Murder at the Cottage | Sky

" Sophie allowed locals to use her land to graze horses, completely free,"

Was this on the shared commonage, do you know?

How do you know she had no interest in the land?

Also it has nothing to do with Alfie whatsoever,

I'm not saying Alfie did it.

I'm just pointing out that, if the existing evidence is sufficient to shine the light of suspicion on IB, then it is also sufficient to shine that light elsewhere.

There's as much raising suspicion towards Alfie as there was for IB? Did Aflie give a false alibi for the night? Did Alfie eventually admit he left the house in the middle of the night? Did Alfie tell several people that he did it? Did Alfie have a history of extreme violence, leaving the victim needing hospital treatment on several occasions? Did Alfie write stories about Sophie bringing a string of lovers to the house and pointing to a 'French connection', not only in the press but by inviting detectives to his house to direct their attention to the victim's husband? Did Alfie have a bonfire outside the back door of their outhouse and contradict witnesses who noticed it?

I haven't found a reliable source for the story about Alfie having a bandage on his hand either, is there one?

"There's as much raising suspicion towards Alfie as there was for IB?"

There is, in fact, more.

"Did Aflie give a false alibi for the night? "

Not as far as I know. He lived there, he could hardly deny that.

"Did Alfie eventually admit he left the house in the middle of the night?"

No, not as far as I know.

Did Alfie tell several people that he did it?

"Why would he do that"

"Did Alfie have a history of extreme violence, leaving the victim needing hospital treatment on several occasions?"

No, not to my knowledge - but neither did the Yorkshire ripper.

"Did Alfie write stories about Sophie bringing a string of lovers to the house and pointing to a 'French connection', not only in the press but by inviting detectives to his house to direct their attention to the victim's husband?"

Alfie was a pastry chef, not an investigative journalist

"Did Alfie have a bonfire outside the back door of their outhouse and contradict witnesses who noticed it?"

I don't know.

"I haven't found a reliable source for the story about Alfie having a bandage on his hand either, is there one?"

The source is quoted in is quoted back in the thread somewhere, I'm not going to trawl the whole thing look for it now.

So, now that I have answered, here are some questions for you MoonUnit:

Did Bailey even know Sophie?

Is there any evidence that Bailey was at the crime scene?

Did Bailey have an ongoing dispute with Sophie?

Did Bailey have a motive to kill Sophie?

Was any DNA evidence belonging to Bailey found at the scene?

Was any incriminating evidence found on Bailey's clothing, or possessions?

Why did the DPP contemptuously reject the flimsy, circumstantial, contrived case that the Gardai presented?

Why did witnesses claim that they had been bribed and coerced by members of the investigation team to collaborate in the framing of Ian Bailey?

Why did Gardai destroy evidence relating to an ongoing murder case?

I could on asking but that's enough to think about for now.

Once again, there is more evidence to implicate Alfie in this crime that there ever was against IB.

And I repeat, I'm not saying AL did it - just that, if the existing evidence doesn't implicate him as a suspect, then it certainly doesn't implicate Bailey.

Yes, you're absolutely right! There is very little, other than tenuous links, to implicate Alfie Lyons.

My point is that there is even less to implicate Bailey.

Aren't you going to answer my questions?

The Gards arrived at the murder scene at 10.40am (or there abouts).

Whilst preserving the crime scene, one of the Gards noted that Sophie had wet blood around her nose area (not conjealed blood)

Her stomach contained her last meal - nuts and berries (breakfast cereal) - Also exposed loaf of bread on the side.

The indications are she was murdered in the morning not during the night.

Throw in her unmade bed, her outside light turned off, it all supports she waking up & having breakfast....

If her blood hadn't yet fully conjealed around her nose, does that not suggest she was only recently murdered, in the morning?????

** Speeding car driving erratically away from the vicinity at 7.30am ?? **

If she was murdered in the morning - That rules Bailey out.

The investigation would have been better run with the keystone Cops at the helm!

There is about 11 acres attached to the property on 7 different plots spread around the area

plus a half share in about 5 acres on 2 commonages.

A right-of-way starts at the fateful gate way and the first 25-30 yds over Sophie's and an adjoining landowners part of the lane

are a right-of-way- for Alfie and the Richardsons

From the boundary with Richardson's land, the right-of-way is for Sophie and Alfie over Richardson's part of the lane up to the rear of Sophie's house.

This sounds complicated but is not unusual.

It can lead to misunderstanding and gateways on a right-of-way can lead to rows.

Perhaps got nothing whatsoever to do with the attack on Sophie,

but is something the investigators may have looked at I'd imagine ,

if they took time out from chasing down Bailey.

Have the sleuths here not solved this yet? 😁

Far too many unfounded assumptions and too many other people taking those unfounded assumptions and coming up with crazy scenarios.

You will also have those on the ground there who will take something they saw and fit it into the story - the blue fiesta is a classic example. (#1 selling car for the previous 3 years & #1 selling colour - basically THOUSANDS of blues fiestas and hundreds with Cork registrations)

Yes there was a little tit tat over the gate being open / closed. But that's what it was. A little annoyance, but not something that overly affected relationships - after all she was not there that often.

Nearly impossible for any of us to make judgement unless you lived in the area or a similar area in the mid nineties. For all we know, she met someone on the plane / in the airport in France that was going home for Christmas to the same area.

Or her almost ex-husband thinking this was a good way of getting life insurance.

Or someone simply burglaring the house and scarpering.

Or any number of other theories

Yep, the local cops were dreadful in their duties, but in defence, they probably thought it would be easy to solve and also had absolutely no experience of such a crime. - Drunk man jaywalking, minor car accidents or the odd domestic bust up was probably their bread and butter.

Personally I think we'll never know.

Locals will have their own theories, but even down there, there is an abundance of different theories.

The French investigation began as far back as 2008, they visited Ireland themselves and carried out investigations on the ground, interviewed witnesses etc. They discussed the DPP’s lack of logic and bias in the trial eg. Getting the location of the ‘studio’ completely wrong when they said it was directly beside the house when it is in fact 100m down a public road, saying Ian’s alibi about writing a story was plausible and that everyone agreed he needed to have the story in the next day but then, illogically leaving out the fact that he wasn’t able to dictate the story until the afternoon after the deadline. Claiming witnesses are all unreliable except the people living under the same roof as Ian, without mentioning the history of extreme violence demonstrating a high possibility of coercive control over these witnesses etc. The DPP report is a bit of a shambles and it was treated as such.

More rabbit holes of insignificant detail.

The French court accepted, without the vital checks on veracity, integrity and strength, the evidence presented by the Gardai. This evidence had not only been rejected by the DPP but, effectively demolished.

The DPP report is a forensic and comprehensive analysis of the evidence constructed by legal experts. It is most certainly not a bit of a shambles and nor has it been treated or regarded as such to any significant extent.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm sure everyone has a fleeting acquaintance with a lot of people that there is no external evidence of.

Lets for a minute imagine that IB wasnt an annoying investigative journalist that showed up at the scene of the murder the next morning and stayed well away from the scene. Would he be a suspect based on the evidence?

Okay but you and others are saying that because no witness can put Ian and Sophie together, it is absolutely impossible they could have met and talked a couple of times before her murder. I don't think this is a reasonable conclusion.

Its not impossible that they didnt know each other but there is no proof either that they ever met properly or had a converstation. You would imagine if he felt he could call round to her house during the night or early morning there would have to be some form of contact prior. Unless though he was just out to murder her and was there for no other reason - which is also possible.