Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Murder at the Cottage | Sky

1457910210

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,894 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    Yurt! wrote: »
    Allo Monsieur MoonUnit,

    We 'av received very reliable how you say evidence from not so crazy local dairy farmer that you were present in Schull West Cork zee night of zee murder. We hear from locals you 'av been a very naughty boy and 'av very bad reputations. Please come to Paris at earliest convenience so we can conduct un très très fair trial.

    Repondez s'il vous plaît,

    Cordialement,

    Very important French person with your best interests in mind.


    sedcw.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1



    suspiciously like the man Marie now claims she saw at the bridge


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Don't you mean payees?:P
    I meant players actually:D. have corrected


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,894 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    fryup wrote: »
    who are you alluding to??




    I'd drag Larry into it, but the vanishing triangle can only stretch so far


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,702 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    Not sure he would be expecting the man himself to be jumping at the opportunity to be interviewed were he alive

    More like, did this allegation rear its head

    Yeah thats what I was asking, did the Sky documentary raise the allegation from this Graham chap that the Gardai were giving him free hash in exchange for a statement that would help to frame Bailey
    threeball wrote: »
    It would tie in with why the Guards made such a botch of the investigation too. We saw in Raphoe how protective they were of their own and this was around the same era.

    The Raphoe case has some similarities and is also an unsolved murder where Gardai tried to frame an innocent man Frank McBrearty. That resulted in the Morris Tribunal and McBrearty having his name cleared and paid 2.5 million in compensation for suffering years of harassment from the Gardai
    odyssey06 wrote: »
    France should have been told to take a running jump with the abuse of power they claim for themselves in terms of trying a case that occurred on Irish territory.

    Agree fully but no doubt but it was part of horse trading between France and Ireland. Varadkar met Macron in Paris in 2017 after the du Plantier family had already met officials in the highest levels of the French government. Ireland needed Frances support at EU level on Brexit, France needed the DPP files so they could put on a show trial to keep the du Plantier family happy. Both events happened after that meeting.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4 Timck


    Ian Bailey is Innocent although he should be locked up for spousal abuse.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭notahappycamper


    Just finished the West Cork podcast. I hadn’t heard of it prior to it been discussed earlier in this thread. Wow, some level of detail and investigation. Weighing things up there is obviously no concrete evidence against IB. Only he knows the truth. But Jesus, the level of incompetence by the Gardai, bribing of witnesses and missing exhibits is absolutely diabolical. The podcast comments on the GSOC investigation in the last episode. The French court case was a a farce.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,395 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    I am up to episode 4..
    It feels a tad biased...I don't think Sheridan thinks Bailey did it...and it shows.

    I honestly think he did it. But the gardai made an absolute hames of the investigation, disaster after disaster, people like that clown Marie Farrell are not credible and muddied the waters absolute eejit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 745 ✭✭✭ClosedAccountFuzzy


    fryup wrote: »
    irish licence plates were wishy washy back then, most were red some were black and some were white...its only in the late 90's that rules got strict about number plates with all new cars sold with the standard type we have today

    Red rear plates with black letters were used here in the 1980s. You might have still found them on older cars at that stage back in the mid 90s. They disappeared in 1987, when the current numbering scheme was introduced.

    We would have had various non standard plates until the current EU format with the flag was introduced in 1991. From that point on they looked like they do today. It wasn’t unusual to have silver lettering on black plates for example.

    French plates in that era would have been a mix of black letters on yellow rear plates and white plates on the front, or for cars up to 1993 they were black plates with silver lettering.

    Irish and French numbering of that era can also clash randomly sometimes too as you could end up with something like 94 RN 38

    Format was: NN AA XX
    Where NN was 1 to 4 numerical digits.
    AA was two letters
    XX was the two digit department number (equivalent to our county letters)

    France also issued red plates for temporary registration. They would have looked very similar to our old plates, but I’m bit sure why a temporary reg car would have been outside France. They’re usually dealer plates or import plates, like the ZZ series here.

    The only other source of red plates would be Belgium, where they were the standard on that era.

    I’d be fairly confident the Gardai at the time would have been fairly well able to figure out plate colours of Irish and French cars though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 794 ✭✭✭Biker79


    Some reasons why I believe Bailey couldn't have done it.

    1. The jaunty way he engaged with a video camera hours after the killing, reciting a limerick/ poem. He hadn't a care in the world and was in high spirits. Unless he was a complete psycho, that's not the behavior of a killer.

    2. His partner, knowing all of his faults which included a physical attack on her, is certain he didn't / couldn't have done it.

    3. He doesn't try to hide his foibles. They are there for everyone to see. You would imagine he would have kept up some sort of façade if he was guilty.

