Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

Yurt2

Mackinac wrote: »

In her statement she said she saw dark clothes soaking in the bathtub not a bucket of water.

She's explicit in the documentary that it was a bucket. Unless the word for bucket and bath in Italian are the same and she was confused when speaking English, it's fairly unambiguous.

I have a long wool coat, unless it's a supersize bucket I'm not fitting it in one.

Deeec

Mackinac wrote: »

In her statement she said she saw dark clothes soaking in the bathtub not a bucket of water.

She definitely said bucket in the netflix doc

MoonUnit75

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

GSOCs report is, just about, the most obvious and blatant cover up of the whole affair. In terms of getting to the root cause of Garda failure/corruption, it is of zero value.

Why did he lose his civil case then?

FileNotFound

Slick666 wrote: »

What about the scratches on his hands and head, the coat soaking in the bucket in the bathroom, the bonfire outside his house, Sophie knew him as she mentioned his name to her aunt, he 'confessed to killing her', the woman saw him on the bridge even though she then retracted her statement, his partner said he went out that night and wasnt sure if he did it ( his own partner ), he said to people about the murder of a french woman even before the guards announced it. Its obvious he did it and Ive no idea why stupid f**king ireland wont give him over to france!!

Once again no evidence, he had a story for the scratches, if anything having loads of scratches means leaving evidence behind - none was found at the scene. They tested under her finger nails (one of the only preserved DNA pieces) and no match to Bailey - explain.

Coat was analysed and nothing found on it, then the Gardai magically lost it with the gate. Also it was supposed to be in the bucket/tub (seems to change every now and then) but was magically fit for purpose and on video hours later?? Thats some drying in winter with nothing but the clothes line haha.

Burning anything wasn't even a crime then. he probably burnt stuff every day - they did not have bin collection - where did the rubbish go?

Sophie may have known his name he was at the market all the time.

The woman who saw him on the bridge made it up at the request of the gardai who threatened to tell her husband she was with another man and later corrected the record. So thats a nothing now.

He confessed to who? He used black humour with a reporter and a child claimed he said he did it, the child didn't even attend the case in france, his mother did!! what the hell is that.

He went out that night and his partner has said she believes he never did it, they were together for years after ans she defended him no end...

So now we have established there is no evidence against him at all - just a flawed investigation.

Sure if you can swallow the brick netflix threw fair play. But no evidence means no Guilty verdict.


Now he is a degenerate with a history of violence so I am not claiming his innocence but you'd have to be of limited intelligence to believe the info proves anything.

Aidric

dublin49 wrote: »

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

On the contrary, I think he was pretty strong in his criticism of their work on the case. He referred to questionable practices.

Gussie Scrotch

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Why did he lose his civil case then?

Sorry, MoonUnit, I don't understand your question.

Can you exoand a bit?

dark crystal

Yurt! wrote: »

She's explicit in the documentary that it was a bucket. Unless the word for bucket and bath in Italian are the same and she was confused when speaking English, it's fairly unambiguous.

I have a long wool coat, unless it's a supersize bucket I'm not fitting it in one.

Her original testimony was that she saw dark clothes soaking in the bath:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ian-bailey-had-fresh-scratches-on-arms-the-day-body-found-court-told-1.3908180

Ms Boarina also told gardai that she saw a mark on Mr Bailey’s forehead but she could not remember where exactly it was located. She also recalled seeing dark clothes soaking in a bath but at some stage during her stay there, they were removed from the bath.

This somehow morphed into a black coat soaking in a bucket by the time she gave the Netflix interview.

Mackinac

Yurt! wrote: »

She's explicit in the documentary that it was a bucket. Unless the word for bucket and bath in Italian are the same and she was confused when speaking English, it's fairly unambiguous.

I have a long wool coat, unless it's a supersize bucket I'm not fitting it in one.

Possibly there could be language confusion. Nick Foster had a copy of her statement to the Guards and it is that he refers to in his book and hence the bathtub/tub. In her statement there is no mention of a coat just dark clothes. She said she did not get close enough to the tub to see what kind of clothes they were.

Why would you tell a 14 year old lad in a car that you smashed her brain in with a block?

Why would you burn a matress, clothes and boots metres from your back door over christmas?

Why would you continually threaten and intimidate a female witness if your were innocent?

Gussie Scrotch

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

Sorry, MoonUnit, I don't understand your question.

Can you exoand a bit?

