Murder at the Cottage | Sky

I can categorically state that there were parcel deliveries on Sunday Dec 20th last.

I'm in the online business and almost all parcels we dispatched on Saturday 19th were delivered on the following day and have the CSV report beside me.

We also had a collection.

I don’t think you are too familiar with the court case. You should read more about it, it’s actually an entertaining story.

The reason MF was thoroughly discredited wasn’t even due to her walkout. She claimed in the witness box that IB had not come into her shop to intimidate her and blackmail her. Back during the original investigation she said IB walked in and said he knew things about her, about why she had left London. She had been reported for claiming income support she wasn’t entitled to and owed something like £27,000. She had fled back to Ireland to avoid prosecution. Her original statements said IB said he was an investigative reporter and had found incriminating information on her.

In the witness box as a witness for IB she said none of this was true. IB had not come in to her shop and threatened to expose why she had left London. She said he couldn’t have said that to her as the case against her in the UK had been dismissed as a false report.

The only problem was, when she had spoken to GSOC after going over to IB’s ‘side’ she had given them a very detailed account of her problems with welfare in the UK and that she had to leave because she owed them so much money. It was all captured on video and it was played to the court. She had attempted to wipe the entire story from the record to make IB’s case stronger and was caught out.

The same thing happened with her story about signing ‘blank statements’ at a particular Garda station. She had given an interview with a newspaper, again after joining IB’s side, saying she had signed statements that the gardai had already filled out in a particular Garda station. Sometime later, IB was on Vincent Browne’s TV show and said MF had said she signed blank statements at a different Garda station. In the witness box, MF had ‘re-organised’ her story to match what IB had said, which was the opposite of what she originally said.

Then there was the witness known to MF who testified that she met MF out shopping in Cork recently and that MF had said IB had a big case coming up and was going to win a huge payout and she was going to get some of that. MF denied saying this.

Her walkout was just the icing on the cake.

this is just cherry picking MF's (various) statements to pick what suits: she is lying when she says the Gardai pressured her to i.d. Bailey; but she's suddenly not lying when she says Bailey intimidated her; but she is lying again when she retracts that; is not lying when she saw a tall man; is lying when he loses a few inches 😂

as I've said already - it's absolutely bonkers to rely on anything (indictable or exculpatory) that MF says; what should be established is who the man with her was on the night (if he actually exists at all)

For 8 years MF stood by what she said and it seems to have come at quite a significant personal cost to herself. There are witnesses to the intimidation she had originally made multiple complaints of to the gardai and even got her solicitor to write a letter to IB.

She seems to have acknowledged she first made contact with IB's solicitor the same day she was caught driving with no insurance. I can see why this was the final straw for her and I can understand why she went on the warpath.

For the record, it's not me who is 'cherry picking' MF's statements to pick what suits. In 2003 she testified before Judge Moran on the basis of her previous statements identifying Bailey. Judge Moran specifically said she was a credible witness and on the balance of probabilities, he accepted it was Ian Bailey she saw that night at 3am.

Contrast that with the disastrous testimony after she 'switched sides'. She contradicted herself, claimed she had earlier committed perjury, made allegations that a garda stripped naked but couldn't remember the date or even the year, stormed out of court and one of her ex-employees testified that MF said to her that she was going to benefit financially if IB won his case against the state.

It is the opposite of 'cherry picking' to say one version of her statements is more likely to be true when accepted by a judge after cross examination, than the alternative versions after which a judge referred her testimony to the DPP.

She was pretty clear - it was a SHORT sallow skinned man. Trying to derail that into exact inches are just weasel words. She did not describe anyone remotely resembling Ian Bailey. Looking out at the same spot from her shop you would gain an appreciation of the relative heights of people even if you can't put that into feet and inches.

Are we seriously expected to believe she hadn't noticed a character like Bailey on Schull main street for the entire previous year yet somehow noticed him for the first time that day, and got his build and colour completely wrong? Which apparently in an earlier post you were saying she couldn't miss seeing him on that day because it was a one horse town - back when you thought it suited your argument.

Where are the Garda notes of the interview with MF where Bailey was identified? Why were they destroyed?

I know the facts and I know when you are inventing your own, or rather you have fallen for the lie started by MF & the Gardai and are repeating it.

I don't know at what point MF started lying, but it's very obvious from the evidence she did not see Ian Bailey - which is as per her original description and current version.

There is a lot of time taken up on this thread concerning the Babe Farrell, and rightly so. She was a critical component to this whole investigation.

Unfortunately, she blotted her copy book on a biblical scale, and her testimony(s) is no longer valid, no matter what side of the fence you are on.

If we were to hypothetically remove the Babe Farrell from the whole scenario, where would that leave us with the investigation..? Would Bailey still have been the prime suspect? Would the murder investigation have gone down a different road?

Bailey had scratches on his hands - Of course that has to be looked at. Sophie was battered to death in a ditch, you would expect the killer too be scratched, I have no bother with this line of thinking..