    Without looking at the hard evidence, those reasons alone made him an unlikely suspect.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,894 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    Just finished the West Cork podcast. I hadn’t heard of it prior to it been discussed earlier in this thread. Wow, some level of detail and investigation. Weighing things up there is obviously no concrete evidence against IB. Only he knows the truth. But Jesus, the level of incompetence by the Gardai, bribing of witnesses and missing exhibits is absolutely diabolical. The podcast comments on the GSOC investigation in the last episode. The French court case was a a farce.

    They didn't bribe a witness as such, they tried to coerce him to go undercover and befriend bailey, ply him with a bitta gange and confess

    I mean that was the smartest thing they did

    With Marie Farrell mad as a bag of spanners, so discount anything she said

    Again they weren't prepared for this kinda thing, so as much an institutional failure as individual


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,894 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    gmisk wrote: »
    I am up to episode 4..
    It feels a tad biased...I don't think Sheridan thinks Bailey did it...and it shows.

    I honestly think he did it. But the gardai made an absolute hames of the investigation, disaster after disaster, people like that clown Marie Farrell are not credible and muddied the waters absolute eejit.

    No motive and no evidence though


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,395 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    No motive and no evidence though
    I honestly don't believe him about the scratches from the tree and turkey.
    He also admitted doing it to multiple people.
    But yeah no hard evidence, partially I would say due to gardai incompetence


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,894 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    gmisk wrote: »
    I honestly don't believe him about the scratches from the tree and turkey.
    He also admitted doing it to multiple people.
    But yeah no hard evidence, partially I would say due to gardai incompetence

    If he had scratches etc from the brambles he wouldn't have left more blood on them when he was up walking around, was he even allowed in the house

    It's surely impossible for someone in a rage killing like this to remove all evidence after

    Yet as far as I know nothing was found


    One of those people was a 14 year old schoolboy

    The other was at a party when all were drunk

    It could mean something, but it's paper thin


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,894 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    gmisk wrote: »
    I honestly don't believe him about the scratches from the tree and turkey.
    He also admitted doing it to multiple people.
    But yeah no hard evidence, partially I would say due to gardai incompetence

    If we could only see the brilliant drawing

    I mean you could get scratches from anything

    Hardly unbelievable


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,177 ✭✭✭Fandymo


    If there was some sort of flirtation between them, is it surprising that it was completely secret?

    Have you seen/heard Ian Bailey? If he was having an affair with a French writer and wife of a famous French director, do you think he’d be able to keep quiet about it? He’d love telling everyone about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,177 ✭✭✭Fandymo


    If there was some sort of flirtation between them, is it surprising that it was completely secret?

    Have you seen/heard Ian Bailey? If he was having an affair with a French writer and wife of a famous French director, do you think he’d be able to keep quiet about it? He’d love telling everyone about it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    If we could only see the brilliant drawing

    I mean you could get scratches from anything

    Hardly unbelievable

    They didn't know how to use a camera?

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,894 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    They didn't know how to use a camera?

    I had the first camera in whest cork you know


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭MoonUnit75


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    They didn't know how to use a camera?

    From my reading of the DPP report, Bailey was first questioned a few weeks after the murder. The reason there were drawings instead of photographs is probably because the visible scratches had healed by then so drawings were made to provide some record of the observations of gardai who had dealings with him shortly after the murder. You don't generally photograph the hands of people attending the scene of a crime or suspected of a crime without first arresting them.

    I think the DPP was too eager to dismiss the case, perhaps to avoid an embarrassing demolition of the hapless gardai at trial. Several times the DPP describes Ian Bailey's behaviour as 'indicating innocence' without giving any consideration to a perpetrator having a fatalistic resignation to being caught, or hoping for full co-operation to reflect well on them when it came to sentencing. This would be consistent with the several witnesses who made statements that Bailey basically admitted to it, perhaps even wanting to be caught and enjoying the notoriety. Nearly all of these witnesses are described as either being suggestible or wanting to please the gardai. This is not even considered once when his partner and children's statements are presented as corroborating his account.

    Some of the reasoning is contradictory. The DPP says Marie Cassidy's statements are completely unreliable and should be dismissed. But they also use her description of Bailey wearing a long coat to argue that wearing this long coat would have prevented him getting scratches from the thorn bushes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,068 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


    MoonUnit75 wrote: »
    From my reading of the DPP report, Bailey was first questioned a few weeks after the murder. The reason there were drawings instead of photographs is probably because the visible scratches had healed by then so drawings were made to provide some record of the observations of gardai who had dealings with him shortly after the murder. You don't generally photograph the hands of people attending the scene of a crime or suspected of a crime without first arresting them.

