Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

1747577798097

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭tibruit




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭tibruit


    When you got there in the end, how did you know which house it was?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,297 ✭✭✭Count Dracula


    I watched Jim Sheridan's doc and I was shocked at how odd and creepy Bailey is.

    I still don't believe he did it though.

    It fascinates me how there was blood on the wrong side of the back door. Also it is a long way from where her body was found.

    I do think about her murder being premeditated. I don't think it was an accident, i don't think he had the cop on to clean the scene and why was she 200 yards from her gaff in night clothes and i think no shoes? Am i wrong here?

    She has gone down to the gate with the perpetrator for whatever reason and been murdered.

    Is it possible her murderer tried to rape her and then she ran from the house and he chased her down the road and killed her? It has to be?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,836 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    Easy, there’s been pictures of it all over the press an tv for the last 1/4 century.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    Daytime. Also I've seen the pictures often enough.

    Any killer who wasn't local would probably have been to the area in daytime to get his bearings.

    The question would only have been how, and not been noticed. I'd say any car out of the ordinary would have been noticed with ease, or not, if the killer was lucky.

    Both Alfie and Shirley's house as well as Sophie's house would come in view first. They would also see any car approaching, or anybody loitering around, and the Richardson's house is more secluded from the road, - comes into view the last.

    Having said that, the killer could also have parked the car somewhere, and staked out the area on foot.

    Post edited by tinytobe on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,836 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    Look, @tinytobe You went there in daylight and recognised the house because you had seen pictures of it.

    Now rewind a bit, a killer who did not know the area would not have that advantage, so, as you say yourself, would have had to familiarise himself with the area in broad daylight and expose himself to being noticed. You saw the area yourself and I can assure you your visit was noticed, your car, how long you hung about for, what you looked like, and this in an a area that has seen a lot of comings and goings in the last 25 years. Prior to the murder any visitor like you would be noticed, believe me.

    And where pray would a stranger park up a strange car around there to 'stake out the area' on foot?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    I think you're overthinking this. Also there is the element of luck.

    If the killer was hired and not local, he would at least have gathered the following information:

    • he would have either had a description or a picture of the house. Even a description without a picture would have been possible, as Sophie's house looks distinctly different.
    • the likelihood of Sophie being out and about during the day is rather high, plus her car would be visible if she was home. ( and she rarely parked behind the house, but visibly in front of the house)
    • Alfie and Shirley were certainly not always watching who would come and go, as the only risk or element of luck.
    • parking a car at any free space at the entrance of the road to these 3 houses would hardly have been noticed, another hiker parked there, nothing out of the ordinary.
    • any hike off road and hiding somewhere, while taking a look, binoculars et all, also no problem.
    • he would have noticed soon that the Richardsons were not home.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭tibruit


    Just to sum up then. You "didn`t find it straight away". In fact, you took "two or three wrong turns". Yet you went there in daylight after consulting a map and seeing a number of photos of the place.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    I think this kind of conversation is a bit pointless.

    Taking two or three wrong turns isn't unusual, it may only set you back 30 to 45 minutes. The killer could easily have done the same thing and returned at night.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,531 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    Just to sum up then. Someone with only a vague idea of the area the house is in and a publicly available picture of the house could find it after a few false turns.

    You only need to take two turns on the road to get there. Someone who had been there before or someone who had never been there but was given directions would have no problem finding it.

    I've never been there but I'm confident I could get there without any mistakes just using a few short written instructions (just two turns from Schull) and my car's trip meter or odometer.

    I don't know why so many people perpetuate the myth that because somewhere is remote, it is difficult to find. If anything it makes it easier because there are fewer choices.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    Yep, that's it. Just a few written instructions and you'll find it.

    Also, good maps were widely available back then. People were known to have had the ability to read maps, not like today's generation, especially the younger ones. ( my irony )

    Ordnance maps from Ireland, but also the French Michelin maps are very exact showing the narrowest roads.

    Some people are infatuated with the idea that the house is so remote, can't be found or if at all only with extreme difficulty, and thus try to make a case that the killer must have been a local.



  • Registered Users Posts: 369 ✭✭sekiro


    Yeah, it doesn't sit right with me this myth that only a local could have found the house. Obviously, people are able to find their way to any place that is connected by a road to another road.

    I don't like it because it feels like the Garda pushed this line and the only reason to really do that is to exclude anyone from the French side and also to exclude any chance it was a random act of violence from a stranger. Basically, it MUST be a local and it MUST be someone she knew because nobody else could possibly even find the house. It's such faulty logic but for some reason we must persist with it.

    Of course, this logic doesn't work the same way when we paint the area as a place where "everybody knew everybody else and everyone knew each others business and it was too hard to keep any secrets" but then also want to argue that Marie didn't instantly recognize the mysterious man as IB and that she was driving around with some witness guy in her car and nobody knows who that was either.



  • Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭elacsap


    That last para is pure class, sekiro



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭tibruit


    " Basically, it must be a local and it must be someone she knew because nobody else would possibly even find the house. It's such faulty logic...."

    Nah. You`ve just come up with a makey uppy narrative that isn`t based on any reality. It is possible that this was a hit carried out by a Frenchman who came over and meticulously planned the murder and made it look like the act of a local madman. In fact at the outset of the investigation the gardaí were very much focused on a French connection. But sure isn`t anything possible? There could have been a whole team of assassins hiding out under camouflage two fields away waiting for the perfect moment to strike. Just because something is possible doesn`t make it probable. No crime profiler would say that this was a hit by a third party, which makes it highly improbable that a non local went up there with murder on their mind.

    "but then also want to argue that Marie didn`t instantly recognize the mysterious man as IB"

    She was only in the area for a year. She says she didn`t know him....he says he didn`t know her. They clearly didn`t know each other. Why even bring this up again?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,134 ✭✭✭jimwallace197


    Its a highly unusual crime in a unusual location, the probability that the murder was committed by either someone unusual or in an unusual manner is in fact highly probable in itself. Whats actually improbable though is that the town drunk went up there, murdered her in that fashion, left no DNA evidence, reported on it the next day, never gave one hint of committing the murder to his partner. You've just come up with a lazy narrative that you've consistently tried to push labelling anyone who doesnt agree with it conspiracy theorists.

    Care to back up your assertion that no crime profiler would back up that this hit was by a third party?? Do you fancy yourself as one or something.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    The problem is that the Guards didn't investigated in every direction, also they were all corrupt. Same as the people they used and coerced like Marie Farrell and Martin Graham.

    I also neither buy the story that a drunk Bailey hiked for one hour to kill Sophie leaving absolutely no DNA nor the story that it could only have "logically" been a local due to the remote location of the house.

    It could have been anybody, local or not local, Bailey or a hired hitman, or somebody muscling in on some drug racket.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,134 ✭✭✭jimwallace197


    Yes, absolutely, the tunnel vision that the gards developed relatively early on in the investigation contributed to this crime not being solved. Nobody on this thread or the other one has ever 100% ruled out bailey but more so questions the motives behind the local gards going so vehemently against him & then the methods they used in trying to frame him. Its disgusting frankly and to think of some of those gards are still on pensions from the state that we all pay for, sickens me to a degree.

    The case is highly unusual from a number of respects & its not surprising it has attracted the attention that it has. To take a simplistic view on it, the gards had pretty much zero evidence on the person they thought committed it, then they used illegal means to get this evidence, all the while wasting valuable time & resources could have been put into finding the real perpetrator



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    It still surprises me that this "how can you find this place without a sat nav" is still going on

    how did sophie find it? she was n't there much surely she would have forgotten all those twists and turns



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    Considering all the energy the Guards put into covering up and corrupting the case, I'd say it was a Guard. A Guard they all knew and they all tried to cover up for him, for whatever reason. But that behavior they portrayed would almost certainly suggest the possibility it was one of them.

    In terms of motive, I'd say the highest financial motive is still the husband hiring the hitman to avoid a costly divorce. How he exactly went about it, who contacted whom, how the payment was done to cover up all possible tracks, is all speculation. However it could have been possible if one wanted and planned.

    The motive about drugs and Sophie knowing something or having seen something is also a strong one. However whoever was into drug trafficking on the Mizen head peninsula certainly wasn't rich or stood to lose a lot of money. Maybe avoiding a jail sentence would have been it?

    The sexual motive, is possible, however who would wait for 5 months for Sophie to visit her country home, just for a sexual encounter. Must have been pretty desperate.

    Also, why is Bailey always mentioned together with a sexual motive? Bailey had Jules, so why wait for Sophie to visit Ireland? Could Bailey have had a different motive that would have made him hike for one hour kill Sophie and hike back? - and that under the influence of alcohol?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,134 ✭✭✭jimwallace197


    Well, Ive long felt it was a senior gard in the area because its hard to believe the lengths the local police went to, to either mess up the investigation or lose vital evidence. Like for example, who's to know that there was no proper DNA evidence at the scene, we're taking the gards word for that. But alas, ive been labelled a garda hater by the usual suspects because of stating the obvious. Not to mention they either discarded or lost one of the most vital pieces of evidences she was killed beside which was the GATE ffs. How on earth do you discard or lose such a large and vital piece of evidence like that??

    I mean, as I've pointed out before, where would you get this type of cover up from a murder as brutal as this in most places in the world. Someone in a position of authority, somebody with influence and also representing an organisation that needs to keep its nose clean. Doesnt take an Einstein to figure it out.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    That is Bungey protecting his own podcast. Why should people believe him over Foster? it's all "he said, she said" now.. Bungey says the man never spoke to Foster. Foster says the man did. No reason any of them be set up as the right one



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭tibruit


    "Whats actually improbable though is that the town drunk went up there,"

    Nothing improbable about that at all.