Sorry MoonUnit, I meant expand.........

EmmetSpiceland

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Why did he lose his civil case then?

The Netflix doc seems to blame the failure of the case on Marie Farrell’s lying under oath. She was the Bailey’s star witness and she rendered herself useless to their case.

FileNotFound

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

The Netflix doc seems to blame the failure of the case on Marie Farrell’s lying under oath. She was the Bailey’s star witness and she rendered herself useless to their case.

Yes the person the Gardai told to tell a tale or they would inform her husband she was with another man was the best they had. And all she had was a man at a crossroads in the dark in a dark jacket that might have been bailey. And even the Gardai ommited the other person from the report.

Reality is if thats the best there is its a pretty poor case.

EmmetSpiceland

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why would you tell a 14 year old lad in a car that you smashed her brain in with a block?

He claims in the Sheridan doc that he, sarcastically, said ‘they’re saying I went up there and bashed her head in with a rock’.

The young lad, who apparently wasn’t too upset about it until after a Garda spoke to him, only heard Bailey say the part about going up and bashing her with a rock.

FileNotFound

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

He claims in the Sheridan doc that he, sarcastically, said ‘they’re saying I went up there and bashed her head in with a rock’.

The young lad, who apparently wasn’t too upset about it until after a Garda spoke to him, only heard Bailey say the part about going up and bashing her with a rock.

Then his mother acted as proxy witness in the french trial when the kid was an adult... All so odd.

How the french could find a guilty verdict is but another crime

How the french could find a guilty verdict is but another crime[/QUOTE]

Let's be honest that carry on in Paris was pure mickey mouse stuff...I wouldn't even go as far as referring to it as a 'showtrial' or a 'kangaroo' Court... it was a farce, an insult to justice, two fingers to the Irish legal system. I thought it was funny when the reporter asked IB solicitor if he would be following the French 'trial'... he answered ' why bother, Ian will be found guilty'. The 'trial' was at the behest of AND heavily financed by the du plantier family

Yurt2

dark crystal wrote: »

Her original testimony was that she saw dark clothes soaking in the bath:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ian-bailey-had-fresh-scratches-on-arms-the-day-body-found-court-told-1.3908180



This somehow morphed into a black coat soaking in a bucket by the time she gave the Netflix interview.

Good luck getting that past the DPP then

Slick666

FileNotFound wrote: »

Once again no evidence, he had a story for the scratches, if anything having loads of scratches means leaving evidence behind - none was found at the scene. They tested under her finger nails (one of the only preserved DNA pieces) and no match to Bailey - explain.

Coat was analysed and nothing found on it, then the Gardai magically lost it with the gate. Also it was supposed to be in the bucket/tub (seems to change every now and then) but was magically fit for purpose and on video hours later?? Thats some drying in winter with nothing but the clothes line haha.

Burning anything wasn't even a crime then. he probably burnt stuff every day - they did not have bin collection - where did the rubbish go?

Sophie may have known his name he was at the market all the time.

The woman who saw him on the bridge made it up at the request of the gardai who threatened to tell her husband she was with another man and later corrected the record. So thats a nothing now.

He confessed to who? He used black humour with a reporter and a child claimed he said he did it, the child didn't even attend the case in france, his mother did!! what the hell is that.

He went out that night and his partner has said she believes he never did it, they were together for years after ans she defended him no end...

So now we have established there is no evidence against him at all - just a flawed investigation.

Sure if you can swallow the brick netflix threw fair play. But no evidence means no Guilty verdict.


Now he is a degenerate with a history of violence so I am not claiming his innocence but you'd have to be of limited intelligence to believe the info proves anything.

Alright you have answers for everything. I do not see how cutting down a xmas tree would give you all those scratches and a turkey pecked his forehead... you believe that story? wow.

You never gave an explanation how he was telling people about the french woman murdered even before it was announced?

