nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

Agent Coulson

Drops June 30th.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-FoSNGGldg

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

odyssey06

Foweva Awone wrote: »

My theory is that the mystery man in the car with Marie Farrell was in fact Ian Bailey.
They were having some sort of an affair, they had a fight, and she dumped him out of her car at or around that Kealfada bridge. He's pissed off and drunkenly decides to make his way to the French woman's house, possibly to try it on with her. Gets rejected, gets violent with her, takes it too far.
Marie Farrell hears of the murder the next day, immediately suspects Bailey as she knows he'd been in the area and in a bad mood, so she decides to report him "anonymously" so her husband won't find out what she was up to.
I don't think it's much more outlandish than any other theory!

But her original evidence against Bailey was all over the shop... she actually said the guy was the same height as her husband who isn't ballpark same height as Bailey.

"The 2001 DPP analysis examined the quality of Ms Farrell’s evidence. It found that she had given different physical descriptions of the man whom she had identified as Bailey. The man on the bridge, she said, was the same man whom she saw in Schull a few days later."
“Marie Farrell’s powers of observation and identification are diminished even further by virtue of the statement she made on January 22, 1997. She describes the man she saw in the town who she later purports to identify as Bailey as being very tall. This contradicts her description of the man as being five foot 10 inches in height as stated by her on December 27, 1996.”

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30928165.html

odyssey06

tibruit wrote: »

Bailey still doesn`t have an alibi at 8.

I thought I read he was home at 9am... and there was no sign of his car at the scene so that's a bit of a stretch to cover on foot in that time.

Foweva Awone

My theory is that the mystery man in the car with Marie Farrell was in fact Ian Bailey.

They were having some sort of an affair, they had a fight, and she dumped him out of her car at or around that Kealfada bridge. He's pissed off and drunkenly decides to make his way to the French woman's house, possibly to try it on with her. Gets rejected, gets violent with her, takes it too far.

Marie Farrell hears of the murder the next day, immediately suspects Bailey as she knows he'd been in the area and in a bad mood, so she decides to report him "anonymously" so her husband won't find out what she was up to.

I don't think it's much more outlandish than any other theory!

Nozebleed

has marie farrell ever been questioned about the murder? she was in the area at the time of death and seems a little bit odd in fairness. just as odd as mr.bailey

Henry...

Darc19 wrote: »

It's important to know that one of the producers of the Netflix doc is a friend of the Du Plantier family.

And that Ian Bailey has not been convicted of any crime

tibruit

odyssey06 wrote: »

It can start within 2-4 hours, and yes low temperatures can delay it - but 'violent exercise' can cause it to occur more quickly according to this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/rigor-mortis

So it could have happened at 7am or even 8am.

Bailey still doesn`t have an alibi at 8.

tibruit

Windmill100000 wrote: »

Rigor mortis averages 2-4 hours I think.

2-6 depending on the temperature. 4 is the average. It can be 2 hours in warmer conditions. That`s my understanding of it anyway. It was just above freezing on the night in question.

odyssey06

tibruit wrote: »

It would have to have been very early. The doctor was on the scene at 11 am and noted that rigor mortis had set in. This usually begins approximately 4 hours after death, but in colder conditions it would take longer. It got down to 2 degrees that night so she was probably killed before 5 am. She spoke on the phone to her husband shortly after midnight. She was killed at the same time that Bailey was out of bed.

It can start within 2-4 hours, and yes low temperatures can delay it - but 'violent exercise' can cause it to occur more quickly according to this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/rigor-mortis

So it could have happened at 7am or even 8am.

[Deleted User]

Watched both with an open mind. Had only read about the story in passing interest whenever it’s been in the media. Read up a little since.

I’d be absolutely open to the theory that it could have been Bailey. But I just don’t see it. Both docs seems to have a differing opinions. Sheridan seems to want to exonerate Bailey, the Netflix one pushes him as chief suspect most of the way through, but as a previous poster mentioned about the creators, neither seem to take a genuine neutral stance.

A lot of the Gardai behaviour doesn’t add up. Too many important things lost - how do you lose a blood splattered gate? I know the gardai’s incompetence is accepted as a given in this, but I dunno, it doesn’t add up. Some of MF’s allegations and theories would do with some exploration into Gardai behaviour in this case.

I’ll have a listen to the pod and see if that pushes me in either direction. I wouldn’t lean any way between whether it was IB, the husband or a member of the community being protected.

Windmill100000

tibruit wrote: »

It would have to have been very early. The doctor was on the scene at 11 am and noted that rigor mortis had set in. This usually begins approximately 4 hours after death, but in colder conditions it would take longer. It got down to 2 degrees that night so she was probably killed before 5 am. She spoke on the phone to her husband shortly after midnight. She was killed at the same time that Bailey was out of bed.

Rigor mortis averages 2-4 hours I think.

tibruit

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think he was drunk and had a blackout.
That's why his account of his actions is all over the place.

We don't even know what time Sophie was killed at.
It could quite possibly happened in early morning - the food found in the stomach suggested breakfast. In which case Bailey has a clear alibi.
.

It would have to have been very early. The doctor was on the scene at 11 am and noted that rigor mortis had set in. This usually begins approximately 4 hours after death, but in colder conditions it would take longer. It got down to 2 degrees that night so she was probably killed before 5 am. She spoke on the phone to her husband shortly after midnight. She was killed at the same time that Bailey was out of bed.

[Deleted User]

The person accessing her house when she was away, using her bath and snooping around her stuff.

Pity she didn't set up the camera to trap them. After she changed the locks, it appears to have stopped the access.

Aidric

Darc19 wrote: »

The superintendent comes across as a bit of an eejit.

Untrustworthy would be my impression.

It's been proven that the gardai were utterly incompetent in the investigation, yet listening to him you'd think they were brilliant.

I wouldn't say he was an eejit but he definitely came across more cocksure than he should have given he led a sketchy investigation at best. It shouldn't be forgotten that a lot of garda requests to interview persons of interest in France were stonewalled by the French authorities.

odyssey06

TheQuietBeatle wrote: »

I'm not a fan of Bailey and the way he carries on. However, this case looks like a classic crime of passion and someone known to the victim. There's no evidence of lovers, etc. so I'm open to the Bailey theory especially as the cuts do look bad for him and the fact he told about 5 people he did it and ''went too far''.

Theres no evidence Bailey was a lover.
I have never heard of a classic crime of passion involving two people who were never alone together.

TheQuietBeatle

I'm not a fan of Bailey and the way he carries on. However, this case looks like a classic crime of passion and someone known to the victim. There's no evidence of lovers, etc. so I'm open to the Bailey theory especially as the cuts do look bad for him and the fact he told about 5 people he did it and ''went too far''.

Darc19

The superintendent comes across as a bit of an eejit.

Untrustworthy would be my impression.

It's been proven that the gardai were utterly incompetent in the investigation, yet listening to him you'd think they were brilliant.

[Deleted User]

Biker79 wrote: »

Shots fired from the signallers of impeccable virtue.

Maybe Jules was bashing IB around? Its common in Ireland. Maybe he doesn't bruise that easily?

We just don't know. Well I don't...you appear to be an expert in these matters.

There has never been a suggestion that she beat him.... So you're just making incredible claims to justify the fact he most definitely beat her. The bar for virtue signaling is incredibly low for you...

Biker79

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh, no this just sounds like you trying to justify domestic violence. I do think there was insufficient evidence against Bailey and I'd veer towards him being innocent. Equally so, he very much so is guilty of domestic violence and the fact she remained with him doesn't mean she deserved it or something.. I would say you've managed to illustrate how warped your views are than anything else...

Shots fired from the signallers of impeccable virtue.

