Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Bibblybobbly

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Don't know where you are getting that...

I'm of the opinion that there is zero evidence against Bailey... absolutely zero...the foreign DNA at the scene not his, the statements from MF are so contradictory they are of zero use

Does his admission of the murder on more than one occasion not count for anything or are we to just ignore that because it doesn’t fit with the narrative that it wasn’t him? Why on earth would he say he murdered her when he wasn’t under any duress. I believe there was no physical evidence linking him purely because the guards made a complete bollox of managing the crime scene. I lived in west cork for a time, I believe 110% it was him.

mgn

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Would he also be onto Drew Harris to reopen the case...

Not something I could see a murderer doing.

Del Boy

So Marie Farrell can now identify the mystery man across from her shop as a friend of Sofie's husband Daniel according to recent media reports.

I wonder if the Galway Travel Agent would identify the same man if shown his photo?

Was this man in Ireland at the time. Was he driving the car driving dangerously the morning of the murder?

So many questions. I hope the new review sheds light on all the information.

Henry...

mgn wrote: »

I know the man craves attention and the media, but the question remains, if he really done it, would he really seek all this attention he brings on himself,
I have my doubts he's not that stupid.

He knows they have nothing on him

No forensics

No eyewitness

All he has to do is hog all the attention he craves and don't say anything stupid

See ep.5 where he shutdown when drunk and being asked about the alibi


I had no firm opinion going in but it was all as clear as day, Sheridan pulled a masterstroke

Henry...

And he did it and Sheridan knew it

It's that simple if you can see ut

mgn

Bibblybobbly wrote: »

Does his admission of the murder on more than one occasion not count for anything or are we to just ignore that because it doesn’t fit with the narrative that it wasn’t him? Why on earth would he say he murdered her when he wasn’t under any duress. I believe there was no physical evidence linking him purely because the guards made a complete bollox of managing the crime scene. I lived in west cork for a time, I believe 110% it was him.

He may have said it because it's what people wanted to hear and being the center of attention.
From what I can see, everyone in west Cork thinks he done it because the dont like the man.

Henry...

Henry... wrote: »

And he did it and Sheridan knew it

It's that simple if you can see ut

You see what you want to see.

Henry...

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You see what you want to see.

It's all there

Sheridan laid it out

Henry...

Henry... wrote: »

It's all there

Sheridan laid it out

If Sheridan believes he's guilty then he did some very peculiar and disingenuous interviews at the time of the series release.
I believe Sheridan towards the end was extremely frustrated with Bailey, and disgusted with what he did to Jules, but he seems to be looking beyond Bailey by priming Marie Farrell to name a new suspect.

mgn

Henry... wrote: »

He knows they have nothing on him

No forensics

No eyewitness

All he has to do is hog all the attention he craves and don't say anything stupid

See ep.5 where he shutdown when drunk and being asked about the alibi


I had no firm opinion going in but it was all as clear as day, Sheridan pulled a masterstroke

From what I can see, Sheridan made a complete fool out of him showing him drunk and ranting and raving day and night.
With the Netflix one he was sober in every part he was in, like a different man.

Bibblybobbly

mgn wrote: »

He may have said it because it's what people wanted to hear and being the center of attention.
From what I can see, everyone in west Cork thinks he done because the dont like the man.

Really? It’s not a satisfactory explanation to me and it’s not something that should be overlooked, admission on more than one occasion is a serious piece of evidence and would only be ignored by people who want to believe it wasn’t him.

EdHoven

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Was the DNA found enough to conclusively say it didn’t match Bailey’s? Or was it so degraded that it could only be established that it was male DNA?

According to Ralph Riegel it doesn't match anybody who gave samples locally. Unfortunately he doesn't go into detail about if that means DNA, blood group or whatever.

mgn

Deleted User wrote: »

If Sheridan believes he's guilty then he did some very peculiar and disingenuous interviews at the time of the series release.
I believe Sheridan towards the end was extremely frustrated with Bailey, and disgusted with what he did to Jules, but he seems to be looking beyond Bailey by priming Marie Farrell to name a new suspect.

The only thing Sheridan worried about was himself sitting at his big desk with his bundle's of folders like inspector Morse.

See the state of him wandering around the French court house with his shirt hanging outside his trousers, I would take what he has to say about anything with a pinch of salt.

MoonUnit75

Henry... wrote: »

He knows they have nothing on him

No forensics

No eyewitness

All he has to do is hog all the attention he craves and don't say anything stupid

See ep.5 where he shutdown when drunk and being asked about the alibi


I had no firm opinion going in but it was all as clear as day, Sheridan pulled a masterstroke

That's just it, IB talks night and day about the case and the phantom French hitman. But when asked about his alibi he gets extremely flustered and asks them to stop filming for a 'comfort break'. He's obviously 'tired and emotional' and it comes across like he needs to look back on his notes.

dublin49

Bibblybobbly wrote: »

Really? It’s not a satisfactory explanation to me and it’s not something that should be overlooked, admission on more than one occasion is a serious piece of evidence and would only be ignored by people who want to believe it wasn’t him.

