Murder at the Cottage | Sky

In summarising information regarding Cassidy the DPP said;

"This means that Cassidy's source had informed him of the murder prior to 11.53 a.m.

on 23 December 1996.

The Gardaí did not arrive at the scene of the murder until 10.38 a.m. on 23 December

1996.

Therefore, Cassidy's source had informed him about the incident within a short time of

the Gardaí hearing of the murder."

AND

"This Office asked the Gardaí "who is the reliable source who informed Eddie Cassidy

about the incident which contact led Cassidy to phone Bantry Garda Station at 11.53

a.m. on the 23rd of December 1996 seeking Superintendent Twomey?".

The answer given by D/Sgt. Hogan is that Eddie Cassidy will not disclose his source. "

For whatever reason, one of the first actions of some Guard (it must be as why would Cassidy not give the source if it was anyone else?) almost immediately after the body was discovered was to tell a journalist on a well known newspaper.

If the defence lawyers in a trial had this information, you believe it wouldn't be a major embarrassment in light of Bailey's obvious truthfulness as to his first knowledge of the murder versus the attempt to place him at the scene earlier than he could have known? Any jury would have seen this for the ham-fisted attempt at a stitch up it was, along with the manipulation of witnesses.

But we shouldn't lose sight of the big picture. The main issue is the bringing into the investigation someone as senior as the head of the GNDU and how subsequently the DPP received a file that was designed to fall flat. Interesting you are quick to agree the DPP was doing the Guards a favour by not bringing a charge, but he wasn't given any choice with the bouquet of shite he received from the investigators. Bailey was to be convicted in the court of public opinion, which two arrests ensured. That is an impressive cover-up.

You see the problem with all of this is that by 11-53, the Gardaí knew, Alfie and Shirley knew (Alfie had been ringing the neighbours), the priest knew and the doctor knew. Yet you choose to blame the Gardaí for the leak because it suits your agenda when the reality is that Cassidy`s source could have been any one of several people. Given the talk about scanners here recently, (and they were widespread back then),it seems to me that you can`t discount some amateur radio enthusiast getting on the phone to Cassidy to tell him what was going on. So unless you know the source, there is no embarrassment for anybody really now is there?

In any event, this kind of leaking goes on all the time and it isn`t a big deal until the Bailey sympathizers need a straw to clutch, so they can kick up a big storm about a whole lot of nothing because it`s all one big conspiracy don`t ya know. I believe Bailey when he says that Cassidy was the first to tell him. It has always been a big problem for him when you consider Leftwick, Fuller and Camier. But then he couldn`t say anyone told him before Cassidy did because it wouldn`t have been true and the individual would have denied it.

I already asked the obvious question; what was to stop Cassidy naming the source if it wasn't a Guard?

Otherwise you still believe that while Cassidy was busy trying to ascertain what had happened, Ian and Jules were actively spreading the news? And we're expected to take your seriously. Do you really believe that by evening when news of a murder started to spread around Goleen, Camier never thought to say to anybody that he had heard the big story at 11.30 that morning and in fact didn't remember this 'fact' for 2 years. You're beyond ridiculous.

Cassidy is a journalist. Why would he reveal his source, garda or otherwise? He was under no obligation to do so.

Do you really believe that Camier heard nothing about the murder until the 24th? You see you paint an image of him having a brainfart two years after the murder and it all suddenly came back to him. But of course he always knew that Jules had been the first to tell him about it on the morning of the 23rd. He just didn`t realize that it was a significant piece of evidence. The vast majority don`t obsess about the detail of this case.

There are quite a few people who have given what appears to be barely credible evidence and opinion in this case, that if one was convinced they'd lied one might consider them, without knowing the full story, as low-lifes. But that would be unfair. Only if they were to persist with obvious lies would one be justified in thinking that this label was appropriate. At the very least.

False!

from what I can see anyway.

Are you a teenager?