Slick666 wrote: » So I've limited intelligence because I believe he did it?? Like who the heck else did it! An assassin from Paris? Please don't make me laugh.
dark crystal wrote: » Her original testimony was that she saw dark clothes soaking in the bath:https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ian-bailey-had-fresh-scratches-on-arms-the-day-body-found-court-told-1.3908180 This somehow morphed into a black coat soaking in a bucket by the time she gave the Netflix interview.
Yurt! wrote: » Ah the madness of crowds. As someone else said in another thread, justice must have been some craic in medieval times.
odyssey06 wrote: » I thought about the hitman angle, they could stage a scene but leaving the body out in open... nope. How tight was the alibi of Sophie's ex who subsequently took his own life? The Guards seemed to have accepted a receipt as evidence he attended an art sale but was that ever cross checked with witnesses? Was someone using the holiday home while Sophie was away? She changed the locks. Why was she so concerned about the gate being left open. What about the reports of breakins to holiday homes to steal booze and the expensive bottle of duty free wine found in a ditch? Is Marie Farrell protecting someone? If so who and why? Did she lie to divert attention from the real killer?
Aidric wrote: » There are so many bad actors and conjecture in this case that coming to a definitive conclusion is impossible. Add in to that the differences in the French and Irish judicial systems and you're in a tight corner. Marie Farrell managed to destroy the case from both sides and her testimony has no credibility.
Frozen Veg wrote: » How is the Garda evidence allowed to be released for programs like this? And how are former Detectives etc allowed to disclose details?
Holly13 wrote: » I have just finished watching this on Netflix. My initial reaction was that Ian Bailey definitely did it but there is just not enough evidence. But the Marie Farrell fiasco is what causes doubt. She lied on oath according to the documentary. Why has she never been charged? or held in contempt of court? And why won’t she reveal the identity who she was in the car with? I mean, everybody knows she was in the car with a man who wasn’t her husband, so why, even under intense pressure will she not say who he was? It’s very strange. Could he have been a Garda who was involved in the investigation?
Xander10 wrote: » It's hard to believe a word that woman says, so it's hard to rely on her statement of being out that night.
Holly13 wrote: » I have just finished watching this on Netflix. My initial reaction was that Ian Bailey definitely did it but there is just not enough evidence.But the Marie Farrell fiasco is what causes doubt. She lied on oath according to the documentary. Why has she never been charged? or held in contempt of court? And why won’t she reveal the identity who she was in the car with? I mean, everybody knows she was in the car with a man who wasn’t her husband, so why, even under intense pressure will she not say who he was? It’s very strange. Could he have been a Garda who was involved in the investigation?
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » Sorry, MoonUnit, I don't understand your question. Can you exoand a bit?
Woody79 wrote: » Its clear she was intimidated afterwards from Bailey. Very small locality. When women were afraid and moved away.
QuietMan2010 wrote: » In fact the Met managed to pin Jill Dando's murder on the local weirdo, based on the flimsiest of forensic evidence. The conviction was later overturned, in part because the Met lied about armed police being present at his arrest (which could have transferred the microscopic particle of gunshot residue on which he was convicted). So yep, whether its police corruption or incompetence, it is not unique to AGS.
dark crystal wrote: » Yeah, she was so terrified of Bailey that she hung around the same small town he lived in, shopped in, had a market stall in etc. for a decade after making her false allegations. She only moved away from Schull in 2006 after intimidation from the Guards, one of whom she claims called her son a 'bastard'. How many other women do you claim were so afraid of Bailey that they moved away and would it have anything to do with the Guards spreading the word around town that he was a killer and it was only a matter of time before he killed again?
bluelegend wrote: » The “lightbulb” moment for me was when the investigating detective reminded the interviewer that the Gardai had to find out who Fiona/Marie Farrell was…..that in itself removes the theory that the Gardai intimidated her and told her what to say. It’s clear Bailey was on her case. The Gardai made mistakes but definitely not as bad as they were painted out to be. Bailey is a very clever narcissist.
Between 2p.m. and 3 p.m. on 21 December 1996 Marie Farrell alleges that she saw a man who she later purports to identify as Ian Bailey outside her shop on Main Street Schull. In her statement dated 27 December 1996 she states that he was approximately 5 foot 10 inches in height and of thin build. Bailey in fact is over 6 foot 2 inches tall and of a strong and powerful build. Her alleged observation was made in the full light of day. At a consultation with the Gardaí in February 1997 this discrepancy was pointed out to D/Sgt. Liam Hogan and Detective Superintendent Ted Murphy. In the report submitted with the Garda file received in this Office on 5 September 1997 Marie Farrell’s misdescription as to Bailey’s height was explained by alleging that she was in an elevated position in the shop while observing him. No explanation was given for her misdescription in relation to his build.
In her statement dated 14 February 1997 she states that on Monday 23 December 1996 at about 3 a.m. she was with a male friend in her motorcar and she saw a man walking on the road. He was stumbling forward and had his two hands to the side of his face but she could see his face. She states that she identified the man as being the same person she had seen on 21 December 1996 in Schull and on the morning of 22 December 1996.
Her evidence is diminished still further by reference to her statement dated 27 December 1996 in which she states that she saw the same man on Sunday morning 22 December 1996 at 7.15 a.m. on the roadway thumbing a lift, because the evidence on file proves that Bailey was elsewhere at 7.15 a.m. on that date
noc1980 wrote: » A woman is murdered and there's a close neighbour with the following... 1. A history of battering women. 2. Away from his home and without an alibi at the time of the murder. 3. Changed his account multiple times of his whereabouts at the time of the killing. 4. Confessed numerous times, including telling 2 witnesses "I went too far" - leaving no room for "black humour" interpretation. 5. Had a wife who 'didn't know' if he did it. 6. Displayed a scar on his head that wife couldn't account for prior to the murder. 7. Lit a fire destroying clothes and a mattress in backyard. 8. Knew earlier than he 'should have' of murder. 9. Knew there was no rape when he 'couldn't have' 10. Claimed to not know the victim, disputed by others. Does all this make IB guilty? No but some on here seem to think if there isn't a CSI tv show load of forensic evidence that all other evidence is worthless. Ridiculous. That man should have stood trial.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » Journalist Michael Sheridan in the documentary said he knew of women who were so afraid of Bailey that they moved away. She made formal complaints of intimidation to the gardai, witnesses saw her terrified after seeing him. Geraldine O'Brien testified that while she worked in her shop Ian Bailey came in and MF became nervous and asked her to ring one of the garda detectives. Remember, Jules Thomas split from him recently because her daughters would not visit her if he was there.
odyssey06 wrote: » Such light scratches are not consistent with cuts by razor like thorns.
dark crystal wrote: » Does this witness say Bailey threatened her in any way?
It's not a crime to call into a shop in a small town. There aren't that many. Why didn't Farrell move away from the area if she was so terrified, as the other women apparantly did according to this reporter?
I'm not surprised her daughters wouldn't visit - Bailey is an insufferable drunk and they've seen their mother consumed by his troubles for the last 25 years. We could all see it in the JS doc. Nobody wants to see their mother that unhappy. This doesn't mean they believe he is a murderer, nor have any of them espoused such a view. They just think he's an awful partner and they'd be right.
noc1980 wrote: » A woman is murdered and there's a close neighbour with the following... .
Darc19 wrote: » Close neighbour? They lived over 3 miles apart. Very rough terrain. Pitch black. You'd do very very well to walk it in an hour and a half and that would be someone that was sober and fit.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/cc5c49cbcd8338fb80f9b4941d6b358e.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/3354d24320f33fbe0f9971cf69f86a9a.svg)
