Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Deeec

I didnt get to read Sineads aritcle yet - looking forward to reading it BUT

The fact Sinead O Connor now a journalist is a joke. Lets face it The Independent exploited Sinead here knowing that Ian Bailey would jump at the chance of meeting here. I think its disgusting to use a vulnerable person like Sinead. Give it a few weeks and 'The Independent' will have dropped her.

TheW1zard

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117630883#Comment_117630883

Cheers for that!

Caquas

Sinead’s lunch with IB is a new low for Irish journalism: two egos jousting while adding nothing to the sum of our knowledge about this horrible murder.

Comically, IB was a macho control freak while setting up this interview but ended up pissed drunk. No one explained to novice reporter Sinead that it is unethical to ply an interviewee with drink. But if IB was guilty, would he be knocking back pints during an interview with Ireland’s biggest selling newspaper?

Interesting that Frank Buttimer lets IB wallow in the media exposure which has defined him for a quarter-century. Probably tired of telling IB to shut up and figures nothing IB can say will make any difference I.e. IB has already said everything he knows.

Treppen

Sinead interview was a bit crazy tbh, she went there to put him in his place so she'd look like the brilliant journalist. I'd say she certainly got the sales anyway.

silver2020

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117631253#Comment_117631253

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117630951#Comment_117630951

Sinead O'Connor is not overly well at present from a mental health perspective and I'd question her capacity to have any form of meaningful interview with anyone at present. She only got out of hospital early last week.

But the Indo has no interest in someone's mental health. They are only interested in the headline they can publish

drumm23

I lean against the idea that Bailey did it for a few reasons:

1) I don't buy the "drunken rage" angle because, if he walked to her house from his (a 50 minute walk according to google) on a very cold night then he would be unlikely to still be "rage drunk" when he got there - and that idea is not really compatible with making little noise or disturbance and leaving no traceable forensics. That doesn't mean he didn't lose his temper but I think the "drunken" angle is distracting and contradictory.

2) I also think he would have almost certainly had to wear his coat for that walk, which would, almost certainly, have had to get blood on it to a degree that it would not be easily (and perfectly) removable.

3) If he was wearing gloves to minimise DNA transfer (his DNA is not on her) - then he can't have also not been wearing gloves to get scrapes from briars.

4) The Kealfadda Bridge sighting is not reliable because of the witness giving it - but it's also the wrong way home for Bailey and would actually double the walk to about an hour and a half - significantly increasing the chance of someone seeing him.

5) It does not appear that they knew each other beyond an introduction; I'm sure he knew of her but I see no (actual) evidence that it was anything more than that. He could certainly have heard that she was back in town for the Christmas but that he was stalking her or similar seems a stretch.

6) "He said he did it" - means less than nothing. He's clearly egocentric and dramatic, he's pretty constantly sarcastic, there's almost nothing you can take from his testament that you can use for or against him.

Personally, I'm starting to lean towards the idea that it may have happened much earlier in the morning than perhaps originally assumed. It was still dark until about 08:00AM in Schull at that time of year but I think her clothing and behaviour (leaving the house, leaving the keys in the lock), walking that distance down to the gate, are somewhat more likely to happen in the morning than at night. If you work from a "morning attack" idea then it shifts the "type" of attack one might envision - from a hunted/hunter to an altercation or disturbance. For example, could somebody have been trying to steal a horse and she went down to confront them? Obviously without an accurate time of death (cheers Harbison) then this is mired in conjecture too.

Anyway, I do think the one thing, as Irish people, that we can all agree on is that the Garda actions were beyond disgraceful. Even to this day retired Chief Superintendent Dermot Dwyer is willing to go on camera and heavily imply that Bailey burned his black coat - when, not only do we have camera footage of him wearing it two days after the murder, but we have Garda records showing it being taken as evidence! If Gardai like him are going to keep telling lies like that then solving the case will be interminably more difficult, if not impossible.

Drexel_3

Is this worth watching or should I go for the Netflix one or both??

FAILSAFE 00

The blood on her house door.

I'd say it was one of the neighbors that killed her. Who else would kill her and then walk up the hill to the house. Very suspicious that her nearest neighbors heard absolutely nothing that night.

Brock Turnpike

Can someone remind me what Alfie's household's view/version of events were? Were they at home on the night of the murder?

drumm23

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117633242#Comment_117633242

I think the Sky one is better simply because it's less biased against Bailey than the Netflix one. Even if he did it, there's no point in presenting the evidence in a selective manner because, ironically, it only opens arguments against his guilt.

drumm23

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117633330#Comment_117633330

Agree, except the Garda's failure to secure the scene means we don't really know when the print was made. It could also have been one of the neighbours who touched her body then opened the door - anything really.

drumm23

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117633665#Comment_117633665

At home and heard absolutely nothing.

