Murder at the Cottage | Sky

You've given me an idea, could the studio have been used as a refuge by the killer and IB/JT then decided to clean up the scene for some reason.

I can't help thinking that IB may indeed be compromised in some peripheral way.

Its an interesting angle but we have no likely candidate who would need to use the studio as a refuge, and given how many people lived there not the best port in a storm.

We've heard a few things about the record of Judge Moran in this case. You are well aware of something very suspicious as regards the questioning of Jules Thomas. This is that some Guards were recorded discussing their displeasure with a colleague, who had taken Jules' statement when arrested, because he had written down that she was a truthful witness. They felt they would have to do something about this. She is effectively giving a solid alibi for someone who could be looking at spending years in prison if they don't have one, and these Guards would prefer he didn't have one and are wondering how to get it changed. Is that incredible? What more were they prepared to do?

So you are not correct in saying that the Guards "disbelieved" her. Quite the opposite. Some Guards found her truthful statement problematic but the Guard who took her statement believed her. It cannot be stressed enough that following 61 days in Court the 'State' decided to invoke the statute of limitations which meant that this particular fact, among others, could not be deliberated upon by a jury.

There are conflicting accounts all over this case because some witnesses are lying for whatever reason. Jules Thomas isn't one of them. There can only be diametrically opposite accounts of events if someone lies. The only problem with your kind of "right on all sides" argument is that we have a recorded conversation which is particularly damning for anybody who is suggesting Jules Thomas could be lying or not telling the full truth. The problem that the Guards have/had is that this information didn't come out until they had "built their case". Is it any wonder they didn't want to co-operate with GSOC.?

I think it's a very simple question to answer given the benefit of certain things which have come to light. I believe Jules Thomas was giving a truthful account of events on Dec 23rd 1996 when questioned in Feb 1997. I believe other witnesses are lying. Some of them have to be.

I don't believe Jules Thomas is a liar. Do you?

Who knows when he wrote the article. It would have only been a ruse for what he got up to while he wasn`t in bed for approximately 8 hours. Not just for the Gardaí but initially for Jules. I don`t necessarily think Jules was an accessory here. She certainly doesn`t have to be part of any clean up.

It's a possibility of course but unlikely in my mind. We know a lot about the various goings on in the locality at the time and we know a lot of the people who were in the locality. Who would have such a grip on Ian and Jules that they would not alone give them refuge in the studio but also cover their tracks, lie for them and go on to have their lives ruined by withholding information that clears their names of the murder (though in this scenario they are liable to prosecution as accessories and perverting the course of justice).

If you were going down that road I would go so far as to say it would have to be one of the family that's being covered for. But then who's the most likely in the family to have done it, Ian is. Hardly one of Jules' daughters being protected.

The simplest answer is usually the right one and in this theory it's Ian who's most likely to have used the studio after the murder.

I honestly wouldn't mind, if Bailey was really guilty, even if we had the death penalty for crimes like this. However the problem is that we have simply no evidence, nothing, zero. Sentencing somebody to 25 years in jail without evidence is just ludicrous.

It's beyond my imagination how a man can be sentenced for murder in a civilized country like France, if there is no evidence, nothing linking him to the crime at all. This is all regardless, if he would have had the time and opportunity to sneak out at night to Sophie's house and kill her and come back, and nobody noticing a thing. We would need evidence, fingerprints, DNA, hair, fiber of clothes, footprints of his shoes / boots, etc..

And the thing is, what does speaks in Bailey's favour, is that he was the first to volunteer DNA and hair samples.

In the end, if there is no evidence any of us here in this forum could have done it and could be sentenced. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt is there for a reason.

It's up to the police to gather the evidence, and to the judge and jury to pass a verdict based on the evidence they're presented. If the police did such a lousy job then the killer, whoever is will always be free. After all none of us were there, when it happened, thus we need evidence.

What about the scratches/deep wounds from briars and barbed wire? She couldn't miss those. Having knowledge that someone has committed a criminal act makes one an accessory. Did those scratches exist and she kept it quiet or didn't they?

I don't think it is necessarily true he would have been overworked or overloaded.

If we take it that there are two scenarios one where he is guilty and one where he is innocent.

It is only in the innocent scenario that he wrote his article that night. In this case he genuinely needed to meet the deadline. Him and Jules just forgot to say all this to gardai at first and then corrected themselves and said he got up in the night and wrote his article. He then Got a few hours sleep then. Next day he did his journalistic snooping job as you would expect when he got word of the murder.

In the guilty scenario the deadline article was only cooked up to explain him leaving the house. He could have written the article any time. Days earlier. So in this scenario he would return home after the deed and either get a couple of hours sleep or be so up on adrenalin that he got no sleep.

A possible link to STDP's drug activity complaint?

Perhaps a threat gone too far?

Perhaps an admirer or 2 got caught up in it?

I wouldn't say we have exactly covered ourselves in glory here with the prosecution of this case.