    I think the DPP was too eager to dismiss the case, perhaps to avoid an embarrassing demolition of the hapless gardai at trial. Several times the DPP describes Ian Bailey's behaviour as 'indicating innocence' without giving any consideration to a perpetrator having a fatalistic resignation to being caught, or hoping for full co-operation to reflect well on them when it came to sentencing. This would be consistent with the several witnesses who made statements that Bailey basically admitted to it, perhaps even wanting to be caught and enjoying the notoriety. Nearly all of these witnesses are described as either being suggestible or wanting to please the gardai. This is not even considered once when his partner and children's statements are presented as corroborating his account.

    So guess work?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,130 ✭✭✭gussieg


    so, does that mean Jules and her daughter are lying, is that what you mean?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭MoonUnit75


    gussieg wrote: »
    so, does that mean Jules and her daughter are lying, is that what you mean?

    No, I think they should apply the reasoning about the credibility of witnesses consistently, not just when it implicated Bailey.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭MoonUnit75


    So guess work?

    Do you think police drawings based on witness accounts are all guess work? They are used very often.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 726 ✭✭✭weadick


    Has anyone read the book by Foster, Murder at Roaringwater.....half tempted to buy it but he seems to have made his mind up regardless.


    I have read it. It is a very good book, well written.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    MoonUnit75 wrote: »
    Do you think police drawings based on witness accounts are all guess work? They are used very often.

    Drawings taken from descriptions from these keystone cops weeks after the event?
    I wouldn't even call it guess work, I'd call it garbage.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,894 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    MoonUnit75 wrote: »
    From my reading of the DPP report, Bailey was first questioned a few weeks after the murder. The reason there were drawings instead of photographs is probably because the visible scratches had healed by then so drawings were made to provide some record of the observations of gardai who had dealings with him shortly after the murder. You don't generally photograph the hands of people attending the scene of a crime or suspected of a crime without first arresting them.

    I think the DPP was too eager to dismiss the case, perhaps to avoid an embarrassing demolition of the hapless gardai at trial. Several times the DPP describes Ian Bailey's behaviour as 'indicating innocence' without giving any consideration to a perpetrator having a fatalistic resignation to being caught, or hoping for full co-operation to reflect well on them when it came to sentencing. This would be consistent with the several witnesses who made statements that Bailey basically admitted to it, perhaps even wanting to be caught and enjoying the notoriety. Nearly all of these witnesses are described as either being suggestible or wanting to please the gardai. This is not even considered once when his partner and children's statements are presented as corroborating his account.

    Some of the reasoning is contradictory. The DPP says Marie Cassidy's statements are completely unreliable and should be dismissed. But they also use her description of Bailey wearing a long coat to argue that wearing this long coat would have prevented him getting scratches from the thorn bushes.

    In fairness you don't normally let journalists walk around a crime scene either

    If he had been wearing a coat as she said and it happened outside they why the searches is entirely logical if she had seen him

    If she didn't see him then the scratches could be from anything

    People go on about him contaminating the crime scene, but they didn't find anything



    The dpps decision was entirely logical


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    weadick wrote: »
    I have read it. It is a very good book, well written.
    anything new in it? was going to buy it but there seems nothing new anywhere


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,894 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    MoonUnit75 wrote: »
    No, I think they should apply the reasoning about the credibility of witnesses consistently, not just when it implicated Bailey.

    The person who implicated bailey did a fine job of destroying her own credibility all on her own

    The others could be credible, but we have no way of knowing, but it's nowhere near enough


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,894 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    SoulWriter wrote: »
    anything new in it? was going to buy it but there seems nothing new anywhere

    This is real life not Hollywood

    Nothing new


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    MoonUnit75 wrote: »
    From my reading of the DPP report, Bailey was first questioned a few weeks after the murder. The reason there were drawings instead of photographs is probably because the visible scratches had healed by then so drawings were made to provide some record of the observations of gardai who had dealings with him shortly after the murder. You don't generally photograph the hands of people attending the scene of a crime or suspected of a crime without first arresting them.

    I think the DPP was too eager to dismiss the case, perhaps to avoid an embarrassing demolition of the hapless gardai at trial. Several times the DPP describes Ian Bailey's behaviour as 'indicating innocence' without giving any consideration to a perpetrator having a fatalistic resignation to being caught, or hoping for full co-operation to reflect well on them when it came to sentencing. This would be consistent with the several witnesses who made statements that Bailey basically admitted to it, perhaps even wanting to be caught and enjoying the notoriety. Nearly all of these witnesses are described as either being suggestible or wanting to please the gardai. This is not even considered once when his partner and children's statements are presented as corroborating his account.

