gloves when he called to the house to suggest a bit of giggy giggy. She said no thanks nd he lost the plot chasing her around and ultimately ending her with a hatchet which was never found. Maybe thrown in the lake? He was certainly careful about destroying all other evidence.

I find the DPP didn't take the case because so much of the GARDA work was unlawful/amateur. Not because IB isn't guilty.

Well, that's you're interpretation and as such its perfectly valid.

I take a very different view.

Gussie Scrotch

dublin49 wrote: »

I agree with this,dress it up as insufficient evidence rather than let it go to court and be thrown out on a procedural issue.

OK, but their conclusion was not that procedural issues jeopardised the case.

It was: "A prosecution against Bailey is not warranted by the evidence"

And I agree with that.

MoonUnit75

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

No Bailey's case against the newspapers did not represent a vindication of the "witness" statements as per the book of evidence.

And the DPP are, without question, the gold standard when it comes to the assessment of evidence. Professionals, fine legal minds.

They didn't disregard anything.....And there was no hesitation or uncertainty in their explanations. They saw no evidence that would convict Bailey or justify a murder charge. Because there simply was none.

This surely isn’t a serious post? The DPP, who never spoke to any of the witnesses, is better able to assess evidence and statements than a judge who saw the witnesses being cross examined on their statements in court? If that was true we don’t actually need a court system at all.

Judge Moran actually heard the witnesses who made statements giving testimony under cross examination and did not agree with the DPP’s assessment of their credibility.

OwlsZat

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

OK, but their conclusion was not that procedural issues jeopardised the case.

It was: "A prosecution against Bailey is not warranted by the evidence"

And I agree with that.

They are discounting evidence that can't be used in court. They obviously aren't going to say it but it might as well read "warranted by the valid evidence"

dublin49

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

OK, but their conclusion was not that procedural issues jeopardised the case.

It was: "A prosecution against Bailey is not warranted by the evidence"

And I agree with that.

In fairness the DPP is never going to throw the guards under the bus if he can avoid it at all.

OwlsZat

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Judge Moran actually heard the witnesses who made statements giving testimony under cross examination and did not agree with the DPP’s assessment of their credibility.

Thanks for this fact.

Gussie Scrotch

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

This surely isn’t a serious post? The DPP, who never spoke to any of the witnesses, is better able to assess evidence and statements than a judge who saw the witnesses being cross examined on their statements in court? If that was true we don’t actually need a court system at all.

Judge Moran actually heard the witnesses who made statements giving testimony under cross examination and did not agree with the DPP’s assessment of their credibility.

Judge Moran was not deciding on the guilt or innocence of Bailey or on the weight of the evidence against him.

He was deciding on whether or not the newspapers concerned libelled Bailey.


Baily's case was that the papers had portrayed him as the murderer of STDP.

It was the papers that were on trial. And as the presiding judge stressed....this is not a murder trial and the burden of proof is different.

Gussie Scrotch

OwlsZat wrote: »

Thanks for this fact.

He didn't say that.

dublin49

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

Judge Moran was not deciding on the guilt or innocence of Bailey or on the weight of the evidence against him.

He was deciding on whether or not the newspapers concerned libelled Bailey.


Baily's case was that the papers had portrayed him as the murderer of STDP.

It was the papers that were on trial. And as the presiding judge stressed....this is not a murder trial and the burden of proof is different.

true ,OJ lost the civil one and we all know how innocent he was.

Gussie Scrotch

dublin49 wrote: »

true ,OJ lost the civil one and we all know how innocent he was.

Yes, you make a good point.

But it does not follow that all such cases are the same.

FileNotFound

Watched the sky one which I thought was very good to be fair.

Assume this is another Netflix joke of telling one side of a story?

Will watch but long learned Netflix are as impartial as a dub in hill 16. Or a Mayo fan in the Hogan.

Joke for their documentaries to be fair. Still entertaining I suppose.

Sky one makes it clear we don't really know for sure but definitely could have been Bailey.

c.p.w.g.w

Darc19 wrote: »

The superintendent comes across as a bit of an eejit.

Untrustworthy would be my impression.

It's been proven that the gardai were utterly incompetent in the investigation, yet listening to him you'd think they were brilliant.

The black coat thing is amazing...

He said numerous times, IB burnt the black coat... yet there is AGS documentation that AGS seized the coat in IB studio and it was tested and no DNA was found on it...

And losing a 10ft steel gate, absolutely laughable

MoonUnit75

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

Judge Moran was not deciding on the guilt or innocence of Bailey or on the weight of the evidence against him.

He was deciding on whether or not the newspapers concerned libelled Bailey.


Baily's case was that the papers had portrayed him as the murderer of STDP.

It was the papers that were on trial. And as the presiding judge stressed....this is not a murder trial and the burden of proof is different.

Judge Moran gave his assessment of the witnesses called by the paper’s legal teams during his judgement, the main witnesses the gardai included in their file for the DPP. Judge Moran describes why he found them credible and reliable. Therefore, the DPP’s position that these witnesses would not be credible in court was not upheld by Judge Moran. It doesn’t matter what the ‘burden of proof’ is, there was a golden opportunity for Bailey’s team to discredit these witnesses during cross-examination, as the DPP did in the report, and this didn’t transpire in court. The opposite happened.

Gussie Scrotch

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

The black coat thing is amazing...

He said numerous times, IB burnt the black coat... yet there is AGS documentation that AGS seized the coat in IB studio and it was tested and no DNA was found on it...

And losing a 10ft steel gate, absolutely laughable

He was filmed wearing the (or at least a) black coat on Christmas morning, at the Christmas day swim in Schull Harbour.