Sadb wrote: » You’d be surprised! But there was definitely at least another one. Why didn’t they go to her house?
Sadb wrote: » Why exactly would guards need a statement from people that were at a party months before that Bailey also attended? He strikes me as a person that attended the opening of an envelope so nothing strange or particular about that party.
Cona44 wrote: » How do u know Bailey knew the one other french person. He later said he was aware Alfie Lyons had a french neighbour so he went there first. Jules went to take photos as she was a photographer. Personally I see nothing wrong with this. He was the local journalist and there was a murder on his doorstep. Seems normal to me that he would be all over it.
Castlekeeper wrote: » The randy garda, now deceased, is the only local theory that ever made sense to me, IB seems to gain some satisfaction from being the a red herring all these years.
monkeybutter wrote: » I doubt there would be too many french women staying out near schull in December
Sadb wrote: » Them knowing where the crime scene was/who was murdered also doesn’t sit well with me. They said that they heard it was a french woman but we do know that there was definitely another french woman in the area at that same time. My parents have a house in west cork and if you mentioned that a German/french/Dutch person died it could be any of 20 houses in the local vicinity. Also why did jules go with him? He was there apparently as a reporter but why was she there?
awec wrote: » I remember from the podcast that I had a fairly low opinion of Marie Farrell. Seems like a total time sink. I think she came out of the podcast worse than anyone. I don't really believe that someone would walk to murder someone and then walk home. Isn't that the implication with the bridge sighting? It seems so counter to the crime itself, which was fairly frenzied (from what I remember).
Sadb wrote: » Why is there such a hoo ha over the coat? Sure he’s wearing it on Christmas Day so obviously didn’t wear it when he murdered her, if he did. What’s also baffling is that the hair in her hand was her own, why would she have her own hair in her hand? Also the blood under her fingernails, was that also ruled as being just hers or just not Ian Baileys? Obviously the man on the bridge is complete crap or is nothing to do with Sophie. It’s over 2km from the house, a person didn’t walk to and from Sophie’s remote house, they wouldn’t have decided to wash their boots on a busier road/ area than they came from…..
Bannasidhe wrote: » Seemed at the time like someone came up with a list of people who had been present at a party when Ian Bailey was known to have been in the vicinity. I honestly can't remember what month it was but I think late August 1996. Whoever supplied that list was not present as they got names wrong, missed out people, named wrong members of family etc. As I said, the majority of people were involved in the high end hospitality industry in Cork and knew each other by reputation if not in person. Bailey was the exception but fancied himself as a gourmand. Our host was an exceptional chef. From those who were eventually interviewed (less then half those in attendance) by Gardaí the thrust of their interest was on 'proving' Bailey discussed/showed a lot of interest in the victim. He didn't. Ian Bailey spent the afternoon smoking spliffs and trying to portray himself as an expert in everything. Ever single person who had been there contacted the ASG and offered to give a statement. Funnily enough the AGS did call my bother for an interview as he was heard speaking French on a mobile phone by a Guard. 2 weeks later. In Cork City. He wasn't even in Ireland at the time of the murder, this wasn't a circle he moved in, and when he asked when they were going to talk to me the Guard got snotty with him. We're still shaking our heads over that.
monkeybutter wrote: » do you still have the ford?
AdrianG08 wrote: » Very interesting post. It seems once they have their narrative they won't deviate, but interestingly in this instance one would imagine they would have contacted you at least to see if you had anything they could use against him (i.e a statement he may have made).
AdrianG08 wrote: » When the guard was chiming on about the coat being burned, why wasn't he stopped in his tracks and told about the garda report that shows it was taken into evidence? Would have loved to see his response. Why was he allowed to spin that untruth as fact without being challenged by the makers of this documentary? The cops were a disgrace, no doubt wanted a swift conviction as the french were watching on. Sometimes these documentaries annoy the hell out of me, as sometimes its the very small things the need to be looked into and cast iron answers given relating to such small issues. The gate, the bottle of wine, the missing statements and the blood. Cover all of these and rule them out on factual stuff, don't ever presume or assume.
Cona44 wrote: » If you read the DPPs report, it becomes clear they that office is certain that the guards were trying to stitch Bailey up on every turn possible. No one was really in charge and plenty of the them were using intimidation tactics and coercion to twist the case. - IB knew too much too soon. This was completely shot down by the DPP, as 96FM posted it on the 2pm news bulletin. IB was contacted by Cassidy at 1.40pm (approx). After hearing it was a French woman he made his way towards Alfie Lyons. Cassidy later tried to say he never mentioned French woman, but it was clear this was urged by the Guard who the DPP named as his likely source for all the info. - IB offered DNS very early on. As a crime journalist, he would have been aware of how DNA works, and it would have been expected that hair and blood DNA would have been found at the scene of this crime. This was seen as a show of innocence. remember the guards are painting a picture of a drunken rage from Bailey. There is no way he went about the murder like that and then cleaned up all traces of DNA etc. in the middle of the night. - Lost evidence; Why on earth has the most critical pieces of evidence in this case gone missing??? The blood stained gate is lost. Ian Baileys black coat is missing, even though Detective Dwyer seems to insist he burned it in the fire even though the Guards themselves seized it. Missing the earliest statements from IB, Marie Farell and Jules Thomas, which are basically pages that were ripped out of the copy book. An expensive bottle of wine that was found in the ditch is missing, why was this never fully traced? - Breakfast food found in Sophies stomach may suggest she died closer to early morning than actually in the early hours (this is only something I heard and haven't been able to verify) - Finally, and most crucially, the French apparently found further DNA (blood) on the boot of Sophie that was never identified other than not being IB. Why is this not being chased up further? To me, there is far too many circumstances that need to be followed up on. Maybe they are not all true. But constantly chasing IB and reporting on what he said, what he didnt say is absolute stupidity.
Cona44 wrote: » Ive always said that the answer in this case is most likely the simplest one. To often, we look for far flung theories about what may have happened and this gets gradually worse as time goes on. For me, its quite simple. Whoever did this, had to know the area well. On top of that, if it was a local they would have had marks to the body in some form. Bailey was a known vicious, womaniser who was close to killing his own partner. He was wearing the long dark black jacket that all of a sudden went missing as part of a bonfire in the following days. His hands were destroyed in cuts as well as a nick to the face. In my opinion, its a bit far fetched for all the above to be a coincidence. The guards knew this too as well as many locals. But without any DNA evidence they knew they would have to prove it by other means. Marie Farrell was the absolute bombshell though. I cannot figure out why she inserted herself into this case at all. I can only guess she wanted a bit of fame which ultimately backfired on her. I think she probably did see Bailey on Ceal Fada bridge that night. The rest seemed to be lies forced out of her by gardai. Who was in the car with her though and why would she not release the info. She should have been arrested and prosecuted for not supplying this info.
SusanC10 wrote: » I have listened to West Cork (some time ago now) which I thought was excellent. We watched the first 2 Episodes on Sky but need to watch the rest and will watch the Netflix one. What is the thing about the blue car ? I don't remember that from the Podcast but maybe I have just forgotten.
upupup wrote: » I never had a blue feista but i did have a blue opel????
