Murder at the Cottage | Sky

" Gardai on the scene said he asked them practically no questions, was acting in an unusual manner"

That there is the one thing that points to his guilt.

I mean , from all their experience with murder scenes in west Cork they would recognise someone acting in an "unusual manner".

I know Ian Bailey may very well be guilty - Im not 100% convinced that he is innocent. There is no concrete evidence whatsoever that supports that he is guilty. In fact there is alot of indications to suggest that IB could very well also be a victim in this case - a victim of a Gardai cover up/set up. ( This is something again which you refuse to acknowledge).

There are many good posters on here who are willing to explore and discuss all theories in relation to this case and I enjoy reading what they have to say. Im afraid your inability to discuss any other theories means you add very little to this thread. You keep saying the same thing over and over again even though several posters have discredited what you said or given a reasonable explanation for the event. Its like you have learned off Michael Sheridans book ' Death in December' word for word and thats the only view you have.

From the website Koude Kaas, there's an image of what looks like MF's first statement to the guards. She, in fact, describes the man outside her shop as "very tall" and as far as I can tell, there's no other description of his height. Not sure how "very tall" could be construed as short.

The real original or the 'original' that replaced the original?

That seems rather doubtful given that the gardai cant find them...

https://www.thejournal.ie/grave-concern-over-missing-evidence-in-du-plantier-murder-investigation-4161933-Aug2018/

Hilarious considering this is exactly how you have treated the DPP report.

You know the actual body who reviews evidence to bring criminal prosecutions in this state and concluded there was insufficient to charge Bailey despite coming under improper pressure from the Gardai to do so.

And the DPP has thoroughly discredited all the evidence you use to support a case against Bailey.

The DPP is the only state party in this that heard no witnesses, saw no cross-examinations and had no ability or requirement to hear any contrary legal argument whatsoever. No one has yet put forward any clear case for either Judge Moran, Judge Hedigan, the high court jury or GSOC being factually incorrect yet we know the DPP report is factually incorrect in several instances.

A high court jury ruled on this and rejected it. I do agree there are very clear and well documented cases of garda abuse of the system and corrupt practices but this case has been put under the public microscope like no other and no evidence for 'framing' Bailey has emerged. That's not my opinion, that is the conclusion of both GSOC and the high court.

Also, their subtly spun phrase is in fact a concession that he did indeed question them.

Isn't language great Sgt. Ted?

As if the trial in France was anything than a farce.

But if thats your view, I guess you would have advised newspapers not to settle and instead accuse Bailey of being the murderer? They only have to prove it beyond balance of probabilities, not reasonable doubt.

But nope they settled...

It's inexplicable and inexcusable that the man with whom Marie Farrell purported to be travelling with when she sighted IB at KF Bridge on the night of the murder has never been questioned. Surely this should have been considered to have been of the utmost importance to the investigation by the Guards? A witness came forward with a testimony that appeared to implicate IB surely that Guards should have made an effort to corroborate this evidence with testimony from the mystery man in the car? Did he too see IB? Or was his recollection of the KF bridge sighting different? Maybe Marie Farrell was with Stevie Wonder that night and that's why the Guards didn't follow up

All of which is circumstantial evidence which would be of limited value in a murder prosecution. A view shared by the DPP. IB cannot be placed at or near the scene of the murder, there is no evidence of him present at the murder scene and no apparent motive. Whether you belive he did it or not based on the circumstantial evidence is immaterial. There isn't enough evidence to even bring him to trial for this murder.

P.S. on the balance of probability I think IB did do the crime. But we don't convict people for murder on the balance of probability. What annoys me most is how poorly the Gardai handled the investigation. Sofies family deserve justice and it is the Gardai who's poor handling of the case denied them the chance of it.

Surely they could have made an effort to compel her to name this man? That story sounds like complete hogwash. A man came down from Longford to deepest west Cork, probably a 6-7hr drive back then to canoodle MF in the middle of the night? And then the Guards play a cat and mouse chase with MF using a fake name and take a trip up to Longford on the back of a description of a car that he drove, that he might not even drive anymore? Surely the Guards pressuring MF to give a false name, if true, is evidence of their bungling of the investigation?

Sir.... I am not a defence lawyer by any stretch of the imagination...

But even I, could rip your allegations apart one by one..

And would have great fun doing so..

I don't know you, and too be fair, you come across as an educated person. You have a grasp of the events that occurred on the night of the murder. We differ on a lot of things, but neither of us know what exactly happened that terrible night. It's all speculation on our parts.

But.... Put yourself in the shoes of Baileys chief defence lawyer.. Go down through each and every bullet point allegation that you have cited as evidence to Baileys guilt...

As an educated man / woman... Could you not defend each and ever allegation with ease... ?? Remember, this is in a court of law where a man can be incarcerated for the rest of his life based on your defence.

Hearsay, Horse sh*t and absolute nonsense..

I hope you never get selected for Jury Service Sir.

Great Post!! Says it all!!

I'm not sure this makes sense. She is a witness, neither she nor the man she was with were suspected of any crime. How can they compel her other than charging her for trying to pervert the course of justice, which would defeat her value as a witness even more than her refusing to name the man she was allegedly with? I'm not sure it would even progress as a charge, for that the gardai would surely have to have established the man she was with had in fact seen and remembered someone walking along the road in the middle of the night.

There's no evidence the gardai pressured her to give a false name? That's what she claimed in the high court but she seems to have accepted this made no sense in the context of the garda actually spending quite some time trying to identify the man off his own efforts.