Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Miss Marple eat your heart out

FFS knew it would be something ridiculous like this

I wouldn't be surprised to come back in 10 pages and see theories about Sophie going out to investigate a light in the sky going faster than any known aircraft, or that JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald had secretly eloped to West Cork and were using her bath.

Youd think he'd take a day off alright!

I like where your heads at I was only joking😆

Did Garda have standard issue footwear back then? I looked at the pics of the boot prints at the scene, they don't match Doc Martins prints as far as I can see. They look like big boots alright.

I think if IB had done it and drove Jules' car there would have been dna in the car, he may have walked though although why would he have gone round there in the first place, doesn't make sense. Also no matter how big your ego if you murdered someone youd hardly go back to the crime scene a few hours later and start taking pics etc. Doesn't add up.

There's a freakin' spent match next to the matchbox. She left that there for a day or two? She must be a right scruffbird then.

Ian himself spoke about the 'premonition' at Hunt's Hill in his interview, when the gardai asked him to explain it more he said 'I won't put it any further, I don't want to'. I'm pretty sure he was asked about it in the West Cork podcast as well.

She could have used it to light the stove or have a smoke ( if she was a smoker). Just because a candle is there it doesnt mean it was lit that night.

In the West Cork podcast they mention to her about the article Ian was supposedly up all night writing and she said she remembers him showing it to her the following morning. She said the article wasn't on the kitchen table the night before but was there the next morning. The presenters of the podcast point out that it is very surprising then that Jules made no mention of the article at all in the interview where she said Ian got up and, as far as she was aware, didn't get back into bed.

The most surprising thing though is that Ian didn't dictate the article that was apparently finished on the morning of the 23rd until the afternoon of the 24th. The newspaper seems to have contacted him on the morning of the 23rd as the deadline had already passed and they thought they would have to run with some other article. During that call it seems to have been agreed that Ian would dictate it the next day.

If the article was finished overnight, why didn't he just give it to them there and then, and why did it take another 24 hours for it to be returned?

Is the timeline that they both denied recalling anything that night other than sleeping, then, under the hours of interrogation, Ian said he got up to work, and has persisted saying that now. Then he told Julie, or the police during interrogation told Julie, and at some point then she recalled those things that fit that?

1. No local guard has authority to overrule an order from the pathologist with regard to what to do with the body. Just nonsense.
2. Reported in National newspapers, yet we have no Garda follow-up/appeals, tells you everything you need to know.
3. The lad didn't even follow through with the drugs for confession scheme. Just look what happened to Maria Farrell when she lied for clemency. Totally fell apart on the stand.
4. Why can't you just say AGS tampering with evidence ripping out job book sheets and destroying evidence is red flag. You simply can't justify that away.

No local guard has authority to overrule an order from the pathologist with regard to what to do with the body. Just nonsense.

The investigation was under the regional headquarters at Bandon by that stage, not the local gardai. The pathologist doesn't have the authority to direct the gardai as far as I am aware, though the coroner might. If you know otherwise then it would be great to see the source of this.

Let's think about the logic of the situation though. If you were correct and the gardai 'disobeyed' an order of the pathologist because a member of the force had committed the murder then, within hours of the killing, the culprit had confessed to other gardai that he had done it and regional headquarters had, by later that same day, decided to cover this up and try to botch the post-mortem. Maybe though, the garda didn't confess but gardai have a secret signal that alerts other members that they have committed the crime they are currently investigating? The signal might be something like rolling the left leg of your trousers up over your socks?

Reported in National newspapers, yet we have no Garda follow-up/appeals, tells you everything you need to know.

The mystery 'blue fiesta' driving dangerously around the scene the next morning seems to have been first reported by a tabloid in 2014. In the same article there's what seems to be a false claim she was having an affair with a local. That article seems to have been scrubbed from the newspaper's website and can only be found on a scraper website that seems to have picked it up. Then it reappears in a ridiculous article by Gemma O'Doherty. No reputable newspaper article or book about the murder has any mention of this phantom car driven allegedly similar to one driven by a violent phantom garda.

The fiesta seen at Skibbereen is extremely similar to the one that the gardai already appealed for information on, do we really expect them to issue a new appeal looking for 96 C silver or grey fiestas with and without hubcaps? I think we both know the first appeal covers both as there was no mention whether hubcaps could be ruled in or out.

The lad didn't even follow through with the drugs for confession scheme. Just look what happened to Maria Farrell when she lied for clemency. Totally fell apart on the stand.

Judge Moran said in 2003 that MF was a credible witness who had to be subpoenaed to testify and he accepted her account. That is not consistent with a witness being bribed to testify, they would volunteer to testify or they wouldn't be keeping their side of the fictional 'bribe'.

Why can't you just say AGS tampering with evidence ripping out job book sheets and destroying evidence is red flag. You simply can't justify that away.

It is a 'red flag', I agree with GSOC's deep concerns about it. There's no evidence any of this was helpful to stitch up Bailey though since they first tried to have him charged less than two months after the murder.