Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
There's no obvious motive for anyone, really. Not Bailey, and not much for any others, either.
Possibly the location of the crime doesn't particularly suggest a sexual motive - "Lace up your boots love and come down to the entrance with me" - then pounce!
To me it looks somewhat more like an altercation that went ugly, but really, these are guesses.
It's possible that it was something to do with sex, lust or infatuation, and it's reasonable to have a belief that it was, however since there is no evidence, people rightly feel like it could be a red herring. Without that as a motive (to which there is no evidence he even knew her), then there is no real other motive for Bailey, would you agree?
I don't think it's of any substance at all.
The Irish Guards don't have any powers of arrest in France, I believe. I would suggest they could only have questioned or grilled the mysterious Frenchman/foreigner in the presence of a French police officer, - and possibly it's him who can ask the questions and the Guards just sitting and listening. There might also be a language barrier for the Irish Guard.
If there was real evidence, we could have known it by now. Also there would have been an international arrest warrant, both didn't happen. Also if there was real new evidence, strong evidence, there would have been a trial. There is no statute of limitations for murder, as far as I know.
So the only thing with Sheridan we do have is another theory, the mysterious Frenchman theory, he may have a name, but real evidence to support this, he doesn't have.
As far as we know this mysterious Frenchman is or better was in the circle of friends of the late husband of Sophie's.
I think it's brilliant casting, Meaney playing a 40 year old English Public School educated, ex rugby player, with a plummy accent and a condescending attitude to anyone less well educated than himself, like the West Cork Gardaí. They sorted him out good and proper.
Someone like Patrick Bergin would seem a better fit for older Bailey.
Initially I though it possible it is lax reporting and he has been cast in it but not necessarily as Bailey... but its popped up in a lot of reports.
Meaney looks nothing like Bailey!
Jim Sheridan claims to have uncovered the identity of a mysterious Frenchman/foreigner whose name he has passed onto the relevant authorities. The name of this individual will not be revealed in his upcoming docudrama.
It's possible he has discovered evidence of some substance. Despite just being an amateur sleuth like the rest of us here. In fairness to him, in his previous documentary on this killing, he took a relatively unbiased approach to Baileys' involvement with Sophies murder. The main focus of that documentary being 'Justice for Sophie'.
However, from the little information that's been leaked so far on this new docudrama.. I'm getting the distinct impression that it's main focus will be on 'Justice for Bailey!'
If that is the case, what has he discovered that's persuaded him of Baileys' innocence?
I'm only hoping that the rumors of Colm Meaney portraying Bailey are false. Ive heard Sheridan has been trying to lure Daniel Day Lewis out of retirement. Now that would be perfect casting! (Although it'll never happen)
Hell, DDL could portray Bailey AND Sophie!
The inappropriate relationship is evidenced in the Bandon tape recordings and was mentioned in the GSOC report. ….so that didn't come from Farrell.
The dropping of the driving without insurance charge is a matter of record.
The granting of the site is also a fact.
She's a liar…..yes…..but I still think that she knows more than what is in the public domain.
"I'm very slow to believe anything she said, but if there is anything I'd believe it's what she rang up and told the Gardai on Christmas Day 1996 using her real name.She saw someone following/watching Sophie in the town on Saturday and say the same person on Sunday morning on the road as she was going to Cork."
"I'm very slow to believe anything she said, but if there is anything I'd believe it's what she rang up and told the Gardai on Christmas Day 1996 using her real name.
She saw someone following/watching Sophie in the town on Saturday and say the same person on Sunday morning on the road as she was going to Cork."
Only Marie Farrell and the Garda know what was said in the phone call on the 25Th. There wasn't a statement taken from her until the 27th. In that statement she said she saw the man across the road between 2 and 3pm. In the same statement she said she saw Sophie in her shop at 3 pm. She did not link the the two at that time. It was much later in another statement she said the man followed Sophie down Ardmanagh Road.
Which makes nonsense of this -
"Maybe that's why Bailey was slow to tell the Gardai about Murphy's, he knew someone had seen him following/watching Sophie and the same person saw him again hitching in the area of Murphy's house."
I 'd say it's best to discount anything she said. Can't be relied on at all.
Remember that all these allegations about Garda inappropriate behavior around Marie Farrell are brought to you by Marie Farrell.
Even years after the murder in the 2010s she claimed that Bailey was stalking her when it was totally false, and proven false by Frank Buittmer.
I'm very slow to believe anything she said, but if there is anything I'd believe it's what she rang up and told the Gardai on Christmas Day 1996 using her real name.
She saw someone following/watching Sophie in the town on Saturday and say the same person on Sunday morning on the road as she was going to Cork.
That may have been Bailey as he was hitching back from Murphy's house on Sunday morning.
Maybe that's why Bailey was slow to tell the Gardai about Murphy's, he knew someone had seen him following/watching Sophie and the same person saw him again hitching in the area of Murphy's house.
But then again it could all be lies from Farrell.
I don't believe for a minute anything once she became Fiona, there was no one at Kilfadda Bridge and she was not driving around with a mystery man.
Why has she not been charged with anything I don't know.
Maybe there is a legal line between being a unreliable witness and wasting police time that she never crossed
Yes, Marie Farrell could possibly shed some light on this case, if she could ever be persuaded to do so.