That's the issue with this thread,every witness unfavourable to Bailey is dismissed or slandered in one way or another,a violent man living close to a murder victim who he claimed on more than one occasion to have murdered,who changed his Alibi, we are informed there is nothing to see here ,its all a police setup we are told to believe,

sekiro

dublin49 wrote: »

That's the issue with this thread,every witness unfavourable to Bailey is dismissed or slandered in one way or another,a violent man living close to a murder victim who he claimed on more than one occasion to have murdered,who changed his Alibi, we are informed there is nothing to see here ,its all a police setup we are told to believe,

Which witnesses?

I think some people can't grasp the idea that the case is so "popular" precisely because of the unreliable witnesses and the weird sequence of events and the lack of forensics etc. This is what opens the whole thing up for discussion.

You are acting like it's just a 100% obvious thing.

What do you make of the Bandon tapes?

Ultimate Gowlbag

dublin49 wrote: »

we are informed there is nothing to see here ,its all a police setup we are told to believe,

You do know it's possible for it not to be a set up and for him to be innocent

MoonUnit75

dublin49 wrote: »

That's the issue with this thread,every witness unfavourable to Bailey is dismissed or slandered in one way or another,a violent man living close to a murder victim who he claimed on more than one occasion to have murdered,who changed his Alibi, we are informed there is nothing to see here ,its all a police setup we are told to believe,

On the alibi, in the Jim Sheridan documentary, when he appears to be less than 100% sober, he says he got up and 'I left her, she was snoring, I went down the road (ie. to the studio)' to write the article then 'I came back up in the morning' but in the podcast he is adamant he wrote the article on the kitchen table and only left to type it up after dawn.

mgn

Bibblybobbly wrote: »

Really? It’s not a satisfactory explanation to me and it’s not something that should be overlooked, admission on more than one occasion is a serious piece of evidence and would only be ignored by people who want to believe it wasn’t him.

To be honest I haven't a clue if he done it or not, but if I had to make a call I would have to say I don't think he did, surely after 25 years the Guards would have him nailed him on something if he did.

Bibblybobbly

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

On the alibi, in the Jim Sheridan documentary, when he appears to be less than 100% sober, he says he got up and 'I left her, she was snoring, I went down the road (ie. to the studio)' to write the article then 'I came back up in the morning' but in the podcast he is adamant he wrote the article on the kitchen table and only left to type it up after dawn.

I noticed this discrepancy too, his story is like swiss cheese

Where is Sophie's voice in all this? She was a film producer, highly involved in the media of cinema, did she never do an interview? We hear about her leaving messages on phones but as far as I remember from all these hours of documentary footage, I haven't once heard a recording of her speak.

Yurt2

dublin49 wrote: »

That's the issue with this thread,every witness unfavourable to Bailey is dismissed or slandered in one way or another,a violent man living close to a murder victim who he claimed on more than one occasion to have murdered,who changed his Alibi, we are informed there is nothing to see here ,its all a police setup we are told to believe,

I think slander is a strong word. What I strongly hold is that the murder turned a kooky community even kookier. The cast of characters would take a very creative mind to come up with if it was a novel. It was a shocking and disorientating event for everyone around, there was a devil in their midst and the devil had to be found. The Gardai knew they had a major high-profile victim and a community in a tailspin, so they started cutting corners and sexing up rumours, prejudices and crumbs of circumstance to get their man, and Bailey fitted the bill perfectly. Unlikable, self-aggrandizing and probably a black sheep wherever he would live.

I know we like to think everyone surrounding us are clear-eyed sober-minded individuals that operate strictly rationally with perfect recall of events, but that's not humans generally. Throw a murder, community panic and paranoia in the mix and you'll never quite know what you'll get.

Vengeance now writes the law as Arthur Miller put it.

Henry...

Bibblybobbly wrote: »

I noticed this discrepancy too, his story is like swiss cheese

The alibi was the killer punch in this

It exposed him

monkeybutter

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

On the alibi, in the Jim Sheridan documentary, when he appears to be less than 100% sober, he says he got up and 'I left her, she was snoring, I went down the road (ie. to the studio)' to write the article then 'I came back up in the morning' but in the podcast he is adamant he wrote the article on the kitchen table and only left to type it up after dawn.

It's like you think the gardai should interview someone sober and then get them drunk and see if they can reliably keep a train of thought going on something that happened 20 years ago and then if they can't, bang guilty

It's why drunk people aren't reliable witnesses

sekiro

Regarding Bailey, to what extent would he have been considered a reporter or journalist in the local area?
Would he have often done articles and what would they be about?

It's an objective fact that he was a reporter in the UK and maybe even a bit high profile.
However in Ireland it feels like he had basically given up on that life.

This would have a bearing on how likely he would be to know or be fed details about the case.
As another poster had said, news of a murder spread fast, even the identity of the person who found the victim.
Is it inconceivable that Bailey would be told of this.

Cassidy outright admits he contacted Bailey because he thought it was the only way to get the story out in the press quickly. Otherwise would Bailey ever be involved in the reporting?