    "murdered her in that fashion"

    Nothing improbable there either

    "left no DNA"

    We don`t know that he left no DNA. They just didn`t find any. There`s a difference.

    "reported on it the next day"

    Well he didn`t have a choice really and he was on the lookout for a gig.

    "never gave one hint of committing the murder to his partner"

    That is only based on your faith in Jules and her faith in Bailey. The fact is Jules has no idea what he was up to that night he went missing for several hours from her bed. She chooses to believe him. You seem to think that it would be impossible for Bailey to have committed this murder without Jules knowing he did it. Not impossible at all. Google BTK. In this case Jules was the roof over his head and was providing a fairly comfortable existence for him. So while he threw out plenty of hints to people that he would have considered to be beneath him, Jules would probably have been the last person he would have confessed to. Even if he did confess to her, we already know that Jules has a pretty extraordinary capacity to forgive him his sins.

    "You`ve just come up with a lazy narrative that you`ve consistently tried to push labelling anyone who doesn`t agree with it conspiracy theorists"

    I don`t do lazy narrative. I also don`t consider most of those here that disagree with me to be conspiracy theorists. But you are a classic conspiracy theorist. Your thinking is warped by your hatred of the gardaí. Your posts drip with disdain to the point where you refuse to spell the word guard/garda properly after all this time. We both know you can if you want to.

    "Care to back up your assertion that no crime profiler would back up that this hit was by a third"

    Of course not. You are asking me to prove a negative, which is impossible. It`s like asking for proof that God doesn`t exist. If, on the other hand you are aware of an authoritative figure who has suggested this murder has the hallmarks of a hit, then I`m all ears.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,499 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Crinklewood


    Back in the nineties I'm guessing confirmation of the house could have been via. a Polaroid photo.


    If you wanted to be sure you could arrange a late night phone call to the house and wait for a light in the house to turn on.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭tibruit


    Dunno really. I think she was more a social media campaign co-ordinator than penpal in fairness. The throw lots of mud and hope some of it sticks type. It was fun while it lasted.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,297 ✭✭✭Count Dracula


    Christmas time would be a good opportunity for someone not local to go unnoticed. Everywhere is busy and there is lots going on. Even in a small rural area people are running around getting prepped for Xmas day.

    I still think Ian Bailey is almost like a red herring in this mystery.

    He is such a weirdo, but the fact that he has dogmatically stayed down there professing his innocence speaks volumes to me. In twenty years he has had plenty of opportunities to get out of dodge, he hasn't. I find it a compelling case for his innocence. 20 years is different to say a few months or a year to save face. As a British citizen he would be safer back in the UK. He could have spent 3-4 years there and been typing editorials for the Marthas Vineyard Chronicle by now. That is what the real murderer has done I think, got the phuck out of town, most likely around Christmas 20 years ago.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    excellent post especially third last para. spot on



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭tinytobe



    Hate is the opposite of like, and nobody likes a corrupt and bent Guard. The lengths of of corruption would point to a local Guard with seniority or influence or a higher rank. I don't think it could have been the work of a low rank junior officer, it must have been someone higher and local and influence and direction/responsibility over others.

    I've often felt, that it's also highly unlikely that the killer left no DNA, no traces at all, at this sort of a crime unless he was a real professional. This automatically brings up the thought that the DNA evidence was tampered with, fake items were examined or sent over to the UK for examination, nothing was found..... This could only have been done with the interference of a bent Guard.

    It's probably easy to corrupt and mess up all the other evidence, but it's hard to mess up and lose a whole gate, hence the reason, why the gate may have disappeared completely?

    Don't get me wrong, I would never exclude Bailey as a suspect. However to me he's just suspect.

    Yes he could have done it. Yes, there is a long time for Bailey which is unaccounted for that night and where he clearly has no alibi at all.

    But what would really have been his motive? What would have made him hike for 1 hour in darkness to Sophie's?

    Would it really have been sex? Other than sex, it's hard to consider any motive for Bailey at all.

    He may have met Sophie once or twice, may have been introduced to her, however his contact with her, if there was any at all, certainly wasn't a long one.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,836 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    Of course, this logic doesn't work the same way when we paint the area as a place where "everybody knew everybody else and everyone knew each others business and it was too hard to keep any secrets"

    The locality in question ,where everyone knew everyone else and their business, would be small, Dreenane, Dunmanus West and over to Dunmanus East. Bailey lived 4km away so wouldn't be 'local'. Marie Farrell lived a further 10km away. Granted Schull is a fairly small town, but both Bailey and Farrell were "blow-ins" and probably moved in different circles, so it's quite likely neither knew the other. I maintain whoever came that night/morning and opened the gate in the lane and most probably also opened the other gate from the lane into Sophie's lawn was in the habit of doing so, and so was very familiar with that locality.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement