Murder at the Cottage | Sky

But this was before it was found out that the gardai had got mf to change the height of the person she saw from average height to "very tall".

If all information known now was known then, the judge may have taken a very different view.

The judge heard all of this, Marie Farrell 2.0 was the 'star witness' for IB and the court heard all of her allegations that gardai pressured her into changing statements, changing her description, pressured her to make false accusations of intimidation etc. This was all put to the jury because the judge decided it was not statute barred as it affected an ongoing murder inquiry. The jury did not believe her.

She claimed the gardai put her under pressure to falsely report witness intimidation from Ian Bailey. She made 17 complaints over a period of time. So you'd have to imagine the gardai at some point saying 'thanks for making those five false complaints of intimidation, that's a great help, would you mind making another 10 or 12 false complaints and getting your solicitor to write to IB demanding he stop harassing you?'.

There seems to be so much stuff going on down in West Cork. Everyone in relation to this case has personal intermingled toxic relationships and have created enemies of each other over the years.

Yes, I always thought it was a place people went to for a quiet life. Pottery, growing veg, things like that.

It sound like Reservoir Dogs. Christ on a bike.

Had a feeling someone might get insulting about that little bit of statistical context, didn't expect call to ban it. False accusations of trying to start rumours should be banned.

I guess many yachts and 'fishing' boats have been used to bring in merchandise along that coast over the years.

According to the Indo.. Some old boy in sheltered accommodation has contacted the Gards, with what is believed to be critical information regarding the French woman's murder.

Erm...... Could he not have done this 25yrs ago??

I guess while one could infer this elderly person is in Ireland the article doesn't explicitly say so. And the docs were shown worldwide.

If the info is something that happened immediately prior to her arrival at Cork Airport that could be someone on the plane. The person sitting next to Sophie said they hadn't spoken to her but is that likely on a Paris-Dublin-Cork flight?

Whilst I'd be very very sceptical of the various people who suddenly remember things, I would say that you'd be very surprised at how accurate an elderly person's memory can be when talking about things many years ago.

The short term memory is different and you can be forgetting what you did yesterday or last week or even an hour ago, yet have near photographic memory of something 20, 30, 40+ years ago. I saw it with my own dad as he moved into a dementia stage - his recall of events in the 50's when he had to move from Northern Ireland was phenomenal, yet he would not remember having breakfast.

But on the other hand, as its the indo, its likely to be balderdash

Some great contributions here. Thanks all.

The main takeaways for me are........

Did the Gardai make a complete balls up of the investigation? Yes.

Did notes and evidence go missing because they were trying to protect one of their own? Unknown. Most likely incompetence or trying to cover up incompetence.

Did the gardai try to frame Bailey because they knew they didn't have enough evidence to convict? Yes.

Was this because they wanted a patsy so they could protect another member of the force? Unknown. Unlikely.

Does this mean Bailey is innocent? No.

Did the fixation on Bailey damage the investigation? Absolutely.

Does any of MF's testimony have value? Absolutely not.

Based on the known verifiable facts what is the probability Bailey is guilty? Probably close to 50\50 in my mind. I think this is why people find the case so compelling. Theories involving Bailey are probably a little more believable, yet facts around other theories are lacking because of the guards fixation with Bailey.

Should Bailey be extradited or locked up? Absolutely not.

Should people believe Bailey is innocent or guilty, and allow this to cloud their judgement? Absolutely not.

If Bailey knew Sophie he would likely have been enamored by her. If he knew she was home and saw activity in her house on the night of her murder, it would be believable to me that he would go over, filled with drunken ardor, after Jules went to bed.

What is less plausible is him being able to leave no evidence and behave as normal if he did do it.

• No evidence - The guards were as good as useless and CIS technology was in dark ages. Can't convict without it in any case.
• Behavior - He might have been behaving squirrely but this could have been attributed to the fact that there was a murder in the community. He must have giving off guilty vibes to the Gardai anyway. But would he have been able to keep it from Jules and the people close to him? Very unlikely IMHO.

If I was a member of Sophie's family I would be gunning for the Gardai, not Bailey.

Big distinction between those two events. One was a tragic accident and the other was a brutal murder very close to where he lived. Hardly the same thing.

So he did ask questions then. Chances are the guards might have been more forthcoming with answers at the scene of an accident versus providing answers at the scene of a murder where their heads are on the block to crack the case and find the murderer.

Journalism by nature is intrusive. Don't forget, Bailey wasn't shy at taking pictures of the battered Sophie with the full intention to flog themto the highest bidder.

Didn't Bashir do a number on Michael Jackson as well as Diana? It's a thick skinned occupation.

Nick Foster looking for a debate with Bailey in Schull is .... Well, it's punching above his weight Who is he to call for a debate anyway??

Although Bailey is an intelligent man, and has a string of letters after his name regarding his legal achievements, I doubt he'd do his reputation much good by participating in such a sh*t show.

For one, he'd be half steamed before he shown up at the venue. This magnifies his arrogant side, and is not endearing to a neutral spectator. He has the gift of coming across as a self centred prick without even realising it.

But the other side of the debate debacle is.... Why should he..??

The man has stated that he is innocent. There is absolutely no evidence to place him at the crime scene, no evidence found upon his person, and no reason, motive, or otherwise to murder a stranger. (that's right, no evidence that he even met Sophie)

Why should a man have to defend his innocence? If he is guilty, let Nick Foster provide the evidence to the Gards.. No debate needed.