Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

"That`s typical Ian Bailey dark humor"

Which even Yvonne Ungerer acknowledges. Ask yourself this. Why would Yvonne say that if she was really out to get Bailey?

So why has she never said that she knew him? Wouldn`t it have fit snugly in with her whole garda pants dropping , coercing narrative? Why hasn`t Bailey ever said "Of course she knew me!"? Why, when it was clearly Bailey who was on the Airhill Road that morning, did she not just state "The man I saw on the Airhill Road was Ian Bailey"? Of course she didn`t know him.

Here is the interesting point. It wasn't right from the get go, but a while later. What prompted this, I / we all don't know, can only speculate about. Maybe because they needed a patsy, maybe because he was English, maybe because of his personality.

I'd say, if push came to shove, Bailey would have outsmarted the Guards in South West Ireland by far, he would by any rate have had the higher IQ, even managed a law degree, as far as I know. Bailey's problem is or was his drinking and his personality. It's comparatively easy to build a case for a patsy on that, especially in the society of rural Ireland back then.

I don`t need anything explained to me thanks very much. You were one of those that ridiculed me over some remarks I made several pages back about what Marie had stated to GSOC. But my interpretation was correct and your failure to comprehend that what she was saying to GSOC was different to what she said in her initial statements 16 years earlier, quite frankly bordered on being juvenile. I didn`t make a big deal about it at the time because you don`t seem to be a nasty sort.

She may well have been pressurized by gardaí to say that the man outside her shop and at Kealfada was Bailey, but that will never get away from the reality that the man she saw on the Airhill Road almost certainly was Bailey and the gardaí did not know at the time she made that first statement that he was there that morning. As far as can be ascertained, she still to this day maintains that the three sightings were of the same man.

I suspect Marie pops in here from time to time to read what everyone says about her. Like Bailey, she just can`t help herself. I suspect and predict that at some future point she will give an interview and say something along the lines of "I now accept that the man I saw on the Airhill Road was Ian Bailey. However, on mature recollection and reflection, I accept that this was not the man I saw outside my shop and at Kealfada Bridge." No doubt Jim Sheridan and Ian Bailey will be delighted. She may even say "I would also like to put on the record that I actually did know Ian Bailey before I made any contact with gardaí."

I for one will not be believing her.

"So you are saying you believe some of what Marie Farrell said..."

Well I believe that she saw Bailey that Sunday morning because he was on that road at the approximate stated time and the gardaí didn`t discover that he was there until a couple of weeks after she made that statement. Therefore they couldn`t have coerced her to say that. This also undermines her own withdrawal of her identifying of Bailey as the man from the three sightings because the man in the second sighting was Bailey.

"and you believe she is a liar for the bits you don`t like"

No. I question everything else she says. But in terms of probability the shop sighting is far more credible than the Kealfada one.

I too suspect she may have been in bed that night. I think the gardaí may have suspected this also. She is just a sideshow now, but at the time she served a purpose. When Jules Thomas was confronted with the reality that there was a witness who put Bailey at Kealfada Bridge, she changed her story and the truth came spilling out. He wasn`t in bed all night, he got up not long after they got home from the pub and the little sojourn on Hunts Hill. And it didn`t stop there.....

"The two of us then went home and there was very little said except some words to the effect that he was going over later or sometime, if I wanted to go, and I said I was too tired. I got the impression that he was going over to Alfie`s but I wasn`t sure if it was that night or not"

Bailey was told that Jules was changing her story and he became a bit more forthcoming...

"Some time after going to bed, I got up. I did a bit of writing in the kitchen. I then went down to the studio, I am not sure what time it was, but it was dark"

She didn`t see him again until the morning....

" I saw a scratch on his forehead. I am sure and I have no recollection of seeing this scratch on his forehead on the Sunday. The scratch was raw and I asked him what happened as it was fresh and a bit bloodied and he said he got it from a stick."

"So why bother telling corrupt Guards the story of having been to the Studio?"

Because he knew that one of Jules`s daughters came home later that night and didn`t see him in the kitchen writing his article.

He could have said the moon was made of cheese. A number of contributors here would agree that it must be true and list reasons why we should accept it as fact.

I assume one the posters you are talking about here is me. I will tell you where I stand - I believe there is a small chance Bailey could be guilty. I also believe there were alot of other characters in West Cork and a husband in France who should have been investigated but were not for some unknown reason. When you look at motive Bailey is actually least likely. I cant see how the drunk fool could have left no evidence, how he could have cleaned himself and composed himself to be back at the murder scene the next morning. He lived with a houseful of people that Christmas who noticed nothing unusual.

Just because Bailey was on the Airhill Rd 24 hrs before the murder, left the bed he shared with Jules on the night of the murder and had scratches on his hand does not mean he is a murderer though. You seem happy to convict him of murder just on these 3 pieces of information alone.

If he is an innocent man his life has been ruined by this - he very well could be another victim in this case.

"I also believe there were a lot of other characters in West Cork and a husband in France who should have been investigated but were not for some unknown reason."

Who told you they weren`t investigated?

"I can`t see how the drunk fool could have left no evidence, how he could have cleaned himself and composed himself to be back at the murder scene the next morning."

Well I can and there are a couple of possibilities. The motive would have been rejection. Reject a narcissist at your peril. In the case of a non-violent narcissist you will make an enemy for life who will forever stare daggers at you and bitch about you behind your back. But reject a violent narcissist and you will be under physical threat.

If he did it, there are two scenarios. He saw her that Saturday and knew she was home. He went over there, she rejected him, he lost the plot but got lucky with forensics. The later clean up would have been straightforward. He took care of that at the studio. The other scenario sees him approach her in the village, she rejected him, maybe rejected his poetry, he was bent on revenge and got his opportunity two nights later. Pre-meditated and prepared not to leave a trace of himself at the scene. A lot of his thought processes were betrayed under the influence of alcohol by the drive up Hunts Hill, the longing to go over to Alfie`s, the premonition. Similarly afterwards the confessions came when drink was taken. It`s not rocket science.

Irrespective if it was sexual rejection or some other form of rejection, the problem I keep seeing with "the Bailey and rejection theory" is that the time frame for that would have been very very short and time in-between rather long. Sophie would have been at her house only for a very short time in any given year. I also don't know if Bailey even knew when she was there, maybe only found out by accident how often she visited her house?

What would Bailey make wanting to wait for, suppose, 6 to 8 months, to meet a woman and demand something, possibly something sexual, to get rejected?

Or was there some other connection between Bailey and Sophie we don't know of? A job? A freelance contract? Him doing some artistic work for her? and that not happening?

I meant no DNA, no fingerprints in terms of evidence.

The Gardai were apparently not allowed investigate the French side. The neighbours were ruled out straight away without investigation it seems. Marie Farrells invisible man has never been questioned or found. There seems to have been a blind eye shown to local drug dealers that Sophie made complaints about. A travel agent in Galway said a french guy came into his office to book flights - he told him he had come from cork and was agitated - He reported this but apparently the Gardai never followed up. A son of a local prominent family legged it abroad days after the murder and allegedly has never returned home since. It would appear that the Gardai made up their minds that it was the irritating English drunk and never bothered investigating anyone else.