    Some of the reasoning is contradictory. The DPP says Marie Cassidy's statements are completely unreliable and should be dismissed. But they also use her description of Bailey wearing a long coat to argue that wearing this long coat would have prevented him getting scratches from the thorn bushes.


    The reason the DPP dismissed it is because they know there wasn't a chance they'd get anything past a jury. Even the softest Director of Prosecutions wouldn't sit on a murder charge if they had a scintilla of compelling evidence.

    This isn't Murder She Wrote; prosecutors aren't going to trial over a crude pencil drawing of scratches on hands and the word of a daft woman who you wouldn't leave in charge of your cat.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,894 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    What's the story with her having had breakfast? Is that bull surely they could have placed her time of death somewhat accurately or did the time it took to get down from Dublin riuin this


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,433 ✭✭✭dublin49


    very little new information except from a friend of Sophie who came forward to say Sophie had received a phone call from Ireland from a man claiming to be a poet ,he seemed to have freaked Sophie ,pity this lead wasnt possible to follow up,I didnt watch all 5 episodes but my wife said Bailey did gardening for Sophie's neighbour,never heard that before either.In general theres a lot of circumstantial evidence .The scratches,the fire,the fact he admits he left the house,the confessions,the knowledge of classified detail .history of violence,fixtation with sex,can make me understand the comment further back that well over half the town thought he did it.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    What's the story with her having had breakfast? Is that bull duty they could have placed her time of death somewhat accurately or did the time it took to get down from Dublin riuin this
    This is real life not Hollywood. Harbison could not get down till the day after, that ruined finding time of death


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,035 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Fandymo wrote: »
    Have you seen/heard Ian Bailey? If he was having an affair with a French writer and wife of a famous French director, do you think he’d be able to keep quiet about it? He’d love telling everyone about it.

    Mightn't necessarily have (yet) developed into a full-blown affair. And obviously from her death onward he has a very strong incentive to keep quiet about any connection they might have had. Whether or not he is guilty...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    dublin49 wrote: »
    very little new information except from a friend of Sophie who came forward to say Sophie had received a phone call from Ireland from a man claiming to be a poet ,he seemed to have freaked Sophie ,pity this lead wasnt possible to follow up,I didnt watch all 5 episodes but my wife said Bailey did gardening for Sophie's neighbour,never heard that before either.In general theres a lot of circumstantial evidence .The scratches,the fire,the fact he admits he left the house,the confessions,the knowledge of classified detail .history of violence,fixtation with sex,can make me understand the comment further back that well over half the town thought he did it.


    Take me to gaol Constable!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,433 ✭✭✭dublin49


    one thing that struck me as odd is why the scratches on his hand from cutting down Xmas tree wasnt proved or disproved conclusively,he hardly put the xmas tree up on 23rd Dec ,you would imagine with young kids in the house it would have been up for weeks,did Bailey confirm when he cut tree down.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    dublin49 wrote: »
    one thing that struck me as odd is why the scratches on his hand from cutting down Xmas tree wasnt proved or disproved conclusively,he hardly put the xmas tree up on 23rd Dec ,you would imagine with young kids in the house it would have been up for weeks,did Bailey confirm when he cut tree down.


    The claim is he was killing a turkey for Christmas dinner.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    dublin49 wrote: »
    one thing that struck me as odd is why the scratches on his hand from cutting down Xmas tree wasnt proved or disproved conclusively,he hardly put the xmas tree up on 23rd Dec ,you would imagine with young kids in the house it would have been up for weeks,did Bailey confirm when he cut tree down.
    from DPP file "Bailey cut the tree on Sunday 22 December 1996."


  • Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭Cona44


    Yurt! wrote: »
    The claim is he was killing a turkey for Christmas dinner.

    It was proved, the daughter confirmed the story as well as a local farmer who saw him pulling the tree down the road.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16 SevenAte9


    MoonUnit75 wrote: »
    From my reading of the DPP report, Bailey was first questioned a few weeks after the murder. The reason there were drawings instead of photographs is probably because the visible scratches had healed by then so drawings were made to provide some record of the observations of gardai who had dealings with him shortly after the murder. You don't generally photograph the hands of people attending the scene of a crime or suspected of a crime without first arresting them.
    .....

    I think you should re-read the DPP's report.

    First, IB was interviewed by a Garda Sergant on December 31st - no mention of marks on hands - not "first questioned a few weeks after the murder."