Gussie Scrotch

Yurt! wrote: »

Good luck getting that past the DPP then

Fits the pattern of the other interviews.

q) Can you tell me what you saw?

a0 well it was a long time ago and my memory is a bit hazy now.

q) Can you try? There's an lot resting on it. A woman is dead and if we can't get this bastard off the streets, no woman in Cork is safe.

a) Well, I'll try...I have a vague memory of a bucket on the floor in the bathroom, with something in it.....


q) Could it have been a coat?

a) Well, I think it may have been clothes of some kind.

q) A coat maybe?

a) It could have been I suppose

q) Was it dark coloured?

a) I think so, but as I said, its so long ago...

q) So it could have been a dark coloured coat?

a) possibly...I'm not sure...but it was clothing of some kind...

q) Was there a smell of bleach off the bucket?

a) I really can't be sure...there may have been.....

q) So a big dark coat soaking in a bucket of water with bleach?

a) well, yes, I guess it could have been, I suppose


" Good. Just sign here please, we're all done".

odyssey06

Slick666 wrote: »

Alright you have answers for everything. I do not see how cutting down a xmas tree would give you all those scratches and a turkey pecked his forehead... you believe that story? wow.

You never gave an explanation how he was telling people about the french woman murdered even before it was announced?

Scratches explained in DPP report
Dr. Louise Barnes, a dermatologist (skin specialist) closely observed Bailey some five days after the murder. She states “at no time, did he strike one as being suspicious. As a keen observer of peoples appearance due to my profession I certainly did not notice any marks or injuries to his face or hands.”
Denis O’Callaghan saw Bailey on 24 December 1996 (the day after the murder) and he noticed multiple light scratches on Bailey’s arms.
Such light scratches are not consistent with cuts by razor like thorns.
Richard Tisdall in his statement 190B recalls seeing scratch marks on one of Bailey’s hands on Sunday night 22 December 1996 (prior to the murder but after the cutting of the tree and the killing of the turkeys)...
It is interesting to note that the Gardaí did not ask Bailey to show the scratches to a medical or any other expert witness in order to obtain an opinion as to causation.

The full report is here.
It also discredits the idea Bailey somehow knew about the murder before information about it started circulating.
https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/30/

Slick666

FileNotFound wrote: »

Now he is a degenerate with a history of violence so I am not claiming his innocence but you'd have to be of limited intelligence to believe the info proves anything.

So I've limited intelligence because I believe he did it?? Like who the heck else did it! An assassin from Paris? Please don't make me laugh.

Yurt2

Slick666 wrote: »

So I've limited intelligence because I believe he did it?? Like who the heck else did it! An assassin from Paris? Please don't make me laugh.

Ah the madness of crowds.

As someone else said in another thread, justice must have been some craic in medieval times.

Gussie Scrotch

Slick666 wrote: »

So I've limited intelligence because I believe he did it?? Like who the heck else did it! An assassin from Paris? Please don't make me laugh.

Well its not implausible that the husband arranged it but given the circumstances of the death, unlikely, I would say.

But, statistically , the husband is much more likely to be responsible than anyone else.

odyssey06

Slick666 wrote: »

So I've limited intelligence because I believe he did it?? Like who the heck else did it! An assassin from Paris? Please don't make me laugh.

I thought about the hitman angle, they could stage a scene but leaving the body out in open... nope.

How tight was the alibi of Sophie's ex who subsequently took his own life? The Guards seemed to have accepted a receipt as evidence he attended an art sale but was that ever cross checked with witnesses?

Was someone using the holiday home while Sophie was away? She changed the locks.
Why was she so concerned about the gate being left open.

What about the reports of breakins to holiday homes to steal booze and the expensive bottle of duty free wine found in a ditch?

Is Marie Farrell protecting someone?
If so who and why? Did she lie to divert attention from the real killer?

MoonUnit75

dark crystal wrote: »

Her original testimony was that she saw dark clothes soaking in the bath:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ian-bailey-had-fresh-scratches-on-arms-the-day-body-found-court-told-1.3908180



This somehow morphed into a black coat soaking in a bucket by the time she gave the Netflix interview.

In the Netflix interview she clearly says the clothes/coat were soaking in a bucket in the shower. So whatever was soaking was both in the bucket and in the bath/shower. The film crew, however, showed a coat in a bucket beside a square shower tray so I can see why people are confused about this. It’s unlikely an old cottage like theirs had a square shower tray in 1996 and a bath, it was probably a bath/shower.

Slick666

Yurt! wrote: »

Ah the madness of crowds.

As someone else said in another thread, justice must have been some craic in medieval times.

What??!

Aidric

odyssey06 wrote: »

I thought about the hitman angle, they could stage a scene but leaving the body out in open... nope.

How tight was the alibi of Sophie's ex who subsequently took his own life? The Guards seemed to have accepted a receipt as evidence he attended an art sale but was that ever cross checked with witnesses?

