Caroleia wrote: » This is the crux of the article She claims to have identified the person in recent months from a photo online, according to informed sources."
Caroleia wrote: » This is the crux of the article "In the latest twist to the extraordinary case, Ms Farrell believes she can now identify the person outside her shop as a man who was known to Ms Toscan du Plantier’s late husband, Daniel. She claims to have identified the person in recent months from a photo online, according to informed sources."
Deeec wrote: » I think Marie Farrell was tucked up in bed that night. She was nowhere near Kilfeada bridge. I dont understand how her husband has stayed married to her. She is either a huge attention seaker or was bribed by the Gardai.
False Prophet wrote: » Just watched sky doc without knowing anything about the case before and based on lack of evidence i dont see IB doing it, in fact that he gave his dna so willing is another reason I dont think its him. Would have preferred if more time was spent on facts or probabilities. Overview picture of IB House to victim and to the bridge. Some expert to give probability of what happened based on facts or again overview picture of evidence. A better timeline of IB Events and could he realistically have done it in the time without his girlfriend knowing. Did he often get up in the early morning to go writing or was it a once off. And surely there has to be other suspects, was heating fixed( more to show that her reason to be in ireland was really that), did she have friends that she would have confined in about affairs, could it have been a kidnapping that went wrong, did she have life insurance, if getting a divorce how much would she have got. Pure speculation on my part but doc should explore those threads and then show evidence against. Blood on the door is odd to me, if it's a local they know about neighbours. So they kill the girl in a rage , then go back to the house to clean up/hide evidence but leave her body and the murder weapons (unless wearing gloves). Blood on gate was outside or inside? Was she trying to get in or out. Gate open means a car was there. Dont know why she would be down at gate anyway without a coat. Either running from danger but again wouldnt running to neighbours be shorter.
gmisk wrote: » Just one point I think the blood on the door was hers?
ShamNNspace wrote: » Was that the man with the beret? I'm surprised she didn't say he was wearing a striped geansai and had a string of onions around his neck
Deeec wrote: » The problem is noone believes anything Marie says anymore. She is not a reliable witness.
odyssey06 wrote: » Except the French! Who might now be hoist on their own petard...
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » Yep, that's also a strong possibility. But, on balance, I think she was there, returning from a game of "hide the sausage" at Barleycove beach. Once she had told the Garda this and that she had seen the mystery man at the bridge.....surely, given the gravity of the matter, the next step was to demand the identity of her companion? Followed by that person being asked to verify Mrs Farrell's story? But that didn't happen.....why not...?
chooseusername wrote: » She refused to give up the name at first to save his good name. Years later she came up with the name.... some dead guy from Longford.
fryup wrote: » i wouldn't be surprised to wake some morning to the news that's he's topped himself, he looks like he's at the end of his tether
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » Don't believe that the Guards would have accepted that refusal on such a serious issue. They would have got it out of her one way or another as, if the companion verified her claim, then it would have been a virtual clincher for them. Her claim that it was a man "who has since dies" is far too convenient. My guess ( and that's all it is ) ...her companion that night was a Guard.
Deleted User wrote: » Well it's definitely worth following it up, should be fairly straightforward to check him out. In some crime cases those close to it have knowledge that they will never say to the media because of libel, slander, fear. The husbands family are very powerful in France. Maybe this is a way of finally getting a look in that direction. Or a more far fetched theory, maybe Sheridan is using Farrell in the same way the guards did at the start.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » My sense of Farrell is that she is amenable to whoever is paying her the most attention at that particular time. This ‘new information’ is ridiculous, it struck her he looked familiar 25 years after seeing him for a grand total of 10-15 seconds? She’s already said she gave false testimony at one trial, this will go absolutely nowhere. Shocked at Sheridan taking it seriously. Schull is a tiny place, where did this guy stay? Why did no one else see a guy skulking around in a beret and french accent in the dead of winter? Why wait until the very last night she was staying in Cork and be seen openly in public all over the weekend?
MoonUnit75 wrote: » That no longer makes any sense. She’s already given dodgy statements that one guard practically sexually assaulted her in the toilets of a bar which she said she was cleaning as part of her job. It turned out cleaning toilets were not part of her job and her description of the layout of the toilets was also wrong. She also alleged another Garda was naked waiting for her in a house. There’s no reason to believe she is protecting any individual garda or afraid of the gardai in general.
jimwallace197 wrote: » I wouldn't agree, its already been established she was in dispute with her neighbors over leaving the gate open. This could only be down to security concerns. She would hardly head down there (a woman in a foreign country on her own) and confront some fella(s) in the middle of the night about what he or they were up to. Also as for Alfie being an actual drug dealer, i dont think thats even been established yet and stoners dont tend to be the type of people going around murdering people. His wife being a retired teacher and then he starts dealing drugs out of his house, i dont know.
chooseusername wrote: » I knew it all along, 'twas Roger Moore.https://www.granger.com/wmpix/age/rue/0145419-ISABELLE-HUPPERT-AND-DANIEL-TOSCAN-DU-PLANTIER-French-actress-Isabelle-Huppert-with-director-Daniel-Toscan-du-Plantier-and-behind-Roger-Moore-at-YvesMontand-concert-at-Olympia-october-14-1981-Full-credit.jpg
Deeec wrote: » Agree completely with what you have said here. Also Daniel was pretty distinctive looking - there is no way she is only realising now ( 25 years later ) that it was him. Im guessing Sheridan is happy to use it to publicise his documentary.
corcaigh07 wrote: » Actually came across him locally about a week before the Jules breakup was made public. He was sitting on his own and looked absolutely desolate. The local paper has mentioned he's staying in a B+B at the moment and he's in and out of Jules' house with a final moving out date in July.
Fr Tod Umptious wrote: » Quick question Why are people discussing Farrell and what she has said, both at the time and in subsequent years ?
robwen wrote: » Well her story is that the guards coerced her into lying that she saw Bailey so they were keeping her sweet to stick to that story
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » The Guards were struggling to find evidence on Baily. Mrs Farrell's "sighting" was the strongest piece they had. Had her "sighting" been corroborated by another person (the companion") Then their case would be very much strengthened. Hence my question - why not force her to disclose the name, interview him and confirm her story?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bd89cdce15309a6ec2dff928c865017a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e68aa2b0e039b12ade8384a2f42841c6.svg)
