Polly701 wrote: » Sophie and her housekeeper (Josie?) suspected someone may have been using the house when she was away. Was this ever explored? Perhaps this person turned up and there was an alteration? I don't believe it was IB. The Guards in this case were really out of their depth.
RurtBeynolds wrote: » Haven't read the thread, how are people rating this?
MoonUnit75 wrote: » Maybe it developed that way, but her original disclosures were the most crucial and she gave these anonymously, the gardai only managed to track her down when she made the mistake of ringing from her home phone instead of the payphones she had been using.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » I think GSOC did investigate the case as well as the civil action Bailey took against them for wrongful arrest, which he lost.
Gamb!t wrote: » There should be an investigation into the Guards mishandling of this case along with all of the above.
chooseusername wrote: » She was doing Det. Fitzgerald's bidding in return for favours , like getting their Council serviced site at a vastly reduced price; 1000 euro I believe and getting charges against her family dropped. She wasn't a fantasist, she was an opportunistic xxxxx. Tried to sell her story after the libel trial but no-one wanted her lies.
chooseusername wrote: » It's in that Irish Times article I linked to earlier, but it's behind a paywall and I didn't copy and paste it. Dodgy gardai, dodgy senator, dodgy council. just your average Irish way of getting things done.
SoulWriter wrote: » What is this and how could the gardai help with it? If the garda influenced the council isn't there someone in the council dodgy too
BnB wrote: » I happened to listen to the West Cork Podcast just a few weeks ago so it was all fairly fresh in my head before watching the Sky Documentary this week. My views on the program and some of the characters involved: The West Cork Podcast is a vastly superior piece of work in comparison to the documentary. There was very little (if anything) that I learnt new from the documentary. All I really got from it was that it put a face to some of the characters that I wouldn't have known before. It might sound harsh to say but, even if he is not guilty, I don't feel any pity whatsoever for Bailey. He beat up his partner 3 times including putting her in the hospital twice. I believe that he has absolutely loved all the attention that has come from all this. He has never tried to fade into the background in any way and has always kept himself in the limelight delighted to give interviews, ring radio shows, write letters to newspapers etc. Bailey is undoubtedly an alcoholic After listening to the Podcast, I felt really sorry for Jules. She has continued to provide a home (remember, he has nothing himself) for a man who has beat her up three times. I know she has now finally thrown him out now, but why did she let him stay for 20 odd years. After watching the documentary, I felt a lot less sorry for her. She never really seemed happy with him and most of the time she seemed to be really really (rightly) p1ssed off with him when he was being a complete drunken ar5ehole. To be honest with you, I just can't understand her at all. I wouldn't believe a breath out of Marie Farrell's mouth, either in favor of or against Bailey. She should be charged with and jailed for wasting Garda time/perverting the course of justice. The one thing that cannot be explained away is the scratches on his hand which, even though we don't have pictures, he acknowledges that he had. His Christmas tree and Turkey excuse is BS. We reared Turkeys growing up and I saw hundreds of Turkeys meet their end on Christmas week and no matter what you did, you would not get a scratch from them. They would flap their wings like hell but not scratch with their feet or beaks. The French Justice System is utterly Nuts. Thinking they can charge and find Bailey guilty for murder in Ireland based on an old law they used for controlling their colonies. Arrogant f**kers. I still believe that he's guilty
chooseusername wrote: » She was doing Det. Fitzgerald's bidding in return for favours ,like getting their Council serviced site at a vastly reduced price; 1000 euro I believe and getting charges against her family dropped. She wasn't a fantasist, she was an opportunistic xxxxx. Tried to sell her story after the libel trial but no-one wanted her lies.
bewareofthedog wrote: » Is there anywhere to watch this if you missed it on sky?
dark crystal wrote: » That was the description of the man she claims she saw on the street outside her shop watching Sophie. The man on the bridge was apparantly a tall man in a long black coat. She had a knack for spotting strange men at very opportune times it seems. Yeah, she named at least three men over the years. Complete fantasist imo.
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » OK I see your point. That, essentially, the Garda were a bunch of incompetent fools and this particular incident is merely representative of that, inherent incompetence. I take a slightly different, perhaps cynical view. 1) They left the body for two days exposed to the weather ...evidence lost/destroyed. 2) They lost a bloodstained, five bar gate....evidence lost/destroyed. 3) They (if they did) washed two wineglasses....evidence lost/destroyed. 4) The hair Sophie had grasped in her hands was lost........ 5) The investigation was directed/targetted on one individual. 6) At least three people were incentivised/encouraged to make false allegations against this suspect. There is a pattern here that , to me, supports the "conspiracy rather than cock-up" scenario. The washing of the glasses, if indeed it did happen, is so utterly, utterly in breach of standard scene of crime procedure and, frankly, common sense, that it beggars belief. For me, the Garda were either over anxious to get a result, or they were being misdirected from a senior level in an effort to prevent the killer being identified. The DPP, to their credit, recognised the glaring weaknesses in the case and refused to put it to the courts.
frosty123 wrote: » I wouldn't discount the angry tradesman theory either, maybe he wasn't paid for a job he did and turned up early that morning for his money and was refused payment for whatever reason and as a result lost his head..could easily happen
Ludikrus wrote: » So a plumber is admonished for calling too early and he decides to bash her skull in? T’is a good bit beyond the bounds of possibility actually.
Mackinac wrote: » Was she even on the road that night or was that lies too?
nc6000 wrote: » I don't think the statements from Marie Farrell should have been used if she has since retracted them. Correct me if I'm wrong but it's only her statement which had Bailey near the scene that night. I wonder what she was doing there and who was with. Assuming she's telling the truth about driving in the area that night doesn't that make her and her "friend" the only people known to have been in the area?
MoonUnit75 wrote: » How many of these statements have been retracted or claimed to be false? Only three that I'm aware of, the accused Bailey, his partner Jules Thomas and Marie Farrell. As far as I know over 60 wtinesses were put forward by the newspaper's defence during the defamation case and none retracted or deviated from what they had told the gardai following the murder. Invariably, they strongly defended the truth of their statements and rejected any suggestion that they were coaxed or put under any pressure. The judge said himself the leaked phone calls suggested Marie Farrell was not put under pressure. This was all under oath.
MyPeopleDrankTheSoup wrote: » case in point for people that tend to believe Marie Farrell, she said in the documentary that she WASN'T having an affair with the man in the car she was with late at night, when she told her husband she was only meeting friends. Yet in the podcast she said she was having an affair and her husband had forgiven her (why, i dunno). Lying and talking sh*te just comes easy to her.
Fr Tod Umptious wrote: » It occurred to me that MF was tucked up in bed the night of the murder. Her testimony holds zero weight. She claims she saw a dark skinned man wearing a beret at Kilfadda Bridge. Seriously a ****in beret in west Cork in December ? Did she see if he had a croissant or a french roll as well ?
And how convenient that she was in the company of a man that was not her husband, that she was unwilling to name, and when she did supply a name years later he had conveniently passed away.
Fr Tod Umptious wrote: » It occurred to me that MF was tucked up in bed the night of the murder. Her testimony holds zero weight. She claims she saw a dark skinned man wearing a beret at Kilfadda Bridge. Seriously a ****in beret in west Cork in December ?Did she see if he had a croissant or a french roll as well ? And how convenient that she was in the company of a man that was not her husband, that she was unwilling to name, and when she did supply a name years later he had conveniently passed away.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