Was someone using the holiday home while Sophie was away? She changed the locks.
Why was she so concerned about the gate being left open.

What about the reports of breakins to holiday homes to steal booze and the expensive bottle of duty free wine found in a ditch?

Is Marie Farrell protecting someone?
If so who and why? Did she lie to divert attention from the real killer?

There are so many bad actors and conjecture in this case that coming to a definitive conclusion is impossible. Add in to that the differences in the French and Irish judicial systems and you're in a tight corner.

Marie Farrell managed to destroy the case from both sides and her testimony has no credibility.

Gussie Scrotch

Aidric wrote: »

There are so many bad actors and conjecture in this case that coming to a definitive conclusion is impossible. Add in to that the differences in the French and Irish judicial systems and you're in a tight corner.

Marie Farrell managed to destroy the case from both sides and her testimony has no credibility.

Yes zero credibility. Which is a great pity in some ways because she is one person who may actually be able to shine a bit of light into the dark corners

Holly13

I have just finished watching this on Netflix. My initial reaction was that Ian Bailey definitely did it but there is just not enough evidence.
But the Marie Farrell fiasco is what causes doubt. She lied on oath according to the documentary. Why has she never been charged? or held in contempt of court?
And why won’t she reveal the identity who she was in the car with? I mean, everybody knows she was in the car with a man who wasn’t her husband, so why, even under intense pressure will she not say who he was? It’s very strange. Could he have been a Garda who was involved in the investigation?

Frozen Veg

How is the Garda evidence allowed to be released for programs like this?

And how are former Detectives etc allowed to disclose details?

Yurt2

Frozen Veg wrote: »

How is the Garda evidence allowed to be released for programs like this?

And how are former Detectives etc allowed to disclose details?

Most of it became public domain via discovery in the civil cases Bailey took.

The Gardai interviewed are retired and passing comments on the above public domain material. Plenty more keeping their mouths zipped though.

MoonUnit75

Frozen Veg wrote: »

How is the Garda evidence allowed to be released for programs like this?

And how are former Detectives etc allowed to disclose details?

The legal team for the newspapers argued they should have access to the case files to adequately defend themselves against the defamation action taken by Bailey in 2003. They were granted access, presumably since the DPP had refused to bring charges?

Xander10

Holly13 wrote: »

I have just finished watching this on Netflix. My initial reaction was that Ian Bailey definitely did it but there is just not enough evidence.
But the Marie Farrell fiasco is what causes doubt. She lied on oath according to the documentary. Why has she never been charged? or held in contempt of court?
And why won’t she reveal the identity who she was in the car with? I mean, everybody knows she was in the car with a man who wasn’t her husband, so why, even under intense pressure will she not say who he was? It’s very strange. Could he have been a Garda who was involved in the investigation?

It's hard to believe a word that woman says, so it's hard to rely on her statement of being out that night.

OwlsZat

Holly13 wrote: »

I have just finished watching this on Netflix. My initial reaction was that Ian Bailey definitely did it but there is just not enough evidence.
But the Marie Farrell fiasco is what causes doubt. She lied on oath according to the documentary. Why has she never been charged? or held in contempt of court?
And why won’t she reveal the identity who she was in the car with? I mean, everybody knows she was in the car with a man who wasn’t her husband, so why, even under intense pressure will she not say who he was? It’s very strange. Could he have been a Garda who was involved in the investigation?

I came to the same conclusion. Did any of the investigating Guards live in the area? It mentions somewhere she had a long term non romantic relationship with the fella. So people in the locality must know. It's awfully strange though she won't release the name when the suggestion alone is enough to rock any marriage. Unless it's her husbands brother of course!

In a normal world the judge get's it out of her, so you'd have to lean on the AGS angle.

OwlsZat

Xander10 wrote: »

It's hard to believe a word that woman says, so it's hard to rely on her statement of being out that night.

Her testimony about seeing IB the Saturday night thumbing from Murphys was shown to be correct. I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. I don't think she has the intelligence to mix the truth and non-truth. She saw someone at the lake. It's possible she called it Bailey when unsure, but you can be sure she saw someone.

Holly13

Holly13 wrote: »

I have just finished watching this on Netflix. My initial reaction was that Ian Bailey definitely did it but there is just not enough evidence.
But the Marie Farrell fiasco is what causes doubt. She lied on oath according to the documentary. Why has she never been charged? or held in contempt of court?
And why won’t she reveal the identity who she was in the car with? I mean, everybody knows she was in the car with a man who wasn’t her husband, so why, even under intense pressure will she not say who he was? It’s very strange. Could he have been a Garda who was involved in the investigation?

