Murder at the Cottage | Sky

I think the investigators may have missed a key bit of forensics in all this. They state that nothing was found but I wonder if they knew at the time that her bath had been used or did that only come out after the forensic team were finsihed and the housekeeper gave her statement. Even if it was a full year before her murder when the bath was last used by the intruder, in real terms that may only have been 3 baths ago. What i'm getting at it that whenever anyone takes a bath there are always stray hairs that get washed away. If forensics knew that detail about her bath being used the pipework under the plughole could have been searched for hairs and small flakes of skin etc. No doubt some would have been there. I don't know for sure but i'd say they missed that.

Could you share a link to the video of those screenshots, please?

They definitely should have been persons of interest initially, it's hard to see how they could not. I have never heard anything to suspect them though. The link with Leo Bolger seems to be the main thing, and initially, I was suspicious. But Leo Bolger told a lawyer, during the libel trial if I remember correctly, about Bailey being introduced to Sophie many years before his drugs conviction. That lawyer confirmed it, as per the West Cork podcast.

Did we ever get confirmation if Sophie's backdoor would swing shut? Would the door shut itself or did someone have to close it?

It wouldn't be interesting to know any more about Jules than she'd wish people to know but that doesn't appear to bother people like you who are convinced of something that, to the vast majority of reasonable people who seriously engage with this case, is fantasy and fiction.

In the DPP's first report the truthfulness of Ian and Jules is accepted while there is scepticism with regard to a lot of witness statements, with one journalist euphemistically called a liar. This is from an office that is well practised in reviewing Garda investigations.

You apply the logic of the investigation to everyone involved. Alfie, Shirley, Leo, Bill, whoever and up until it doesn't suit Marie are 100% truthful. Bailey, every word he utters is a lie, while Jules has been living in terror of him for 25 years. But I don't believe you are that dim. You must have some vested interest in the framing of Bailey.

True. Perhaps she knew the local gardai wouldnt check her car. What was the urgency on getting rid of the rubbish - Surely it could have waited or she could have asked someone else to take it. Shirley made sure she had it well gone before the 'the big boy gardai came down from Dublin'.

when Jules's daughter came home the car was there so u can't have it both ways - that she didn't see him and that he drove

This is another of those details where things are not so clear. Some accounts say Shirley's reason for going to Schull was to do some last minute shopping. The fantasy writer Sheridan says it was to dump some rubbish. What if going to the dump was mentioned in hindsight just in case anybody had seen her there?

If a person had incriminating evidence they would have to take a chance or the game would be up. Somehow there is a contradiction between the person being deeply traumatised by something in the morning carrying on with their tasks that afternoon like it was just another day.

That's exactly it, spot on.

Both Alfie and Shirley must have known way more than they've been saying. The police not investigating them properly only points to further police incompetence, or even corruption. But all this is no proof of anything, just a deduction, one of many.

In regards to the days prior to the murder it's not uncommon not to notice everything in minute detail as a neighbour. Alfie and Shirley will also have to have been out, done shopping, going maybe hiking etc... It's not that both were with their binoculars behind the window with intent of watching Sophie's every move, or maybe they were....

90% means he doesn't have to have any details of what was said which might sound a bit incredible. Best say that my recollection is really vague. I don't have much experience of how people react around murder scenes. It appears the best thing a perpetrator of a crime can say is that they didn't hear or see a thing. Wish I could help.

Is that right Sherlock. If, hypothetically, they had a murder weapon like a poker or an axe and wanted to get rid of it very far away, would they have driven out before notifying the Guards of the body?

God help us! you don't get the point

The car may have been the ideal place to hide evidence - the house would be more likely to be searched than the car - they could have took a risk on this. The inexperienced gardai that arrived on the scene wouldnt have had a clue what to do. The problem would have been getting the rubbish out so getting it away from the house before reporting the murder would have been ideal - she would have had to pass the body and therefore would have had to report it before disposing of the rubbish. Putting the rubbish in the car could have been genius. The rubbish was long gone before anyone experienced detectives/forensics etc arrived at the scene ( she was supposedly back on the road before 2pm). They would just see Shirley as the unfortunate woman who found the body and not a suspect. The focus would have been on the body not on Shirleys car.

There is also the possibility that there was a guard involved in this and she was told exactly what to do and ensured the car would not be checked.

Im not saying Alfie and Shirley were involved - Im just speculating - being honest I dont think they were involved. Whats amazes me in this case is the high number of people in the locality who behaved oddly around the time of this murder.

Only a fool would call the Gardaí to the scene if they had incriminating evidence in their car.

No they weren't. The body was not blocking the lane. In fact it's said in one of the documentaries that Shirley had driven past it before she stopped the car, because she didn't immediately realise what she had seen.

Also the fact that we know Shirley drove out later that day, even though the body wasn't moved until the following day, demonstrates that a car could pass. She may have even had to drive past it again going back to the house after being out later in the afternoon.

Which is all very odd, you'd imagine the trauma caused by seeing that scene would make you want to stay far away from it, not go about your business and deliberately drive past it again very shortly afterwards. But who are we to explain what goes on in the mind of someone having experienced such trauma.

Would love to know what the people Shirley interacted with that afternoon when she was out and about had to say about her demeanor.

Weigh up the risks. Incriminating evidence in your car that is almost certainly going to be searched by Gardaí at the scene versus driving out to dispose of the evidence in darkness. It wouldn`t have to be the dump.

Would they have to get rid of the poker if it came from the cottage? Why not just wipe the prints and leave it by the body?

Unless they'd been hit with it and were worried their blood was on it?