It's a real problem that he was on the scene in a professional capacity as it removes the theory of a criminal returning to the scene of the crime. He was requested to attend as a matter of urgency. Again, Cassidy states that he wanted Bailey on the scene as there was a time constraint.

I find it a bit unbelievable that Cassidy phones Bailey and says he needs him to get details about this murder as he can't do it himself because he wouldn't meet the deadline but then Bailey getting the details is framed as a sign of guilt. Did Cassidy really just phone up and say "there's been a murder out by you but I don't know where or who found the victim or who called in the report to Gardai and I wont give you those details but I do know the victim is foreign so good luck". This is in an area where it does take time to drive around to the various places. It seems certain to me that Cassidy must have given him more info.

Depending on how well connected Bailey was in the area and how much reporting or journalism he had done in the area previously then you would expect his access to information and rumours to reflect that.

If he had been talking about the murder before the body was found or the first call was made then that would be the smoking gun, really. As it stands there's a bit of uncertainty on what he knew and when but for sure he doesn't seem to have given anything away before the scene was discovered.

dublin49

Ultimate Gowlbag wrote: »

You do know it's possible for it not to be a set up and for him to be innocent

IMO there is nobody on either of these threads who can say with 100% conviction they know they are right( unless Ian is logged on) ,I get that,his defenders want DNA linkage to the crime scene,DNA was only around a few years at the time and before that witness statements were paramount to convictions and there are IMO ample witness statements to totally undermine Baileys professed innocence.

unplayable

brendanwalsh wrote: »

Do people in the town know who Marie Farrell was in the car with ?

Yes it’s known locally and the man in question has long since passed away.

monkeybutter

sekiro wrote: »

Regarding Bailey, to what extent would he have been considered a reporter or journalist in the local area?
Would he have often done articles and what would they be about?

It's an objective fact that he was a reporter in the UK and maybe even a bit high profile.
However in Ireland it feels like he had basically given up on that life.

This would have a bearing on how likely he would be to know or be fed details about the case.
As another poster had said, news of a murder spread fast, even the identity of the person who found the victim.
Is it inconceivable that Bailey would be told of this.

Cassidy outright admits he contacted Bailey because he thought it was the only way to get the story out in the press quickly. Otherwise would Bailey ever be involved in the reporting?

It's a real problem that he was on the scene in a professional capacity as it removes the theory of a criminal returning to the scene of the crime. He was requested to attend as a matter of urgency. Again, Cassidy states that he wanted Bailey on the scene as there was a time constraint.

I find it a bit unbelievable that Cassidy phones Bailey and says he needs him to get details about this murder as he can't do it himself because he wouldn't meet the deadline but then Bailey getting the details is framed as a sign of guilt. Did Cassidy really just phone up and say "there's been a murder out by you but I don't know where or who found the victim or who called in the report to Gardai and I wont give you those details but I do know the victim is foreign so good luck". This is in an area where it does take time to drive around to the various places. It seems certain to me that Cassidy must have given him more info.

Depending on how well connected Bailey was in the area and how much reporting or journalism he had done in the area previously then you would expect his access to information and rumours to reflect that.

If he had been talking about the murder before the body was found or the first call was made then that would be the smoking gun, really. As it stands there's a bit of uncertainty on what he knew and when but for sure he doesn't seem to have given anything away before the scene was discovered.

You nailed why the Cassidy evidences makes no sense at all

Why would he not tell him she was french if he knew

It's idiotic on his part

Bibblybobbly

Yurt! wrote: »

I think slander is a strong word. What I strongly hold is that the murder turned a kooky community even kookier. The cast of characters would take a very creative mind to come up with if it was a novel. It was a shocking and disorientating event for everyone around, there was a devil in their midst and the devil had to be found. The Gardai knew they had a major high-profile victim and a community in a tailspin, so they started cutting corners and sexing up rumours, prejudices and crumbs of circumstance to get their man, and Bailey fitted the bill perfectly. Unlikable, self-aggrandizing and probably a black sheep wherever he would live.

I know we like to think everyone surrounding us are clear-eyed sober-minded individuals that operate strictly rationally with perfect recall of events, but that's not humans generally. Throw a murder, community panic and paranoia in the mix and you'll never quite know what you'll get.

Vengeance now writes the law as Arthur Miller put it.

However, they had good reason for probing Bailey, marks on his arm and head on the day following the murder, no solid alibi for his whereabouts on the night of the murder, a history of violence against women and critically an admission on more than one occasion of murdering the woman. Occam’s razor and all, it’s like some people are looking for a conspiracy rather than looking at what’s staring us in the face.

Xander10

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

On the alibi, in the Jim Sheridan documentary, when he appears to be less than 100% sober, he says he got up and 'I left her, she was snoring, I went down the road (ie. to the studio)' to write the article then 'I came back up in the morning' but in the podcast he is adamant he wrote the article on the kitchen table and only left to type it up after dawn.

One point in the podcast that I thought was interesting, When they tried to interview Jules in her garden, IB kept hovering in earshot, which defeated the purpose, it is stated (interview eventually given in house)