Its clear she was intimidated afterwards from Bailey.

Very small locality.

When women were afraid and moved away.

MoonUnit75

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

Sorry, MoonUnit, I don't understand your question.

Can you exoand a bit?

You said the GSOC report was 'the biggest cover-up of all' or words to that effect, how is it then that IB's legal team failed to demonstrate any of these claims in his civil case against the gardai?

dark crystal

Woody79 wrote: »

Its clear she was intimidated afterwards from Bailey.

Very small locality.

When women were afraid and moved away.

Yeah, she was so terrified of Bailey that she hung around the same small town he lived in, shopped in, had a market stall in etc. for a decade after making her false allegations.

She only moved away from Schull in 2006 after intimidation from the Guards, one of whom she claims called her son a 'bastard'.

How many other women do you claim were so afraid of Bailey that they moved away and would it have anything to do with the Guards spreading the word around town that he was a killer and it was only a matter of time before he killed again?

bluelegend

The “lightbulb” moment for me was when the investigating detective reminded the interviewer that the Gardai had to find out who Fiona/Marie Farrell was…..that in itself removes the theory that the Gardai intimidated her and told her what to say. It’s clear Bailey was on her case. The Gardai made mistakes but definitely not as bad as they were painted out to be. Bailey is a very clever narcissist.

noc1980

A woman is murdered and there's a close neighbour with the following...

1. A history of battering women.
2. Away from his home and without an alibi at the time of the murder.
3. Changed his account multiple times of his whereabouts at the time of the killing.
4. Confessed numerous times, including telling 2 witnesses "I went too far" - leaving no room for "black humour" interpretation.
5. Had a wife who 'didn't know' if he did it.
6. Displayed a scar on his head that wife couldn't account for prior to the murder.
7. Lit a fire destroying clothes and a mattress in backyard.
8. Knew earlier than he 'should have' of murder.
9. Knew there was no rape when he 'couldn't have'
10. Claimed to not know the victim, disputed by others.

Does all this make IB guilty? No but some on here seem to think if there isn't a CSI tv show load of forensic evidence that all other evidence is worthless. Ridiculous. That man should have stood trial.

chicorytip

QuietMan2010 wrote: »

In fact the Met managed to pin Jill Dando's murder on the local weirdo, based on the flimsiest of forensic evidence. The conviction was later overturned, in part because the Met lied about armed police being present at his arrest (which could have transferred the microscopic particle of gunshot residue on which he was convicted). So yep, whether its police corruption or incompetence, it is not unique to AGS.

There were daft conspiracy theories surrounding Dando's killing as well but all of the evidence pointed to the guilt of the main suspect and, just like the killing of Sophie, not one scintilla of new evidence has since emerged to connect anybody but the main suspect to the murder. He (Barry George) got lucky. The conviction was overturned on the basis that a highly improbable scenario might have occurred. Police are smart and, mostly,not corrupt. Charging somebody with murder is not something done on the spur of the moment or without thorough investigation or preparation by the investigating team. That is what happened in West Cork in January 1997 with the arrest of Ian Bailey. He happened to get lucky also.

MoonUnit75

dark crystal wrote: »

Yeah, she was so terrified of Bailey that she hung around the same small town he lived in, shopped in, had a market stall in etc. for a decade after making her false allegations.

She only moved away from Schull in 2006 after intimidation from the Guards, one of whom she claims called her son a 'bastard'.

How many other women do you claim were so afraid of Bailey that they moved away and would it have anything to do with the Guards spreading the word around town that he was a killer and it was only a matter of time before he killed again?

Journalist Michael Sheridan in the documentary said he knew of women who were so afraid of Bailey that they moved away.

She made formal complaints of intimidation to the gardai, witnesses saw her terrified after seeing him. Geraldine O'Brien testified that while she worked in her shop Ian Bailey came in and MF became nervous and asked her to ring one of the garda detectives.

Remember, Jules Thomas split from him recently because her daughters would not visit her if he was there.

dark crystal

bluelegend wrote: »

The “lightbulb” moment for me was when the investigating detective reminded the interviewer that the Gardai had to find out who Fiona/Marie Farrell was…..that in itself removes the theory that the Gardai intimidated her and told her what to say. It’s clear Bailey was on her case. The Gardai made mistakes but definitely not as bad as they were painted out to be. Bailey is a very clever narcissist.

