[Deleted User] wrote: » I still honestly do not know who could be proven killer - it could have been that hardly mentioned Karl - but it is an infuriating cases weirdly stocked with incredibly infuriating people. And I am a believer in councidences as I experience such an odd amount of them that life can seem laughably scripted by a mischievious director, but even so Bailey takes the biscuit. One can leave out completely any input from that village troll, Marie Farrell, and still there is a litany of coincidences. He may be innocent but coincidentally He lives nearby in a sparsely populated area He is a violent misogynistic drunk He has a massive ego and vast over estimation of his sexual charisma He battered his own partner to a pulp several times including a few months before the murder His hands and arms and forehead have lots of scratches - has he been so badly scratched any other Christmas season with the turkeys and the trees? He stopped that night to look out over the remote landscape which held few houses but notably Sophies and apparently remarked upon the house light He was missing from his bed and house between 3 am and 9 am He was among the first people on the scene who were not officials He published lurid stories about Sophie's supposed entangled love life He floated and published the idea of the husbands hit man
Deeec wrote: » MF talks about it in the 'West Cork Podacst'. She said a Garda exposed himself to her while she was working cleaning the toilets. He apparently said the case turned him on.
chooseusername wrote: » Maybe there were others ;https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/unsolved-crime-murder-carmel-gamble-68566 A violent misogynistic attack at a holiday home 18 months or 2 years before Bailey left the area to go to remote West Cork. A further 5 years till Sophie was bludgeoned to death. I'd assume the Gardai would have liaised with the Uk police when checking up on his past life in Uk when he became their prime only suspect. Including passing his DNA to them .
EmmetSpiceland wrote: » Think someone said earlier that cleaning toilets wasn’t part of her job at all and it was framing Bailey was what turned him on. Another Garda got naked in front of her in a house she was looking after. She identified a mark near his junk but he claims she would have gotten that information from her husband and he was never naked in her presence.
MastiffMrs wrote: » ..... I don't think that enough time was given in any of the documentaries to the other men who were potential suspects, admitted to doing something terrible and committed suicide. The media say that IB likes the attention, yet they don't divert it elsewhere.
yourdeadwright wrote: » I think MF knows more about the Murder than IB , I also thing the man in her car is could be the killer , She goes to descried a man how stalked Sophie on the street out side her shop , describes him as a french man , The Garda don't seem convinced so now she rings up on a pay phone to descried a man she has seen on the bridge on the night of the murder, Now importantly she says she was with a man in the car but won't name him, Why not say you went for a drive alone then why mention the man in the car, Sounds like she is not only trying to finger another suspect but also at the same time giving the unnamed man an alibi , The police don't seem to buy this one either so a few weeks later she decided to say that man was IB, who she would have know as he often went into her shop , Why on earth if a witness said she was out near the murder scene on the night in question have the Garda not insisted that the man in the car be named ? Unless of course the man in the car is a Garda, Always seemed like she was trying to point the Garda in a certain direction why ? was she trying to direct them away from the actual right line of enquiry, Would explain why she knows about the Garda's growth but also why shes a afraid to name the man in the car if he is a Garda who she seen kill, Garda & Sophie are having a drink in the house , MF arrives in her car (as shes also seeing him) Garda goes out to confront her , Sophie follows out hence why the keys are the door and shes fully dressed , Its possible she brings the bottle of win with her to say here as a gesture of look stop arguing come in and we can drink this & have a chat, Ah argument erupts and goes over board with Sophie getting killed hence why there is two murder weapons & the numerous blows from a rage ,Garda goes back cleans up the house, Garda is in MF ear since getting her to make all these claims to blame someone els,e That's my take,
Mackwiss wrote: » Very good link. That does sound like a "pattern" would it be possible to find other cases like this in the UK before 96? And even in Ireland?
flanna01 wrote: » Christ.... Trying to fit him up with other murders now....
TheW1zard wrote: » The gate where She was killed is not on her property and is a right of way. The land is owned by the 3rd neighbour, not Alfie. Beyond the gate the road leads up to 3 houses is this correct?
nc6000 wrote: » What's the restaurant toilets incident?
funkey_monkey wrote: » Just started watching this last night - first episode. Does the pace pick up cause it felt like they were dragging the ar$e out of it?
