It seems so unbelievable, really, someone is murdered and we have a witness saying "oh myself and my friend were around there at the approximate time of the murder". OK. So who is the friend? "Oh no I couldn't possibly tell you who that is".
It is bizarre that there would seem to have been a number of unknown or unaccounted people in the area which must cast serious doubt on any one theory as to what actually transpired yet French courts could convict someone with no evidence linking them to the crime or crime scene.
The murder could have been hours earlier or later than Marie Farrell claimed to be at Ballyrisode / Kealfada Bridge with her mystrey friend.
It doesn't help that the time of death could have been almost any time within a roughly ten hour window. Anyone could have driven the length of the country and most of the way back in that time.
"Like, oh, we just couldn't find the passenger, you know, just can't get that information for some reason and just letting her keep that secret. It's just sits there like a really troubling elephant in the room. Who the hell is that passenger and why were they never identified and questioned?"
The thing is , her companion was not a passenger in her van,
he was the driver of his own car, she was the passenger, around the area on that night;
Where did he go after dropping her back to her van at 4am.?
deleted,...shite site
No the wine wasn't available in Ireland. Only in France and some duty free?
You'd think they'd at least be able to investigate her and her life thoroughly enough to establish who this person might be or to at least put pressure on here to tell them before the information got out there.
Sorry, I am not a professional writer or anything so really my posting is just poor stream of consciousness stuff.
At the end of the day it's a part of her story that she always stuck to. She was out that night driving around (presumably this was corroborated by her husband at least?) in the area with a person in the vehicle who hasn't just not been named but who has actually been deliberately hidden.
It's wild to me that this person would not be a major person of interest. Yet somehow in this region/community where supposedly "everyone knows everyone else's business" nobody was able to establish who MF might potentially be hanging out with? It stinks.
But her evidence is useless now, so imo she should be charged and see what comes out of it when she knows real jail time is a possibility.
Why not just come out and state the truth now, no matter how fanciful it is, what has she got to lose at this stage?
The drug angle is one that I would keep coming back to. With the shocking level of violence in this case I genuinely wonder if that isn't characteristic of burglary/robbery and drug related violence? Seems like it could be but I don't know of any research showing anything like that.
The other thing would be understanding the situation regarding drugs in Ireland in the 1990s. Regardless of what we personally believe now what was the actual reality of drugs and drug related crime in an area like that in 1996? Would possession alone be enough for a prison sentence? Various other questions surrounding that. In 2021 your neighbour taking a bit of a huff because you are smoking weed in the garden can be shrugged off, no bother. In 1996? I don't know. In 1996 would a neighbour or local resident going to the Grada about drug use and/or dealing be a really big deal or not?
In the West Cork podcast a small mention is made about drug use and artists and whatnot all over the area. I wonder how much money was potentially changing hands out there and what kind of trouble a moany neighbor might actually cause? Sophie potentially having grievances with others in the area is always hinted at but never truly explored to any great degree.
I find it difficult to get a good grasp of what life would really be like out there in 1996 specifically. We always seem to think of it in the context of our current time. Maybe people in 2021 would dismiss a neighbour complaining about weed because really nobody cares all that much. In 1996? Would the law be coming down hard on people caught trafficking or in possession of drugs?
The level of violence is so disturbing and the fact that there is not even a real effort to hide evidence maybe implies someone arriving there to specifically do this and then to leave? Or would someone like Bailey know that once he had killed her then sticking around would probably just leave even more evidence.
Again, investigators didn't really help with how they initially dealt with the crime scene.
I don't really follow the logic on this, it seems bizarrely inconsistent to say nothing she said in her original statements can be taken at face value, or should be completely discounted, because she later claimed she was coerced into making them. But it's then suggested that she should have been coerced into revealing the man's identity, and that would have been ok?
At the end of the day she was threatened with contempt of court and possible jail time if she did not reveal who the man was by Judge Hedigan during the High Court case, it seems to be generally accepted she gave a false name on that occasion. What more could have been done, short of torture or hypnosis/mind control?
I've said it before, if she had been charged with perverting the course of justice or something, then any potential prosecution for the murder would have lost not just one but both vital witnesses from the night of the murder.
Just for the exercise, suppose Ian Bailey did it, how would it have worked:
1) He and Jules drove home from the night out in the pub, after drinking. How much he had to drink, we don't know. They live at Lissacaha North, I believe Jules lives there to date.
2) Ian got up in the night, maybe one hour after they both went to get, to go out, apparently to his studio.
3) Ian decides to hike to Sophie's house either to confront her with something, or to kill her, ( I guess that's and around 4km hike )
4) After the killing Ian hikes to Kealfadda Bridge, to wash up a bit, get blood of his hands? ( I guess that's as well something around a 3km hike )
( Ian didn't use a car, if a "witness" like Farell is to be believed, as there was only a man on the roadside, not a car )
5) After that, Ian returns from Kealfadda Bridge to Jule's house ( I guess that's a 5 km hike )
Under the guise of a long darkness, let's consider it was December and daylight would come around 9am only, this would have to have been quite a sports exercise for Bailey. Overall for Bailey it would have to have been a 3 hour hike all summed up, and that, after a few drinks, or a few too many. It's not impossible to do. Part of that hike would have been done in blood stained clothes, with constant fear of being seen that way. Upon the return, his blood stained clothes would have to have been disposed of, and that hidden from Jules or her daughters.
All summed up, for murdering Sophie I'd say, Bailey would have needed 4 hours, maybe a bit more than that, to complete the "job" and that with considerable alcohol level and that all, with a motive which we don't know exactly, a motive which is quite possibly rather weak.
Great post. This alone shows how much of a farce the French trial was. MFs initial witness testimony of seeing IB at the bridge was accepted and no scrutiny was put on the fact she was accompanied by another witness in the car who could corroborate or refute her account. It's a case of willful ignorance by the French judicial system and our Gardai. If IB ever went to trial for this murder any decent defence solicitor would make hay on this point. There was a second witness to the sighting at KF bridge and the Gardai made a pitiful attempt to find out who that person is and to question them as to their account of the IB sighting at KF bridge. Not to mention the fact that person was a man, potentially possessing the physical strength to have murdered STDP in such a fashion, and was in the vicinity of the murder scene at the time of the murder. He should have been questioned immediately to at least rule him out as a suspect. It stinks to high heaven.
I think after so many years it's very very hard to figure out what really happened that night. There is also too much police corruption and incompetence involved, lost evidence, etc..., to ever really get a clear picture on this.
The only thing Bailey can do at this point is to clear his name, and possibly get the court ruling in France overturned.
Other than that this case will always be with a high speculative element. The only thing one can do at this point is some form of profiling or some forme of motive hunting. In terms of likelihood, motive I can only see three options:
1) Sophie seen or noticed something she shouldn't regarding drugs, involved the police, and triggered everything else. If a local Guard did it who was in it, or Alfie, or somebody else in that drug operation is all speculation. Within that drug ring ist's also possible that they coerced one member to do the "dirty work" for the rest? Motive for killing was to shut her up, and send a message hence the brutality of the killing.
2) Some relationship, marriage/divorce or other sexual matter, possibly involving a contract killer. Motive was anything from avoiding a financially costly and media-public divorce or simply jealousy or a rejected lover in a heated argument.
3) Bailey did it himself, but for what motive? Just to write newspaper articles and be in the center of journalistic attention? To blow off steam after a night out in the pub? And be the first to volunteer DNA and hair samples?
That's the problem, isn't it? I mean her family came over after her death and maybe there was drinking at the cottage. It would have been a sad and horrible time for anyone showing up there in relation to her death. Easy to imagine how someone would bring booze and how things could just get discarded.
The investigation of this murder was sloppy, to say the least, probably the biggest contributing factor in the case not being solved comes down to Garda incompetence.
Something that always stuck with me is that throughout her changing story she always stuck with a few key points.
She saw someone suspicious outside the shop. There was someone in the car with her. She drove past a suspicious person down by the bridge.
She has never really changed from that basic narrative even though at the time of claiming the police forced her to make it all up she would have been able to just say "it has all been a lie, I was in bed the whole time but I just wanted to be involved and to help the Garda".
My personal opinion on that is that she was in the car with someone else and she couldn't lie about that as there would always be the possibility that this person would come forward or someone related to them would come forward. For the Garda it would be convenient if this person was never found as they could very easily end up saying "yes, we were in the car and we saw someone but it wasn't Bailey". A large part of the case against IB relies on him being at the bridge. The Garda influence on MF seems to have been to insist that the person she saw that night was IB.
This "mystery man" aspect of the case is just so disturbing and bizarre. From her absolute stubbornness in not naming this person, or at least not admitting that there was no 2nd witness at all, to the Garda's inability to extract this information from her. You have a lady all but admitting that she has vital information in a murder case and knowledge of an additional witness and yet it's just allowed to sit there. Like, oh, we just couldn't find the passenger, you know, just can't get that information for some reason and just letting her keep that secret. It's just sits there like a really troubling elephant in the room. Who the hell is that passenger and why were they never identified and questioned?
I would say that Bailey is the number one suspect. Of course. As his "alibi" develops through the case to "oh actually I did get out of bed and I did leave the house and I did have scratches and a cut on my head but it's all a coincidence and there's an explanation for it all" he just looks like a more and more likely suspect.
HOWEVER, there was another man in the area. Driving around in a car. Near the scene of the crime. At around the assumed time of the crime. What's this? The identity of that person has remained a secret? That's really, really, so convenient. That person never came forward despite the case being national news? That person never contacted or saw MF ever again and so never discussed the case? MF manages to weasel out of naming this person again and again. Even going so far as to name other people to throw the Garda off the trail. What is that all about? Now, of course, that individual is supposedly dead and gone. Still unnamed.
