Murder at the Cottage | Sky

I don't know. That's a question for them. Maybe they didn't speak with the right person and later they did.

That's not quite what's in the report though. GSOC give a general summary regarding all missing items and noted that they requested information on when the items were first noticed to be missing and what steps had been taken to locate them. Then a shortlist of missing items is given which mentions the gate. It does not say what the specific response was regarding the gate.

I think you are probably right about not obtaining a conviction,but the information revealed on here and elsewhere suggests to me IB is far and away the most likely person responsible for the crime.There's just too many aspects that point to his guilt without there being a silver bullet piece of evidence.Theres probably 25 to 30 anomalies around Baileys involvement and for me I dont think they have been explained away.

I think everybody accepts that Bailey's a reasonable suspect but Moonunit is actually, and ironically, showing exactly how the Gards got it so wrong with the same "sure it must have been him" attitude .... things like my point about the scratches: if he had scratches from the murder night, then ergo he didn't wear gloves, which has implications - but Moonunit invents wooly gloves that wipe the briars clean of any DNA - after being pierced to scratch the skin - and leave no wool fibres on said briars... Is this possible? Sure. But it's highly unlikely and you wouldn't want to take it as your base case scenario if you have any balanced interest in trying to figure out what's happened.

No fibres or DNA from either the victim or the perpetrator appear to have been detected on the thorns. Of course, that doesn't mean they weren't there immediately after the murder.

The killer could have worn woollen gloves which would have left no fingerprints while allowing the thorns to scratch the skin. On the other hand, they might not have worn gloves, there would be no prints preserved on the stone or the block and the sharp instrument that caused wounds to the back of her head and hands was entirely missing.

Similarly - if Bailey did it and had to wash himself off, then he most probably didn't wade into the sea in late December 😶 - he went back to "the studio", which is likely plumbed, and cleaned up there before bringing Jules her coffee in the morning - this is far more likely than the swim in the sea - but Moonunit's is weirdly besotted with Marie Farrell's peculiar "sightings" so has to try to fit in with them. Ian Bailey could have committed this crime without ever being seen anywhere by Marie Farrell - just like "the scratches" - she should be ignored.

Why bring bloodstained clothes home though? Both IB and JT's statements say the two eldest daughters had themselves not come home from socialising when they arrived back from the Galley pub. There's the possibility someone arriving back or leaving after dropping someone home could have spotted bloodstained clothes or gone to stay in the studio.

Five or six witnesses saw Ian Bailey playing music with his sleeves rolled up, spoke to him or served him several times at the well lit bar hours before the murder and none of them saw the multiple, obvious scratches up to the elbows that practically everyone who had dealings with him saw after the murder. That's very, very hard to explain away.

What are the current theories as to WHY the gate was open when it was usually kept closed?

If there had been any blood found in Jules car the Guards would have (rightly) made a huge deal of it. So, no there was not. I don't think though that they would have looked at the car until when they arrested him 6 weeks later. But i don't believe that Jules, her daughters and the Italian student would have stayed quiet about blood in the car.

the killer didn't have to be wearing gloves - but it helps explain the total lack of fingerprints anywhere (not a recent scientific advance) and the lack of blood/skin etc around the briars - no external DNA on her body etc. etc.

like, if you think IB did it, then you have to have some explanations for the total lack of any forensic evidence pointing to him - and gloves helps that a small bit but it makes the "scratches" thing look a bit contrary - and, without any pictures of these scratches (thanks - you lazy fcukers), I think you probably need to ignore them

no idea - important question ...

Gate was not usually kept closed.

Sophie liked to have it closed for security, but neighbours preferred to leave it open.

Neighbours may have been last through the gate.

This had caused some friction between them in the past.

The smudges of blood might be easier to explain if the gate was closed and Sophie was trying to get past it. The gate was beyond where the body was found so either Sophie still tried to get over the gate and into the field beyond (rather than being outrun on the track) but then tried to get over the brambles and barbed wire instead, or the killer, for some unknown reason, brushed off or handled the open gate in several places after the killing.

Maybe Sophie was just so dazed and disorientated after the initial attack outside the house that she had no idea where she was going.

Gemma O Doherty was a decent reporter when she wrote those articles posing pertinent questions which have never been answered, her reports on the Niall molloy murder and the penalty points craic were also on the money, so much so that she lost her job and went a bit off the rails due her work on one of those subjects

We don't. I read somewhere they determined or thought the gate was most likely open at the time of the murder. One of the docs mentions Shirley Foster thought it unusual for the gate to be open before she noticed the body laying on the ground. The blood was only on one side - the side facing the lane.

I think people underestimate the difficulty in getting photos of someone who is not under arrest or been cautioned.

Maybe they could take a 'sneaky' photo, would that be admissible? How could they prove the photo was taken when they said it was? They could ask 'can you just stand there and hold your hands up to your face so we can get photos of those scratches' and would probably be told to take a long run off a short pier. A photograph of a pair of hands taken covertly would not be evidence unless you could clearly identify the person, so it would have to be a half-length photograph so his face could be seen. That would mean the scratches would be tiny in the photo.

As far as I can see, gardai can take your photograph without your consent after you have been arrested. To be arrested, the gardai must have a reasonable suspicion you were responsible for a crime. IB would have had an extremely strong case for wrongful arrest if he was only arrested to take photos of the scratches on his hands. Remember, at the time he had a 'rock solid' alibi of being at home in bed with Jules.

They did seize videos of the Christmas swim to see if there was anything evidential in them.

Where exactly should we find fingerprints? The initial murder weapon is missing. The only place I can think of is the door handle where blood was evident but the killer might not be responsible for that.

If the lack of forensic evidence rules out Bailey, then surely it rules out everybody else as well?

sorry, my phrasing there is poor: I don't think it rules him out at all; I think it means you have to figure out how the crime happens while leaving no forensics - Bailey or AN Other; so, for me, gloves are likely - and IB's scratches are a distraction; no blood leaving the scene - perhaps supportive that a car was used? etc