JP Liz V1 wrote: » In the French court Sophie's friend said she was in contact with a poet in Ireland how come that didn't come out early, another lie after as no evidence
Deeec wrote: » It was very convenient for this lady to say this after IB was the main suspect. You would have thought she should have communicated this important information in the days after Sophies murder. I find this hard to believe given the length of time that passed between Sophies death (1996) and 1999 when the friend said this to authorities.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » MF claimed a detective cornered her while she cleaned the women's toilets in a pub/restaurant and exposed himself. However, she did not clean toilets as part of her job and when questioned in Bailey's civil case couldn't describe the layout of the toilets correctly. The story about the other 'naked garda' was discussed in Nick Foster's book. Apparently the same garda was previously in her shop in the queue when a blood stain appeared on his trousers, he explained about the growth on his groin and that he needed to get it checked by a doctor AFAIR. One detective was criticised in the GSOC report for getting too close to the Farrell family and apparently spent a lot of time in their house drinking with her husband, so the story about a garda telling her husband about a worrying growth is plausible in that context too.
Mackwiss wrote: » not at all actually... if you read my past posts you'll read what I think of this. The questions is pertaining the pattern. If there is a pattern like this around UK and Ireland could be the work of a travelling Serial Killer. That does not imply or relate to Bailey at all could be pure coincidence. This is why it would be important to see if there are other similar unsolved or similar situations to Bailey in the 80s and 90s across the UK and Ireland...
MoonUnit75 wrote: » There's far too much of Sheridan himself pondering over stuff and walking in her footsteps, little of which provides much insight. At least Netflix let the words of those involved stand for themselves.
Yurt! wrote: » So googling murders in Gloucester is a mere coincidence - not making inferences about Bailey being a serial killer at all at all. This is crazy stuff and an exemplar how this case got wildly out of hand with the Gardai desperately trying to pin the crime on one individual off the back of Chinese whispers.
Caquas wrote: » This is the essence of the DPP‘s refusal to prosecute Ian Bailey - The Garda investigation turned into a vendetta which ignored all other possibilities The Gardaí (stupidly) developed a theory that the killer followed her from France although it is clear that there was no one in the house with her. It is laughable to assume that she had company because of the two wine glasses on the draining board. When their French suspect produced a cast iron alibi, the Gardai were left with no alternative suspects and went after Bailey who was irritating them and everyone else in the neighbourhood. They ran a vicious media campaign against him and constructed a case based on tenuous and unreliable evidence. Their house-to-house enquiries had thrown up about 100 possible names and they quickly whittled that down to about a dozen potential suspects. How did they eliminate all those but IB? What alibi did anyone have for that time other than “I went to bed at ...o’clock and I got up at ...o’clock” . Like IB, it could easily emerge on further questioning that they got out of bed and left the house when everyone else was asleep. The failure to gather forensic evidence is a scandal but the greatest failure is the vagueness about her time of death. Was she dead by 3 a.m. when MF says she saw IB? No one knows so her evidence might be irrelevant (as well as unreliable). Here’s two thoughts we could rub together: 1. Lots of people were home for Christmas. Are the Gardai sure that their house to house enquiries revealed all of the people who were in the vicinity that night? 2. by the time the body was discovered (after 10 a.m.), the murderer was probably a long way from W. Cork. Would a family tell the Gardai that e.g. their son/brother/uncle had come home for Christmas but left in haste on the morning of 23 December? If he didn’t have a cast iron alibi for the whole night, he would be regarded as a murder suspect even if he had no knowledge of Sophie. Having lied to the first Garda, would the family come forward in later years, especially if he had a plausible explanation for his sudden departure?
jimwallace197 wrote: » Some very reasonable points & I agree, I seriously doubt the Gardai given how they approached this case properly checked the Alibi's of those in the vicinity thoroughly. Imo, alot of evidence points to a cover up, a lot of evidence points to the perpetrator being a man of power, influence & someone who was feared due to the fact no one has come out so far. I still believe she left the house willingly rather than ran from it due to an attack from the inside (no way would she have had time to get boots,clothes on) & I don't believe many people would leave the house willingly in the middle of the night (especially a foreign French woman in an isolated area) so who would you need to be in order for that to happen? A senior Gard would fit that bill perfectly especially if she had contact with them before over drug issues in the area. If the perpetrator was known to the victim, I believe some people in the community would have noticed and she would have mentioned it to a friend/family member etc so I'm not convinced it was a jilted lover who had a fight with her in the house. Why I think a local Senior Gard carried this out 1) Explains the refusal of the removal of the body to the morgue as per the state pathologists request. 2) key evidence going missing including a Gate of all things, how does one lose that especially one covered in blood. 3) it explains now why to this day Marie Farrell is terrified of the gards & not Ian Bailey, 4) it shows why they(Gards) want to pin it on Bailey so the case can be put to bed without more investigation 5) it explains Sophie leaving the house that night willingly. 6) Its consistent with the behaviour of some of the Gards in the area at the time, making sexual passes/getting naked in front of Marie Farrell and I'm sure many more, threatening, bribing & Co-ercing witnesses, to say they were a law unto themselves was an understatement it seems. 7) It explains why the lights were on very late in the garda station that night which a number of locals noticed. 8) It explains why alternative theories that were put forward were met with volatility and aggression 9) It explains why Marie Farrell has never named the individual who was in the car with her that night & why the gards didn't follow up with him to at least try and corroborate her sighting. 10) It explains why no one has come forward in all this time to implicate anybody but Ian Bailey. Who would be capable of holding an influence like that over a community? 11) It explains their gross incompetence & while many who have resided in this country for a while know this can happen, to happen on this scale & for such a serious crime is another thing entirely. Why I think Ian Bailey didnt do it? 1) If he really did have scratches on his arms and hands from killing her, do people not think he would have tried to cover them up rather than walking around town and going to the local Christmas swim where he was likely to be spotted. 2) Jules Thomas backs him fully and completely denies he had any role in the killing. Describing his behavior as completely normal in the days after the murder. And whatever about him, she comes across as a very decent person only splitting from him recently so she could spend more time with her daughters. I also believe after 25 years of being in an intimate relationship with someone I believe the person would at least give away some signs that he did it. 3) He willingly gave over his DNA/fingerprints for analysis which the gards were unable to match or do anything constructive with conveniently 4) He took a civil case against seven newspapers & the state for implicating him in the crime. I dont know about you but any sane person would avoid taking a case like that if they were guilty as no doubt more evidence would come out in those actions which could trigger a criminal trial which it nearly did. 5) His coat was not burned but taken by the gards which showed no evidence of blood or an attack. This is backed up a gards statement in fact. 6) He is still protesting his innocence, has stayed in cork for the last 25 years instead of moving away & has lobbied the current Garda Commissioner to open the case. Hardly the actions of a guilty man, if he was guilty, would he not have just moved away. 7) He was drunk that night and managed to walk the 4 kilometres to Sophies house and then back again after beating her to death with a block & large rock striking her about 50 times. I dont know about anyone else, but you would need to seriously strong and fit to be able to carry this out especially when drunk. 8) He wakes up the morning after killing her and proceeds to the crime scene in the afternoon to cover the story and then begins writing about the story. Either he is innocent or he must have balls of steel. 9) The DPP at the time who I trust alot more than the gards saw fit that he shouldnt be charged and heavily criticised the gards behaviour. 10) The only witness to put him anywhere near the scene has told so many lies at this stage that I wonder does she know the truth anymore herself. Without her false statement to the gards, the gards had diddly squat and they knew this themselves but continued to persecute Bailey and his partner.
dublin49 wrote: » ) Jules Thomas backs him fully and completely denies he had any role in the killing. Describing his behavior as completely normal in the days after the murder. And whatever about him, she comes across as a very decent person only splitting from him recently so she could spend more time with her daughters. I also believe after 25 years of being in an intimate relationship with someone I believe the person would at least give away some signs that he did it. From my viewing of the Netflik programme JT did not give him her full backing ,in a statement read out she is quoted as saying "He may have done it so" and a witness was interviewed who claimed Jules Thomas told him she wasnt sure if he had done it or not.She was also quoted as having said the injury to his forehead was not there the day before the murder.And thats from his longtime partner.
