Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Have we ruled out a beggar on horseback? It could explain a lot...

I understand your point. However Jules motive to talk wouldn't be about "getting off the hook", - she is not a suspect in the case. Also 25 years onwards, it's hard to believe that a judge would take her statement serious, also memory fades during such a timespan. I also believe that she was questioned extensively back then, even in custody for a while, and she would hardly state she lied back then and is now telling the truth.

Whoever did the murder got clean away. The lack of absence of evidence fuelled the speculation and the Garda's corruption, incompetence and the exclusive focus on Bailey hindered a broader approach.

From August, Jules ain't for turning..

Regarding a Garda cover-up, things are very obvious to me that they intentionally steered the investigation into a certain direction. Giving money, drugs and clothes to Martin Graham to get close to Bailey, or convincing Marie Farrell to make false whiteness statements in court, it's more than cover-up and wrong doing on behalf of the Gards, I'd say. And then none of the Gards lost their job over this? It's a bit odd, I think.

Regarding lack of evidence, it's possible that the killer never even entered Sophie's house at all, thus he could have been certain, that no evidence incriminating him later on was ever there. The laced up boots on Sophie's feet would lead to suggest that she left the house voluntarily and not in urgency, as the boots would have taken quite some time to lace up. And if the killer hit Sophie unexpectedly from behind he would not have left many marks either.

Also to date we can't be certain that the hatchet was ever really used to deliver the first blow, or where Sophie's diary went, or how it was lost. The killer could have taken it, but he could also not have. If the killer took the diary as he expected to find incriminating evidence in there, he would have destroyed it quickly as it's the only thing, together with the hatchet which could link him to the crime scene.

Yeah she denies it in the very article I linked in the post before Omega666 post

We don't know if Jules knew Sophie or not. I would largely guess that Jules just knew that the house was a holiday home for some French woman, nothing more than that. It's probably hard to keep a secret who owns what house or not in this kind of rural community.

Regarding that shed, it doesn't seem to matter if Sophie liked or disliked the idea that Alfie and Shirley owned the shed or not. The answer would have been in the maps the land registry would have kept. The only thing could have been is that the estate agent may have lied either by intention or not knowing that the shed would belong to the house Sophie bought and just stated something to please the client, close the sale and cash in on the commission. I don't think that any dispute around this could have lead to the murder as the facts regarding ownership were still supported by the land registry. Also, it's unlikely that Sophie didn't see any maps of the place, before buying, - so there must have been clarity on who owns what and where the borders of that plot of land would have been.

Let's hope it turns up some new evidence.

Checking alibis and statements now will be difficult, forensics may be the key.

I believe the concrete block will give up a new clue, it's the only thing we know for sure the killer handled, but whether it can be followed through is another thing.

'Every contact leaves a trace' no matter how miniscule, so if the block has been preserved properly evidence may be found it,

whether it's DNA or material from a glove even the smallest bit can be analysed now.

We can assume that Sophie believed it to be her property and we have been told that it 'transferred' to her son some years later. No details as to whether it was sold to him. You say "it doesn't seem to matter if Sophie liked or disliked the idea that Alfie and Shirley owned the shed or not.", but it appears to have mattered enough for her to have gone back to the estate agent about it.

What I am more interested in is whether Alfie was the person who let her know that it was his and on what basis he believed so. If it was there in black and white in the land registry, which you appear certain of for some reason, Sophie would have had no issue with Alfie. But why is it not clear about the 'sale' to her son?

Since people are prepared to speculate about some far-fetched scenarios, I think it's reasonable to wonder about the nature of the conversation where Sophie was, maybe, advised that she may have been hoodwinked when she signed for the property. It would most likely have been Alfie who told her and he might well have been sympathising with her or they might even have laughed about it; "wha'? he told you it was yours when it's actually mine. I wouldn't put it past whatshisname".

Of course Alfie might have considered selling it to Mrs. Moneybags from France. It would be great if Shirley Foster could be asked about this particular issue.

Yes what you're saying is the right approach to this.

And if they find Alfie's blood/DNA on a block that he could quite reasonably have been handling only the day before the murder we have a breakthrough?

Well, apparently Alfie's declared physical condition was such that he would not have been able to lift concrete blocks, so if he was handling it something doesn't add up (not necessarily murder!).

That block could have been holding open the gate so anybody could have touched/moved it in the years before the murder. If DNA can be found on something that was first identified as evidence 25 years ago how do we know it wasn't there from some time in the last 40?

A concrete block exposed to the elements would have DNA cells washed off \ degraded \ destroyed by rain and ultraviolet sunshine.