Who was the man in the car with her?
What was the nature of her relationships to a number of local gardai? One is reported to have stripped naked in a house that she was cleaning, another is reported to have exposed himself to her in the toilets of the golf club, while another had an "inappropriate" conversation with her over the phone. There is enough there to raise the question.
Why was she not held in contempt of court for refusal to name her companion on the night of the murder?
Why was a driving without insurance case dropped against her husband?
Was the allocation of a site for a house linked to her involvement in the case in any way?
I believe the case will never be solved as a conviction beyond reasonable doubt is impossible.
There are too many open ends and unanswered questions which can never be answered.
Due to the fact that the Garda did such an awful job there is also no lead investigation.
Amateur sleuths only see one side of the story and often believe what they want to believe.
It's nearly 30 years now, memories fade, possible witnesses are dead, real cross examination is also not credible anymore.
I would also like to know what convinces the people that think Bailey is guilty. Sophie's son is convinced of his guilt, he seems educated and reasonable, what exactly drives him to think Bailey is guilty, is it to seek closure or is it that he was convinced by the Guards?
If I was in his shoes, based on all the evidence that I have seen and heard I wouldn't be as convinced that Bailey is guilty (he may be, but I'd be keeping an open mind on it)...
I didn’t know Marie Farrell said she was convinced Bailey was innocent.
Another interesting piece is the so called hatchet head that was found in a neighbours fire ashes - was this ever confirmed or is it just hearsay?
One of the most interesting aspects of this case to me is the whole Marie Farrell saga.
I think that there might be something to be gained from this still - if only she could be interviewed and tell the whole truth where she was, who was with her, what if anything she saw.
She went from seeing "a man" at the bridge (and across from her shop) to being convinced that it was Bailey (coercied by the Gardai) to being convinced that it wasn't him that committed the murder.
How is she so sure of this?
I don't know if Bailey did it or not, he's certainly a suspect, but how is she so sure that he didn't do it?
You are very correct.
There is nothing new.
This thread got a bump when Bailey died and has been tipping away since.
But all it is is the same posters, myself included, reiterating our own arguments over and over.
I don't know anything about Gardai procedure so I've no idea of they give updates at anytime or are obliged to report on progress or whether there is any time limit on how long they can keep resources on the case, so I've no idea what might happen next.
Daring to ask, but is there really anything new about this case?
As far as I know there is absolutely nothing new in this case apart from Bailey passing away.
You sent the reply to me not another poster in case u didn't realize
That clears that up
You like to portray yourself as above quarrelling etc but really you're the same except you're a little more subtle about it as above , anyway I've had a long week here maybe I'm tired and emotional
Because it appeared relevant in reply to another poster.
And I never engage in interpersonal criticism on public media. "You said/you always say/ you and those like you" etc etc
I find it like listening to couples quarreling; very tedious for the reader, and adds nothing of substance to the discussion at hand. I do not rant, I'm surprised you find my posts cryptic, and I've just explained why I prefer not to engage in that type of exchange.
If sex crime was baileys intent , well that's the Garda theory of what occured here
He lost the rag and battered her to death , no sexual assault or rape
Seems obvious to me anyhow
A killer has the intention of commiting a sex crime but becomes enraged during retaliation or whatever and violence takes over
It's almost guaranteed to happen sometimes
No it’s not at all “obvious” - quite the opposite in fact - there are killers who gain sexual pleasure from killing, not sex
But you seem perturbed by my post - that in itself is strange considering how innocuous it was-
I would have thought it obvious that occurs and doesn't need pointing out by you
Sex starts out as the motive , victim defends themselves etc. , enraged killer murders victim , no sexual assault or rape takes place
My best guess was that sex may have been none, part or all of the motive for the visit
Posters are being absolutist here as usual when referring to sex crime
There can be a huge spectrum of obsession, lust, desire ,loneliness , romance, inadequacy , need, infatuation and on and on and on
The fact that I believe (anyway) that her attractiveness etc. was likely a factor doesn't mean a sex crime is the motive , hence I didn't mention the word sex
You have the absolutist posters such as Seth Brundle jumping in straight away when i mention the word attractive replying that it wasn't a sex crime
I’m not going to get involved in some of the above conversations - but just to say I posted a good while ago that sexually motivated crimes that end in murder, don’t always include sexual assault - rare yes, but they do occur - I posted a quality reference but just can’t find it at present
“It appears VERY probable that the killer used a car; why else would a gate be found wide open to the fullest? Pedestrians don't do this”
Jules and Bailey drove to the scene a few hours after the body was found. In the same car he used earlier to go and murder Sophie? Unlikely I’d say. But how was the other gate- the secondary gate Gardai called it- found wide open in the morning? There’s no sign of any vehicle passing through that gate. Does that suggest that gate was the likely cause of the confrontation? I suppose Bailey could have walked up there. Also unlikely I’d say.
Correct but why did you post this ?
What point are you trying to make
Youre either ranting or making cryptic posts and not engaging, maybe you're incapable of same, there's many like you here
Fortunately, in Irish law we are not required to prove that we didn't do something. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e68aa2b0e039b12ade8384a2f42841c6.svg)
