Murder at the Cottage | Sky

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118357342#Comment_118357342

Bailey is not a suspect for the murder of his spouse \ live in partner though is he? Again you are attempting to draw a linkage which is not relevant. If Jules had been the victim, then of course the domestic abuse would be directly relevant.

But in this case, it's nothing. It is not a sufficiently strong linkage, if one even exists, to draw any conclusions about Bailey's guilt in this crime.

Would it be torn asunder? We don't know, because like the rest of the stuff thrown at Bailey it's not sufficient evidence for him to stand trial. It's just the circumstantial, the invented, the muck, the non existent.

"Post assault remorse astonishment' Someone who can completely lose it

Maybe he wrote his diaries as a defence know ing of the possibility of them being seized

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118356874#Comment_118356874

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118356459#Comment_118356459

There are cliques and trolls here thanking each others post

Have you not seen the patter,n?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118356757#Comment_118356757

Mamboozle was not able to say how he knows it's not true IB can turn violent quickly. He does not have any proof of that

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118357047#Comment_118357047

Keane didn`t break Haalaand`s leg. In fact Haalaand played on after Keane was sent off and unlike Jules he wasn`t hospitalized.

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118357636#Comment_118357636

It has been pointed out that apart from the incidents with his partner Bailey has no other charges for violent assault. And in these assaults/fights with his partner she testified that their severity had been greatly exaggerated. It is worth exploring her assertion. While people wish to use these incidents as proof of an uncontrollable temper it could very reasonably be argued that in spite of being drunk he was capable of demonstrating great restraint. And we have been told by Jules that she may have provoked the most serious incident by hitting him first. He might have committed to a diary that he felt like murdering Jules but the result of this most serious assault can easily be seen to have fallen much shorter than anything that could be conceived of as attempted murder.

From the most serious assault we are regularly shown pictures of Jules with a bandaged eye. She says that particular injury is exaggerated by others and it may well be. She says that the injury to her lip was due to him having his finger in her mouth. Was she biting him so that the damage was caused as he extricated his finger? When she lost a clump of hair, this could be due to him pulling her off him. Remember that he is 6ft 3 or 4 while she is slight. Were her injuries really consistent with a 'savage' assault or was she 'beaten to a pulp' as many here like to claim? On the contrary her injuries are consistent with pulling and dragging with no punches being thrown by someone who could have done a lot of damage but was able to restrain themselves or simply does not have it in their nature to do something very violent. The only way the Judge in the libel trial could have substantiated the claim that Bailey was a violent monster was by demonstrating the severity of his actions by comparison to the many other recorded cases of domestic abuse the Guards had on record. The most striking thing about that was that the victim didn't agree that he was capable of serious assault, never mind murder. That was something that suited the Guards to plant in the public's imagination.

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118357772#Comment_118357772

I stand corrected. He only tried to, like he tried to break Shearer's jaw.

flopisit

The number of men who violently beat their wives in Ireland is a very small percentage of all men.

A certain section of this small group of men do indeed go on to commit murder. Some of them murder their wives and some murder other people.

Beating your wife is not evidence that you murdered someone. But it is evidence that goes towards character and establishes a pattern of behaviour. It shows you are the type of man who is capable of violently assaulting a woman. It shows you are the type of man who can burst into violence under the influence of alcohol/drugs.

In the background of our killer, we would expect to see some incidents of violence directed towards women. A violent murder like this - beating and overkill - does not come out of nowhere. Our killer has a history.

Note: There are people in this thread insisting that Bailey's violence was only directed against Jules. They are echoing Bailey's own testimony in court where he insisted he was not violent against women because his violence was only against Jules. I believe the point he made was that he was violent against a woman but not against "women plural".

Mr.Crinklewood

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118355006#Comment_118355006

Imagine if Bailey did that...

flopisit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118356783#Comment_118356783

They don't prove guilt though and these assaults, violent as they were are pale in comparison with the attack meted on the victim. It was dozens of blows and took significant time to accomplish, much more than necessary to kill and seem to have involved a lengthy chase.

The theory is that if Bailey was indeed the killer, he assaulted Sophie initially and then realised he had to kill her. He couldn't rely on her reacting to the assault by forgiving him and apologising for him the way Jules did.