Maybe Jules was bashing IB around? Its common in Ireland. Maybe he doesn't bruise that easily?

We just don't know. Well I don't...you appear to be an expert in these matters.

Pirate Master

Treppen wrote: »

Is the podcast only available on Audible?

It's on Google Podcasts aswell.

odyssey06

Treppen wrote: »

Is the podcast only available on Audible?

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9yc3MuYWNhc3QuY29tL3dlc3Rjb3Jr

Aidric

Watched this series and thought it did a decent enough retelling of the case whilst coming down strong in a certain direction in terms of the perpetrator.

The West Cork podcast is still the benchmark when it comes to this case. To echo what I said in that thread there are so many loose ends and bungles in this case, not to mention the shady testimonies, that it is possible to come to any number of conclusions.

I don't believe Bailey did it. He is an oddball attention seeker for sure but there is no forensic evidence linking him to the murder. Additionally where is the motive?

Marie Farrell is the nub of this case and the key witness for the Gardai. The fact that she lied in evidence should mean any testimony from her should be dismissed out of hand. If she was having an affair her timelines are dodgy. With a husband and kids at home she was cruising on country roads at 3AM?

[Deleted User]

Biker79 wrote: »

I never said that, and I don't excuse.it.:rolleyes:

But your comments are typical of the black and white, simplistic thinking that surrounds these topics and have resulted in the life of an innocent man being ruined.

In Germany they call it ' island mentality ' .

Eh, no this just sounds like you trying to justify domestic violence. I do think there was insufficient evidence against Bailey and I'd veer towards him being innocent. Equally so, he very much so is guilty of domestic violence and the fact she remained with him doesn't mean she deserved it or something.. I would say you've managed to illustrate how warped your views are than anything else...

Treppen

odyssey06 wrote: »

There's no certain information that Bailey knew about the murder before information of it started to spread through other channels.

The guards intimidated Marie Farrell into changing her story.
Her original evidence was that the guy she saw wasn't Bailey.
So why would she change her story because Bailey intimidated her?
Why say anything?

Alfie Lyons thinks he probably did introduce them, but isn't 100% certain.
Why would Bailey deny ever being introduced to Sophie if there were so many witnesses to it?

The West Cork podcast is the most complete in terms of covering all evidence. Both of the TV documentaries have their flaws, Netflix in bias and the Jim Sheridan one in being as much about Jim.

Is the podcast only available on Audible?

odyssey06

a_squirrelman wrote: »

He isn’t on call 24/7. He was off that day.
I’d be more concerned that local Gardai ignored the forensics team and left the body out all night.
And also that the same Gardai lost (got rid of) a load of evidence.

You can be sure any evidence that they thought would help their frame up job on Bailey wouldn't have been 'lost'.

Darc19

It's important to know that one of the producers of the Netflix doc is a friend of the Du Plantier family.

a_squirrelman

Chuck Noland wrote: »

I’m amazed that the state coroner gets such a pass in all this? He’s hungover after his birthday and doesn’t bother traveling to Cork until the next day?

Also the gate…. How was a gate lost?

He isn’t on call 24/7. He was off that day.
I’d be more concerned that local Gardai ignored the forensics team and left the body out all night.
And also that the same Gardai lost (got rid of) a load of evidence.

Chuck Noland

I’m amazed that the state coroner gets such a pass in all this? He’s hungover after his birthday and doesn’t bother traveling to Cork until the next day?

Also the gate…. How was a gate lost?

odyssey06

Bigmac1euro wrote: »

Why did Bailey change his story multiple times?
He told the lead detective he slept the whole night through when the murder happened.
Then he said he got up during the night?

When his wife was asked did he do it her reply apparently was “I don’t know”

Unfortunately the guards done a terrible job so we essentially have no evidence. Our only option is to make an accurate guess. The most likely person that murdered her due to NUMEROUS coincidences is Ian Bailey.
That said we can’t punish him as there isn’t enough evidence.

