Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Options
1323324326328329350

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 662 ✭✭✭mamboozle


    I think you've got less than 10 posts. It'll be a while before the experts get to you



  • Registered Users Posts: 288 ✭✭EdHoven


    The newspaper case was the same judge who let off Leo Bolger. The McGinnity case he cited involved €13k ,a young lad caught up in using and dealing then went into rehab. Whereas Leo had €150k worth of cannabis and no extenuating circumstances apart from assisting AGS in the case against Bailey.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12 DavidBradley




  • Registered Users Posts: 931 ✭✭✭flanna01


    In fairness, you make some very good points in this post (above).

    Man arrested & questioned about the murder of STDP, later released without charge... All above board and considered a routine questioning...?

    But, this is where I see a problem. The Guards were actively telling the community that Bailey was their man, he murdered Sophie, and if he isn't convicted of the crime, he will certainly kill again... The clock is ticking..

    This rendered Bailey practically unemployable, nobody would hire him, he was black balled within the community. That's to say nothing of the threats he has received over the years... All because the investigation was bent.

    If the killer is found (big if), why shouldn't Bailey be entitled to substantial damages? His life was ruined.



  • Registered Users Posts: 288 ✭✭EdHoven


    He walked to Kealfadda Bridge? Where from? With a wife and child in tow on a family Christmas "find the bloody axe outing'. You make this sound like Wuthering Heights all these people wandering around the moors. It was 1996 not 1896.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Yeah, taking your kid along to hunt the murder weapon is completely bizarre.

    This whole carry on from Fuller just shows the hysteria that had been created around Bailey from very early on.

    Madness.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    It was actually in Feb 97, 10 days after Ian’s first arrest. Hence, hysteria had taken over the town. It’s noteworthy that on the 15th Feb was when Fuller claims he “suddenly remembered” he saw Jules by kealfadda bridge on the morning of the 23rd.

    I don’t buy anything that Fuller claims. He’s dodgy AF and has personal beef with Bailey.



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,281 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Bailey on front page of the Sunday Independent... nothing really of note more a general recap of the last year for him.. breakup with Jules, off the spirits, new relationship, doing a youtube poetry reading . Maybe the interview paid for his Christmas.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,597 ✭✭✭tdf7187


    A lot of smoke is being blown around in this thread to disguise the fact that the main suspect is still the main suspect.

    Contrary to what some of you seem to believe, it is actually possible that Bailey did it AND that the guards are not all that competent and tried to fit him up. These are not mutually exclusive.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,134 ✭✭✭jimwallace197


    No one is saying he definitely didnt do it, only that he is as much of a suspect as a number of others. And until he is found guilty in a court of law, he is entitled to the presumption of innocence. The evidence against him is so flimsy & corrupted that he shouldn't have even been charged imo. Especially when the likes of Alfie Lyons, the local senior gard who conveniently didnt investigate this case, the single German & Frenchman locally who didnt have alibis, the husband in France who not only had motive but the means too among many many others who werent even properly questioned. And by properly questioned, I dont mean a cup of tea, some biscuits & a chat.

    Incompetence isnt the only mark of these gards, ripping pages from the evidence book isnt incompetence, bribing potential witnesses with drugs, money & favours isnt incompetence, intimidating locals into believing Bailey was 100% the man who did it isnt incompetence. Purposely losing evidence isnt either, its at best CORRUPTION, at worst, covering up for one of their one own plain & simple, and anyone who doesnt think so has there head in the clouds.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 156 ✭✭flopisit


    In fairness to him, Bailey has been claiming he's off the spirits since May 1996. LOL

    "Dear John [Montague], A chara. It is under very sad and tragic circumstances I write to you and it is difficult to know where to start. On 2 May, Jules and myself were coming back from a party - I was driving and an argument broke out. It ended in a fight - we had both been drinking and were very tired. I unintentional [sic] hurt Jules, and her daughter called the guards... [I]t’s all quite awful - Jules is deeply upset - neither of us in spite of what has happened want to part and I love her stronger than ever... Please don’t think to [sic] badly of me. I never intended to hurt hurt [sic] - it was the drink and I am now resolved to abstinence."



  • Registered Users Posts: 156 ✭✭flopisit


    If Bailey is an innocent man, I agree, he suffered due to being ostracized by people in the area who suspected he was the killer.

    But regarding employment: I would say Bailey was unemployable long before the murder.