Bailey's worst assault on Jules was in May 1996. He was banished from the Prairie for a few months because of that. It was only shortly before the murder that Jules allowed him back. (1 or 2 months, I can't remember the exact date... If you have info on when she let him back, I would appreciate it).

Almost every blow was directed towards the head and face. So it can't have been random, it was someone that wanted to kill her specifically and did not relent until he or she was likely exhausted.

During the libel trial, the defence made the point that Bailey's assaults on Jules were directed to the head and face, which they inferred was similar to the assault on Sophie.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118357816#Comment_118357816

That is not proof you know It's speculation

Was she biting hi m? Was the hair pulled out because he was pulling her off him?. Pro bailey speculation

dublin49

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118357816#Comment_118357816

hard to believe someone would try to paint an act of violence as an example of the abusers restraint.Bit of a Monty python vibe to the minimising of the injuries inflicted.

saabsaab

Blows to the head arms and face would probably show that the attacker(s) was/were taller than her. The number of blows needed to subdue her also would indicate unused to killing or someone not that strong or in a weakened state?

flopisit

Bailey gave his own explanation of these assaults in court during the libel trial. If she assaulted him, he would have told us then.

Bailey's explanation of the May 1996 assault was that they were driving home, he took over the driving and Jules put her hand near his face.

Bailey's explanation of the 2001 assault was that he was holding the crutches, they struggled over the crutches and Jules accidentally beat herself in the face with the crutches.

In the "most serious assault" people are referring to (the May 1996 one), Bailey tells us in his diary that this was actually two assaults. He assaulted her in the car first and then again when they came home. The daughter heard Jules wailing in the bedroom after the second assault and went to fetch the neighbor, Peter Bielecki.

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118357974#Comment_118357974

This is somewhat juvenile when violence covers a huge spectrum but you don't wish to engage with the substance of what's being said.

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118358010#Comment_118358010

"Jules put her hand near his face." He may be doing the gentlemanly thing and downplaying something. Given what we know about the circumstances it doesn't look like 'putting her hand near his face' was to gently caress it.

almostover

Had an interesting encounter today with Bailey myself in a 5 star hotel in the South West. My first time in a 5 star establishment in fact. My partner and I were having our COVID passes scanned at the desk while awaiting seating for breakfast and lo and behold behind me in the queue is the man who is the subject of a European arrest warrant for murder. At first I thought I might be still feeling the effects of the cocktails from the night before but in fact it was Bailey himself. Accompanied by a well dressed woman at least 10 years his junior.

For a man of his age he looks terrible. The ravages of alcohol and stress have taken their toll on him. He was dressed in his usual eccentric garb complete with hat and large walking stick. A bandana style face covering completed the dishevelled look.

Some things stood out to me. The most obvious was Bailey's stature. He's become somewhat stooped but is still a large strong man. I'm 5'11", 11.5 stone and he'd eat me for breakfast. Certainly physically capable of a brutal murder but also it made me think about the Marie Farrell 5'10" statement. There is no way in hell that even in the dark of night at the side of the road or from a viewing across the street could anyone think Bailey is under 6 feet tall.

The other thing that stood out to me is that Bailey cannot live a normal life, deserved if he committed the murder, cruel if he did not. There were plenty of shocked faces at that breakfast sitting and much whispering. I understand the hypocrisy of this post in that regard but the observations I think are valid.

It's clear his female companion was treating him, as Bailey himself is essentially unemployable and dependent on welfare. Their behaviour was unremarkable at the breakfast, we were seated half way across the room from them and could barely overhear some of their interactions with the staff, nothing out of the ordinary other than Bailey's voice is recognisable.

The irony of it all was that much of the staff in this hotel spoke with French accents and had French names. Perhaps a hangover of COVID that hospitality staff are coming in from other EU countries to replace Irish staff who lost their jobs early pandemic and found alternative employment. Wonder if they knew who they were serving. It was clear at the breakfast reception that the Irish maitre D was immediately uncomfortable with Bailey's presence.

It was strange to witness a very infamous man going about ordinary things. It might wrankle with some too that he is availing of 5 star accommodation. But from this brief encounter I can only state that there is no way any person with the gift of sight could me confused on this man's stature. He is well above average height.

almostover

flopisit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118358256#Comment_118358256

Accompanied by a well dressed woman at least 10 years his junior.

