Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119759949#Comment_119759949

Well that's fair enough, but realistically the Gardaí were associating the Airhill man with Bailey for a couple of weeks before they outed "Fiona". If Ceri Williams had said on her questionnaire that she was in Schull on the Saturday, I would imagine they would have been asking her did she see Bailey that day at quite an early stage in the investigation. Once Marie said it was the same man in the three sightings, then they would have been sure the Kealfada man was Bailey, even before she officially identified him.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119760005#Comment_119760005

Marie Farrell is a totally unreliable witness who loves the drama of the whole thing. She would see the second coming of Christ if it would get her publicity or benefit her in some way. Why are we even discussing her evidence?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119759789#Comment_119759789

He was a court reporter... I think you left out a few followup sentences there as an explanation because what you have so far is nonsense.

How would this come up in a court? Was someone accused of deploying such a tactic in a murder trial?

He was also supposed to have carried out this murder in an unprovoked drunken rage.

Yet has the presence of mind to think back to this...

Pull the other one.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119760092#Comment_119760092

He would have understood the implications of getting into the car with blood on his clothes after his sobering "Wtf have I just done?" moment.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119760139#Comment_119760139

Ever heard of 'not thinking straight'? That's just as likely to happen.

So it's not a sure thing he would have reacted like that.

Or even that would he have even realised he had blood on him?

And even if he had, there's a massive jump from there to the tactic of taking the clothes off and driving home like that.

You try to wave it away with "Oh, he was a court reporter"

You're trying to make a lot of jumps there, not convincing to me at all.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119760198#Comment_119760198

I`m making no jumps. He may not have driven there at all. But if it was a drunken rage, I would imagine he sobered up and came to his senses quite soon afterwards once he realized the enormity of what he had just done.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119760139#Comment_119760139

Then he would have understood the implications about getting his story right and sticking to it. He had plenty time.

Instead, he was all over the place, contradicting himself, telling lies that could be easily disproved, playing cat and mouse with the Investigators. He would have been ready, and certainly not stupid enough to sh1t outside his own back door by burning evidence there.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119760472#Comment_119760472

Ok. But that makes assumptions about his state of mind over Christmas and whether he was drinking or not. Furthermore, if was afraid that he had contaminated the mattress, then he realistically had only one way of disposing of it. It had to be burned.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119760613#Comment_119760613

The question is, why burn something as burning can be smelled and seen from a distance? Why not dispose of any incriminating evidence in the ocean, off some cliff?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119761371#Comment_119761371

Because there is no guarantee throwing off a cliff or in ocean will not be found. Can you really not see that?

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119761371#Comment_119761371

I suppose there's always a chance of being stopped by the Gardaí en route with the evidence.

I believe they liked to keep an eye on Ian.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119762869#Comment_119762869

That's exactly it. Either seen burning something, or caught with the evidence in the car, the risk seems equally high.

Also, do we know if Ian Bailey owned a police radio scanner? I think they were legal in Ireland back then, and journalists often had one, if they were covering crime. It's not impossible that Ian had one as well?

FishOnABike

That's exactly it. Either seen burning something, or caught with the evidence in the car, the risk seems equally high.

By that logic that limits the possible suspects to someone in Ireland at the time who had a car, or use of a car, and burned rubbish in the week or so following the murder.

nc6000

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119763540#Comment_119763540

I know he was a journalist back in the UK but was he really a journalist when he moved to Ireland? I get the impression he mainly did odd jobs and wrote the occasional newspaper article.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119763612#Comment_119763612

It was probably freelance work. Also people don't move to the Mizen Head for big money and career ambitions, at least not back in the mid 90ies.

Owning a scanner being able to pick up police radio was the norm for many journalists covering crime, back in the analogue days. It'll be a surprise, if Bailey didn't own a police scanner. This would always also explain, how he knew what he knew, and ahead of time.

nc6000

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119764089#Comment_119764089

But he's adamant he didn't know about any murder until the phone call around lunchtime.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119764396#Comment_119764396

So we all heard. Also, at this point it doesn't matter when somebody knew what, - it's matching killer to crime scene which matters, as we all know.

dublin49

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119760472#Comment_119760472

I am reading this right,contradicting himself,telling lies and potentially disposing of evidence points to his innocence .

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119765285#Comment_119765285

Yes.

