Murder at the Cottage | Sky

I agree with you about the first part. Bailey's penchant for domestic abuse does not indicate he is guilty of murder, as the DPP said. But it shows a pattern of behaviour and indicates he is a man who can become violent, as Jules said, in a flash. This is consistent with the type of person we would expect the killer to be.

But the Ungerers' bondage interest doesn't relate to the murder of Sophie. It's something people use to try and make them seem suspicious. If indeed our killer was motivated by an interest in bondage, the crime scene would be very different and so would the method of murder.

Are you trying to say Alfie murdered his family?

I think the explanation of the "disappearing dog" is that Alfie was minding a dog for a friend. By the time of the murder, he was no longer minding the dog.

There was never a mystery with Marie Farrell We are expected to believe that on Saturday she is working in a shop when a quite distinctive woman comes in to browse and notices someone across the road skulking and later apparently stalking this woman. On Monday the news goes around like wildfire that there has been a murder and definitely by Tuesday, Marie will have realised the murdered woman is very likely the woman who came into her shop. It doesn't matter what kind of issues she has had with the Guards, anybody would have gone sprinting to the Garda station because they know something. But she waits to give this information anonymously a week or two later? FFS. They(her Garda coaches) had to add in Kealfadda bridge when they realised how idiotically unlikely it sounded. I grew up in Ireland where people would joke about how thick and stupid Guards were, but obviously the feeling was mutual.

Ian was not plucked from obscurity to become the prime suspect. And Ian was a suspect long before Marie Farrell jumped in. He was one of many suspects.

Marie Farrell spoke to gards on Dec 25th and gave her first 2 sightings of the mysterious man in black. (Outside her shop on 21st and on the road 22nd) She did not identify him.

Ian was nominated as a suspect on 1996 Dec 27th, by three separate gards, due to his behaviour at the crime scene (on 21st), his behaviour at the newsagents (on 27th), the scratches on his hands and face, and his previous form for the extreme assault of his partner, Jules. Also on the 27th, a gard visited Marie Farrell and got a description of the man she had seen outside her shop.

On the 28th, they got French police to interview Bruno Carbonnet in France. Also on the 28th they gave Marie Farrell a tape of the Swim Meet and asked if she recognized anyone on it. She said she didn't.

1996 Dec 31st, two gards went out to question Ian at The Prairie

1997 Jan 2nd, Notation in garda job book indicates Ian Bailey is "Suspect Number 7".

It was not until after Marie Farrell rang the gards as "Fiona" on 1997, January 11th that Ian Bailey became the main suspect.

Don't forget that Ian himself gave false statements about his whereabouts around the time of the murder and gave his alleged "confessions" to various people and that was why he was arrested on 1997 February 10th. Remember, when the gards went out to see him on 10th Feb, they interviewed him first about his whereabouts around the time of the murder and then they arrested him.

Also, just to clarify, Ian did not "volunteer" his DNA. He was asked to provide a sample and he complied. The DPP claims this is evidence of innocence. I disagree. You'll find many, many, many cases in which the murderer is asked for his DNA and provides a sample and then that DNA convicts him.

LOL. I explained the timeline. You can make what you want of it.

The point I was making is that Bailey was one of several suspects initially, even though Marie Farrell had already made her initial statements.

The gards continued to investigate other suspects.

Ian became the main suspect after 11 Jan.

I don't believe she is a garda "plant" because it wouldn't make sense in the timeline and even now that she is helping Bailey, she is still testifying that she saw a man in black in all 3 locations (shop,road,kealfadda). The only change is she says "it wasn't Bailey".

And if she is a garda plant and they "planted" the 3rd sighting of the man in black, why is she still maintaining that sighting, even though she is at odds with the gards now and, accoording to Bailey, telling the truth now.

Also if she is a garda plant, why is she telling Geraldine O'Brien that she will receive money from Bailey?

(NOTE: I am not defending MF or saying her sightings are accurate. Just trying to sort the fact from the fiction)

Marie Farrell claims (according to GSOC) she initially thought it was a hit and run on the 23rd and when she found out it was a murder, she recognized Sophie's picture and went to the gards on the 25th, giving them the 2 sightings (shop 21st and road 22nd)

She gave the 3rd sighting (kealfadda) anonymously on 11 Jan.

Too many facts. Not enough fantasy?

I don't think there is enough evidence to bring him to trial or even to say whether he did it or not.

I think there is evidence against him and I think he is a suspect.

I'm just trying to work out for myself what happened in this case.

