Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384204#Comment_119384204

It was Flanna who called it a one horse town. I used the term replying to him.

Something else about Bailey...he slouches. So standing upright he is 6`3. But from across the street, with his back to the wall, facing you directly and slouching, he could easily look 5`10.

I also get the impression that Marie is a bit of a shortie. So to her, anybody over 5`6 might seem tall. I`m Baileys height. I would struggle to estimate the height of someone between 5`and 5`6. I would just consider them short to medium. If I noticed a shortish woman across the street today, I think I would recognize her if I saw her again tomorrow. But if you asked me to narrow down her height to inches, that would be a big problem for me. I would even struggle to say whether she was short or medium.

So when you say Marie has zero credibility because she got the height wrong, well that makes no sense to me at all.

Massive Berevement

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384352#Comment_119384352

If you are in the business of believing what Marie Farrell says then why not believe her original testimony that the man she saw across the street was shorter than her 5'10 husband.

I don't believe for a second she didn't know of Bailey. Jules daughter babysat for her after all. Even the most basic general chit chat with that daughter would quickly reveal where the daughter lived, who she lived with and what they did for a living.

Did the Bailey of 1996 slouch?

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384415#Comment_119384415

Ok...one of the daughters babysat for Marie. How many times? Chitchat between the two has no bearing on Marie identifying him on sight. She would have to have met or seen him and been told who he was.

Yes he slouched in `96

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384468#Comment_119384468

Before you get any kid to babysit for you you would check out the family informally - ask questions locally etc.. You would know who she lives with, where she lives etc. Im sure Bailay could have even dropped her off at the house. No way did Marie not know Bailey.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384486#Comment_119384486

No evidence at all that she knew him.

Massive Berevement

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384468#Comment_119384468

I have no idea how many times but description alone would suffice when talking about Baileys physical appearance. You mention that when he slouched he could easily look 5'10. Utter nonsense. The man is a giant. It's not just that he is tall but he is very big with the height too. He'd completely fill a door frame.

Did the daughter not get dropped off and collected when babysitting?

Did Jules and her daughters never enter Maries shop?

How did Marie come to trust one of Jules daughters to mind her kids in the first place? Doesn't happen out of the blue with zero connection.

He was huge, English, a poet, a journalist and was brash and outspoken. A connection existed via Jules daughter. She knew him. And because she knew him she was able to say it was an unknown man across from the shop, who was shorter than her husband, instead of identifying Bailey by name.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384529#Comment_119384529

No evidence at all.

Massive Berevement

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384535#Comment_119384535

True but how can such a connection occur in complete isolation? Just think about it. Jules daughter babysat for Marie Farrell. Exactly how does that occur do you think?

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384576#Comment_119384576

Look at it this way. If they knew each other, then once Marie said she didn`t know him, Bailey would surely have come out and said something like "Of course she knows me. We drink in the same pub/ I met her when I dropped off Jules daughter/ She loves my poetry etc". They clearly didn`t know each other.

chicorytip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384298#Comment_119384298

What evidence is there to prove it was Alfie that was using her bath or not some vagrant who managed to break in? Alfie claimed to have been bitten by a dog he was minding for somebody, hence the reason for his bandaged hand. Fair enough but I would have asked him to remove the bandage and examined his hand. A dog bite should leave a distinctive looking pattern with tooth marks. Maybe the Guards did request him to do so. We just don't know. As for them not hearing any commotion, I could believe that without question. Presuming the final act took place at the end of the lane which is about 150 yards from the cottages and that Sophie may not have screamed or cried for help and that Shirley and Alfie were both likely to have been sound asleep.

Massive Berevement

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384592#Comment_119384592

Works both ways. If she could identify him at the bridge at 3am in the dark and with his hand over his face then why couldn't she initially say it was him across from her shop?

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384592#Comment_119384592

They were not best buddies having chats but of course they knew each other to see. Everyone involved in this case living in the area knew each other and had personal links. They would both need to have been blind not to have been able to recognise each other.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384640#Comment_119384640

Wasn`t that a great opportunity for Bailey to discredit her. "She`s lying. Of course we know each other..." He never said it because it wasn`t so.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384621#Comment_119384621

I agree that the bathing story is probably a red herring.

