It was the road that M O'Sullivan was driving down when he was dangerously overtaken on the bend (I think the bend is a bit further on tho)
It's on the road to bantry, so it would align with the fiesta going in that direction yes
I don't know on what road or in what direction the fiesta was going other than it was heading towards Bantry.
There's a map attached by @chooseusername 4 posts up.
Was it found on the road between Sophie & Baileys house? I hope posters have been sources than Foster for this. If it was, it wouldnt aline whatsoever with the sighting of the fiesta going in the opposite direction.
I think what is being inferred by Foster saying he 'tramped the hills' to investigate the claim is that the bottle was found between Sophie and Bailey's house as the crow flies. Cross country it is on route. Perhaps there is some pathway or track that way.
I thought it was closer to Sophie's house. I'd say pretty much anybody could have driven down that road, and lost this bottle of wine.
It could be done, but wouldn't make sense;
Same road, wrong direction.
Ah, so the bottle was found on a different road to the one which brings you from the house to Kilfadda?
The Guards knew the Kealfada bridge mirage was nonsense since they probably made it up themselves.
But they then had to stick with it publicly .
Privately, finding the bottle on what would have been Bailey's direct route home, they doubled down on 'get Bailey' .
They couldn't very well link the bottle to Bailey publicly, considering where it was found .
Exactly. It was only finances that stood between Ian hiring a private investigator and finding out the truth and suing the Gards and state like the McBreartys did. That's really the only difference.
He has a good team behind him now I believe, including a forensic pathologist who is going through all the minute details.
It's impossible for Sophies family to get justice now, because justice requires a living person to pay the price, but they could get peace if they finally know the truth about garda corruption and cover ups in this case. Maybe I'm living in a dream world, but we have to hold on to hope for the truth.
The questions your'e asking. The answers are staring us in the face
1) He was English in a rural part of Ireland when anglphobia was rife
2) He was generally disliked locally for his bad poetry & roamblings.
3) He attacked Jules previously which a number of locals knew about. They didnt know about what she said & did to him though.
4) He was an alcoholic & could be impulsive.
5) He was a blowhard, arrogant, in a time when Ireland seriously frowned about this.
6) He was a blow in, no family or historical ties to the area.
7) Jules accommodated him & provided for him. Some local men no doubt resented this.
He was a perfect guy for the gards to f**k over whether he did it or not.
The only thing is, is that he has a number of other commendable characteristics which doesn't make him such an easy fit
1) Obtained a masters in law & wrote his thesis on the corruption of gards & the lack of accountability they get away it.
2) He owned his own his business at 22, was a damn fine journalist & is still respected by many of his peers in the UK
3) He gave up gutter journalism in the uk because he didnt want to capitalise on the suffering of people. Not too many here that would do that.
4) Obviously loves Ireland & our literature culture, Joyce, Yeats, beckett. Has spoke about them many times.
5) He's got balls, took on the state for their blatant corruption in painting him as a murderer unlawfully & only lost on a technicality (statute of limitations). If we were any sort of decent democracy, the man would be living it up now instead of in a log cabin.
These questions you're asking still linger in my mind as well. Just purely from these questions and the size of local Garda flaws and corruption I'd say, that's hardly down to only the possibly sexually rejected Guard from Bantry, but it's pointing more into drug trafficking and some local bent Gards being in on it. I'd suggest it's at least 3 or 4 men in the Garda, rather than just one man, just by the sheer size of the flawed investigation. 25 years on, this is probably hard to impossible to investigate, and retirement and possibly even death are also part of it. Bailey was just a victim to them, easy prey, the unsympathetic and self centric Englishman.
What also surprises me is Jules: Unlike Shirley, she didn't consider selling the house and moving away, however she must have known that the case would come up again and again, media around asking questions, Gards, straigt or bent, one doesn't know...... She could easily do her kind of artistic work in the UK, like in Wales, plus she probably had more family there. I don't know if her children are with her permanently or just visiting on occasion?
The re-opening of the murder case will not realistically lead to a conviction for Sophie's murder.. It just isn't happening.
What it should do, is expose the flawed investigation, and maybe find answers as to why the case was so hell bent on Ian Bailey being the murderer, despite there being many more meaningful suspects to chase down.
What was the fixation with Bailey?
Why were the Gards coercing anybody and everybody to invent evidence against him?
Why did they reward snitches with money, drugs and clothes to set him up?
How did Maria Farrell end up with a near mansion thru her involvement with the Gards?