    Secondly, from pg25 of the DPP's 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)


    Does it not strike you as odd that of the 44 page report, the entire forensic evidence was dealt with in 1 section on 1 page.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,894 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    SoulWriter wrote: »
    This is real life not Hollywood. Harbison could not get down till the day after, that ruined finding time of death

    You seem like an expert on the subject, do how long is too long after death to be able to determine it


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,894 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    dublin49 wrote: »
    very little new information except from a friend of Sophie who came forward to say Sophie had received a phone call from Ireland from a man claiming to be a poet ,he seemed to have freaked Sophie ,pity this lead wasnt possible to follow up,I didnt watch all 5 episodes but my wife said Bailey did gardening for Sophie's neighbour,never heard that before either.In general theres a lot of circumstantial evidence .The scratches,the fire,the fact he admits he left the house,the confessions,the knowledge of classified detail .history of violence,fixtation with sex,can make me understand the comment further back that well over half the town thought he did it.

    Did it not take 2 or 3 years for this allegation to surface


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Yurt! wrote: »
    The reason the DPP dismissed it is because they know there wasn't a chance they'd get anything past a jury. Even the softest Director of Prosecutions wouldn't sit on a murder charge if they had a scintilla of compelling evidence.
    This isn't Murder She Wrote; prosecutors aren't going to trial over a crude pencil drawing of scratches on hands and the word of a daft woman who you wouldn't leave in charge of your cat.

    If you watched half a dozen Murder She Wrotes or Columbos you'd have picked up enough tips to do a better job than was done investigating this case!

    * Assuming you were genuinely trying to solve it instead of pin it on someone

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    You seem like an expert on the subject, do how long is too long after death to be able to determine it
    I'm not an expert . I think they said after a few hours when the body temp cools it becomes more or less impossible. I could be wrong not sure where i read that maybe in DPP file. edit not in dpp file. It is mentioned in the doc about 32 mins in. It says the body was actually frozen due to the cold weather


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭crackcrack30


    Didn't see it yet... any mention of an expensive bottle of wine?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,894 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    SoulWriter wrote: »
    I'm not an expert . I think they said after a few hours when the body temp cools it becomes more or less impossible. I could be wrong not sure where i read that maybe in DPP file. edit not in dpp file

    Well you seemed pretty sure of yourself

    I mean not much benefit in finding time of death after say 2 hours, but the next day yes

    Perhaps it being pretty cold would have affected it also, ambient temp etc


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,021 ✭✭✭Shelga


    If Sophie had been scratching him to defend herself, wouldn’t she have had his DNA under her fingernails?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Well you seemed pretty sure of yourself

    I mean not much benefit in finding time of death after say 2 hours, but the next day yes

    Perhaps it being pretty cold would have affected it also
    Paraphrasing James Donovan Senior Forensic Scientist, Garda Technical Bureau about 32 mins into doc


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    I don't think Ian Bailey killed Sophie, but it was a local.

    My theory is that she may have had a flirtation with someone locally, perhaps someone she was speaking to in the local bar where she often went to have tea and scones. Perhaps it wasn't even a flirtation, but merely a fledgling friendship. This would explain the two wine glasses and the missing bottle of expensive wine found in the ditch by the lane.
    The barman said she had expressed an interest in going to the Christmas party that night and perhaps this person offered to escort her. He arrived, they had a glass of wine, but she felt tired, or perhaps felt the person was looking for more than she was willing to offer and he left. Perhaps they didn't even touch the wine at all.
    She gets changed for bed, calls her husband and settles down for the night. However, the person comes back a while later, perhaps after having a few drinks at the party to see if she'll change her mind. This could be why she had her boots and dressing gown on, to walk the unwanted guest back to his car.
    He presses her and gets a bit more handsy, so she pushes him or says she'll call the police if he doesn't leave and that's when he panics and gets violent. He hits her and she tries to get back into the house, but he pulls her away and she starts running away from him, probably crying out at this stage. He catches up with her, they struggle and he hits her with the rock first, just to keep her quiet.
    He then realises if he leaves her alive, he's in big trouble, so he finishes her off with the block he finds a few metres away.
    I don't think he was on foot, as there were apparantly fresh track marks by the gate, so I'm not entertaining Marie Farrell's sighting at the remote bridge. I think she was a pure attention seeker.

    The police made a complete hames of the investigation and I doubt they'll ever find out who killed the poor woman. I think they know the killer alright, as he's a local, but they've invested too much time in Bailey at this stage to ever make an about face and admit they were wrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,894 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    SoulWriter wrote: »
    Paraphrasing James Donovan Senior Forensic Scientist, Garda Technical Bureau about 32 mins into doc

    Fair enough


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement