Gussie Scrotch wrote: » Its a long shot....why would she subsequently contact the Gardai? It would seem, in such a scenario, to be far safer to keep her head down.
el Fenomeno wrote: » Rather than wait to be accused and then argue their innocence, guilty people will often volunteer their innocence to try get in ahead of any accusation. It's not too dissimilar to the oft-utilised "he who smelt it, dealt it" counter-argument of "he who denied it, supplied it". Of course I'm talking about farts, but the same behavioral science applies to murder.
SoulWriter wrote: » the sentence is a lot different though
Mackwiss wrote: » this right here! The weight of guilt would also mean why she keeps changing her story. Also a common trait in killers...
SoulWriter wrote: » MF should be an actor. She speaks with conviction when she say it was bailey at Kilfeada bridge and is equally convincing when she withdraws her statement looking straight at the camera, no sign of anxiety or stress
Mackwiss wrote: » The other scenario that could implicate Bailey if that if it proves true he saw the lights at Alfies, and wanted to go to the party. Goes home. Wakes up in the middle of the night to go to Alfies to the "party" tries to open the gate and the confrontation happens. Though... as Jules mentioned, he would've hidden very well this situation. IB is an emotional man as one can see from so many interviews.. He is not a cold blooded killer able to hide something like this. Here's a killer being uncovered decades after the fact and just look at her reaction:https://youtu.be/WLSNPkf8RCU I would also like to point out these videos: Innocent until proven guilty: https://youtu.be/BemHqUqcpI8 Stephen McDaniel's reaction when he found out during a live interview his crime was being uncovered (first 4 minutes of the video): https://youtu.be/HkRjIq8Cp2A Multiple killers pretending to be insane and an actual mentally unstable killer confessing it directly: https://youtu.be/Mwt35SEeR9w
el Fenomeno wrote: » It also protects her in the future if someone else saw her near the bridge, or the scene of the crime. If she says nothing, volunteers no information and keeps her head down, and plenty of time passes - and no doubt several Gardaí appeals for anyone who was in the area also pass - and then it comes to light she was there, she's in trouble. If she's innocent, why not speak up and answer one of the appeals? Why wait until someone else says they saw her or accused her? Whereas if it comes to light that someone else saw her after she's already volunteered that she was there for a different reason, it's less damning.
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » Yes, I noticed that too.....very hard to read. She might be lying....she might not.
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » Was there a party at Alfie's house that night?
listermint wrote: » To catch him ? Overall his film made the majority of viewers think he didn't do it. Which was at odds to the cork podcast which made many including me question bailey more. So if that is your assertion then Sheridan's editing was so poor people came out feeling sorry for the man .
Yurt! wrote: » 1. Has it ever been established and corroborated who exactly was in the car with Farrell that night? Or indeed if she was ever was in a car passing the bridge at all? So much about Farrell doesn't make any sense. Given that Bailey was resident in Schull for a number of years and Farrell was a shop owner, is it credible that she didn't know him even to see prior to the murder? 2. The detective Garda that is highlighted in both documentaries does not come across well at all. Not assigning malice on him as that can't be proven, but he has an air of smugness about him that's hard to shake. Bailey certainly has an arrogance about him and I think it was two fairly narcissistic men sitting down opposite each other when he came to interview Bailey early doors. I think a personality clash ensued and it made the investigating Gardai more determined to nail Bailey. Certainly it's likely it created a situation where the Gardai felt like they couldn't back down to him and they went further down the rabbit hole. 3. I think the whole town and area turned into the valley of the whispers. One of the Schull residents alluded to this where he said he went to the cops about someone he knew and looking back it was more or less him going loopy with the murder and the paranoia around.
Weddings ahoy wrote: » If MF was in the car that night and the mysterious man was with her, why has her husband never come forward with the name of the man , she has admitted to telling Chris everything eventually so what are we to believe she didn't tell him which ex lover she was with ??? If it were my spouse he wouldn't just let me away with saying i was driving with a man that night you don't know him so don't ask anymore! Therefore if it is true and i highly doubt it is why has no one spoken to her husband, why has no one pressured him into revealing the mystery man, and do her family know, parents siblings, none of mine would let me keep a secret in a huge murder mystery like that, they would disown me .
Yurt! wrote: » At the 2014 trial it was revealed she has at different times given three different names (names in article) as to the companion that night. That's suss as f*ck in my view. The walkout from court when she was put under pressure by the judge about the identity - something doesn't smell right there.https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30654781.html
SoulWriter wrote: » I don't know but when bailey and jules were parked on the way home from the pub he suggested going to alfies as there might be a party. They went home.That was when he said he had a feeling something bad would happen that night
bemak wrote: » She moved away from Schull in the end to escape the attention. Can't imagine it's any better where she is now. Did she leave because of what she might have been involved in perhaps? If the man outside the shop, and on the bridge was fabricated; and possibly even the passenger in the car considering how the description/name of all three has changed numerous times, it would start to look like MF herself is a prime suspect in my eyes.
Mackinac wrote: » That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. I wonder if Sophie could see the gate from her bed - she had it raised on a platform so she could look out the window at Fastnet. If she saw a couple at the gate making a commotion/noise maybe she went down to investigate. If one of the couple were a woman she was probably less intimated and more likely to head down to see what was up. People rarely turn up to a party empty handed which might explain the bottle of wine in the ditch.
Treppen wrote: » Was there a full unopened bottle of wine in the ditch?
Mackinac wrote: » Yes, an unopened expensive bottle of wine (60-70 Euro) was found in the bushes on a laneway not far from Sophie’s house in the months after her murder.
Mackinac wrote: » Just came across this regarding the wine, from The Independent, December,2011One source close to the investigation recalled that, at the time, alcohol was often stolen from the drinks cabinets of empty holiday homes. This takes me back again to thinking a couple having an affair might want to use the cottage for a couple of hours. Maybe they had a habit of going to empty holiday homes. Sophie thought someone had been using her cottage while she away.
odyssey06 wrote: » Wouldn't there be some signs of forced entry? The holiday home would hardly be left unlocked while not in use... Unless they left a key somewhere or with someone \ tradesmen had copied a key?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