For instance, if I was satisfied that Ian had a bonfire on the 26th and is lying about it, that would convince me that he is guilty. But it wouldn't lead to a murder conviction in court.

Bailey's off-road trek suggested by foster was done on his assumed second visit to the crime scene, late morning.

It did not entail a trek from the Prairie cottage, but from the Kealfada road, about a kilometre.

His supposed initial journey to the scene, if walked by road from the studio would have taken about an hour.

I don't know why driving the route was ruled out, unless Jules daughter saw the car when she arrived home late .

I can't recall seeing that anywhere.

For what it's worth, I do believe Bailey Baily was at the scene that morning before noon, but he did not murder Sophie.

(Replying to Evergreen_7)

How much blood do you think the killer would get on himself? Not as much as you would think.

He was hitting her with a rock standing up and then she was on the ground for most of it. When you beat someone with a rock (or some similar weapon), the blood you will get on yourself is from castoff - drops of blood cast off the weapon as you're raising it up to strike another blow. There would have been some blood spatter probably when the rock hit her head also. So the killer would have had some blood on him, but would not have been "covered in blood" or have enough so that it would be dripping off him.

If you saw him and he was wearing dark clothes, at night, you wouldn't even notice the blood on him.

I believe they found a blood drop on a stone on the route Sophie would have gone when she was fleeing from her door to the gate. This would probably be a drop falling from Sophie as she ran, bleeding from an initial wound. Not sure about this. Someone may correct me.

The night of the murder was a full moon... Well actually the moon would have been completely full on the next night. So it was a well-lit night. We have many witnesses, neighbors and others, who say Bailey would often go out walking in the area in the middle of the night. Sometimes even in his underwear, sometimes howling at the moon.

I agree with you. Often that can tip police off to a suspect - If someone gets rid of their car soon after a murder like this. It indicates they are worried about the forensic evidence. If our killer got to the scene via car, he would very likely have transferred Sophie's blood to the car.

We know Bailey had no car of his own, but had access to Jules' car. I don't remember reading anything about the police examining that car.

Personally, I don't think the killer arrived by car. I think on foot is more likely. If you ask an FBI "profiler" about this type of murder - this type of very violent beating murder - they will tell you: 1. Usually, this type of killer doesn't travel far to commit this type of murder and 2. Usually the killer is under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

Maybe you should ask a real FBI profiler that question because what you've said doesnt sound very FBI.

"I think it's quite plausible that this occurred." Is that right? And there's you trying to come across all reasonable. You're agreeing with Foster who says that on the Kealfadda road where it rises from the last two houses before Sophie's lane, Bailey knows that he will be able to cut his way through briars and brambles on to a miraculous clear pathway, that climbs, which it must in a wide arc, around the scene of the crime to the back of the Richardsons house all to hopefully take a few photos or grab something from the body. Jules of course is an accomplice in all this waiting the hour to two it takes him to do the round trip, never to mention it again? And why wouldn't she? It's not against the law to do something so perfectly daft.

I wonder about a lot of people here if they ever so much as walked across a field in Ireland to know just how absurd this all is. I've a bit of advice for people if they look up at what appears to be bare rock in the low hills around west Cork and think that'd be lovely for a pleasant walk. And this is in sunny summertime. Be well prepared to go sinking up to your knees in boggy ground that you find yourself in the middle of, regretting you hadn't doubled back sooner. That's the least of your worries with the jumping over dips in your jagged rocky path leaving you in no doubt that it would be no fun crawling back down with a broken leg. By comparison to this intrepid journalist's trek, Bailey's moonlight naked dancing is perfectly normal.

There is nothing physically stopping them from taking an alternative route to the crime scene. It's improbable, but not impossible.

Jules had long lens camera equipment, she would only need a higher vantage point to zoom in for pictures, no need to be going through the briars or bog at all....

Bailey had a head start on the case because he was local, all the tabloids are looking for pictures and information before the presses roll.. You don't think that thought hadn't crossed Bailey's mind??

As stated above, it's improbable, but not impossible.

A journalist bending a few rules (and morals) to get a money shot is not an absurd suggestion, it's more than quite plausible actually.

In the oldest maps available online, the approach to Alfie and Sophie's houses was originally from the west, not the east. The road from the east was closed off near the houses, once the gardai had arrived. It's likely you could still trace the track from the west on foot.

Another thing to remember is that Ian did gardening work for Alfie and didn't have a car, so unless he was being dropped off and picked up every single day, or Jules gave him the car each day, he would probably have become familiar with the landscape routes and tracks.