Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Absolutely there were Sunday deliveries at Christmas in the 1990's and only ceased in the last few years.

Never before have I seen such dodgy witness's - did you actually watch the netflix doc. If you look into their backgrounds they virtually all have something to hide and all have had personal grievances with Bailey. Very few could be called reliable witness's - alot of what they say cannot be verified at all. Locals in the area will also claim that several of these people are absolute nutters and are trying to cash in on this fame.

As I said there were Sunday deliveries in the 1990's I worked for An Post from mid 80's and I know this. As far as I know this practice only ceased in the last 10 years.

You make it sound like a libel trial is trivial, IB was in line for a major payout if he won his case. The legal teams for the papers did their homework, employed an investigator and shredded IB in the witness box. As he said himself in the West Cork podcast he was 'shanghaied', they grilled him about his different accounts of his movements, his attacks on Jules, his diaries etc.

There's absolutely no reason his team couldn't have torn the defence witnesses apart in return, they get the exact same opportunity to cross examine them and ask the same questions. The idea that witnesses would get an easier ride because it was a libel trial is a fallacy, IB's 'performance' proves this.

I don't think that's the case at all. IB brought the proceedings himself and therefore had as much time as needed to prepare with his legal team and they would have been aware of the witnesses to be called in advance. If he had been charged with murder and brought before the court in a timely manner, there's no reason to think they would have prepared better questions when time was against them. Many of the witnesses had to be compelled to give evidence and were there reluctantly, they should have been easy pickings, if Boardsies are to be believed they wouldn't last five minutes in this thread.

That's unlikely, she paid all the fines that were due, GSOC found the claims she made that her son got off convictions were untrue as they were recorded and processed in the normal way. It was Judge Hedigan who said he was referring her testimony on behalf of IB with her new version to the DPP directly, there was no need to involve the gardai as her testimony was exposed at trial and in the public record. If she hasn't been charged with anything when she should have been, that's a failing of the DPP rather than the gardai:

The final indignity — and perhaps more than that — for Farrell came when Mr Justice Hedigan announced he was referring a transcript of her evidence to the DPP and it would be for the DPP to decide if there are to be any further consequences for her over her testimony to the High Court. Ian Bailey case: Marie Farrell evidence derailed action (irishtimes.com)

If you want to think this that's fine but you're spouting bullsh*t. As I said I know this from personal experience.

He doesn't work well to deadlines. Sure he said as much himself as he had to get up in the middle of the night after a session to finish a story that was due...

There is a touch of the

about her alright

Christmas falls on a different day of the week every year. I imagine that the Sunday delivery would be in place when Christmas falls on a Monday or Tuesday and may depend on volume of mail awaiting delivery and number of postal workers prepared to work the extra shifts so could vary from area to area.

Pretty much this but usually was on the last Sunday before Christmas even if xmas day was towards the end of the week.

I may have read that a man was seen throwing something in to the water that day. Could it have been the missing axe?

The reason the state did not raise the objection of the complaints being statue barred until the very end of the trial was not because the state was going to 'lose' the case. That's ridiculous, Marie Farrell was the star witness for IB and she imploded during cross-examination, completely discredited herself and the judge said he was referring her testimony to the DPP. The case was well lost by that point. The Bandon Tapes did not provide any evidence to back up Martin Graham's claims.

The real reason they delayed raising the objection of several claims being statute barred was to demonstrate that Bailey's case would have failed on its own merits and to allow the witnesses to put forward their version of events under cross-examination. If the state had halted the case before a word of it was heard it would forever be thought of as the state sneaking away from its responsibilities. They knew they could win against the flimsy evidence and witnesses put forward against them. They wanted to prove this in court and put the real story in the public record. This allowed Judge Hedigan to remark, after hearing all the evidence, that Bailey's claims of unlawful arrest etc. would indeed have failed on their own merits.

The High Court jury decided they did not believe MF's claims of garda corruption and misbehaviour. This issue was not statute barred and went to the core of IB's case, that gardai had conspired to frame him. The jury decided this was not true.

Your entire post is the opposite of the reality.