Story A

Apparently, he is guilty, and he's forensics aware enough to drive in a car undressed to not contaminate the car.

But not aware enough, in winter, to wear clothes to conceal scratches he got at the murder scene... Easily done... come down with a convenient flu. Wear long clothes and hat when out and about.

But not aware enough to get rid of the incriminating clothes, just when he is out and about before any suspicion has landed on him...

But instead lights a bonfire on his property which can be seen by all and sundry.

Or

Story B

he didn't dispose of any evidence so didn't realise a bonfire would be a sign of guilt.

And, he didn't get scratched at the scene, so didn't realise he needed to conceal scratches that other would see as a sign of guilt.

Story A is not credible for me.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119765285#Comment_119765285

As @odyssey06 said , also, If he was guilty he would have gotten his story ready, he had plenty time.

I was responding to the poster who said ;"He would have understood the implications of getting into the car with blood on his clothes "

If he was so aware he would also have understood the importance of having all his ducks in a row, re his story.

Instead his account was all over the place.

So yes, the fact that he wasn't prepared with a plausible story, points to his innocence.

dublin49

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119765838#Comment_119765838

but would the truth not be a plausible never changing story requiring no preparation or thought.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119766064#Comment_119766064

Not necessarily.

Factor in that Bailey had had a hectic 48 hours and was drinking that night.

Innocent people answer questions, probably when they shouldn't, under pressure, in response to a particular phrasing. On reflection, they may realise, well actually ... or they may have clear forgotten something seemingly trivial at that time - until reminded by someone else.

They don't have their story thought out, prepp'd and rehearsed in advance.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119765385#Comment_119765385

The story with the scratches Bailey had on him is something as well.

If the scratches were from the murder site, he must have left his DNA somewhere.

If not at the murder site, then in the car, also it's a bit hard to drive somebody's car and not leaving any evidence, if one has scratches and is bleeding. Steering wheel, indicator, gear shift, etc.. and that all after several drinks in the pub.

Suppose the police stopped him that night, naked and only underwear on, reeking of booze and bleeding on his hands and partially from the face? The Guards would have known that something was odd, incompetent as they were or pretended to be.....

I don't think that's all credible, even though I would never exclude Bailey as well.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119766225#Comment_119766225

What I would exclude is Bailey having carried it out as per the Garda narrative.

I wouldn't exclude Bailey entirely, but at this stage, I don't just think he is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I think he is innocent on balance of probabilities.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119766064#Comment_119766064

The story is told now, if it's the truth he's innocent. ie. he got up and did some work, and heard nothing until 2pm.

If it's fabricated he's likely guilty, ie. he lied and said he got up and worked and heard nothing.

It's the same story, but he'd have made a better job of it fabricating it.

The lie would have be a plausible never changing story requiring preparation and thought, which he was well capable of.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119765838#Comment_119765838

He was prepared with a plausible story. He said he was in bed all night and Jules corroborated. If they had both stuck to that he would be ok, even if his talk got loose with drink. But then Marie came along with Kealfada and Jules, for a while at least, lost faith in him and the truth came spilling out. Yes he had been up all night, yes he had expressed a desire to go up by Sophie`s house, yes there was a scratch on his head that she hadn`t seen the previous night. Kealfada may be a fiction but it actually opened up everything.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119765385#Comment_119765385

"not aware enough to wear clothes to conceal scratches."

He had an excuse for scratches. How would he explain Sophie`s blood in his car?

"Not aware enough to get rid of the incriminating clothes, just when he is out and about"

So bloodstained clothes in the car and the area swarming with Gardaí. Wow. The fire makes more sense by the minute.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119766319#Comment_119766319

That was not good plausible story, he would not have said he was in bed all night if there was a chance Jules discovered he wasn't.

All he needed to do was tell Jules in the morning that he got up in the night and left the house to do some work, he would have figured this out, if as you say, he was smart enough to drive home after the murder and not leave any clue in the car. which is where all this started.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119766375#Comment_119766375

One minute he can hike across West Cork by moonlight whenever he wants... next, he can't get about because he'd be stopped by Guards!

Was 'the area' swarming with Guards? He'd no way of getting past the very small area where the Guards were, to somewhere they weren't...

Why would he be stopped?

Your narrative of the murder gets less plausible with each post.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119766375#Comment_119766375

"The fire makes more sense by the minute."

He could have used his big coat to send out smoke signals!