Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Suggests whoever took them had working knowledge of the possessions of the house or they were taken with the investigation and hidden.

Where was Shirley going and why would she have wanted to leave the house after the shock of discovering a murder victim near her house that morning. I would imagine if I had just found a body I would be pretty shook up and would want to stay at home. I find it odd that she was allowed to pass through the murder scene by the gardai so soon after the murder - the scene should have been sealed off. Surely gardai would have wanted to speak to Alfie and Shirley about Sophie that day - which should'nt have been a quick chat ( which if she was out and about by lunchtime - it was a very quick chat ). Very odd that Shirley discovered the body of her neighbour and then seemed to go about her normal day.

You are probably right - she was going out to do what she originally meant to do that morning. After finding a body though I dont think I would have been able to drive let alone do the last minute christmas bits - I would be in shock - I think most people would. She could have asked friends to get what she needed and drop it with the gardai at the end of the lane - Im sure they would have obliged. I do find it odd though that she was allowed pass through the scene so soon after the murder. Also at that stage Shirley and Alfie should have been regarded as suspects.

This is one newspaper version ;

"Shirley Foster - the woman who found Sophie's body - remained adamant she met Ian Bailey that lunchtime as he drove up her laneway at speed.

She denied meeting Mr Bailey on the open road - as he claimed - and said he seemed in a hurry as he drove up the lane which had only three houses, including Ms du Plantier's.

Do you know the 'laneway'/boreen? She is adamant it is her laneway which is off the Dunmanus Castle - Kealfadda Bridge road/boreen. Whichever one it is, two cars have to slow to 5mph to pass. So this at speed thing gives the idea that he went past at 50mph.

Now of course Shirley would have a crystal clear recollection in spite of what she'd seen that morning since she and Alfie had had a great night's sleep, undisturbed, windows closed from 10 pm to 9am and no need for the Gardai to bring them in for questioning to ask them what they had been doing the previous day or since they were on such good terms with Sophie (regularly introducing her to their friends) whether they had seen her in the last few days, asked her in for a cuppa and a catch up.

Leo Bolger witnessed Alfie introducing Sophie to Ian, he said they spoke for a 'few minutes' ,which Alfie was only 80-90% sure of. But surely you'd remember something, Ian is a bit of talker and in those days may have been handsome. Wouldn't he have practised a bit of french or recited a bit of poetry or did they stand around in silence looking at each other for a few minutes. Why didn't Garda Fitzgerald bang his fist on the table with Alfie?

The one I called the cul-de-sac 3 times in my post?

No, just too fast for that particular lane.

"Lunchtime" and "at speed" are open to interpretation .

I have no idea of Shirley's state of mind that afternoon, no more than yourself.

I have no idea what that last paragraph has to do with it.

Its more the fact that surely someone discovering a body in such gruesome circumstances would be absolutely traumatised by what she seen and in a state of pure shock.

Add that to the fact that to the best of her knowledge theres a murderer on the loose who just brutally killed your female neighbour mere hours ago. I'm not 100% sure but I she might have said she was on her own too when she encountered Bailey in his car.

This is an issue which has given me a great deal of "pause for thought"

Bannasidhe, who is/was personally acquainted with both Alfie and Shirley and whose posts are well balanced, unbiased, and, to me, have the ring of truth about them, does not entertain the idea that either could have been involved. I'm inclined to accept that.

However, what is interesting, is the comparison of respective evidence you draw.

On the face of it, there is more evidence to implicate Alfie/Shirley than there ever was to point the finger at Bailey.

Yet I can find no report of either/both being under any serious suspicion.

No evidence of any association between Bailey and Sophie, but AL/SF obviously knew her.

No evidence of Bailey at the scene, whereas Alfie/Shirley were both there.

No apparent motive for Bailey, while AL/SF had ongoing issues with Sophie.

A seemingly damning issue of Bailey's hands being scratched. But Alfie actually had a bandage on one hand. Bailey claimed that he got the scratches from cutting a tree...an act which was witnessed, whilst Alfie blamed his injury on a dog bite. Although they didn't actually have a dog.

And one last point which I find hard to accept, is that neither Alfie nor Shirley heard or saw anything.

I am of the opinion that none of the three were actually involved, but of the two theories, the key points are more indicative of AL/SF involvement than that of IB.

According to a newspaper report an (unnamed) neighbour says they heard a screaming that night but put it down to foxes.

Was there a time reported for that?

I wonder did they find any fingerprints? Or was it clean and no (almost none except her own) were found. If a clean up was done it shows no great hurry.

They could have done more in my opinion. Sophies blood could very well be the only blood left on the gate but how about gathering fingerprints off of it. Who's fingerprints were the most recent on there. What fingerprints are on there since it last rained etc. That alone could mark out a time period in which all fingerprints could have been placed on it. Were there boot marks on the rungs where the gate was scaled rather than opened. That would indicate the gate was closed and she was home at the time as Alfie likes the gate opened.

They also claim that the house didn't yield any forensic evidence but we already know there was someone using her bath. And of course the housekeeper would have cleaned the bath afterwards but she hardly would have got rid of all skin-cells and hairs that may have been shed when the person was drying themselves off. And yet we are told nothing was found. Did the person not touch a wall, a windowsil, the glass pane of the window, the toilet seat, the handle of the flush, the cistern, the sink taps etc. I just don't buy it.

This is an excerpt from John Montague's article in the Guardian (link above) ;

We learned from our former housekeeper that Bailey and Jules had broken up. Then he wrote us a different kind of letter, still grandiloquent, but painfully vulnerable as well: ‘Dear John, A chara’ - Gaelic for ‘friend’ - ‘It is under very sad and tragic circumstances I write to you and it is difficult to know where to start. On 2 May, Jules and myself were coming back from a party - I was driving and an argument broke out. It ended in a fight - we had both been drinking and were very tired. I unintentional [sic] hurt Jules, and her daughter called the guards... [I]t’s all quite awful - Jules is deeply upset - neither of us in spite of what has happened want to part and I love her stronger than ever... Please don’t think to [sic] badly of me. I never intended to hurt hurt [sic] - it was the drink and I am now resolved to abstinence.’Jules was indeed hurt. She had been taken to Bantry General Hospital and needed reconstructive surgery on her jaw. Jules later told us that Bailey had suffered a blackout that night, caused by the abundance of poteen he’d drunk.She did not press charges against him, although the gardaí told us she could have.