riclad wrote: » The French verdict of guilty makes no sense, There's basically close to zero forensic evidence, the Gardaí investigation was mediocre and disorganised Yes bailey acted in a strange and eccentric manner but that's not enough to get a conviction in court If the crime had happened in dublin it would likely have been investigated in a more professional manner And it seems the Gardaí presumed Bailey was guilty and did not try to look for any other possible leads
crooked cockney villain wrote: » I'm two episodes in about a case I remember happening but never really followed. Compulsive viewing. I have little doubt that the Netflix one is probably a pale shadow of it. TV productions are always simply better. Only thing- if I weren't Irish I'd struggle with the odd bit. The opener where the statement she says she would ring the guards- if I were foreign I'd be assuming the area or house had a private security guard presence. The term blow in wasn't explained very well for foreign folk either I thought. All up though, addictive viewing.
A Primal Nut wrote: » It's strange the DPP didn't go forward with the prosecution. There is much more evidence than other high profile murder cases that got a guilty verdict (Joe O'Reilly comes to mind).
O’Reilly told a woman on the day of Rachel’s murder that no sexual assault had taken place on his wife’s body, even though the post mortem did not take place until the following day. Gardaí maintain that only her killer could have been certain of such a fact. O’Reilly told Jackie Connolly, a close friend of Rachel’s, that he was afraid of being framed for the murder as there were “a few hours” when he didn’t have an alibi. Another witness, Fiona Slevin, claimed O’Reilly questioned why garda were searching fields for the murder weapon when it was in the water on the day of Rachel’s funeral.
[Deleted User] wrote: » I really want to watch Murder at the Cottage now that I have seen 2 Netflix episodes. It is absorbing. The garda comes across as arrogant. I can hardly believe the amount of errors. Bailey is a very unpleasant man and his false tones of voice make me think he is a liar. I do not have a steady idea yet on who did it. The big burning behind the house seems to be very suspicious. So does driving to the scene before word was out. The light not on in her house has people estimating death at 8 ish or so. But she might not have been lured to the gate. She might have been up early, had a bit of breakfast and then put on her boots to check out the dawn. She might have turned off the house light so she could experience the natural dawn or even pre dawn light. Maybe even she wanted to walk the lane in the dark. Maybe she walked down the familiar lane to the gate just to have the sensation of the cold still early dawn or even moonlit walk in a remote place she loved. I think she was the kind of person who would have liked that kind of thing. Maybe someone happened to be there at the end of her peaceful stroll who had an interest in her.
isha wrote: » I really want to watch Murder at the Cottage now that I have seen 2 Netflix episodes. It is absorbing. The garda comes across as arrogant. I can hardly believe the amount of errors. Bailey is a very unpleasant man and his false tones of voice make me think he is a liar. I do not have a steady idea yet on who did it. The big burning behind the house seems to be very suspicious. So does driving to the scene before word was out. The light not on in her house has people estimating death at 8 ish or so. But she might not have been lured to the gate. She might have been up early, had a bit of breakfast and then put on her boots to check out the dawn. She might have turned off the house light so she could experience the natural dawn or even pre dawn light. Maybe even she wanted to walk the lane in the dark. Maybe she walked down the familiar lane to the gate just to have the sensation of the cold still early dawn or even moonlit walk in a remote place she loved. I think she was the kind of person who would have liked that kind of thing. Maybe someone happened to be there at the end of her peaceful stroll who had an interest in her.
padraig1963 wrote: » To me it's strange there was no dna got off the final murder weapon, the heavy concrete block. Surely if the killer violently lifted a 25kg rough surfaced block like that as many times as is suggested some skin cells would have been grated off onto the block. Unless the murderer was wearing gloves in which case there wouldn't be scratches on his hands, wouldn't be blood left on briars or any fingerprints left on the gate etc.If the killer was wearing gloves then it leans more to a premeditated killing by whoever I would believe, and away from IB. I wonder if that block is still in a garda evidence store somewhere for a more advanced examination? If not skin cells then maybe there's fibres from gloves.Or has the 17 inch block gone the way of the gate, the bottle of wine, the missing files, the torn out notebook pages etc.
bewareofthedog wrote: » Not true imo, O'Reilly left his phone turned on and in essence it acted like a gps tracking his every movement.
Mackinac wrote: » Or a woman might be wearing gloves on a cold winter night.
TomCor1 wrote: » The fact that the poetry book on the table was left open on the poem 'A Dream of Death' is quite bizarre. Probably mentioned here before but Yeats wrote this poem at the time the woman he loved, Maud Gonne, was traveling to France. Yeats believed she would die on this trip.
A Primal Nut wrote: » Joe O'Reilly had no forensic evidence against him either and he was convicted in Ireland. There is plenty of other types of evidence. O'Reilly was convicted purely because phone masts showed he travelled home when he said he didn't, so he lost his alibi. Bailey lost his alibi a long time ago when both he and wife admitted he got up in the middle of the night and wasn't seen back home until 9am.
Before forensic science was developed, witnesses were relied upon.
The confessions
That he knew about the murder of a French woman many hours before he claims he did.
There's enough there for a trial. It's possible that a criminal trial would have put it beyond reasonable doubt. Maybe, maybe not.
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » The lack of a light on in the house is key. The fruit and nuts found in her stomach ay the PM and the uncovered loaf of bread on the table all support the probability of it being morning when Sophie went down to the gate. Sunrise in west Cork at that time of year is at about 08.45. If the attack happened at that time, the Kealfadda bridge sighting is not relevant to the case and, critically, it rules out Bailey as he brought coffee to Jules at 9am. Such a pity the SP was delayed in the way he was.....the time of death is critical in this investigation.
odyssey06 wrote: » O'Reilly had a strong motive also. Bailey had none. And caused numerous miscarriages of justice when people were exonerated on forensic evidence. Which were not confessions. Untrue. There is nothing there for a trial and our DPP said so. The French trial was a a miscarriage of justice, for the reasons explained below. You cite his scratches, well how could he have scratches and there be no forensic evidence? Bailey provides hair, DNA, blood and fingerprint samples to AGS to try to clear his name. In the words of a prominent legal expert:Despite the bloodied and frenzied nature of the violent attack in a briar-strewn area that left about 50 wounds and briar scratches on the victim’s body “no forensic evidence” was found linking Bailey to the crime scene. “Had Bailey been the killer, it is inconceivable that he would not have left traces of blood, skin, clothing, fibres or hair at the scene,” said Mr Walsh. “The problem in the Bailey case is that the police file was compiled under the loosely regulated Irish investigation and then transplanted unfiltered into the French prosecution and trial process,” said Mr Walsh. “Most unusually, the DPP at the time subsequently described the Garda investigation as ‘thoroughly flawed and prejudiced’ against Bailey,” said Mr Walsh.https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30929485.html I'm not even saying Bailey is not guilty. I am saying he is innocent. No motive, no forensics, no eye witnesses putting him at the scene of a crime. Not having an alibi represents insufficient grounds to even on balance of probability put someone as guilty.
TalleyRand83 wrote: » Out of curiosity, Would you have liked him to have gotten a custodial sentence for the battering of jules even? Like I initially said, bizarre the Bailey defenders, truly fascinating, Im sure it was a French hitman who carried a cavity block as his weapon of choice. Certainly not the only clear suspect in the case
[Deleted User] wrote: » I really want to watch Murder at the Cottage now that I have seen 2 Netflix episodes. It is absorbing. The garda comes across as arrogant. I can hardly believe the amount of errors. Bailey is a very unpleasant man and his false tones of voice make me think he is a liar. I do not have a steady idea yet on who did it. The big burning behind the house seems to be very suspicious. So does driving to the scene before word was out.The light not on in her house has people estimating death at 8 ish or so. But she might not have been lured to the gate. She might have been up early, had a bit of breakfast and then put on her boots to check out the dawn. She might have turned off the house light so she could experience the natural dawn or even pre dawn light. Maybe even she wanted to walk the lane in the dark. Maybe she walked down the familiar lane to the gate just to have the sensation of the cold still early dawn or even moonlit walk in a remote place she loved. I think she was the kind of person who would have liked that kind of thing. Maybe someone happened to be there at the end of her peaceful stroll who had an interest in her.
orangerhyme wrote: » Her bed was unmade though. So not conclusive but implies she was in bed. The post mortem said the fruit and nuts were recently ingested but no definition of "recently".
Mebuntu wrote: » I've watched both series now and I will never be convinced that there is any evidence that a proper judicial system could convict on. The French "trial" was a complete farce and is an indictment of the French justice system. The suggestion of a French hitman was dismissed basically because "a hitman would have done a more professional job" so it "had to be someone local". My argument against that assessment is that if the murder did look like a professional job it would (could) point more easily to a sinister French involvement so the hitman would be under instructions to make it look like it was the work of a crazy local.
Treppen wrote: » I wonder about the bloodstain on her door. It would indicate at the very least that the handle was opened. Maybe the killer turned the light off to make it look as if the murder took place in the morning. That would buy them time to get an alibi or avoid people paying attention to the house at night just after the murder (bailey even spotted lights on in Sophie's neighbor's house that night so it was a thing to notice around them parts).
A Primal Nut wrote: » That he knew about the murder of a French woman many hours before he claims he did.
isha wrote: » All likely explanations. Except... They don't take into account an artistic personality. She was a film maker, an emotional person, a seeker of sensation. She could have eaten fruit, nuts and bread at any time of the night or early hours of morning. She could have been up reading, then wandering. Christmas time and the Solstice is an evocative, introspective time of the year plus with full moon etc - it could easily have drawn her out into the dark. Taking a walk out into the night for the romance of it, the mystery of it, was not outside the bounds of her personality. If she had wandered down to the gate to breathe the night air after having had a bit to eat and turned off lights so she could see the night sky, she could have met someone loitering by the gate of her property. It could have been anyone including Bailey. Not saying any of this is so, but the automatic presumption that it was after 8 or 9 am because the lights were out in the house does not necessarily follow. I don't turn out the lights inside as soon as light outside is sufficient in Winter. Those old houses do not let in all that much light. I do turn out lights inside if I want to walk around and experience the fullness of the darkness or dawn outside. I am just at the point in the 3rd part in the Netflix series where he had battered Jules so badly 6 months before. The very least that could be said for Bailey is he was an accumulator of the most unfortunate litany of implicating coincidences of any human being ever.
plastic glass wrote: » That really isn’t the way a “hit” would be carried out. If one was to order a hit I presume death is the primary goal. Granted the hitman may not use a gun but I do think they would have some sort of plan and it would be slightly cleaner than a cinder block and what has been described as an animal like frenzied attack
Mackinac wrote: » Regarding the hitman theory, did that originate from IB or where did he get it from? I know he referred to it in a conversation with his neighbour in February 1997 after his arrest.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7f0ee566c2a6a4f1cca1529d24ea5553.svg)