'Fiona' didn't identify Ian Bailey. Marie didn't identify Ian Bailey at first either. It was only after she had given her initial statement that she magically recognised the man she saw on three different occasions as Ian Bailey. Marie Farrell saw Ian Bailey in incriminating places THREE times by the the time her entire statements had been given.

From DPP report: https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/

Between 2p.m. and 3 p.m. on 21 December 1996 Marie Farrell alleges that she saw a man who she later purports to identify as Ian Bailey outside her shop on Main Street Schull.
In her statement dated 27 December 1996 she states that he was approximately 5 foot
10 inches in height and of thin build.
Bailey in fact is over 6 foot 2 inches tall and of a strong and powerful build.
Her alleged observation was made in the full light of day.
At a consultation with the Gardaí in February 1997 this discrepancy was pointed out to D/Sgt. Liam Hogan and Detective Superintendent Ted Murphy.
In the report submitted with the Garda file received in this Office on 5 September 1997 Marie Farrell’s misdescription as to Bailey’s height was explained by alleging that she was in an elevated position in the shop while observing him.
No explanation was given for her misdescription in relation to his build.

In her statement dated 14 February 1997 she states that on Monday 23 December 1996 at about 3 a.m. she was with a male friend in her motorcar and she saw a man walking on the road. He was stumbling forward and had his two hands to the side of his face but she could see his face.
She states that she identified the man as being the same person she had seen on 21 December 1996 in Schull and on the morning of 22 December 1996.

Her evidence is diminished still further by reference to her statement dated 27 December 1996 in which she states that she saw the same man on Sunday morning 22 December 1996 at 7.15 a.m. on the roadway thumbing a lift, because the evidence on file proves that Bailey was elsewhere at 7.15 a.m. on that date

You think this woman's THREE sightings of Bailey were all credible? At least one of them was a provable lie, which makes the other two extremely dodgy, even taking away the fact she has since retracted them because she claims Guards pressured her into lying about having seen Bailey.

The Gardaí only found her because she was dumb enough to call from her house phone the third time. She never identified Bailey in the calls.

EmmetSpiceland

bluelegend wrote: »

The “lightbulb” moment for me was when the investigating detective reminded the interviewer that the Gardai had to find out who Fiona/Marie Farrell was…..that in itself removes the theory that the Gardai intimidated her and told her what to say. It’s clear Bailey was on her case. The Gardai made mistakes but definitely not as bad as they were painted out to be. Bailey is a very clever narcissist.

But she didn’t say it was Bailey until after she’d contacted the Gards. She just saw a man. It wasn’t until later than it was suddenly Bailey, someone who did not match her original description.

noc1980

noc1980 wrote: »

A woman is murdered and there's a close neighbour with the following...

1. A history of battering women.
2. Away from his home and without an alibi at the time of the murder.
3. Changed his account multiple times of his whereabouts at the time of the killing.
4. Confessed numerous times, including telling 2 witnesses "I went too far" - leaving no room for "black humour" interpretation.
5. Had a wife who 'didn't know' if he did it.
6. Displayed a scar on his head that wife couldn't account for prior to the murder.
7. Lit a fire destroying clothes and a mattress in backyard.
8. Knew earlier than he 'should have' of murder.
9. Knew there was no rape when he 'couldn't have'
10. Claimed to not know the victim, disputed by others.

Does all this make IB guilty? No but some on here seem to think if there isn't a CSI tv show load of forensic evidence that all other evidence is worthless. Ridiculous. That man should have stood trial.

I agree that he's guilty on balance of probability, but is there a reasonable doubt of his guilt?

If you were on a jury would you convict on basis of no doubt of his guilt.

The doubt in my head would be there is nothing to conclusively link him to being at murder sight at time.

All of the above suggests that he had the motive, the opportunity and was probably capable of such a crime.

Maria Farrells evidence is not reliable and does'nt aid or take away from his guilt.

He is never going to court or jail for this crime.

As said earlier by another poster he got lucky with poor police investigation.

dark crystal

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Journalist Michael Sheridan in the documentary said he knew of women who were so afraid of Bailey that they moved away.

