Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Not in my opinion.

Had there been direct evidence to link him to the crime, lets say, he had been seen in a car with her that day or perhaps he had been doing some gardening for her - or locals knew they were having a clandestine affair - something like that, then yes, the fact that he had the scratches and the getting out of bed etc would indeed be circumstantial evidence. But without the direct link its all incidental....lots of men would have had scratched hands - E.G. Alfie Lyons. Lots of people would have burned rubbish in their back gardens etc. Unfortunately it is also likely that many other men were violent to their wives. Does that mean in all such cases we are faced with circumstantial evidence of involvement in Sophie's murder?

Of course not.

Until we get the fu*king answer they're carrying out the request. endof dimwit entertainment

Right. So apparently you were reading the thread yet still feign surprise at being asked to provide a source for a claim... anything in the 10 February statement is dubious (both the grounds for the arrest and that Jules has retracted it) which is why I dont put any reliance on it. I would like to see the original citation for the word 'stick' as opposed to 'branch' and what was meant by that.

Where did I say Im sure they are not lying? I am not convinced lies are needed here to explain things and nothing presented thus far is conclusive of that.

How exactly is the scratch on Baileys forehead indicative of anything? Given his height. How does he get scratched on the hairline of his forehead either by Sophie or briars but nowhere else on his face? And if scratched by Sophie no trace found on her nails. Strange that.

As opposed to this being down to him scratching a cut from turkey killing and Jules misremembering this alongside the scratches from the xmas tree.

I honestly, obviously along with some friends, managed to get a teacher in school, in a double class, to discuss whether or not there was such a thing as a 'complete fool' since that term had been used in one of our plays or stories. It was inconclusive.

It's not my opinion, it has already been decided by GSOC. There was nothing unlawful about the arrests. The solicitor in the DPP office seems to have been a little incompetent in deciding the arrests were unlawful and the interviews and statements would be inadmissible. The statements were read out into evidence during Bailey's case against the state, that wouldn't be possible if they were 'inadmissable'. The DPP fucked up.

Quite likely.... It wasnt the 23rd though

The contents of the 10th February statement are doubtful but even if accepted (which I do not necessarily) re: this injury are not conclusive of anything. In contrast to the scratches on the arms for which there are even dodgy drawings by AGS for this scratch\cut on the forehead\scalp\hairline, details seem thin on the ground.

What is the source for your claim that the turkeys were killed on 20th december?

Everything I have seen has it down as the 22nd december, therefore, depending on hairline, hats\hood worn, how it healed, or if it had been scratched it would not seem surprising if only noticed by someone else the next day. And in memory, conflated with the scratches received from cutting down christmas tree on the same day. Far from proof of lies, and far from proof of implicating Bailey of the crime.

I'll say it a little slower, the statements were not unlawful and were admitted into evidence in front of a jury in Bailey's case against the state. The DPP suggesting they would be inadmissible was incorrect and IMO showed incompetence.

The GSOC report has been upheld in a long, drawn out court case. I'll take that over a journo with a chip on his shoulder. Thanks though.

Entertaining certain people and arguments?

Yes, I used Google maps and very vague, sometimes misleading, snippets of descriptions of where the house was. Even at that it didn't take me long to find it.

Knowing where it is I could give idiot proof instructions how to get there from Schull in four short sentences.

It's the only turn off along a 1.5km stretch of road. You would want to be trying really hard to go astray on a stretch of road where there is no other turn off.

There may not have been Google maps back in 1996 but there were Ordnance Survey maps.

Anyone who knew where the house was or who was given instructions or a map, even if they were unfamiliar with the area, would have had no trouble finding the house.

You are making unsafe assumptions about the journey the murderer took and that they were on foot.

The 'main' road and cul de sac are both surfaced with a similar tarmac / tar and chippings finish. Unless the murder was doing emergency stops, do-nuts or burn-outs, I wouldn't expect any tyre marks even if there was a car.

Thank you for (slowly) confirming my original point. That is is only in your opinion that the DPP was incompetent.

Would you care to comment on the other fifteen points of evidence that were demolished?

And, I will also repeat - slowly - its academic. There is no evidence linking Bailey to this crime. No association with the victim, no evidence of him being present at the crime scene, no motive, no forensics.

Bailey is an obnoxious, wife beating thug and I would be delighted to see him put behind bars for what he did to Jules.

But it is not evidence of his involvement in Sophie's murder.

Yes, I see what you are driving at.

but my point is that, if wife beating (or indeed, any tendency towards violence) was a factor in the identification of suspects, and if it is to be regarded as circumstantial evidence, then I am quite sure that there was more than just Bailey who fitted that criterion in the area.

Similarly, how many men had scratched hands? Who else had burned rubbish in their garden. etc etc.

I think an area that needs to be nailed down one way or another is the report that Bailey said on the night of the murder to Jules he might go over to Alfies and his premonition something bad was going to happen,is it only me or this not explosive ,if it can be held up.