Murder at the Cottage | Sky

If you're talking about four witnesses.

There is Alife Lyons of the "90% sure" I may have introduced them very briefly in the garden one day. Whatever 90% sure means. Sounds like covering himself in case he is contradicted.

One of them is Leo Bolger of the suspiciously light sentence for serious drug dealing and the suspiciously vivid recollection of a casual introduction.

Two of them in France miraculously remembered years later some connection when it was convenient for the French authorities ... not when Sophie was murdered, not when Ian Bailey was arrested. Yeah right.

And regardless she did not know him in the personal sense. I don't consider I know someone who I was v briefly introduced to in a semi-professional capacity. The strongest that could be said is that she knew who he was, if Alfie's "90% sure" testimony is to be believed.

There is zero evidence of any personal contact by Bailey with Sophie - no letters, phone calls, nobody saw them alone together, not a shred.

Zero evidence to support the idea she knew him well enough to open the door to him at 3am aside from general principles of opening to door to someone in an emergency.

Murders tend to be brutal. In 2019 a 64-year-old farmer with no previous convictions killed his 73-year-old neighbour by driving the pronged forks of a teleporter into his car. That was a neighbourhood squabble. People go out of their way to make sure that there isn't proof lying around so to say there's no proof is ridiculous. There is far more probability that Alfie and Shirley did it than anybody else. But people seem to be reluctant to ask the kind of questions that should have been asked. Like how come they stayed around the scene when they realised that there was a murderer about and they might be next? Why did they both go to Sophie's house when a glance would have told anyone that she was the victim? f

For all that Bailey's supposed returning to the scene of the crime is a classic trait of a murderer so is attempting to contact a person you know to be dead because you have killed them but it makes you appear innocent.

You will bend over backwards to make your case. The Guards fingerprinted and took hair from people. One can presume that they had DNA and fingerprints from around the scene but obviously it isn't much use if it's from someone who had reason to be there. So stop being silly.

I am making no assertions like you are in the case of Bailey. I am asking people to consider everything within reason about people who were in the immediate vicinity of the murder. I'm happy it makes you uncomfortable.

Anytime I've seen him interviewed, he says quite the opposite..

@tibruit I understand you're selective about what you'll answer but anyway. If the DPP's first report is very persuasive in accepting the truthfulness of what Ian Bailey says he was doing on the day of the murder and Shirley contradicts him, she is mistaken about something that would prove to be damning for Bailey. Why would she persist with her version of events knowing how serious it was?

Bailey went to visit Alfie 4 days after the murder, according to earlier reports on the thread.

use search: "murder at the cottage" briquettes

Yes, that's it in a nutshell

"Director of Public Prosecutions Eamonn Barnes said that the evidence ‘came nowhere near’ warranting a charge against Mr Bailey and that the case was ‘thoroughly flawed and prejudiced’ in relation to the former journalist.

I wonder if the wells and septic tanks were searched for the houses in the immediate area?

"There was no brutal murders in Schull before Sophies, and none since... This has all the hallmarks of a one off event".

This is the key for me. The Gardai said that the murderer must be charged as they were likely to re-offend again. This was one of their arguments for arresting Bailey.

So if it was Bailey, why has he never murdered anyone since (or before as far as we know) since the Gardai were so sure that he would do it again?

Maybe it was just a case of

With the amount of media, garda, and public attention on Ian Bailey after the event is it really any surprise there was no other murders since.

Do you think the murderer is still alive? I don't know if there exists a concept in Psychology where those guilty of crimes convince themselves they are in fact innocent and I don't mean just lying about or denying their involvement. It must take it's toll eventually both mentally and physically. This could be the case with Bailey. True, you could never compare him with the likes of Dwyer who is a truly evil narcissist. Bailey is just a sad.drunken loser who ,more than likely, committed a brutal killing in a single moment of madness he will never repeat in his life.

Its kinda of hard to murder someone when you have a couple of detectives following you everywhere you go. Also it's seems according to the west Cork podcasts that Ian cleaned up his act a bit after the murder. Stopped drinking whiskey which according to Jules turned him into a lunatic and the reason he beat the crap out of her. Interesting that he was drinking whiskey in the pub that night Sophie was killed.

Wouldn't matter to someone driven by a 'compulsion', their own safety or getting caught wouldn't come into it.

I guess without the whiskey to warm him up, he wasn't up to the midnight cross country treks in search of victims and the washing off the blood in ice cold water. The demon drink has a lot to answer for.

What utter nonsense.

Call it nonsence if you want. These are the words of Jules and Ian themselves. They both admit he was a different person with whiskey in him. He couldn't handle it.