Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
@irishspiderplant I linked above to one of the posts by that user, so people can drill in from there.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderAtTheCottage/comments/xf1kc4/bailey_didnt_do_it/
Poker or small axe?
Before she bought her house in Cork, she had visited Galway several times and stayed with friends, may even be relatives.
The solicitor she used when she bought her house in Cork was from Loughrea.
A bit more about it here;
I read it. He says for example she must have been killed a couple hours after the phone call to Daniel because she was in bed and the last time she ate was 2-3 hours before she was killed. This discounts the theory that someone she knew called to the house and they might have had a glass of wine and something to eat (2 glasses of wine, 2 chairs) well into the night/morning. The food in her stomach might also have been from breakfast. No-one really has determined what time she died so not sure he can be so confident. People have theories, but they remain just theories about time of death.
To be open-minded about it, she could have been killed any time following the phonecall to Daniel up to day break, and its possible it could have be during daylight if all the lights in the house were off.
Establishing time of death was so crucial to solving this case.
You could inflict much worse injuries with one of them surely.
It was a 750 word article which he had already done some research on. As an experienced hack, with research done, he could have thrown together 750 words in no time and as an experienced journalist he could also have typed it up quickly enough. Giving him the benefit of the doubt he could have done the whole thing in 4 hours after getting out of bed at 2.30. And he arrived back at 11am. Potentially there was a window of 3 hours there. Called over, told where to go, committed the crime, headed home!
Would be interesting to get the opinion of an experienced journalist on how quickly you could write up and type a 750 word article. I saw a link to the article somewhere today, but didn't get a chance to read it.
Perhaps if you are strong or if they are large enough. A smaller version (said to be small) mightn't do much especially if the person is running or parrying the blows..
How could they deny they knew her then?
For those who say it was Alfie Lyons, we are talking about a pensioner who was a relatively heavy pot smoker and grew his own weed.
Do you honestly think a 39 year old woman couldn't fend him off, outrun him, or that he was able to carry out such a sustained and violent attack?
He's one of the least plausible suspects.
He wasn't really a pensioner, he was 63. Tom Martens for example was older, albeit had a role that meant he needed to keep physically capable.
And somebody between Shirley and\or Alfie was moving a concrete block to prop the gate open.
If you struck a 'stunning' blow initially then the aspects you describe are nullified.
You could also add, if the attacker was so strong, why so much apparent difficulty in killing Sophie... resorting to different objects. We don't know how 'sustained' it was. There were many injuries but some were from briars, multiple injuries could have been caused from one blow of a concrete block.
There's a big difference between moving a block and lifting a block. Did the block not come from the pumphouse, a couple of yards away, or did I misread that somewhere?
It's likely the Gardaí never spoke to the actual couple she stayed with. Why would the bother, they had their patsy man already!
"The travel agent, who is based in Co Galway, first came into contact with Sophie du Plantier through a French couple, both of whom were involved in the film industry, as was Sophie du Plantier. The agent worked for the French couple, who introduced him to Ms du Plantier, who visited the French couple on several occasions in the west of Ireland before she purchased a house herself in west Cork. This agent subsequently made bookings on her behalf."
It's a totally independent house that Bailey rented before he wormed his way into Jules home.
Re the Philmatters reddit piece, at least 10 of his points are irrelevant. eg Bailey was late to the scene, we know this. He had directions. He was hardly going to say to the caller, I know it well, I was up there last night. We know he wasn't at the scene early in the morning, what has that got to do with it. He was hardly going to wait around all night to be discovered. Pictures taken or not at the scene, irrelevant. Again, how does that determine guilt or innocence? We know Marie Farrells evidence is worthless and prejudiced, only a fool would think she actually saw Bailey on the night in question, the reality is, she was probably nowhere near the scene. Bailey could have been roaming the roads all night and she wouldn't have seen him. Bailey had no memory of doing it? He had no memory of violently assaulting his partner, almost killing her in his own words. Re Jules Thomas testimony, from what I can see, Thomas fell into a deep sleep on the night and was oblivious to what Bailey was doing for the rest of the night.