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117633242#Comment_117633242

I think both. And the West Cork podcast.

All 3 talk about things not mentioned in the others. Like the Italian girl that stayed with Ian and Jules. Very interesting.

Imo he did it out of Jealousy. He was supposed to be the darling of Scull but everyone was mad about Sophie. He couldn't hack it and it would be a tremendous story to put yourself in the middle of as a Journo. 2 birds one breeze block so to speak.

Having said that, Dermot Dwyer is a disgrace and should be in jail himself.

nc6000

Dwyer should have been pulled up on his false claim that Bailey burnt the coat. Sure they admitted to GSOC that they lost his coat.

HoliyMoliy

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117633234#Comment_117633234

Completely agree about Dwyer. It’s baffling that the “burning of the coat” angle is still being used despite the video footage of IB wearing it two days later.

Treppen

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117638107#Comment_117638107

Maybe he had 2 coats?

Anyhow I think the Italian visitor who saw bailey washing something in the bucket (purporting to be the black coat) is far fetched.

Look at the size of the coat ! You'd just about fit an arm from that coat in a bucket.

chicorytip

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117633900#Comment_117633900

I think Sophie was hardly known in Schull. Her only interactions appear to have been with a local shopkeeper and her next door neighbour. That's probably how she liked things - a quiet,private individual. Apparently, she spoke little English. If Bailey went to her home that night I imagine it was certainly not by invitation and his motivation would have been sexual. As for the black coat- he may have owned more than one such garment. As for the "missing" gate - it never went missing. It was sent to the Garda forensic lab in Dublin and examined for evidence. None whatsoever was found so it was then disposed of. Never underestimate the shrewdness of a country copper. O'Dwyer may have appeared like some stage Irish buffoon to some but everything he said was convincing and had an air of credibility. The same could be said of his detective colleague from Dublin. They are probably the only truthful witnesses in this entire sorry story.

dublin49

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117633330#Comment_117633330

the witnesses contradicting Bailey ,the changing alibi,the history of violence ,the confessions,lets ignore all that and blame a neighbour.

Curious_Case

My unqualified opinion is that Ian Bailey is innocent, based on his demeanor when interviewed.

He seems at ease with discussing the case (I know, it's because he enjoys the attention) and any reluctance to field certain questions or interviews may be due to him attempting not to look like he's enjoying the attention.

There seems to be no evidence that he left any dna or other material at the scene.

Neither does there seem to be any evidence that he carried any dna or other material FROM the scene.

HoliyMoliy

very hard to open a cold case review when there is no DNA to re examine.

HoliyMoliy

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117638400#Comment_117638400

The same Guards that maintained that there were scratches on Baileys hands and instead of taking photographs of his hands they decided to sketch them!

The Guards failed miserably in solving this case.

oceanman

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117638400#Comment_117638400

they didnt manage to convince the DPP as it turned out....

notahappycamper

The only fact beyond dispute in this case is that Sophie was murdered. Everything else - I don’t know who or what to believe. 🤷‍♂️

irishgeo

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117638567#Comment_117638567

There is it was tested and belonged to a unknown male by the French.

FAILSAFE 00

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117638489#Comment_117638489

What witnesses?

I am sure none of the neighbours had an albi backed up by anyone other than their partners.

Wasn't she having an ongoing argument with a neighbour about the gate at the bottom of the hill?

Its almost impossible to believe the neighbors heard nothing.

Another thing that is unusual is Bailey fully cooperating and providing DNA.

HoliyMoliy

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117638782#Comment_117638782

This sums it up well. Bailey fits the profile of a killer but no physical evidence to link him to the case.

I'm interested in the block used to crush her head. If a block that size was used with such force (40-50 times say the French) surely there would be trace evidence from where the block was handled? Whether it be from a glove or even better the hand itself. The guard with the hairlip never mentioned anything regarding the block and evidence taken from it.

nc6000

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117638400#Comment_117638400

Only truthful witnesses? How do you figure that considering how Dwyer lied about Bailey's coat during the series?

TheW1zard

Keys in front door. So she went out the back, down her field out her gate and was found at the shared gate.

Her blood then at the back door.

By the amount of blood it could have been on the killers sleeve,

So incident starts at the gate and killer goes and checks the house is empty leaving the mark?

If it started at the house and she ran there would be more blood no?

No lights so did the killer turn off lights or did it happen in the AM?

If the lights were turned off there would be blood /footprints leading up to the house?

Very strange

Xander10

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117639432#Comment_117639432

There was mention that a concrete block would not retain fingerprints