Trying to make a name for himself?
He's a world famous Oscar winning director.
I'm certain Sheridan is only interested in finding out the truth, whatever it is.
What did he win the oscar for? Trying to make a name as the one who solved the murder i said, not making movies. It was very bad judgement showing ian drunk. He was hoping Bailey would slip up. At one point bailey said can't do this now.
Oh I'm sorry, Oscar "nominated" then, winner of untold other awards.
Are you actually calling Jim Sheridans credibility into question here? He's a national treasure.
He said himself this case has got under his skin for 25 years and he wants to know the truth. Not unlike alot of posters on here.
I dont think he really gives a flying one about being the one to solve it.
What does Oscar nominated mean? Nothing really.
He was painful in front of the camera and narrating
He is not a national treasure in my opinion
They all care about being the one to solve it
So the body is found at 'x' time.... the jungle drums start drumming (and are heard across the hills according to some) but the house keeper isn't called, contacted or located if only to rule her out as being the victim.... The last to know it seems.
Come off it...
Well she was arriving at 12 anyway as per her arrangement with Sophie.
Finbarr is the housekeepers husband.
The gardai knew them both as did Alfie /Shirley so I'd say she was obviously not considered the victim.
So? I think he was crap narrator and in front of camera. Cringeworthy. I skipped parts of it because of that
Well maybe he should stick to behind the camera then but his record as a director and writer is not to be sneezed at.
That's what i said very bad narrative and on camera and showing Bailey drunk was pretty pathetic
Being Oscar nominated is also ran
Put it on the public forum instead of pm
By that definition was only one director in 1989 - 90 successful? Really?
Given 99 percent of people in film never even get nominated, being nominated is a success. He has 6. And the film he adapted and directed won oscars in acting roles.
If thats your definition of an also ran you dont know anything about film and this seems to be just begrudgery.
Like i care what you think i know about. Doesn't bother me in the slightest
You said a while ago that you believe Bailey was there that morning. What were you basing that on?
On what Shirley said about meeting Bailey in the lane on his way to the scene about 2pm, and Bailey's contradictory statement saying he met Shirley on Kealfada road on his way to Toormore post office ,which would not have taken him that route.
Jules telling the shopkeeper that Bailey was investigating the murder before he claimed he knew about it.
Jules' daughter saying Jules and Bailey left the house for about 2 hours that morning.
It is hard to believe that an experienced investigative journalist living less than 2 miles away from such a major crime
was not aware of it for over 3 hours.
(Edited;
to correct names)
Yes but Shirley meeting him around 2pm would corroborate the Cassidy phone call that came at 1-40 pm. If someone else told him a couple of hours earlier, then why be secretive about it?
On what Shirley said about meeting Bailey in the lane on his way to the scene about 2pm
But 2 pm is not the morning, isn't Foster saying he could have been there earlier?
Ian Bailey was interviewed tonight by Kevin Hart on "Tonight with Kev"
Full uncut interview (37mins) here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1uJ1wI6YXU
God almighty poor Kev is starstruck.....reminds me of someone here.
The gardai telling ian Jules had given him up is standard interrogation trick
Finbarr Hellen?
If Foster wasn't putting out 'information' which only serves to muddy the waters around whether there is any useful evidence from the crime scene, how else would this be communicated to the public by the Guards? It gives the impression of a live investigation with new leads being scrutinised but somehow the Irish and French authorities want no such thing????? As long as it's firmly planted in the public imagination that the crime scene was such a disaster that there is nothing useful that can ever be gained from physical evidence, everyone will be happy with the "we'll never know" conclusion. Although we know it was that basta*d Bailey don't we?
There was one detail in this case that always struck me as odd.
Bailey wrote about the discovery of Sophie's body in an article in The Star dated 26th December:
"Local farmer Finbar Hellen found her body while out checking his stock"
Bailey was a friend of Alfie. Alfie's "wife" Shirley found the body. Bailey went to visit Alfie. How did he not know Shirley was the one who discovered the body???
(This is the same article in which he already knew she "was not sexually assaulted".)
deleted!
......@.......@.........@.........@............@...........@...........@..............@
Thumbleweed....
Why are people so exercised about events of the 23rd December 1996? It's been done to death and couldn't possibly throw up information now that would lead to identifying the killer. But maybe that's precisely why it's debated ad nauseam.
Until some indication is given about the kind of undercover police activity taking place in the area at the time nothing will come out.
Has it been established that Bailey visited Alfie by Christmas day? That would be surprising. There are a number of possible explanations here. The gardaí would probably have been getting a sense of who the local suspects might be from interviewing Alfie and would have told him not to reveal any details to anyone and particularly Bailey I suspect. If you are coming at it from Foster`s viewpoint you could argue that Bailey was hiding in the bushes and saw Hellen identify the body and assumed that Hellen found the body too. Bailey would probably suggest that he heard locally that Hellen made the identification and from that assumed he found the body.
It would also suggest that Bailey didn`t have a mole within the gardaí which begs the question how come he knew there was no sexual assault? Foster is rambling all over the place now as far as I can see. Reading between the lines he seems to be suggesting that Bailey was there that morning, that the gardaí either let him in to look around or realized soon afterwards that he had been there and that he contaminated the crime scene. Therefore any evidence of him found at the scene had to be discounted afterwards and there would have to have been a big garda cover up of what would have been a colossal procedural failure. I don`t buy any of this and the whole scheme would have fallen apart once Bailey had been arrested anyway. Any cover up like that would have not just involved the locals but also the forensic team.
I still think Bailey was there earlier, but I don't think he was the one who contaminated the site, if that is indeed what happened.
I think if the site was contaminated, it was by a.n other who was allowed in or even invited in by the Guards.
This person would have been a regular visitor to area around the murder scene.
Their presence at the scene in the immediate aftermath of the murder
would have made a prosecution impossible.
So their attention then turned to stitching up Bailey.
The #1 suspect would be Alfie. The closest to the murder scene. In dispute about the gate with Sophie. She is murdered at that gate. Hand bandaged. The idea that Alfie is instantly not a suspect but the person supplying the guards with suspects is ludicrous.
As ludicrous as Bailey returning to the scene secretly to "contaminate" it with his own DNA. Say now if Bailey's DNA is found on Sophie's leggings is he going to say "oh, yeah, I forgot, I went up at 11 to have a look, that's when my DNA got there"?
If that is the scenario you'd think Nick Foster would hold a press conference with Ian Bailey and publicly exonerate him. New books all round.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/37b29390e71419ead582d06229ae30a3.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