Without one scrap of evidence against Bailey, they persued him relentlessly... Why??
The missing pages of evidence? The added text to Jules statement that she swears she never signed? The biggest drug ring in Cork at the time all getting off for giving evidence against Bailey?/
These are some of the questions I would like to see answered...
I doubt very much if Bruno could be convicted of the murder of Sophie if say, it was only proven that he bought the bottle of wine, and brought it to the house himself. That fact alone proves nothing if one is looking for a murder conviction which can stand up in court. It could only prove that Bruno was at the property. We already know that Bruno knew the house and was there with Sophie on various occasions so that isn't new to us.
Remember evidence is needed to convict the murderer beyond reasonable doubt. That means linking murderer in form of DNA or other evidence, fingerprints, etc.. to the murder weapon and if possible to the murder site.
Now, suppose the bottle of wine had Sophie's hair on one end, and Bruno's fingerprints on the other end, then, yes agreed, it would be more than relevant.
It would be relevant if it could be traced to say Bruno and Sophie.
Where was it found ? in a ditch unopened, a kilometre from where Sophie was killed.
When was it found? 4/5 months after she was murdered (had been there for some time).
Where was it from? If traced to Bruno buying it , then very relevant.
Thanks for that. I've been saying this often enough as well.
The bottle of wine can only be of relevance if it's proven that it was used as a murder weapon. Where it was found, when it was found or where the bottle was from is totally irrelevant, even if it would be a very expensive one from France or one of the suspects was known to have liked this particular wine.
I believe that it was assumed (traced, who knows!) sophie bought it at duty free in Paris, as it wasn't sold in Cork and there were no receipts for it (I'd have to check this out tho)
It's a bit of a moot point as it was listed as one of the lost items I'm pretty sure. So while it should have been retested, it likely wasn't.
Watch it turn up with the fecking gate any day soon with a pitiful excuse from the Gards.
Doesnt have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. If that bottle is rare & expensive, & not even sold in Ireland (the sale could possibly be traced). Then accordingly, this could be investigated. So for example, if it was Bruno Carbonnair that purchased the bottle, his alibi could be more stringently tested, he could be interrogated to see if he would crack & have to explain why a bottle he bought was found in the ditch, maybe he confessed to a close friend or relative who could be spoken to. His social circle could be looked at more. Maybe even tell him that they found his DNA on Sophie & see how he reacts. Evidence more inconsequential than this have cracked cases previously. It opens a can of worms.
Yes, there was no indication in the pathology report as far as I know that a bottle was used. It would be difficult to prove I imagine anyway, as there was such a huge amount of blunt trauma.
My point is that it doesn't prove anyone's guilt of the murder - it's all circumstantial. There is no way of proving or disproving the bottle as the weapon that dealt the first or any blow? Bruno's DNA and Sophie's blood could be explained away as a cut finger or the like - same way scratches on arms could have many explanations - no way of proving beyond reasonable doubt. Personally I think it's a dead-end.
"How far was the bottle from the house or the murder scene?"
Over a kilometre.
"it's been excluded as a possible murder weapon,"
Has it? I didn't realise that.
How far was the bottle from the house or the murder scene?
That together with the fact that it's been excluded as a possible murder weapon, is the reason why the importance of the bottle is exaggerated.
What if Bruno's were the only dabs found on it ?
and Sophie's blood?
I disagree...
If the randy Gard's dna was found on the bottle, or Baileys, Alfie's, the knicker sniffer, or practically anybody else that wouldn't (or shouldn't) have had access to the bottle..
Realistically though, given the terrain, weather and amount of time passed, I highly doubt anything of forensic value would have been lifted off the bottle...
Actually, quite surprised one of the keystone cops didn't just take it home and sup it...
DNA (if any) found on the bottle will prove nothing though other than who handled it and who may have put it there. Another dead-end.
It's a single lane country road. It's very possible it didn't smash.
It's definitely possible yes as that would be the drivers side if you were heading from sophies on that road. Now wether the bottle would break on impact or not is debatable. The driver could have stopped for 30 seconds and ran across the road to hide it in the undergrowth I guess, it's a narrow road tho if you view it from Google earth so it's not impossible it wasn't thrown far enough to shatter
I don't think it was found in a position where it could have been chucked from a car ,
maybe Scooby will know?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a04babac7ef9d681628a280d81c51a1e.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bd89cdce15309a6ec2dff928c865017a.svg)