Was the woman you saw him with the woman in this article (Ethna Staunton, his supposed new girlfriend):

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/ian-bailey-very-happy-dating-25282498

Marie Farrell 5'10" statement. There is no way in hell that even in the dark of night at the side of the road or from a viewing across the street could anyone think Bailey is under 6 feet tall.

Marie Farrell claimed 3 sightings of the man in black. The first one was outside her shop on 21st Dec 1996 at 3pm. That's where the height claim comes from. It's kind of a moot point because:

1. Two other witnesses (Dan Griffin and Ceri Williams) separately identified Bailey as the man in the long black coat on that street around that time.
2. Marie Farrell, on 17th Jan 1997, saw a man in the centre of Schull, came out of her shop, found a Gard and pointed out the man she had seen. The Gard identified him as Ian Bailey.
3. Witnesses often have great difficulty estimating height. If you look at serial rape cases, you'll find the victims estimate the height of the attacker in wildly different ways - ranging from short to very tall.
4. Marie Farrell subsequently said in interviews that she wouldn't know what height the man she saw was, because she is no good at estimating height. She "wouldn't have an idea" is, I think, the wording she used.

"Bailey's explanation of the 2001 assault was that he was holding the crutches, they struggled over the crutches and Jules accidentally beat herself in the face with the crutches."

Maybe he was out jogging by Sophie' gate a decided to do some weightlifting with the breeze block. Sophie startled him and it fell on her.

almostover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118358387#Comment_118358387

Yes, it was Ethna. I was not aware that their relationship is public news.

I find it very very difficult to believe the Maria Farrell statements on this. Serial rape cases are very different to seeing a man in a long dark coat across the street or on the side of the road. Serial rape involves deep trauma, seeing someone at the side of the road is a casual observation. If you were to ask anyone what their first visual impression of Bailey is on seeing him one thing anyone would have to mention is very tall. Of that there is no mistaking.

Why I bring this up is that even though I'd wager Bailey is the murderer I find that there should be far more suspicion around Maria Farrell's testimony and recanting of this testimony. The woman risked jail time to not name the man who she claimed she was with in the car whilst driving near Kealfadda Bridge. That testimony was used in France to secure a murder conviction.

Like I said, I'd wager Bailey is the murderer. Not put my house on it but I'd risk a few hundred quid. But something about the Garda investigation and the behaviour of the French justice system really wrankles with me on this one. I believe that deep down that Sofie's family are not 100% fully behind Bailey's murder conviction in France. They're just desperate for closure. They haven't been afforded the opportunity to close this traumatic chapter and to truly grieve for their loss. The murderer, whoever they are bears the sole responsibility for that. In mind mind Bailey is the most likely perpetrator. But there's something fishy going on too, and the Gardai have always known more that is being said. There have been too many instances of Garda malpractice exposed in this case over the years, some of it more than malpractice. It's hard to know if it'll ever be solved. And that's sad, because a man who is afford the presumption of innocence under the law is judged guilty in the eyes of the public and by a deeply flawed trial outside of this jurisdiction and a family goes without justice and closure on the murder of their daughter.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118358387#Comment_118358387

Absurd special pleading and weasel words. MF said she wasnt good at putting height into feet and inches... that is a world away from not knowing if some is short, average or on the tall side. If she saw Ian Bailey from a window through which had seen other people but somehow didnt register Bailey as being bigger than most people she is lying or so clueless at observance her worth as a witness is zero. Its the first thing you notice about Bailey.

She worked on Schull main st for a year running a shop yet never saw Bailey about town before? Yet magically saw him on the saturday and had no problem finding him days later to point out to a Guard? By magic I mean this is invented nonsense. Lies.

If you believe this crap you will believe anything.

flopisit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118358533#Comment_118358533

You're right, I didn't mean to seem like I was defending Marie Farrell as a witness, just attempting to add more context. She is very much an unreliable witness.

In fact, in her last court appearance, we have evidence to suggest she was lying. Her friend was called as a witness. The friend testified that Marie Farrell had told her she would be a witness in Bailey's case and if he won the case, and won a big settlement, she (Marie) would be getting a cut of it.