I wonder if that person even exists? If they do I wonder if they ever talked to anyone about that time when they actually had been driving around the area on the night of Ireland's highest profile murder mystery. Just never ever brought it up, I suppose.
Well he's a journalist who has written extensively about the case, I guess he's more likely than most to have an informed opinion.
And if he didn't do it himself he's as likely as Jim or Michael Sheridan to come up with a plausible alternative theory.
How was the bottle of wine not discovered during the initial search for evidence (if there even was one)?
Also, is it possible the wine ended up there a few weeks after her death through other means?
I'd say most people would find Bailey disgusting and would also describe his personality as difficult.
But that doesn't automatically make him a suspect or a murderer, especially with no evidence and so much police corruption and a questionable trial in France.
Sure, money will exchange hands tonight, for the VM interview. We don't know how much, we can only guess.
I would guess that he would provide a theory in the interview. Most likely it will be a theory or variation of that we have already speculated about.
Regardless of anything else I really just think Bailey is a disgusting human being.
What could he possibly provide in any interview with the media? He knows nothing about the case, right?
It's all about self-promotion and no doubt a bit of money too.
He has every right to expose Garda misconduct and to talk about it in public. Speculating on who did the murder etc seems out of order to me.
The bottle of wine was found in the field beside Sophie's property.
This bottle of wine is another mystery. How far from the house and the scene of the murder was the bottle found? It would at least give us an idea of the possible radius of the struggle between the victim and the murderer? Were there any checks of fingerprints on the bottle? Also where in France was the bottle from? Was this wine also available in Ireland? French supermarkets can be very regional, in what they offer. If the murderer brought the bottle and we know what kind of wine and from which winery, it may give us another indication.
9pm. VM1
Clashes with "Ready to mingle" I'm afraid.
Wouldn't be jumping up and down about a bombshell revelation just saw a bit of the Bailey interview on the VM News, he just reiterates he thinks the person who killed Sophie is now dead
Shin
I came across this article from 2018, it's not related to the case directly but I found the bit highlighted below interesting.
In 1982, a man called Peter Matthews met a violent death in custody in Shercock Garda Station, Co Cavan. In 1984, when the courts ruled that no garda could be found responsible, public faith in the force, already drained by the Kerry Babies travesty, hit a new low.
Future Presidents Mary Robinson and Michael D Higgins backed a Criminal Justice Bill amendment that would prevent gardaí bullying false statements out of witnesses, and any repetition of the Shercock death, but the government voted down the safeguard.
anyone know what time the interview tonight is on VM?
Also speaking to this paper, Mr Bailey’s solicitor, Frank Buttimer, said: “The reality of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission as an organisation is that it is powerless, in any meaningful way, to carry out any form of proper investigation into garda corruption.
“I believe it was never intended to be properly resourced or to have proper investigative powers. Accordingly, nothing in the report is anything other than as expected. The lack of any meaningful outcome in the report will not deter Mr Bailey from continuing to seek whatever remedies are available to vindicate his position.”
In the report, GSOC says its deliberations had been hampered by the refusal of a number of garda detectives involved in the case to co-operate with them and the fact that some of the gardaí who investigated the murder have since retired or died.
Look at this, good points from buttimer, how on earth can we have a fair and equitable justice system when the body tasked with making sure the gards do their job was never even intended to have proper investigative powers. An absolute joke
A French wine bottle found four months after the murder in a field next to the scene;
source; https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30859712.html
The pictures didnt show what type of wine it was. The wine was in a bag, how is anyone meant to know what type of wine was in that bag even if there was any besides the gards
Lol....and the cow jumped over the moon. It was a full moon that night wasn't it? (No reference to your screen name intended)
The wine was in a bag with french writing on it, pictures were linked earlier in this thread.
It was from a shop in France.
I don't think the killer bought it for her.
He dropped it during the chase as he ran and struggled with her.
Its never been confirmed if she herself bought this wine or not. Its highly unlikely, why would she fling her own wine into a ditch or why would the killer fling her wine into the ditch potentially incriminating himself. It points to the killer having bought this wine already in a bid to impress her because it wasn't cheap & would explain why he tried to get rid of it.
It didn't end up down the driveway either, it wasn't far from the house but it wast close either. It's significance is that this type of wine was not common in Ireland, it was thrown away in a ditch (why would anyone throw an expensive bottle of wine away) , the gards destroyed it & never properly investigated it, on top of this, its clear as day Sophie liked her wine & I'm sure good wine at that.
I think it was someone she knew very well.
The wine in the carrier bag from the shop she bought in France days earlier.
Why would it end up down by the driveway?
Maybe she gave it to her killer as a Christmas present.
He thought it meant something more than she did.
He made advances toward her, she rejected him.
He got very angry, flew into a rage and attacked her.
She fled, but he caught her just before she got to the gate and killed her.
She had broken fingers and her face was disfigured by the brutal attack.
This was a very personable attack and not premeditated.
Items used in the attack where opportunistically located there.
This was a man who had feelings for Sophie but, this feelings where not returned by her.
A local man who knew Sophie very well.
