Murder at the Cottage | Sky

I can't see how the "scratches" on his hands is damaging to him though... If he wore ungloved hands to murder her then there would have to be DNA of his on her and/or have left blood/DNA/fingerprints on the briars/breezeblock/gate.

The complete lack of fingerprints, DNA and blood are heavily indicative of the killer wearing gloves (even more likely due to the weather), so Bailey's scratches (if they exist at all) are really not evidential in any way that I can see.

If someone was wearing woolen gloves and a woolen jumper they would still get badly scratched while leaving no fingerprints and it’s likely little to no DNA either as the material would also wipe the thorns as they exited.

ah buddy come on!

the implication then is that she would have (as would the briars) plenty of unidentified woolen fibres; which, if maintained as evidence, would likely hold trace DNA to the wearer/killer

Would Sophie have put boots on just to open the door to someone, or only if she knew she was going to walk out to someone/something? Did the door close and lock itself behind her?

Sophie was wearing cotton nightclothes and a bathrobe when she ran through the briars, there’s no mention of any fibers from these being found and no material is seen caught on any of the briars, just the barbed wire. I’m not sure lumps of woolen gloves would come off, the way they are woven.

In any case, there’s only two items we know the killer touched that were left at the scene, the stone and the concrete block. Neither would preserve fingerprints and there was no human tissue from the killer that could be detected with 1996 technology. Gloves may not be necessary.

I've gone through this several times now, Ian was at the party on the Saturday night, he says himself he left during the night and went back to the house. He slept on the couch. Someone in the house gave him a lift home the next day. One of the people was awake early because they had to work and they said they heard the front door being opened around 7am. In his questionnaire Ian said he was in bed at home all night Saturday and Sunday, when in fact he wasn't at home at all Saturday night and left the house in the middle of the night Sunday.

Why is this important? Because the man MF said she saw in the long black coat was seen in three places:

1. Hitching a lift towards Schull at the same spot Ian had stayed, without a car, on that Sunday morning. One witness said he heard the front door opening at 7am and MF says she saw the man in the long black coat hitching around 7.30am. Neither MF or the gardai knew Ian was at that location when MF made her statements and Ian 'forgot' to tell them anything about it.

2 Outside her shop while Sophie was browsing clothes inside on the Saturday. Another witness bumped into Sophie as she was coming out of the Spar and said she saw Ian across the road. This was on the same day, around the same time. This witness is named in the West Cork podcast. Ian said he was in Schull that day but didn't see Sophie. In his account of the murder to Bill Fuller, Ian said 'you saw her walking down the aisle in Spar and her tight arse turned you on' or something very similar.

3 On the road at the bridge at 3am on the night of the murder. Yvonne Ungerer said Ian told her he was seen at the bridge.

So there are three sightings, we know Ian was around the first two places and MF nor the gardai could not have known that in advance of MF making those statements. If MF was making up seeing this man to stitch up Ian Bailey then she also has psychic powers. Ian gave gardai false alibis for sightings 1 and 3.

If MF was making these sightings up, why say Kealfadda Bridge? Why not that she saw him walking down the road from Sophie's? Why not say she saw what looked like blood on him? It was over 1km from the scene, it might have had no connection whatsoever. The killer could have been discovered or been identified by other means at any time after she made those statements and she would have made no difference to the case. Why ring anonymously and refuse to make an official statement even when found out?

The question for Ian, though, is why give two false accounts for where he was when two of these sightings of a man in a long black coat occurred? Did he know MF or her van, or notice it was a little unusual for a woman to be driving that particular commercial vehicle at two odd times, 7am on a Sunday morning and 3am on a Monday morning? Why the campaign of intimidation against her in particular?

I know. The look on some peoples faces when I tell them I had to walk 2km to the nearest village to make a phone call.

People judge everything by the here and now. If they never experienced something then it wasnt ever possible for anyone else to have.

People make much of fact that IB had been drinking that evening. Yet was able to drive.... surely he would have sobered up by time suggested that Sophie was killed? He is a large man and capable of absorbing a bit more maybe than average chap.

I meant he was not too drunk to drive home c midnight if in fact he was the driver.

I thought after watching it I have some clearer picture of what happened but if anything I'm even more tore as to what to believe, there's so many questions and avenues to go down it just hurts your brain

why would you soak it in a bucket if you were going to burn it?

If you want to get really "out there" on motives and potential perps go to the Da Vinci Code.

The Priory of Sion was first "revealed" by Philippe Toscan du Plantier who either doesn't exist or is her husband Daniel's brother. Personally I would like to see some proof "Philippe" was not in fact "Daniel".

Also the recent revelation that some members of the French intelligence service DGSE are (I kid you not) operating a Masonic hit squad.

I still cannot post links. Google Priory of Sion Philipe Toscan du Plantier and DGSE masonic hit squad.

yes, there's no evidence he knew Sophie - though I'm sure he knew of her ...

if he'd actually spent some time with her he would have told everybody in Schull (at least twice) and he probably would have written some bad poetry about her in his journals - she is never referenced in any of his writing

I'm not so sure, he was friendly with John Montague at one time, who would have been a bigger name around there. I don't remember hearing about him boasting about this or writing about it in his diaries.