Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Ian Bailey gets about alright, he's a stand out in the crowd kinda guy.

How often would these people have seen Ian Bailey on Schull main street in the preceding year?

Yet Marie Farrell had never set eyes on Bailey despite working on Schull main street?

It's Schull main street not Grafton street, as evidenced by the amount of people who knew and recognised Bailey about town.

Something doesn't add up, does it?

Well, she had already said she saw someone at the bridge. This was the nature of her initial anonymous phonecall. It's only afterwards that here statements turned into it was actually IB that she saw. Her initial description didn't match. Then later on her descriptions did match.

My personal feeling is that she had to stick with the story that she was in the car with someone and they saw a man at the bridge because if the driver of the car had decided one day to come forward and say "yes we were in the car but the individual we saw was definitely not Bailey" then the case against Bailey falls apart instantly and the Garda and Farrell are probably going to be in a bit of bother. So the driver's identity is conveniently protected. "No need to come forward and ruin your family with news of this affair, I'm talking to the Garda and they know who did it and they don't need a statement from you."

Marie Farrell is absolutely fundamental to the case against Bailey. He was either at Kaelfadda Bridge or he wasn't. If not then he's no more of less of a suspect than anybody else. If she wasn't even down by the bridge at all but rather was all safely tucked up in bed then why wouldn't she just retract the whole thing when she says the police forced her to make statements? Why keep that part of the narrative going?

Why did she even contact the Garda to begin with? Was she in contact with the mystery witness over the days, months and even years after the murder? Is there some truth to the idea that she is covering for someone but also not able to deal with the guilt of knowing that she did see some strange man out there that night.

It's just really really strange that this lady willingly inserts herself into this case with those anonymous calls and then flip flops on so many different details except for the part where she was being driven around by someone and she absolutely cannot under any circumstances reveal the identity of that person. Did she even describe the car she was riding around in? Utterly bizarre.

Reading the paragraph I just typed you really have to wonder how the hell she was not considered a suspect. Or at least suspected of being an accomplice. "I was just driving past the murder scene actually, well my friend was driving the car actually." OK, so we are going to need to question that friend. "Oh no, I can't tell you who it was, no way." OK, no problem, probably not THAT important anyway.

This woman really got away with telling people she knows someone who was in the area in question on the evening in question at the time in question and was allowed to just never reveal the identity of that individual. You'd think even basic investigation would have been able to turn up a list of people MF is likely to be spending time with and in contact with. They didn't check her phone records? All this in the region where nobody has any secrets too. How convenient is that? The one secret that could potentially solve a horrendous murder is the the one that nobody has managed to figure out.

Thats the thing for me. It's the fact that the guards didn't go after the male passengers identity that makes me think it was their fabrication. Otherwise they would be all over it as it would have been a second witness testimony.

I just find it hard to believe that MF was having an affair - I think this is very far fetched. She was a married mother of 5 and I dont think there is many man that would find her attractive. ( granted I am female and I cant account for what men find attractive!!! - so I may have this wrong). I think she was told to say this by the Gardai to give an explanation why she was out and about in the very early hours. They needed some excuse to explain why she was at Kilfeada Bridge.

They never made much of an attempt to find this man. I know a guard is supposed to have investigated names for this man given by MF but came up with nothing. My guess is this was just said to make it look like they did try to find the man.

Yes, its wearying and unlikely to lead to anything new but, nonetheless, its a pivotal issue in the case. This man, if he exists, would have been able to corroborate or refute the Kilfeada bridge sighting.

If he doesn't exist, the a different can of worms is exposed.

what is most interesting is the question of why his identity wasn't pursued. Why was she allowed to withhold that information?

The story of the deceased guy from Longford is clearly a convenient escape.

For sure you would think her husband wouldn't allow her to go through with all of this unless there was some kind of deal with the Gardai. Even then when she later on decides to retract her statements about Bailey, claiming that they all but forced her to point the finger at Bailey, she doesn't just retract the ENTIRE story.

After all these years the husband didn't just come out and say "the whole thing was made up, she was never out and about on that evening"?

It's just odd that she keeps that bit of the story once she has already turned against the Gardai. Funnily enough that was what ruined her credibility in Bailey's case against the Gardai, I think? Her refusal to name the mystery passenger destroyed the case. If she had even just said "I was out driving alone to clear my head" then there's no French case against Bailey and Bailey probably even manages to successfully sue the Gardai.

There are also a couple of things we do know in favour of Ian Bailey: If he was the murderer he never killed again.

Another thing we can also rule out is that it wasn't part of any kind of serial killing.

Whoever wanted Sophie dead, wanted her dead for a reason.

I also don't think the murder was part of an out of control kind of anger or the murder happened just by being hit like for example by accident in a heated argument.

For all that there was far to little evidence and traces left at the scene. Most likely the murderer had time on his hands to clean up the site to a certain degree. He would have operated totally under the guise of darkness and Sophie also didn't scream, thus none of the neighbours were alerted. On the 23rd of December it might only be light at 9 am, or 9.30? or so? Not certain on that.

Fingerprints were not traceable on that kind of brick and stone being used as a murder weapon and the murderer would have known that. Any amateur would most likely not have known that one and would have tried to dispose of that one, I'd say.

Were her husbands charges before the murder? And if so do you know what he was charged with?

I always assumed her husband was in trouble after she had came forward.

Sure he was probably only bringing the turkeys for a midnight joy ride.

I would largely guess that Sophie was murdered some time after might night. Her bed was unmade, and possibly already slept in.

She would only have opened up the door at this time of the night to somebody she knew.

The house was empty and not lived in, for a large portion of the year. Whoever visited her that night knew she was there.

Slightly off topic but it was interesting that Baby Johns body was exhumed yesterday.

People only have to look at that case in a neighbouring county to see the levels guards were willing to go to. Not to mention there were a few Kerrymen working in Bantry Station at the time of Sophie's murder.

The Ian Bailey case is almost like childsplay when you look at what they tried to do to Joanne Hayes.

He could have but the Gardai and French prosecution narrative was that he walked to the murder scene and was seen walking down by the bridge after the murder. Probably people who witnessed his level of drunkenness would have maybe testified that there's no way this dude could have drove a car around there in that state.

So he could have definitely driven over there but this would ruin the prosecution narrative, I think. We just don't really know.

Well considering he was able to get out of bed in the middle of the night to write an article, there's no reason to suggest he couldn't have driven over.

The murderer may indeed have had a lot of alcohol on board. Memory may be quite hazy of events. They may even be able to convince themselves that it wasn't them. Just a thought.

Are you really comparing typewriting whilst drunk to driving a car down pitch dark country roads in winter whilst drunk