She made formal complaints of intimidation to the gardai, witnesses saw her terrified after seeing him. Geraldine O'Brien testified that while she worked in her shop Ian Bailey came in and MF became nervous and asked her to ring one of the garda detectives.

Remember, Jules Thomas split from him recently because her daughters would not visit her if he was there.

Does this witness say Bailey threatened her in any way?

It's not a crime to call into a shop in a small town. There aren't that many. Why didn't Farrell move away from the area if she was so terrified, as the other women apparantly did according to this reporter?

I'm not surprised her daughters wouldn't visit - Bailey is an insufferable drunk and they've seen their mother consumed by his troubles for the last 25 years. We could all see it in the JS doc. Nobody wants to see their mother that unhappy. This doesn't mean they believe he is a murderer, nor have any of them espoused such a view. They just think he's an awful partner and they'd be right.

odyssey06

odyssey06 wrote: »

Such light scratches are not consistent with cuts by razor like thorns.

You've never been scratched by thorns then...

MoonUnit75

dark crystal wrote: »

Does this witness say Bailey threatened her in any way?

Both IB and MF said their conversations in her shop were in private, IB said he turned on a jukebox to drown out anything they might have said. MF told the witness to go and ring the gardai so she presumably did that and wouldn't hear anything of what went on. The shop was large, I think it sold clothes and had an ice cream parlour as well.

It's not a crime to call into a shop in a small town. There aren't that many. Why didn't Farrell move away from the area if she was so terrified, as the other women apparantly did according to this reporter?

Not moving away is hardly proof someone wasn't intimidated! We've already covered this ground, unless she entered witness protection or left the country, where could she go under her own and her families names without being located by Bailey?

I'm not surprised her daughters wouldn't visit - Bailey is an insufferable drunk and they've seen their mother consumed by his troubles for the last 25 years. We could all see it in the JS doc. Nobody wants to see their mother that unhappy. This doesn't mean they believe he is a murderer, nor have any of them espoused such a view. They just think he's an awful partner and they'd be right.

They know he has had extremely violent outbursts. I'm absolutely amazed at how his brutal attacks are consistently minimised. 'Consumed by his troubles' :rolleyes:

Darc19

noc1980 wrote: »

A woman is murdered and there's a close neighbour with the following...
.

Close neighbour?

They lived over 3 miles apart. 3.2 miles as the crow flies, 3.9 miles by road. Very rough terrain. Pitch black.
You'd do very very well to walk it in an hour and a half and that would be someone that was sober and fit in on a fine summer's day

Henry...

Darc19 wrote: »

Close neighbour?

They lived over 3 miles apart. Very rough terrain. Pitch black.
You'd do very very well to walk it in an hour and a half and that would be someone that was sober and fit.

Is there any evidence either way that he used the car

boege

noc1980 wrote: »

A woman is murdered and there's a close neighbour with the following...

1. A history of battering women.
2. Away from his home and without an alibi at the time of the murder.
3. Changed his account multiple times of his whereabouts at the time of the killing.
4. Confessed numerous times, including telling 2 witnesses "I went too far" - leaving no room for "black humour" interpretation.
5. Had a wife who 'didn't know' if he did it.
6. Displayed a scar on his head that wife couldn't account for prior to the murder.
7. Lit a fire destroying clothes and a mattress in backyard.
8. Knew earlier than he 'should have' of murder.
9. Knew there was no rape when he 'couldn't have'
10. Claimed to not know the victim, disputed by others.

Does all this make IB guilty? No but some on here seem to think if there isn't a CSI tv show load of forensic evidence that all other evidence is worthless. Ridiculous. That man should have stood trial.

Plus
11. Soaked a heavy dark coat, with buttons, in a bucker of water a few days after the event, in the middle of winter. (Witness by Italian(?) girl leaving the shower in IB's house) (This I found very interesting!). The burnt materials, included clothing with buttons.

For me the totality of evidence in the programme is what changed my mind.

However, if I was a juror, I would certainly want to be sure of that's lady's testimony of seeing IB at 3.30am before I would even think about a conviction. A lineout selection by the guards would have provided some firm evidence that stood over time as her evidence is the only firm evidence that puts IB near the crime scene at the time. Everything else is circumstantial, to a greater or lesser extent. The knowledge of the crime scene (e.g. no evidence of SA) could have been leaked. Small town and all that.

As an experienced reporter, IB would have known the above. That lady looked mighty scared in the interview when she recanted her testimony.