Murder at the Cottage | Sky

You are basically saying he is not legally innocent because you don't think he is innocent.

The legal system doesn't work like that. You are nothing more than part of a digital lynch mob.

Yeah a lot of the pearl-clutching talk about the 'West Cork drug scene' in this thread is remiscent of this

Is there anything in the public domain linking this old guy's account to the homicidal Garda (or to any particulart suspect)?

Back to the buying bleach sighting.

Alfie Lyons is dead.

Ian Bailey is alive

Ian has to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt to be legally not presumed innocent.

Pointing out a dead man had means, motive and opportunity and himself had injuries consistent with a violent struggle casts reasonable doubt.

Sophie always kept the outside light on, and this was even commented on by Shirley Lyons in her original statement.

Before herself and Alfie retired for the night, she noticed the outside light still on (which was normal) and would have stood out against the darkness of the landscape in that bleak part of the world.

After the murder, the outside light had been turned off - Something Sophie never did?

Did the murderer return to the house and close the door / switch the lights off? How many murders would rationally think of such a task after indulging in a frenzied attack moments earlier??

I suggest Sophie's blood stain on the door was left there by the murderer. He returned to the house to shut the doors and turn off the lights to make the property look less conspicuous, or give the impression the occupant was in bed.. The bloodstain being left by a bloodied glove he was wearing at the time of the killing?

Did he spot the unopened bottle of expensive wine and impulsively snatch it, only to think better of it further down the road? Does anybody know how far from the road the wine bottle was located?? Was it thrown by a person on foot (can throw further), or thrown from a car window (would be near the ditch).

The wine bottle is relevant to this case - What set of circumstances prevailed that placed it in a field discarded in such a hurry?

I think the bottle of wine might be a red herring, it could have been stolen and thrown away or dropped before or after the murder. It wasn't found during the initial searches for the murder weapon so I suspect some ghoul broke in to have a poke around the crime scene, then realised coming away with a souvenir wasn't the brightest idea.

IB is widely described as the 'prime suspect', articles often call him the 'self confessed prime suspect'. He has given endless interviews about his involvement in the garda investigation and his own reporting on the crime. He was found guilty in a court in France. He failed in two court actions to prove he was set up. His name is inextricably linked with being a suspect, Alfie Lyons was not and is not around to publicly defend himself.

A conspiracy is a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. I believe AGS acted unlawfully in not carrying out a full and proper investigation.

1. Acting against wishes of the state pathologist

2. Not following up on the multiple sightings of the fiesta

3. Bribing witnesses with drugs to falsify claims against IB.

4. The sheer volume of evidence which went "missing"

You haven't provided a single credible explanation for why they wouldn't have investigated the Fiesta sightings. Anyways, I didn't expect you to because you can't.

1. Acting against wishes of the state pathologist

The delay in the pathologist getting there was unforseen and out of the control of the gardai. What were the conspirators going to do if he could get there in five hours, get him a ticket to go and watch Fungi the Dolphin? The pathologists request was for two factors, his convenience in going to Cork city instead of the Mizen and the dignity of the victim. None are beneficial for a cover-up.

2. Not following up on the multiple sightings of the fiesta

We've not yet been provided with any information from the investigation on the sighting, exactly where it was, what was done to follow up etc. There was a single sighting somewhere in the general area, not multiple as far as I am aware. Can we have some credible information on this please?

3. Bribing witnesses with drugs to falsify claims against IB.

This goes against the idea of a conspiracy, if the gardai believed he was going to confess to a witness, they must also have believed he was guilty of the crime. If they went to such extraordinary lengths to try and tape him at MF's shop or give details of the crime to Martin Graham then they must have believed he was guilty.

If they wanted to get false claims against IB they made a very poor job of it as no single witness statement was a 'smoking gun', a jury in the high court found the claims of false statements and garda coercion were not credible and there was no evidence of it. GSOC found the same.

4. The sheer volume of evidence which went "missing"

There's nothing to suggest any evidence went missing after the first and second arrests and the file being sent to the DPP at least twice, this does not suggest a conspiracy to frame IB, it suggests the opposite. GSOC noted most, if not all, of the 'missing' items were present during the review in 2002. If the DPP charged IB in 1997 or 1998, all of the evidence was in the case file at that point.

The article mentions the gardaí wanting to interview the person, 'now living in Europe' the elderly local claimed he discussed it with in the last year but doesn' t mention interviewing the person who confessed it to him in a Cork café back in 2001.

Surely the simplest way to prove it would be to ask the person who he claims confessed it to him back in 2001. Unless that is no longer possible.

A number of things could partially prove the elderly local's statement. Confirmation of the discussion last year with the person 'now living in Europe', details in the statement that are not in the public domain, corroborating evidence of the meeting in 2001.

Goalposts on the move again I see

Another thing that puzzles me is that the various reports about this new statement describe the person as an elderly local man, west Cork resident, who is in his seventies and knew Sophie first made a statement about six years ago.

The man would have been in his mid forties to mid fifties at the time of the murder. Surely all locals and acquaintances of Sophie would have given some form of a statement at the time of the original investigation even if it was only the response to a standard questionaire.