I've never seen Bailey in real life, but I take your word on his size. The book authors who have seen him in person have also written about how he is much bigger than he seems in photographs.

flopisit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118358577#Comment_118358577

She may have said that as well. I was talking about what she said, I think, in the West Cork podcast.

I also said that two other witnesses saw Bailey at that spot around that time. One of those witnesses (Williams) saw Bailey and Sophie there at exactly the same time. She was interviewed in the West Cork podcast.

So if Bailey was not the man in the long black coat who Marie Farrell claimed she saw, then the man in the long black coat was very close by when Bailey was there.

I'm not supporting Marie Farrell, as I am quite convinced she is lying in her most recent testimony. I am saying we don't need her testimony to place Bailey in that spot around 3pm on 21st Dec 1996.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118358764#Comment_118358764

Marie Farrell wasnt describing Bailey that much is obvious. As obvious as Ian Bailey on Schull main st over the course of a year.

So if she saw this not big not tall sallow skinned man ... yet nobody else did.

Well the conclusion is also obvious.

"Last night I saw upon the stair,

A little man who wasn't there,

He wasn't there again today"

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118358577#Comment_118358577

You can criticize Marie Farrell for a lot of things, but the height issue isn`t one of them. I`m tall and I think I would make a fair estimate of the height of someone in the 5`10 to 6`5 range. However if you asked me to be accurate about someone in the 5` to 5`6 range I think I would fail miserably. It`s to do with eye level really and it is far easier to estimate the height of someone that is a few inches either side of your own height. The same applies to a short person trying to estimate the height of someone tall. I`ve always assumed she is fairly short, but then I`ve only seen her on TV so that can be deceptive and I could be wrong. She was also estimating the height of someone who was standing alone on the other side of the street. I find it weird that some people are critical of her about this.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118358825#Comment_118358825

I clearly called out relative heights and you proceed down this smokescreen of feet and inches.

Tall.

Big.

Large.

The words someone would use if describing Bailey.

Which she obviously wasnt.

She didnt just get it wrong in feet and inches. She didnt even get it right in build and relative height.

This is basic stuff.

She wasnt looking at him on TV.

She has looked out that window before? Seen other people through it?

Yet Bailey didnt register as bigger than most people she had seen from it? Nope. Not credible.

She worked in that shop for a year.

Beggars belief if she saw Bailey there she wouldnt pick up on that.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118358812#Comment_118358812

Yes they did.

Dan Griffin saw him too. His statement corroborated Marie Farrells.

Neither described Ian Bailey, that's for sure. You are correct. It was a different man.

It's 2 days till the 25th anniversary of Sophies death.

I think it gets forgotten in this thread sometimes. We need to remember.

25 years, for her family to have no closure. To be desperate for answers and fed a load of bullshit by the irish Gardaí.

It becomes a "for Ian" or "against Ian" argument. Over and over. Can we just remove him from the picture and be objective?

It would never have been about him except the press and gards made sure it was. Then they tried to make weak evidence fit.

The bottom line is this: an innocent woman was brutally murdered and her killer was never brought to justice because of incompetence, corruption, and cover up. Its utterly shocking. Yet it happened in our country, in our land, and it was permitted.

The authorities whitewash the kerry babies, and they whitewash this. Its the same old crap over and over.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118358898#Comment_118358898

It is all relative and this seems to be an ongoing issue for you and how you interpret things. I suspect MF is quite short. To her there wouldn`t be that much difference between 5`10 and 6`2. She would just be looking up at a tall person. You also fall down badly in your understanding of Bailey`s character. So for example I remember you recently stated that Bailey not hiding his scratches was an indicator of his innocence. But that is based on an assumption that a guilty Bailey would react in the same way anyone else would. He wouldn`t. He is a malignant narcissist who craves notoriety. If Bailey killed Sophie and managed to send the evidence up in smoke in the Xmas bonfire, he would have been happy for the world to see those scratches. His logic would have been running along the lines of...."Hey there, did you see my hands.....did you hear about the French woman up the road.....are ye putting two and two together yet?" Ffs he was telling people he did it soon after that.