Who do you think murdered her? What is the story in your head that happened?
If someone had a gun to your head and you had to answer what would you say?

I think he was drunk and had a blackout.
That's why his account of his actions is all over the place.

We don't even know what time Sophie was killed at.
It could quite possibly happened in early morning - the food found in the stomach suggested breakfast. In which case Bailey has a clear alibi.

I don't think he could have carried out the attack in a 'frenzied' manner as has been described, received scratches during it and not left some evidence at this scene even by the standards of 1996 forensics and the incompetence of the investigation.
Something would have been found, DNA, blood, hair, fingerprints.
In contrast nothing.

The DPP went over the evidence and threw it back at the Guards it was so poor.

Well our only option isn't to make an accurate guess, which is really a contradiction in terms!
It's not betting on a football team.

But if you want to make a guess on probability, I would say that:
I don't know who did it. But I would rule out Ian Bailey.
On the balance of probability, I would say he is innocent rather than 'not guilty' or 'unproven'.

Bigmac1euro

odyssey06 wrote: »

None of that is real evidence though.
What "you think" isn't even circumstansial evidence.

If you're going to accuse someone of murder, you need a helluva lot more than that and "who else did it" is not an argument of any serious consideration.
The "only suspect" we have doesn't mean they did it.
There's innocent people freed on forensics who were the "only suspect".
It often means it was the suspect the police fixated on and directed their investigations that way. It's a recipe for miscarriages of justice and for the real guilty party to go free.

The guards lost evidence, but the didn't find anythng at the scene from a 'frenzied' attack they could tie to Bailey. He was supposed to have been scratched, yet no blood, no DNA, no hair, nothing. No fingerpints either.

They then tried a fit up job on Bailey so poor the DPP threw it back at them.

Why did Bailey change his story multiple times?
He told the lead detective he slept the whole night through when the murder happened.
Then he said he got up during the night?

When his wife was asked did he do it her reply apparently was “I don’t know”

Unfortunately the guards done a terrible job so we essentially have no evidence. Our only option is to make an accurate guess. The most likely person that murdered her due to NUMEROUS coincidences is Ian Bailey.
That said we can’t punish him as there isn’t enough evidence.

Who do you think murdered her? What is the story in your head that happened?
If someone had a gun to your head and you had to answer what would you say?

odyssey06

patobrien12 wrote: »

There's a lot more in this one compared to Jim Sheridan's one and its 2 episodes less. Do much waffle from Jim.

There's a few things to me that don't add up.

1. Did he definitely know about the murder before the he got the call. Were the people that say they did no interviewed? Are they credible. Because if he did no then that is huge evidence.
2. Marie Farrell caught lying on the stand about who the person was she was having the affair with. She is all over Jim Sheridan's documentary and the other person was never brought up or even asked. The fact that the Netflix doc shows she is a liar plain as. Whereas Jim Sheridan portrays here as a victim of the police. Why did Jim not show the interviews of here saying Bailey was intimidating her? Does it go against the narrative, I think so.
3. Did Ian Bailey meet and actually speak to Sophie. According to many witnesses in Netflix that is interviewed she 100% did. Why is Ian lying and also why was this not investigated more by Jim?

Seems to me like both documentaries are taking different sides and after watching both Netflix is far more reliable.

There's no certain information that Bailey knew about the murder before information of it started to spread through other channels.

The guards intimidated Marie Farrell into changing her story.
Her original evidence was that the guy she saw wasn't Bailey.
So why would she change her story because Bailey intimidated her?
Why say anything?

Alfie Lyons thinks he probably did introduce them, but isn't 100% certain.
Why would Bailey deny ever being introduced to Sophie if there were so many witnesses to it?

The West Cork podcast is the most complete in terms of covering all evidence. Both of the TV documentaries have their flaws, Netflix in bias and the Jim Sheridan one in being as much about Jim.