Murder at the Cottage | Sky

The 'main' road is a typical West Cork mountainy R road. It's a sunken boreen, with ditches on each side and taking the lowest ground between rocky outcrops of hills. Using Google Street view along its length, the houses don't appear to be visible from anywhere along the 'main' road. You would have to drive most of the way up the cul de sac before any of houses are visible.

Still bitter about me pointing out your naivety in relation to cops planting evidence?

Show us any point on a map where you think it's possible to see Alfie's house? Or maybe change the subject as is your wont.

Pay attention folks!! The trolls would discuss the scratches all day every day if they could.

They have no interest in the implications of the present investigation taking place in France.

It's well and truly sorted at this stage... Totally buried even.

People seen scratches, others seen no scratches, the guards knew this was going nowhere.

The alibi of cutting down the top of a tree & killing turkeys sufficed as a reasonable explanation at the time..

It's over 25yrs ago.. Do you think the scratch marks are going to make one jot of difference today if the case is re-investigated again??

No!

The scratches have no relevance anymore.. It's been debated a thousand times over... Logically, the alibi covered the markings. The Anti-Bailey brigade keep dragging it up to add substance to Baileys potential guilt.... And around we go again in circles.....

The scratches - They're sorted, forget about them and move on..

No actual clarity on the conflict of stick v turkey cut on head so.

Thanks for clarifying that's not "sorted" and either Jules or Ian were not telling the truth...

What alibi covers Ian's claim a stick made the cut on his head the night Sophie was murdered? Ian doesn't have an alibi iirc for the period of interest. He wasn't in bed...nor was he in the same building as Jules... He has no alibi that can be verified

What a risible load of pompous bullsh*t. You obviously don't understand the part in the documentary where prejudicial evidence is spoken about. If the prosecution, in a highly unlikely scenario tried to present scratches as evidence of something, with maybe Detective Dwyer on the stand, he would be very quickly embarrassed at being asked if he was unsure whether he was in a pub or a court of law.

• Bailey doesn't need an alibi for not being in bed on the night of the murder...
• He stated that he got up after about an hour in bed, and composed an article for the a paper. He could as easily have said he supped a bottle of whisky and passed out... It's up to him what he does in his residence, no alibi required here.
• Instead of looking for alibi's for every blemish you think you see in a man's statement, how's about providing some evidence to the contrary..? Show supporting evidence that the stick, turkey, tree, wasn't the root cause of his cuts / scratches.
• If you think Baily's marked hands are the bee all and end all of this case... You need to read the thread from the beginning. Plenty more likely suspects to consider before you come to Bailey. (A whole bunch more!)

Thats a daft viewpoint.

Jules claims Ian said the head injury was from a stick, he allegedly said that after Sophie was murdered.

He also claimed the same injury was from killing turkeys.

There is clear bullsh1t going on there, I don't need to prove anything to point that out.

Also...im referring (clearly) to a head scratch...not the hand/arm scratches. At least read my poksts prior to responding to them.

You claimed the head scratch has been put to bed.. Sorted...buried...it seemingly has not. Either Jules or Ian lied. That is 100% clear

No alibi required for time of murder but "The alibi of cutting down the top of a tree & killing turkeys sufficed as a reasonable explanation at the time.."

Ludicrous viewpoint...

The onus is on the prosecution to provide the evidence.

Your own view point is ridiculous, don't you see the holes in in??

Are you pinning a murder on a bloke because he had a cut on his head? Really?? Is that it??

Jules stated she didn't notice the cut on his forehead previously? Bailey states it was on his hairline, so his hair display of any given time could either reveal or conceal the cut... What's so hard to understand about that?

I've often gone out for a meal with the Mrs & friends, only for them to praise her new hairstyle.. (never noticed it until pointed out to me)!

You seem to be placing all your chips on the cuts and scratches.. He said this, she said that... Blah, blah, blah

The cuts and scratches have been reasonably explained away... People make honest contradictions when being pressurised by the authorities..

Jules probably didn't notice the cut on Bailey's forehead, so what?? Bailey states his hair was combed back (revealing the hairline and said cut) So what..?

Neither are lying in their statements, its what they both believe to be true. Why do you think the DPP didn't entertain it?

The cuts and scratches are dealt with. Time to move on.

The poster above me doesn't know what he's talking about.

As I said previously:

A man is suspected of rape. His DNA is found inside the victim. He gives the reasonable explanation that he had a consensual sexual encounter with her. Does that deal with his DNA? Time to move on?

DNA cases are not based on DNA alone. THey are backed up by circumstantial evidence. For example, in my hypothetical case, evidence that the rapist was not seen by anyone else having a relationship with the victim, scratches on his face/hands etc.

No evidence in any case is done and dusted,,, time to move on. It exists. It would be presented if there was ever a charge in the future.

What we have in Bailey's case is a circumstantial case that is missing a few bits. Police are hoping to fill in those bits with a cold case review.

People are so used to watching fictional crime in TV and Movies that they think they know something about it. In actual fact, the majority of murder cases are not solved by DNA. Circumstantial cases are the norm. No one piece of evidence in a circumstantial case forms the smoking gun. It is the totality of the evidence.

Its not just DNA flopsit.

Its other forensics also. Fibres etc.

And a great many cases are solved through DNA analysis. Often many after the crime.

But my central point remains; There is nothing of substance ( yet, at least) linking Bailey to this crime. As demonstrated by the DPP report.

An outsider visiting the area for the first time would have difficulty locating the DuPlantier home today let alone back in 1996. The killer was a local man living nearby - within a five kilometre radius, probably.

You just ignore Jules claims Bailey told her the morning after Sophie was murdered but before he or Jules knew about the murder that he cut his head on a stick ... But the story from him was always he cut it when killing turkeys.

I don't know if the chap is innocent or guilty ... He's still a suspect though....I was querying how the issue above was runsolved...it hasn't been.

"Neither are lying in their statements, its what they both believe to be true."

So Ian telling Jules he cut his head on a stick but telling AGS etc he cut his head killing turkeys isn't a lie? He either lied to Jules or she is lying that he said it. Or the turkey story is lies. There's definitely lies.

I'm not placing my chips anywhere. Jst querying how something was resolved as you claim it was. It seems it's not resolved.

Well, let's say on the balance of probability the killer was a long time resident of West Cork with detailed knowledge of Dreenane Toormore and it's few inhabitants rather than,say, some random foreign hitman,burglar or chancer. Which of those is the more likely scenario?

Bailey didn't cut himself on a 'stick'. Do you expect Jules to have done a forensic study on Ian after a day cutting down christmas trees and killing turkeys to match up each mark to a particular incident? You seem very certain of 'lies' for someone so uncertain of details.