And so on with his piece, its pretty weak overall with nothing new.
The difference is it's a lot more unlikely that anyone would forget that they got out of bed and walked 400 yards in the pitch dark in horrible weather to finish the last piece of work they had to do before relaxing for the Christmas.
Initially Bailey said he was in bed all night and then when he heard Jules had denied this was true he changed his story and suddenly remembered he went to the studio in the middle of the night.
And bailey was meant to have walked a couple of km the middle of the night to recite some poetry and try get his leg over on someone he didn't know after being on the piss a few hours before.....
If the Gardaí didn't even speak to them (the friends) then the Gardaí couldn't say that they(the friends) didn't know her, surely? It would surely be challenged..
Rented from Jules, and is where her mother lived.
The points you have listed are often referenced as forming part of the evidence against Bailey e.g. he had pictures of the corpse, he was at the scene earlier than he should have been, Marie Farrell saw him. So they are not irrelevent. They still get repeated on boards and elsewhere as accusations against Bailey. And some of them formed part of the Garda case against Bailey.
Marie Farrell is a liar and a fantasist I actually think she has serious issues, she inserted herself into this investigation and initially used false names, I read in an article she actually used her sisters name, from what I’ve looked up on her it’s said in one article guards threatened to expose she had a secret child when she was younger this was never mentioned again yet I’ve always wondered has anyone checked if this were true and how would the guards even know about it if it were
Sorry, if someone can write a story for a national newspaper, why wouldn't they be able to walk a couple of kms at night? Virtually everyone in Ireland has walked home from the pub at one time or another. He didn't run a marathon!
True enough I'm not young and have walked to and from country pubs many times.
If you ask the question "Cui Bono?", the person who benefitted most was Melita.
Her brother matches the description of the man outside Marie Farrell's shop. I think this aspect of her statement is true. Everything else can't be trusted.
From a criminal psychology perspective, people with a propensity for violence, often come from violent upbringings.
It would also explain the botched nature of it. It was an amateur job.
The Marie Farrell supposed sighting at night is daft. It didn't happen. Virtually everyone accepts that. Like I said its unlikely she was in the area and given her inability to name who was in the car with her, you'd question if she was out that night.
Bailey as a suspect does not depend on the supposed Farrell sighting. An alibi that can't really be corroborated would be more influential as was his propensity to violently attack women when he had whiskey in particular taken, and other question marks over how well he knew SDP.
personally I wouldn’t take anything she says as truth if that’s the only basis of thinking it was her brother I wouldn’t be so sure!
genuinely believe there’s a lot out there who know more than what they say
I think that aspect of her statement is true as it's her first statement and she did it in person.
I think the "Fiona" stuff can't be trusted.
Either way, she's an unreliable witness so I wouldn't give much weight to it.
Also if a man was outside her shop, it might've been completely innocuous. Just some guy looking for somewhere to eat or something or waiting to meet someone.
The infuriating thing about Marie Farrell is that some of what she has said is the truth, but which bit?
Bit like my marketing manager. He knows 50% of his marketing budgtet is wasted, but he doesn't know which 50%.
My gut feel is she was with a Garda that night.
I think she wasn't even out and about.
I think she thought she was being helpful or something.
I don't know really. It would be great if she sat down with a solicitor and told the full truth and was offered immunity or something.
I still think the first sighting outside her shop was truthful but obviously it could've been just a random guy wandering around Schull.
I don’t think anything she has said can be held with any credibility
firstly saying guards would tell she had a child back in her home town this has never been proven to be true
why did she ever leave her home town
apparently she was wanted in the uk for benefit fraud
also her husband has a questionable history of violence
and still she refused to name who was with that night if she was even with anyone
there’s too many questions with her that were not explored properly I find her highly suspicious and also why has she never faced prosecution for perverting the course of justice
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