    He arrived in Ireland in 1991 and basically thumbed around for much of the early 90s. The job in the fish factory lasted only a few months, it seems, until he moved in with Jules in 1992. He did a few days gardening for Alfie. He had a job gardening for John Montague, but apparently just collected the money and didn't do much gardening.

    It wasn't until late 1996 that he submitted a few small filler articles to the papers. And in fairness, he seemed to be more interested in drinking than in writing these filler articles. The only time he made any actual money in Ireland from journalism was between the murder (23 Dec 1996) and the call with Helen Callanan (30 Jan 1997). He sold a few more articles after that until he was arrested (10 Feb 1997)... So he was a working journalist in Ireland for only about 6 or 7 weeks (out of the 5 or 6 years he was here).

    And Ian torpedoed his own future career as a journalist too. He didn't tell the editors he was a suspect and in the later articles, he was actually reporting on himself. He even got the papers to take his name off some articles to hide his authorship. So, no matter what happened after the arrest, I'm confident he would have been blacklisted as a journalist in Ireland for all this carry on. I mean, the only reason he got anything at all published was because he was right there in the area and in the know.

    He's been on the dole since some time in 2004 I guess. He absconded to England after the libel trial and then came back to Schull and signed on.

    Post edited by flopisit on


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    He said in the kev interview he was doing full time journalism by the time of the murder

    Hewas sending stories to examiner and southern star



  • Registered Users Posts: 288 ✭✭EdHoven


    At least Garda Prenderville and Garda Byrne had no difficulty finding their way to Alfie's place. I wonder if the source of the tip off about Alfie's horticulture was ever revealed...




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    A peace commissioner is obliged to satisfy himself there is some substance to the allegations and should not accept the submission at face value

    No surprise that was dismissed



  • Registered Users Posts: 288 ✭✭EdHoven


    Quite the coincidence it was the same two guards who went to the murder. Two drug busts and a murder in Dreenane. Is it twinned with Midsomer?



  • Registered Users Posts: 156 ✭✭flopisit


    You're right, but those are the occasional filler articles he did just before the murder.

    Ralph Riegel: "After five years in Ireland, by 1996 Mr Bailey was expanding his journalism to the point where he was now ready to submit material to the two biggest media outlets in the area: the Southern Star and The Examiner, both of which would pay for acceptable material. The money involved may not have been substantial, but any such commissions or freelance earnings would be a welcome supplement to the family income at Liscaha.



  • Registered Users Posts: 288 ✭✭EdHoven


    Not as lucrative as growing cannabis. C'mon Man. Means. Motive. Opportunity. It is obvious who killed Sophie.

    And if the guards let slip who tipped them off in 1994 they are culpable too and would have an interest in steering the investigation away from the horticultural community of Toormore.



  • Registered Users Posts: 156 ✭✭flopisit


    Thanks for finding this.

    But doesn't it indicate that Alfie Lyons would be unlikely to lie about Bailey meeting Sophie at the behest of the gardai who had been involved in trying to prosecute him for cultivating cannabis?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 156 ✭✭flopisit


    I'm not sure what your theory is... You believe Sophie was killed to cover up the cannabis growing? Or that she was the informant in 1994 and was killed by Alfie in retaliation for informing on him?

    Alfie had 31 cannabis plants in 1994 according to the article. We know he paired up with Leo Bolger much later (after 2006?) and at that stage,they grew a lot more cannabis plants in an underground bunker - plants estimated to have a "street value" of 50,000 Euro. (although "street values" given are often vastly inflated).



  • Registered Users Posts: 931 ✭✭✭flanna01


    The tip off had to be somebody local no??

    Who would have seen the 'produce', and at the same time be prepared to inform the guards of the same?

    Realistically, given the locality concerned, Alfie's shenanigans would be bothering nobody... Except maybe a disgruntled neighbour??

    Maybe the only truthful thing yer man Dwyer ever uttered... 'The answers lie in the locality'



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,682 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    Sophie was not the only neighbour In the locality Alfie had issues with.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    You are correct: there was bad blood between him and the Hellens.

    It's quite possible that they or Sophie, or together, made an unofficial complaint about Alfie, that forfeited the trial due to the warrant being void.

