Mackwiss wrote: » the question is, could you see at night under moonlight? would the cottage shadow at night hide the car? My theory is they went up to the gate and crossed the field to enter the house from the left side. They get in and notice the bottle of wine. Sophie hears them and comes down they rush through the door in the kitchen bottle in hand. Sophie in pursuit locking herself out. At this part I think MF kept running, and the guy turned to face Sophie. The rest we all know. In this theory I'd say they park before by the police line where there's space on the side of the road to park and would walk to the cottage. MF goes to the car, guy/lover comes back bloodied and tells her not to mention one word. They go their separate ways and once she gives her statement, he forces her to give other statements to throw the Garda off and that's where the Fionna calls start...
john123470 wrote: » Lookit, at this point .. Everyone's a suspect. Even Sheridan. Meanwhile, everyones forgotten about 'the White Lady' up in 3 Castle Head that scared the bejasus out of her on that very day. She reportedly ran in a panic to the nearest neighbour Jim himself expressed shivers being up there .. alone What about her then .. Is she exempt from suspicion or what ? I mean even "the horses" were considered suspect on one video And why stop there .. what about the stoned goats .. how did their day go after eating all that grass .. ?
Biker79 wrote: » Well...it was either a jilted lover, or an Anton Chigurh type character from Corks criminal underbelly. I'll go with the latter, as I think a person would need experience in violence to commit such a crime.
Bellbottoms wrote: » That's a bit of a leap. The government can't even get covid travel certs up and running. But now they are covertly funding Netflix series and the like to soften people up for IB extradition. Was Waterworld a failed attempt to soften people up for water charges? I think you are clutching at straws here.
Deleted User wrote: » Experience in violence. A very strange term, but I understand what you mean. A normal man does not chase a small woman around a field until her pants catch on barbed wire leaving her tangled and helpless and then crush her head with a concrete block. It takes a person with an experience of violence to carry out that act. To imagine that Bailey did it, then brought coffee to his partner, then got on the phone to the papers, then went down to the scene and started writing. Unless he is a clinical psychopath he couldn't do that, and whichever documentary you watch, he doesn't display the traits of a psychopath.
odyssey06 wrote: » Which is why it was so important to preserve you know the gate for future analysis.. except the Guards conviently lost that too. Zero forensics found at the scene in any way connected to Bailey. Zero hair samples left on these briars. Zero anything. A supposedly frenzied drunken attack. Absolute nonsense from the Guards. Your experience just goes to show that such scratches in and of themselves are evidence of no crime committed.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » I think the ‘she ran in a panic to a friend’s house’ from Three Castle Head is a bit of a myth? They said she seemed a bit morose when she arrived and had a bad feeling up at the lake, from what I recall. She had tea in the local pub and don’t think she mentioned it to the barman there.
odyssey06 wrote: » He was also supposed to be drunk \ hungover and gotten to the scene on foot by moonlight in the small hours of a December night... yet be functional the next day to be doing his job as a journalist \ stringer at the location. Go figure.
Deleted User wrote: » A state of shock. That is what a normal person would feel if they woke up and remembered they commited such a traumatic murder the night before. If Bailey committed that crime he would have to be clinically psychopathic to behave the way he did afterwards.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » Correct.
Henry... wrote: » Was it established if he used his car 8km is a big distance if it's alleged he traveled by foot
MoonUnit75 wrote: » I think people imagine that because it’s a murder, there’s DNA from the perpetrator flying all over the place. If someone broke in to your house with cotton gloves and a hat on and smashed your TV with a brick, I’d be very, very surprised if they found any hair or DNA. They usually find DNA under the victim’s fingernails after a fight, on clasps where the perp tried to force clothing off, semen from a sexual assault etc. If Sophie didn’t go pulling hair off her attacker’s head or scratch up their face and if the killer didn’t physically beat them with their bare hands or try to pull their clothes off, the chances of leaving a detectable hair or DNA trace is very small. When you have thousands of thorns to test with a new, expensive, time consuming and crude process you would need a miracle to locate and retrieve a profile from a few bags of thorns. These were not lost and I believe evidence was later sent to the USA for analysis using newer techniques.
tibruit wrote: » I suppose there are people who have never been in a rural setting under a full moon. You don`t need a torch to get about, that`s for sure.
chicorytip wrote: » The road or track leading to the house is extremely narrow and in order to find space to do a complete turnabout, even in a small car, it would be necessary to either drive through the entrance right up adjacent to the house or else travel in reverse gear for about half a mile until you reach the driveway of the nearest property. I think it unlikely the killer arrived and left in a car particularly if he already knew the area.
Mackwiss wrote: » Well... maybe you need to go out more in the full moon. Because right here where I live 10kms from the nearest town I've done that plenty. You can see perfectly what's moonlit. Not what's on a shadow or hidden by something. House is facing East. Car is parked on the Northside. Winter Solstice Moon would be south of the house.
Deleted User wrote: » Look up the definition of psychopath. It's a long long way from Baileys flawed personalty.
dublin49 wrote: » I am just finishing the Netflix 3 parter and so much more detail than the Sheridan one.Most of it against Bailey, the witness to the fire that Bailey denies happened after Xmas,the fact that Jules in her statement suggested it might be him.The confessions ,Jules statement saying mark on Baileys forehead wasnt there the day before,the sheer violence of his attacks on Jules,Even Farrell claims of intimidation by Bailey ring thru.His libel case was the trial and to many including me he was found guilty .Probably the most compelling was Baileys knowledge of the murder at 11 am when it was announced on the news until 2pm.I am sure most or all of of above has been unpicked tru this thread but from my viewing just too many convincing witnesses at odds with Baileys evidence for him to be telling the truth,
tibruit wrote: » Utter nonsense.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » Maybe you need to go out more on a high full moon.
ingalway wrote: » I've read it. It's pretty good. He had huge access to Bailey over a period of time and then did some work with Jim Sheridan and Donal McIntyre later on. He interviewed more people than either the West Cork podcast or the Sky programme and there is a piece near the end that I have never heard before, which, if true, really points to Bailey being guilty. Worth the read.
Henry... wrote: » What piece is this?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bd89cdce15309a6ec2dff928c865017a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7f0ee566c2a6a4f1cca1529d24ea5553.svg)