But, if the scratches on Baileys wrist are evidence of possible involvement in the crime, then a bandaged hand is of equal concern.

Where I would disagree with you is on the "not hearing issue"

Yes, its possible that Sophie was attacked and beaten to death, suffering circa 50 separate wounds, within 100 metres of their house, on a still and silent night, and neither Alfie nor Shirley heard anything. But its unlikely.

Massive Berevement

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384705#Comment_119384705

Would him admitting to knowing her not give weight to her ficticious sighting of him at the bridge?

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384639#Comment_119384639

I actually doubt she was at the bridge and as I understand it when she got caught out as Fiona she didn`t initially identify the man at the bridge as Bailey although I would have to check on that.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384352#Comment_119384352

She couldn't get the height right relative to her husbands.

It is a small town. He is a noticeable character. She works on its main street for several months prior to this, yet miraculously the only time she sees him happen to be this one weekend at three totally different locations? And never before seen prior to that?

If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

And you say she also saw him from a car on the side of the road. And couldn't get it right then either.

If you saw one of the shortest people you'd seen you would notice that. If you saw one of the tallest biggest people you'd seen, you would notice that.

It's the elephant in the room. Utter nonsense.

She has zero credibility as a witness. For all we know, she did see Bailey outside her shop and that gave her the inspiration for her fictional character to weave herself into the investigator. But what's clear is the man she was describing outside her shop was not Bailey. Fiction writers are like that. They take from real life.

Massive Berevement

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384824#Comment_119384824

If you doubt she was at the bridge then why believe anything she says?

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384844#Comment_119384844

Except that she saw the man that was outside her shop on the road again the next morning and that man was clearly Bailey.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384881#Comment_119384881

But she didn't describe Bailey. That's my point. She wasn't trying to describe Bailey. She created a character \ fiction out of what she had seen.

And I refer you to my previous point:

It is a small town. He is a noticeable character. She works on its main street for several months prior to this, yet miraculously the first time she sees him happens to be this one weekend at three totally different locations? And never before seen prior to that?

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384865#Comment_119384865

Yes, here is the rub.

Which statements are true and which are not. You can be selective and choose to believe whatever of her utterances support your point of view, but you'll end up in a loop. Best to exclude her completely from the debate.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384881#Comment_119384881

The gardai led her to say that it was the same man. The original description was different to Bailey. She now says the guy she seen outside the shop was wearing a beret. Nothing she says can be believed. She is a lying attention seeker.

tibruit

She didn`t work on the street. She worked in a shop that he never went into. She noticed him that day because he was hanging around outside. Why was he hanging around?? She saw him again the next morning and we know now that Bailey was on that road that morning.

thecretinhop

My point is one point yes it can be written off but multiple points? It just seems very off.. motive I have no idea.

Massive Berevement

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384948#Comment_119384948

No evidence he never went into her shop

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384865#Comment_119384865

Because in her very first statement, she says she saw the man for a second time on the Airhill Road. The Gardaí established a couple of weeks later that Bailey was on that road that morning. So it`s clear that she didn`t make all of it up. At least some of what she was saying was true.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384997#Comment_119384997

Marie said she was forced by the Gardai to say that it was the same man. She now says it wasnt Bailey outside her shop at all.

So the sighting on the Airhill rd is now irrelevant to the case.

Do you believe the Gardai behaved fairly in this case and were not upto any dirty tricks?

In one of the documentaries Det O Dwyer even states what he said to Bailey at their first meeting ( he uses the exact words he said) - 'I will place you at Kilfeada bridge'. This to me says they were going to set him up by using a witness. They used Marie Farrell for this purpose - they seen she could easily be manipulated and told her what to say regarding her sightings of Bailey.

Massive Berevement

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384997#Comment_119384997

As a witness she is unreliable and cannot be believed. How do you know she is telling the truth about being on that road? And anyway she never said she saw Bailey on that road only the same man that was outside the shop which clearly wasn't Bailey.

Massive Berevement

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119385097#Comment_119385097

Good point about O'Dwyer. Totally agree he was going to try his best to set him up

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119385108#Comment_119385108

I suggest that any debate on the veracity of Marie Farrell's "evidence" will eventually bring you back to the same point.

Its a rabbit hole best avoided.