Bailey gives a reasonable explanation to the Gards, explaining the circumstances leading up to the scratches he had on his hands.

Furthermore .... And this is a critical piece of evidence for me - Bailey volunteer's his DNA to the investigation without being prompted to do so. As an investigative journalist, he would know the forensic process better than most.

So far, without the Babe Farrell and the Invisible man being in the picture, we only have the scratches to put Bailey in the frame.

Then comes the interviews, granted, the conflicting interviews regarding Bailey going walkabout during the night (the night of the murder no less). On paper, this is damning, and did put Bailey under the spotlight.

However, with hindsight, given Bailey's penchant for over indulgence in alcohol and hard liquor, I'd be more suspicious of him if he gave an exact account of his movements on the night in question. Surely if he had just murdered somebody, he would have his alibi well rehearsed in his head a thousand times over....??

The very fact that Bailey forgotten parts of that night (particular, critical parts of that night), leans towards his innocence. If he was so cock sure of himself, that he had pulled off the perfect murder, left no trace of evidence at the scene, nor upon his person... Are we really to believe he made a total and complete ball's of his alibi on the night of the murder...??????

I'm not one bit interested in the individuals he 'confessed' to.... All of them had ulterior motives to help the Gards (aka helping one's self).

Take the Babe Farrell out of the situation, and the case against Bailey all but crashes and burns. It's preposterous to cease all other lines of investigation in the murder based on such little reasoning... A fellow with scratches on his hands...??

The facts are these:

There is not one shred of evidence that Bailey was anywhere near the murder scene - Not one iota.

The Babe Farrell was in the area by her own admission. She was accompanied by an unknown male by her own admission. The male was never identified or interrogated about what he was doing in the area that night bar savouring the delights of the Babe Farrell (A concept I have difficulty accepting or indeed imagining).

This was an horrific frenzied murder. This was violence beyond compare. This left a young Mother with her face literally smashed beyond recognition.

And yet.. And yet.. And yet.. A male reported to be in the area that very night has never been tracked down, interviewed or traced.

And to offset Mr Unknown's vanishing act.... The Babe Farrell puts Bailey at the bridge at 3am, and later remembers him outside the shop, and basically here, there and everywhere... (Usually as the Gards got more and more desperate to pin something on their man)

I suggest in the most strongest terms... The spotlight should have been turned on the Babe Farrell from the get go. There has been nothing but lies, conflicting statements, smoke and mirrors from her. The is a murder investigation. Who was the male she reports to be with in the area that night, why has he never come forward to eliminate himself??

Take out the Babe Farrell... There's nothing on Bailey!

Quite right. Marie Farrell's evidence is totally discredited, whether supporting or undermining the case against Bailey.

Like many of the irrelevancies surrounding this debate, nothing changes the main weaknesses: No evidence that Bailey was at the scene, no evidence of him being involved in what was, effectively, a bloodbath and no motive.

Without one or more of these, the case doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Questions like whether or not Dreenane had a post delivery on Sunday when can be argued endlessly as can any number of other insignificant details without changing the inescapable fact that nothing substantial links Bailey to this crime.

she may never have been out that night at all though

she could be just systematically injecting herself into the story - her absolute refusal to reveal who she was with could easily be because she was with nobody - she's as mad as a box of flowers

Absolutely agree 100%. She made an anonymous call, stating she'd seen a man in a black coat by the bridge at 3am......click.

Even Sherlock Holmes would have difficulty harvesting anything worthwhile from that nugget of information.

So what was the point of leaving the message in the first place? To get her the attention she she craves? To be the most sought after person in Ireland? To be in the eye of the storm, but safe from being found out?

That's all well and good, and she may well have enjoyed her 15 minutes of fame....?? But the Babe Farrell maybe got too complacent? Forgot to walk to a public phone box, made the fatal error of continuing the farce by using her own phone.... (The first of many examples of her low intellect)

Even the Keystone cops overseeing the investigation, would have asked her what she was doing in the vicinity at that hour of the morning? So maybe the first thing that came to mind was simply 'shagging'?

Any Gard worth his salt must have mentally raised a red flag at that unlikely scenario?

So the only way to support that alibi was to question the lucky man, and get him to collaborate the passionate goings on... Remember, this was only to verify the story that the Babe Farrell was spouting... The Gards couldn't care less who's riding who, it's a murder investigation.

The very fact that she wouldn't name the male she was with, does tend to support the theory that he doesn't exist? It was a serious murder investigation, you cannot leave out information like that. Unless of course the said Gentleman was a figment of you're imagination?

The Gards must have had serious reservations about the mystery man... There is no just reason to withhold the identity of a key witness, that allegedly seen the man by the bridge that same night. None what so ever... There is a young Mother dead, face caved it, possible second witness to the sighting... What could be more important than that??