    Sophie was, however, very interested in Alfies drugs charge, because she asked josie hellen to keep newspaper cuttings about it. It seems unusual to me that she had a vested interest in it if she wasn't somehow involved



  • Registered Users Posts: 288 ✭✭EdHoven


    The guards only found 31 plants Alfie said he was "not cultivating". I guess the inference is they were self-set somehow. But when was the bunker built? If that was there in 1994 either Alfie had a close shave or the guards turned a blind eye to it. We don't know if Alfie had a partner or partners in the cultivation. Prenderville's elaboration that the source was an old reliable might have been an attempt to take the heat off Sophie, at least publicly. But I can only think Sophie was the most likely informant, who else would go up there? And if Alfie was told by one of the guards who subsequently attended the murder scene then that guard himself would know he may have contributed to her death.

    I also found some information about an assault in 1989 by someone with the same name as another of the neighbours but it was in Bray. The man was jailed for attacking two men with a weapon. It might not be the same person so I won't put it up but if anyone knows if someone in the Schull area had links to Bray maybe they could say so.



  • Registered Users Posts: 931 ✭✭✭flanna01


    I agree with you're statement in principle. On the outside looking in, Alfie appears to only have had a known squabble with Sophie with regards to leaving the main gate open.

    Not a major grievance too be honest..

    Given the fact, she wasn't in residence for the vast amount of the year anyway, would you not just ensure you shut the gate whilst she was around, keep the peace and all that....?? Especially, if you have nefarious activities going on in the background?

    If she had made a formal complaint against him with regards to his drug cultivating operation, surely a record of that is still in the archives somewhere..? And if true, the first person to find the body was from the Alfie Lyons household..

    Now that should cast a long shadow...

    But... Too be blunt, wouldn't it be easier to just sling her over the cliff? She was fond of long walks by the coast.

    I get the frenzied attack, the spur of the moment thing.. Even so, would you not remove the body from your doorstep?

    He could easily have bought another 24hrs of cleaning up time before people came looking for her (the house keeper would have been perplexed, but would hardly have filed a missing person report on the morning she wasn't there)



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I know what riegel said but Bailey said on the Kev program he was writing full time or similar words

    He said he was writing stories for the examiner and the Sunday star or times i can't hear

    He said he wrote music stories interviewed Ronnie Drew and the hothouse flowers

    " I went back to full time self employed journalist 1996, no shortage of stories and then ...

    26 mins in at

    so, is Bailey lying?

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


  • Registered Users Posts: 156 ✭✭flopisit


    Yes, I watched him on The Kev Show when it aired.

    Well, I wouldn't say Bailey is lying... or maybe I would, I don't know.... He is definitely exaggerating a whole lot. His claim is that he wrote articles in The Examiner and The Southern Star...

    In the Southern Star archives, he has: 2 small articles from July and Aug 1994. Then, from Nov 1996, there is 1 small article about a priest, 1 little snippet about The Ronnie Drew Show and 1 larger article about the premiere of the Michael Collins movie.

    The Examiner archives have nothing for "Eoin Bailey" "Eoin O'Baille" or "Ian Bailey". So I suspect he never got anything published in The Examiner.

    In May 1996, he was kicked out by Jules after the assault and went to stay in Skibbereen, renting a room from Russell Barrett. That put an end to his gardening job for John Montague. Also, a lot of people wanted little to do with him after this assault. I can't remember where I read it, but it was only a few months before the murder that Jules allowed him back in her house. So I assume the articles he wrote for the Southern Star were written then, after he got back with Jules.

    You know.... after researching all this, that line he said to the Sunday Tribune editor, Helen Callanan, "I did it. I killed her to resurrect my career".... it doesn't sound all that far-fetched!

    Post edited by flopisit on


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭chicorytip


    Bailey, in the Sindo yesterday, again denies being the killer of Sophie. His choice of wording is odd. He keeps repeating the sentences, "I know I didn't do it" or "I know I am innocent". This is strange to me. If somebody asked me if I bludgeoned my wife to death with a hammer last week my response would be "No, I did not" or "absolutely not" or words to that effect. Prefacing a denial with the "I know that... etc" sounds suspicious to me, like something a guilty person who is either delusional or in complete denial of their own guilt might say.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I would say he was lying rather than exaggerating if it is not true

    Either he was "back to full time self employed journalist 1996, no shortage of stories and then ...," or he wasn't.

    Bailey said full time self employed journalist. if kev had done.any research he would have challenged that but none of these so called journalists do any research

    They just swallow the PR spiel.

    Would be interesting to see all his stories put into one file. Are the Sophie stories he wrote for the star and tribune available?



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement