Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Cheers for that!

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.

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.

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.

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.

At home and heard absolutely nothing.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was mention that a concrete block would not retain fingerprints