EmmetSpiceland wrote: » I only heard eyelets from a shoe and bed springs from an old mattress we’re found.
tibruit wrote: » It`s a poor opening line in reality though. I would suggest that if you lived in a rural area where someone local was brutally murdered by an unknown assailant, you would have a distinct memory of where you were and what you were doing at the time for years afterwards, never mind a couple of weeks.
Padre_Pio wrote: » Nope. That's a fallacy. They say people remember where they were when they heard that JFK had been shot on November 22, 1963, or John Lennon on December 8, 1980. Its one thing to remember when you heard it, but another to remember what you were doing the exact time of, or the days before it. Also, it's been shown that every time your remember an event your memories change. There's just no reliable witnesses anymore.
SalthillHead wrote: » Her statement to the Guards said she saw “dark clothes” in the tub. Arianna told me that at some point when she was in the cottage, she wanted to wash or dry her hair, and she went into the bathroom, and she saw clothes – or something, at any rate – soaking there. She did not get close enough to the bathtub to say what kind of clothes they were, to know what the material was or – now, in 2019 – confidently recall the colour. Foster, Nick. Murder At Roaringwater (p. 280). Mirror Books. Kindle Edition. In the netflix doc, it made out she was certain she saw a black coat soaking in a bucket.
Mackwiss wrote: » so in other words, more intrigue, more hollywoodesque statements focusing on IB all at the same time forgetting there's a woman dead and the culprit still not really found...
bb12 wrote: » yep this exactly. when rachel o'reilly was murdered in my area, i remember everything about that morning, cars that were on the road, the weather etc etc. when you hear about a local murder that day, you remember back to that morning and details stick in your head for years and years.
tibruit wrote: » Ask me what I was doing at this time two weeks ago and I could make suggestions based on habit, but I wouldn`t have distinct memories. However, ask me about this day two weeks ago when Sophie up the road was murdered and there was an unknown killer in our midst and I would be able to recall most of that day and I would also have been mulling over the events of the previous days wondering if I`d noticed anything suspicious. Sarah Koenig posed the wrong question.
Woody79 wrote: » please say your not a gardai for the sake of this country.
MacDanger wrote: » You might be able to recall most of that day but would you be able to do so accurately? You'd believe you would but that doesn't make it true.. As an example, the evidence from Eddie Cassidy (in a number of statements, the earliest taken in Feb '97) about the late morning/early afternoon of the murder, who he called and when he called them has been objectively shown to be false (by phone records)
Yurt! wrote: » Somebody on the thread had it about an hour each way on foot.
Mackwiss wrote: » Posted a good few posts ago... it's about an hours walk between both houses through hills and country lanes, not passing through the bridge. Passing by the bridge is around 90 minutes walk.
odyssey06 wrote: » I wonder is that walking in daylight or walking by moonlight at night on unlit roads...
chicorytip wrote: » When I speculate about things turning nasty in the house I am thinking about the behaviour or attitude of the individual she may have been in company with, a male. It could have been an unwanted sexual advance or comments which made her fearful enough to attempt to flee the situation. If that is what happened it does not necessarily follow that there would have been signs of disturbance in the kitchen which would likely have been the case had there been a prolonged physical struggle inside between victim and assailant. I still think the most credible theory is that she was attempting to flee, was caught and then bludgeoned to death at that spot inside the front gate.
Padre_Pio wrote: » The French verdict is irrelevant. Their justice system is incompatible with ours and the guilty verdict was nonsense. Hence why the high court refuses to extradite Bailey. Beating his partner is not evidence of murder. Who knows why he said that, or what state of mind he was in, or even if it's true.All evidence points to him because the Gardai had no other suspects. Doesn't mean he's guilty and as I said before, it doesn't matter what people think. Whether you like it or not, Bailey is innocent until an Irish court proves him guilty.
namloc1980 wrote: » Why wouldn't she have run to the neighbours next door instead?
chooseusername wrote: » Attachment not found. Or if walking drunk the difference is staggering. It's 2.5 miles walking (50 mins no shortcuts) or driving (4-5 mins). 2 miles as the crow flies.Attachment not found.
tibruit wrote: » There will always be errors in witness recall. But I`m taking issue with the Koenig question specifically. It is phrased to cast doubt on witness testimony. Whether this is subtle intention or just careless journalism, I don`t know because I haven`t listened to the podcast.
retro:electro wrote: » You’re applying rational thought to a woman who was likely in fear for her life. She likely just ran and didn’t think too much about where she was going
am_zarathustra wrote: » It's a great listen actually. And in the context of that story, certainly not careless journalism. Eye witness testimony is sketchy at best. If you get someone to write down immediately after what happened you get something approaching the truth. Within 48 hours its very open to suggestion. The vast majority of the cases (70%) initially taken by the Innocence project were taken due to the main form of evidence being eye witness, people sure enough of their identification of an individual (sometimes known to them) at a crime scene to testify in a court case where a possible outcome as the death penalty. I've had people write out what happened in an incident within minutes of it happening, fairly serious incidents at times, and the difference in perception of situations and how those situations arose is startling. I don't trust my own recollections at this point given the variance you see.
rdwight wrote: » Jim Sheridan was on the radio the other day. He said Marie Farrell said she saw a man with a sallow complexion and a wearing a beret at the bridge that night. He was also carrying a string of onions over his shoulder. (Okay, I may have misheard that last bit).
mioniqa wrote: » I would like to know more about the neighbours. It's known that she had an ongoing feud with them over the shared gate - her wanting it closed, Alfie (and others?) preferring it shut. The fact she was found beside the gate ties in with this in my mind. Also we can assume she knew the person as she had tied boots on and there was no sign of disruption within the house, and no sexual motive evident. The blood on the door is also a strange one as it indicates the murderer went back up to the house rather than flee immediately. If it was a neighbour, they would have to go up past her house before heading to their own and could easily have shut the door over and in doing so left a trace of blood. I also read somewhere that Alfie told Bailey that were was blood on the door so he definitely knew about it. Another thing is the changing of the locks, when did that happen? Apparently she arrived at the house once and they found the bath dirty. What kind of dirt? If someone had bathed in my bath when I was out I might not notice and would not necessarily describe it as 'dirty', 'used' maybe. I would put bets on that someone had urinated in the bath.
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » Yes, this is a theoretical scenario that, for me, ticks most of the boxes. Alfie knew Sophie, was definitely at the scene (next door),and had an ongoing dispute with the victim. The possible reasons for the attack happening at the gate could also fit . EG Alfie wanting to leave/enter and the gate being closed, Sophie going down to the gate to discuss the issue, a row escalating etc. On this basis, Alfie is a much more plausible suspect than Ian Baily, who didn't know Sophie (or there is at least, very little reason to believe he did) Wasn't there ( or had no reason to be there) and had no obvious motive. All speculation, of course, but I would have had a close look at Alfie had I been investigating this.
monkeybutter wrote: » The whole case is summed up by Billy Fuller, went looking for this stick he thought Bailey had used as the murder weapon, while out looking for it down by the bridge, he thought he saw Bailey there with the stick and ran from him. It was a farmer with a plank of wood. And yet this guy would have swore blind it was Bailey and even now when its known it wasn't Bailey at all, he still thinks it was him. How could you ever catch the killer when you have idiots like him and Marie Farrell in the picture.
Treppen wrote: » Did bailey say at about 12pm he looked across and saw a light on in Alfie's house and said to Jules there might be a party on their tonight?
Treppen wrote: » Why would a farmer be carrying a plank of wood around?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
