Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Just for the exercise, suppose Ian Bailey did it, how would it have worked:

1) He and Jules drove home from the night out in the pub, after drinking. How much he had to drink, we don't know. They live at Lissacaha North, I believe Jules lives there to date.

2) Ian got up in the night, maybe one hour after they both went to get, to go out, apparently to his studio.

3) Ian decides to hike to Sophie's house either to confront her with something, or to kill her, ( I guess that's and around 4km hike )

4) After the killing Ian hikes to Kealfadda Bridge, to wash up a bit, get blood of his hands? ( I guess that's as well something around a 3km hike )

( Ian didn't use a car, if a "witness" like Farell is to be believed, as there was only a man on the roadside, not a car )

5) After that, Ian returns from Kealfadda Bridge to Jule's house ( I guess that's a 5 km hike )

Under the guise of a long darkness, let's consider it was December and daylight would come around 9am only, this would have to have been quite a sports exercise for Bailey. Overall for Bailey it would have to have been a 3 hour hike all summed up, and that, after a few drinks, or a few too many. It's not impossible to do. Part of that hike would have been done in blood stained clothes, with constant fear of being seen that way. Upon the return, his blood stained clothes would have to have been disposed of, and that hidden from Jules or her daughters.

All summed up, for murdering Sophie I'd say, Bailey would have needed 4 hours, maybe a bit more than that, to complete the "job" and that with considerable alcohol level and that all, with a motive which we don't know exactly, a motive which is quite possibly rather weak.

The drug angle is one that I would keep coming back to. With the shocking level of violence in this case I genuinely wonder if that isn't characteristic of burglary/robbery and drug related violence? Seems like it could be but I don't know of any research showing anything like that.

The other thing would be understanding the situation regarding drugs in Ireland in the 1990s. Regardless of what we personally believe now what was the actual reality of drugs and drug related crime in an area like that in 1996? Would possession alone be enough for a prison sentence? Various other questions surrounding that. In 2021 your neighbour taking a bit of a huff because you are smoking weed in the garden can be shrugged off, no bother. In 1996? I don't know. In 1996 would a neighbour or local resident going to the Grada about drug use and/or dealing be a really big deal or not?

In the West Cork podcast a small mention is made about drug use and artists and whatnot all over the area. I wonder how much money was potentially changing hands out there and what kind of trouble a moany neighbor might actually cause? Sophie potentially having grievances with others in the area is always hinted at but never truly explored to any great degree.

I find it difficult to get a good grasp of what life would really be like out there in 1996 specifically. We always seem to think of it in the context of our current time. Maybe people in 2021 would dismiss a neighbour complaining about weed because really nobody cares all that much. In 1996? Would the law be coming down hard on people caught trafficking or in possession of drugs?

The level of violence is so disturbing and the fact that there is not even a real effort to hide evidence maybe implies someone arriving there to specifically do this and then to leave? Or would someone like Bailey know that once he had killed her then sticking around would probably just leave even more evidence.

Again, investigators didn't really help with how they initially dealt with the crime scene.

You'd think they'd at least be able to investigate her and her life thoroughly enough to establish who this person might be or to at least put pressure on here to tell them before the information got out there.

Sorry, I am not a professional writer or anything so really my posting is just poor stream of consciousness stuff.

At the end of the day it's a part of her story that she always stuck to. She was out that night driving around (presumably this was corroborated by her husband at least?) in the area with a person in the vehicle who hasn't just not been named but who has actually been deliberately hidden.

It seems so unbelievable, really, someone is murdered and we have a witness saying "oh myself and my friend were around there at the approximate time of the murder". OK. So who is the friend? "Oh no I couldn't possibly tell you who that is".

It's wild to me that this person would not be a major person of interest. Yet somehow in this region/community where supposedly "everyone knows everyone else's business" nobody was able to establish who MF might potentially be hanging out with? It stinks.

deleted,...shite site

It seems so unbelievable, really, someone is murdered and we have a witness saying "oh myself and my friend were around there at the approximate time of the murder". OK. So who is the friend? "Oh no I couldn't possibly tell you who that is".

It is bizarre that there would seem to have been a number of unknown or unaccounted people in the area which must cast serious doubt on any one theory as to what actually transpired yet French courts could convict someone with no evidence linking them to the crime or crime scene.

The murder could have been hours earlier or later than Marie Farrell claimed to be at Ballyrisode / Kealfada Bridge with her mystrey friend.

It doesn't help that the time of death could have been almost any time within a roughly ten hour window. Anyone could have driven the length of the country and most of the way back in that time.

Reading that statement again it seems even less likely that if Marie Farrell saw anyone at Kealfadda Bridge that it could have been Ian Bailey.

The person she saw was staggering towards Goleen. So not only would the person have been taking a much longer, more trafficked road from Sophie's house by going via Kealfadda Bridge, they were heading in the opposite direction entirely!

In the five minutes or so it would have taken to drive to Toormore and turn back towards Goleen the person seems to have disappeared - Marie Farrell makes no mention of seeing him when she and her mystrey man were driving from Toormore to Goleen.

The the most plausible explanation is that this pedestrian either turned off the Toormore to Goleen road towards Ballyrisode beach or went into one of the houses along the road. There's nothing to suggest this pedestrian had anything to do with the murder either. It could just as easily have been someone stumbling home after a party.

She described the pedestrian as stumbling, with his two hands to the side of his face. How much of his face could she have seen, passing by in a car? She didn't recognise Ian Bailey in the video Garda Kelleher brought her to his house to see. A video which featured Ian Bailey. Yet weeks later in her statement, which lacked any detailed description of the pedestrian, said she now knew it to be Ian Bailey. It's absolute nonsense!

If it wasn't such a serious matter the whole affair would appear to be a complete farcical comedy of errors.

I was just about to post this. In the same clip she says she doesn't know that the road from the bridge goes up to Sophie's house. Pull the other one Marie.

Can't trust a single word she says. Her story is so nonsensical you would have to question if she ever left her house at all that night. I mean, why would they be driving up and down that stretch of road at that hour of the night anyway? She says they drove it multiple times?

Has her husband, Chris, ever verified that she actually did go out that night?

Zzz change the record, been on leave guard?

The thing is, it doesn't really matter who this man was that Marie Farrell had apparently either seen or not seen at Kealfadda Bridge at 3am that morning. Kealfadda Bridge is neither the crime scene, nor does it mean that that man was the murderer or even could have been the murderer. Any of us could have been at Kealfadda Bridge at 3am, would we all be suspect then? I'd say Kealfadda Bridge is around a little more than 3km away from Sophie's house.

And even if it really was supposed to mean something, wouldn't it have been up to a judge to question Marie Farrell how to recognize a man in darkness at 3am at night? How could she have been so sure? I'd say any of us would have looked similar to any driver passing by wearing a dark coat at 3am on Kealfadda Bridge that night.

I think that's why she withdrew her statement? Because she was put up to it by the Guards and had enough?

If she was there herself, and if she did see a man, this man has not been eliminated and has not come forward. That's a big red flag, if she is telling the truth.

I wonder why they dont want to touch this topic with a barge pole hmmmm