Murder at the Cottage | Sky

A number of journalists said they couldn't find it easily. One poster here said they got lost on a visit and they already knew the location. There's a number of lanes and driveways along that road, even if you find the right turn-off from the main road.

Not unusual unless you're looking hard for them.

I know from experience cutting my own hedges and brambles with shears and bare hands that small scratches that are barely noticeable on the day are often more noticeable a day or two later when they may be slightly inflamed but heal quickly.

Have you forgotten the dermatologist who examined Bailey five days after the murder and said that she did not notice any marks or injuries to his face or hands. Or is this an inconvenient truth?

Which is precisely the point.

Sophie received deeper cuts from briars.

Bailey received light scratches which would not be very visible initially, except as red lines, until they started healing and scab started to form.

I have scratched myself gardening, in the first day it's hardly noticeable. So your comment about 'scarcely credible' is completely without foundation, unless you can back it up with something.

And I return to the point, if Bailey was the murderer he could have easily concealed any incriminating scratches given the time of the year - wear gloves, cry off the xmas day swim because of a cold etc etc

And where's the forensics linking him back to the murder scene if he got the injuries there? Nowhere to be found - and they were looked for.

The closer you look at the scratches, as the DPP has done, it's clear they do not implicate Bailey to the murder.

"By someone given straightforward directions"

A hitman calling into the local post office perhaps

This only further detracts from what little evidential value the sketches of the scratches might have had.

Could Garda Kelleher's and O'Leary's memories have been subject to the same revisionism that turned a short, sallow complexioned person seen in Schull's main Street into a 6'4" pale complexioned person? Their description is inconsistent with that of the dermatologist who saw Ian Bailey on the 28th December.

THis did not happen either. Marie Farrell initially said he was 5ft10. Her description changed to taller than a certain gard who happened to be 5ft11. Her description was always sallow complexion. That did not change.

Regarding the sallow complexion, if you look at video footage of Ian Bailey taken around that time, in my opinion, he has a sallow complexion.

Get off the high horse. I was going through my timeline picking out the people who saw the scratches and forgot there was one on the 22nd who saw one scratch, in among all the others who saw no scratches.

The DPP report discredits nothing and I should point out, he misses out at least two people who DID see scratches in that time period.

Not to mention, we have Jules, Saffi, Ginny and Bailey himself who claim he did have scratches but he got them on the afternoon of the 22nd rather than the night of the 22nd.

Regarding the DNA on the briars, I can't make out what you are saying about it.

You ask "where was the blood, clothing fibres and hair samples of anyone other than Sophie"

1. Someone definitely killed Sophie and that person did not leave behind trace evidence. That is not uncommon. In fact, that is what is most common in similar murders.
2. It's an outdoor scene in adverse weather conditions, which means that there are much less opportunities to collect trace evidence.
3. The killer did not interact further with the body, (hiding it, transporting it, having sex with it, masturbating on it) which gives way less opportunity for him to deposit trace evidence.
4. The weapon he used (rock, breeze block) does not retain fingerprints or DNA. In a violent stabbing, for example, crime scene techs always test for the killer's blood because often in a stabbing, the knife becomes slick with blood, the killer's hand slips on the blade and he cuts himself - OJ Simpson famously did this). If the killer used a hammer or an axe and left it at the scene, it might have yielded fingerprints or DNA.
5. Sophie was overwhelmed by someone more powerful than her. She couldn't put up much of a struggle, so the kind of evidence you would expect from a fight (skin cells under the nails, clothing fibres, hair pulled out etc) would not have been deposited.

It's the only turn off on a 1.5km stretch of road. Once you turn off the 'main' road there is nowhere else to go. There are no lanes or driveways along the cul de sac. It is very easy to find with very simple directions. If you tried you couldn't go wrong.

Possibly the lost journalists had only a vague townland as an address - I've seen it variously referred to as being Schull, Goleen, Toormore, none of which would be very helpful.

Well I'm not saying I believe Marie Farrell, I have yet to figure out what her game is. I know what she's up to in recent years. We have evidence from her friend Geraldine O'Brien that MF was expecting to get money from Bailey if he won his court case with her help. So I think I know what her post 2004 game has been. But I still don't know what she was up to at the start of all this.

Bailey appears like he could be termed sallow in the video footage from that time, especially some footage when he was with Senan Molony I think. But its up for debate.

Regarding the stranger issue. She still claims she did not know Ian Bailey at the time. Her claim is that she was given a video of the Swim to watch at home and she did not recognize Bailey but her husband did. THat's what she is claiming since 2004, not before.

Note: If we can prove Bailey couldn't be the killer, I am happy to do it. I just want to satisfy myself that he did it or he didn't do it. I think there is reason to be suspicious of him, but I have obviously not seen anything that convinces me he is the killer.

Scabs start to form within hours. Practically everyone who had dealings with Bailey after the murder noticed scratches on his hands. To say this has no bearing on him as a suspect is ridiculous and you know it. If he did get the scratches climbing the tree then you would expect them on the palms and underside of his forearms as well, they were only on the top of his hands and forearms.

They were noticed by gardai as he paid for something in a shop. He said that if he were guilty he would have hidden the scratches from the gardai but they way they tell it they called to the house unannounced and he was gardening with his sleeves rolled up.

I believe she originally said about 5'8" and was talked up to 5'10" - 5'11" and this became 6'4"-ish. Leading the evidence in a certain direction destroys it's impartiality. It's beyond credulity that a much slighter build, 5'8" - around the same height as her husband, sallow person could be mistaken for a 6'4" much stockier built, lighter complexioned person.

No... In recent years she CLAIMS her initial estimate was 5ft8, but that means you would have to believe she is telling the truth NOW.

Her statement went from 5ft10 to "taller than that gard" (who was 5ft11). She never, as far as I can see, said 6ft4. Maybe you're mixed up when you read it. Bailey is 6ft4. But I have no source where MF said 6ft4.

Do they visibly scab, over light scratches, within hours? Source?

You are contradicting yourself. He would have covered them up but was seen the next day with scratches by multiple witnesses.

So when was he seen gardening and how is it relevant?

If he had covered up the days after the murder ... Guards would have had no reason to call unannounced.

Doesnt add up.