Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Apparently Sophie was pregnant when she was murdered.

"Asking not to be identified, he said the disclosure came on a film set in Le Mans in late 1997. “I remember it well, it was a buffet lunch on the set and Daniel approached.

"He knew I had written on the French reaction to the murder. Down the years, we had met regularly. He gave me a very definite impression he knew Sophie had been pregnant.

"He talked continuously about her for about three-quarters of an hour and I hardly got a word in. I’m also sure I wasn’t the only person he talked to about the likelihood of Sophie expecting a baby. At that time, he was very annoyed about the progress of the police investigation. He also told me he was quite sure who the killer was.”

Would seem counter-intuitive that the killer would go to those leengths but make no effort to conceal the body.

I have removed the link to that photo.

Could I ask anyone referencing it to delete their posts also please.

(That's TimeLadsPlease and DivilsAdvocate, thanks)

I can't seem to delete? It's just giving me an edit option?

Yeah, hiding the body is a much more straightforward and obvious thing to do than conducting a thorough forensic cleanup of a messy and extensive crime scene.

It should have been possible to ascertain if the John Reilly individual had indeed existed. Marie Farrell said that she knew him as a teenager, he was 3-4 years older than her. Somebody in Longford that had known them should have been able to at least confirm that the two were known to each other. If he was in Cork during December 1996 then you would expect him to have mentioned it to somebody he knew, even if this was somebody in the UK. It's thankless donkey work for the police but it's the kind of thing that you would expect to make or break the case.

If two pieces of information could be confirmed:

• Marie Farrell knew John Reilly in Longford as she stated.
• John Farrell had traveled to Ireland around Christmas time in December 1996.

On the balance of probabilities you would have to accept her statement that he was a passenger in the car on that night is more likely to be true. If there is no traceable contact between the two of them then it would be a remarkable coincidence that the individual named just happened to have traveled from the UK to Cork in that time period.

However if it could be shown that he had not traveled then it's the end of Marie Farrell's evidence and everything that stemmed from it - this is a massive pain point for the gardai.

According to Senan Molloy, the journalists were told that a man was seen at Kealfadda bridge washing his boots. Marie Farrell has denied making such a statement. It's mentioned in the podcast that for it to be true the individual would have had to be on the driver's side of the road. My thinking is that the individual who briefed the journalists about the sighting of the man surmised that if it was the person of interest that was seen there then he must have gone there to wash his boots.

Almost everything about Marie Farrell's involvement in the case is problematic.

From the list of gardai named in the Irish Times article linked above, Marie Farrell claimed she had dubious interactions with all but one of them. She has singlehandedly screwed the investigation - she wasted valuable time and resources. She should have been charged and prosecuted for doing so. Instead they "left the door open" for her to tell them what they needed to hear, in doing so they damaged their investigation further and handed Ian Bailey an opportunity to drive a bus through the gaps.

Det Garda Jim FitzGerald

• alleged misbehaviour and malpractice
• alleged to have taken a false statement
• tried to prevent a complaint of assault against her husband

Insp Maurice Walsh

• alleged Walsh exposed himself

Garda Kevin Kelleher

• alleged that Kelleher showed him a video of Ian Bailey on December 28th, 1996.
• introduced her to Det Garda Jim Fitzgerald and Det Garda Jim Slattery at his house
• alleged he was present at Ballydehob Garda Station on February 14th, 1997, when she signed blank statements.
• alleged he told her she would be arrested if she did not testify at the 2003 libel action.

Det Garda Jim Slattery

• was the first detective to have contact with Marie Farrell, taking a statement from her on December 27th, 1996
• alleged he was present at Ballydehob Garda Station on February 14th, 1997, when she signed blank statements.

Chief supt Dermot Dwyer

• alleged Dwyer urged her to stick by her story when she testified in the 2003 libel action.

Det Supt Ted Murphy

Det Chief Supt Seán Camon

• asked Malachy Boohig (State solicitor) to approach his former UCC classmate, then minister for justice John O’Donoghue, to get him to get the DPP to direct a charge against Bailey.

In the civil case taken by Ian Bailey, the jury heard recordings of calls made to Schull Garda Station by Marie Farrell. It was claimed she had made 30 out of the 34 recorded calls and she denied that she was responsible for the "large bulk" of contact. That is absolute madness and should be a strong indication that the woman was in no way a reliable source of information.

The remainder of the available evidence is like a pick'n'mix - if you want Bailey for the murder then you select the statements and conjecture that fit. However it would seem that each piece of evidence in the public domain can be explained away if you look at them with an open mind. That being the case a trial by jury is never likely to bring a conviction against Ian Bailey.

But if you consider charging Marie Farrell then you absolutely have to charge all the guards who put pressure on her and told/influenced what they wanted her to say.

Absolutely ridiculous to charge her considering it was the gardai who led her down that path and quite rightly there would be uproar if she was charged and nothing happened to the gardai involved.

In regards to 30 of the 34 calls being made by her, thats because she was told when and where to call the gardai.

Thats how the whole lying operation was uncovered, Bailey had an appointment with the gardai in Schull one day and the gardai got Marie Farrell to ring in a complaint of intimidation by Bailey at or around the time of his meeting. Well as it turned out Ian Bailey didn't turn up for that meeting and instead met with Frank Buttimer that day, no one informed Marie Farrell that Bailey hadn't shown up and she went ahead and made the complaint as asked. Which was then easily proved as false and Buttimer sent her a legal letter informing her to stop what she was doing as they could prove she was lying.

I really can't see how Marie Farrell could be charged without charging the guards involved with putting her up to it.

Gardai bungled it up in many ways. Forensics arrived very late which was probably the biggest mistake they've made, the exact time of death was never really determined. This alone makes the investigation more difficult and the number of possibilities opens more and more.

Fingerprints, DNA was never recovered, a motive was also never established, and nearly all of the investigation focused only on Ian Bailey. Suppose if neither fingerprints nor DNA can be found, than at least they would have to have found a motive. And the only motive that Ian Bailey wanted a story to write about and commit murder just for that, is a bit far fetched to me, also as he made a living as a freelance journalist with or without that murder happening.

Bailey may have been an unsympathetic guy, drinker, bad writer, but to me it sounds a bit strange that Bailey gets out of bed in the dead of night, walks over to Sophie's house, with intention of murder, to a house which was more used like a holiday home, and where Bailey didn't even know she would be in that house or not, then hikes to Kealfadda bridge to wash up and then return home to Jules and Jules doesn't notice anything. And that all could only have been accomplished unless Bailey had known Sophie before, known her better, known that she would be at the house at that time.

Yes, this is Sophie's house. Whether the man in the picture is Bailey, I can't say.

No long black coat.....must have been in the wash.

Everyone assumes he wore a long black coat on the night.