Then again.. If the Gards began dropping hints that wasting police time, fabricating stories, telling lies.... All this could have serious consequences, not to mention the media dragging your name through the mud... Wouldn't be good for you, or your family, you'd be finished in Schull / Ireland.

Unless you can recognise the man you seen yourself??? Then there would be no need to chase up the other fellow then...? We can have this sorted quite easily.. Is this him?? (shows video still's) Might this be the man outside the shop?? Really Mrs Farrell.. You've been a great help, lets just rewrite that statement again now that our memory has been refreshed.. Cup of tea Mrs Farrell??

I rest my case.

You're obviously having a rather bad reaction to having things you got wrong pointed out to you, it's like you're projecting your own faults onto others. You said she described the man as 'short', you were wrong. Get over it and move on.

Maybe the Gardai were/are holding something back about the murder that only the killer would know? Use it to trap them during questioning.

Can you tell us what Helen Callanan of the Sunday Tribune and the Shelley's had to gain by helping the gardai? Specifics, please.

Patrick Lowney, what did he have to gain? Yvonne Ungerer? The latest witness, coming forward recently? What does he have to gain? Is it possible you have absolutely no idea but their statements are just highly inconvenient to your line of thinking?

Excluding MF from the equation, there's still a lot of factors that led the gardai and the French investigators to believe he was responsible:

• False alibi provided in questionnaires and under questioning. 
• New alibi claimed he was up writing a story for a deadline the next morning but the story was only submitted 24 hours later. 
• History of extreme violence and angry outbursts.
• His 'premonition' on the way home that something bad was going to happen, Jules' statement that when they stopped at Hunt's Hill he mentioned he saw a light on at Alfies and suggested he would go over there.
• Jules Thomas' statement that he left that night and came back with a cut on his forehead that wasn't there the night before.
• Made what several independent witnesses described as admissions of guilt, two of which are extremely difficult to write off as sarcasm, irony or jokes. 
• Scratches on hands and arms. He said they came from cutting down a tree but five people in the pub who saw IB hours before the murder saw no trace of these scratches. Practically everyone who interacted with him after it did. The only witnesses to him getting them from cutting down the tree live under the same roof as him. 
• Suspicious knowledge of the scene. Claims he was told it was a french woman at 1.40pm, the other witness denies this. Then drives directly to Sophie's house. Claims he met Shirley Foster on the 'main' road where Shirley said he was already on the cul de sac up to her house. Why contradict Shirley? Shirley said that, despite being the first journalist on the scene and with potentially the scoop of a lifetime, he asked her nothing about the murder that he himself suspected had happened next door to her. Gardai on the scene said he asked them practically no questions, was acting in an unusual manner and then left within a few minutes. 
• Suspicious knowledge of the crime. Stated in newspaper articles that she had been hit on the back of the head and had not been sexually assaulted, despite saying the gardai were telling him nothing. 
• Multiple reports of witness intimidation to the gardai
• Bonfire at the back of the studio during Christmas period, denied by both Jules and Ian but witnessed by two people independently. What did they have to gain?
• Buying bleach down the road on Christmas Eve, the day after the murder.
• Witness statement that he had photographs developed of a badly beaten woman lying on the ground beside briars and a gate.
• Diary entries where he admits trying to kill Jules and 'if I could kill anyone now I would'.
• Visiting people he was with that weekend after they had been interviewed by gardai to find out what they told them.
• Changing his statement about his movements only after checking up on people who knew where he actually was.
• Witness statements regarding Ian cancelling prior arrangements before he should have known about the crime.
• Two witness statements claiming Jules was near the scene and then in Goleen with knowledge of the crime before it was publicly known.
• Jules' daughter corroborating the witnesses by saying both Ian and Jules left the house for an hour that morning when they both said they were at home.
• Suspicious actions after gardai saw scratches on his hands in the shop days after the murder, walked down side road and then looked back around the corner to see if he was being followed by them.
• Used an alias for newspaper articles about the case, strongly suggested there was a 'French connection' to the killing but then asked for his name to be withheld on articles that discussed the investigation in the local area.
• According to witness statements, he phoned news organisations even before confirming who the victim was to say he had photographs of her, had photographs of the crime scene from that morning at 11am and that he knew her.
• Witness statement from the actor who was filming the Crimeline re-enactment suggesting he came over to them and said he had met Sophie on the walk near Three Castle Head.
• Alfie Lyons testifying that he was sure he had introduced them.
• Witness statement that there were dark clothes soaking in a large bucket in the bathroom the day after the murder.

And for all that, not one single solid piece of evidence to show that he ever knew her, was present at the crime scene or had any motive.

Not one.

Just in the last couple of weeks the DPP was consulting on whether they could charge Larry Murphy for the murder of Deirdre Jacob with no body, no murder weapon, no motive, no evidence they met or knew each other.

In this thread the same people were taking seriously the ramblings of Gemma O'Doherty, unsourced accounts of mad, bad gardai in blue fiestas, considering MF's claims of garda corruption when a jury has already ruled they were not credible etc.