Irish Times headline ; "Barry Roche in desperate embarrassing attempt to help Gardai out of fix."
It's not even news. This about Yvonne Ungerer is old.
He's a snake, a desperate one at that.
"Mr Sheridan knew the man and identified him to Ms Farrell and she later gave a statement to gardaí after an interview in June this year in which she said she was satisfied that the man she saw at Kealfadda Bridge and around Schull in December 1996 was an associate of Mr Toscan du Plantier.
Gardaí have since obtained approval from the DPP and have requested French police to take a statement from the man, asking where he was on the weekend of December 21st/December 23rd, 1996, and if he has any alibis."
This is the nearest thing to breaking news about a genuinely new lead in the case although probably much too late to be of any use. It is probably the reason the likes of Nick Foster have been out there muddying the waters and why Barry Roche treats it like it was only secondary to the story of Ms. Ungerers 'strange' evidence.
What if there is some record to prove that this French friend of Daniel's actually was in Schull or at least Ireland? Bad news for lots of people.
What part of my post has anything to do with Mossad? You are insane.
I think the original poster got his answer and I assume he has seen the documentary by now...
Very little 'discussion' regarding the documentary on here lately either.
Lock it up.... ffs
Why not keep it going, its still an ongoing investigation & the thread is both popular & informative to a lot of people who arent familiar with the case. Not only that both Jim Sheridan intends to make another series. Only way this thread should be locked is if there is another one opened up in Current affairs or the like.
Why has Bailey never admitted meeting Sophie on that single occasion at Lyons' house? It is likely that he did and remembers the encounter clearly. He would not have incriminated himself by confirming such a brief introduction occurred. It's not like he being quizzed about having a sexual relationship with her or being infatuated with her or even about them having a platonic friendship.
What? Jim Sheridan has managed to somehow inspire some breaking news for the first time in 24 years 11 1/2 months. It does seem like many people might have lost their desire to participate, but the discussion might have only just begun.
Right?
Crackers could just, yknow... Scroll on by if they don't like the thread. Bizarre opinion 🤔
Perhaps because he never met her?
"it's likely that he did" sorry, what? Were you there? Whys it likely?
All you have to sustain your unfounded belief is the word of 2 dopeheads: one of which miraculously remembered introducing them, well, "90%", some time after the murder, and the other who miraculously remembered years later, around the time he recieved a conditional discharge for a serious drug offence.
Really???
Maybe because he actually didnt? ever think about that for a second. & the likelihood that Alfie Lyons is talking absolute nonsense with his 90% claim that he introduced them. Never in my life have I come across someone who was only partially sure they introduced someone to another person unless it was at some sort of drink fueled party, its odd behaviour to say the least. This is before we get around to Alfie's extremely lenient sentences for his drug related crimes. 90% is such an interesting figure too, implicates someone but you're not fully committing to it in case it turns out to be BS. Sounds like someone trying to curry favour with the authorities to me
A. Because Baileys version is what happened, that he saw her from the garden but never met her and does not personally know her
B. Because Bailey remembered it that way even though he was in fact introduced to her and didnt backtrack later as worried it would look even worse to change story
C. Bailey is lying because even though that was the extent of it he was stonewalling saying he hadnt met her. Didnt want to backtrack on it as worried the Gardai would leap on it
D. Bailey is lying as he actually knew and was deeply involved with Sophie - though even with D this 'innocent meeting' seems not incriminating
A, B or C seem more plausible to me.
"Mr Sheridan knew the man and identified him to Ms Farrell
How did Sheidan know the man?
Does anybody know the protocol when the Gardai have to make a request of the police in another jurisdiction to interview somebody? Why as has happened with the Jim Sheridan/Marie Farrell story would the DPP's approval be required?
Jim Sheridan is a film maker who knows a lot of people.
Z. He met her and didn't remember.,
she was not his type, and didn't make any impression on him whatsoever.
There was always a suggestion that Sophie was accompanied on the flight by a man who didn't appear to want to be seen with her. A witness seemingly went to the Guards with that information. Has Jim Sheridan verified this and that's why it's being followed up in France?
Did the travel agent in Lochrea corroborate Marie Farrell's story?
Its Loughrea & no, he was pretty much ignored when he attempted to contact the gards numerous times. Not surprising given the conduct of the investigation.
It was a satirical post lampooning your repeated posts about various peripheral characters where you try and find proof they had shady previous lives.
Bailey originally said in TV interviews that he saw her and that in fact she was pointed out to him. Later, this changed in the West Cork podcast to he may have seen a figure through a window when he was passing 'but no detail'. He distances himself further and further. Any day now he will say he heard someone say they had seen her.
Never made an impression on him, yet when he hears a french woman was murdered in West Cork he drives directly to her house.
Breaking news? You mean regurgitated old news. Marie Farrell would tell you the moon is made of cheese for a buck at this stage. Maybe Sheridan is about to become the antithesis of Foster. Who will win? My money is on a 0-0 bore draw.
As a journalist.
Various posters on this thread have shown succinctly over the last 6 months how many people would have known about the murder very quickly.
According to some of his accounts, he was actually on the way to the post office to see if they knew anything and who lived in the area. That's when he said he met Shirley Foster on the 'main' road, not on her lane. Of course Shirley is more truthful and credible, she says he was already on her lane and looked like he wasn't stopping to ask for any further details. In one of Jules' statements she says they got to the Garda cordon and he said to her 'you were right, it is down here' when she had said nothing of the sort.
In other accounts none of this is relevant, he says he heard a French woman was murdered and knew where a French woman lived, so went straight there. When you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.
I wouldn't think the judiciary was/is anything like the clergy but your hilarious satire is a small bit very far fetched.
Anyway I'm sure you're happy to know that there's a potential breakthrough in France?
A breakthrough with Marie Farrell as the star witness yet again. Ha. haha. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha.
Thats pretty much what the DPP said to the Guards...
But weren't you delighted with her performance in the libel trial? She might be making a comeback HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...HA!!!
But it isn't Marie that matters is it? What matters is that there is a friend of Daniel's being considered. Now Jim Sheridan wouldn't really like to annoy the glitterati of French cinema without a reason would he? Because that's where the information is coming from. And where did he get it?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/37b29390e71419ead582d06229ae30a3.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
