Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

Well that's fair enough, but realistically the Gardaí were associating the Airhill man with Bailey for a couple of weeks before they outed "Fiona". If Ceri Williams had said on her questionnaire that she was in Schull on the Saturday, I would imagine they would have been asking her did she see Bailey that day at quite an early stage in the investigation. Once Marie said it was the same man in the three sightings, then they would have been sure the Kealfada man was Bailey, even before she officially identified him.

He was a court reporter... I think you left out a few followup sentences there as an explanation because what you have so far is nonsense.

How would this come up in a court? Was someone accused of deploying such a tactic in a murder trial?

He was also supposed to have carried out this murder in an unprovoked drunken rage.

Yet has the presence of mind to think back to this...

Pull the other one.

Ever heard of 'not thinking straight'? That's just as likely to happen.

So it's not a sure thing he would have reacted like that.

Or even that would he have even realised he had blood on him?

And even if he had, there's a massive jump from there to the tactic of taking the clothes off and driving home like that.

You try to wave it away with "Oh, he was a court reporter"

You're trying to make a lot of jumps there, not convincing to me at all.

Then he would have understood the implications about getting his story right and sticking to it. He had plenty time.

Instead, he was all over the place, contradicting himself, telling lies that could be easily disproved, playing cat and mouse with the Investigators. He would have been ready, and certainly not stupid enough to sh1t outside his own back door by burning evidence there.

The question is, why burn something as burning can be smelled and seen from a distance? Why not dispose of any incriminating evidence in the ocean, off some cliff?

I suppose there's always a chance of being stopped by the Gardaí en route with the evidence.

I believe they liked to keep an eye on Ian.

By that logic that limits the possible suspects to someone in Ireland at the time who had a car, or use of a car, and burned rubbish in the week or so following the murder.

It was probably freelance work. Also people don't move to the Mizen Head for big money and career ambitions, at least not back in the mid 90ies.

Owning a scanner being able to pick up police radio was the norm for many journalists covering crime, back in the analogue days. It'll be a surprise, if Bailey didn't own a police scanner. This would always also explain, how he knew what he knew, and ahead of time.

So we all heard. Also, at this point it doesn't matter when somebody knew what, - it's matching killer to crime scene which matters, as we all know.

Yes.

Story A

Apparently, he is guilty, and he's forensics aware enough to drive in a car undressed to not contaminate the car.

But not aware enough, in winter, to wear clothes to conceal scratches he got at the murder scene... Easily done... come down with a convenient flu. Wear long clothes and hat when out and about.

But not aware enough to get rid of the incriminating clothes, just when he is out and about before any suspicion has landed on him...

But instead lights a bonfire on his property which can be seen by all and sundry.

Or

Story B

he didn't dispose of any evidence so didn't realise a bonfire would be a sign of guilt.

And, he didn't get scratched at the scene, so didn't realise he needed to conceal scratches that other would see as a sign of guilt.

Story A is not credible for me.

but would the truth not be a plausible never changing story requiring no preparation or thought.

The story with the scratches Bailey had on him is something as well.

If the scratches were from the murder site, he must have left his DNA somewhere.

If not at the murder site, then in the car, also it's a bit hard to drive somebody's car and not leaving any evidence, if one has scratches and is bleeding. Steering wheel, indicator, gear shift, etc.. and that all after several drinks in the pub.

Suppose the police stopped him that night, naked and only underwear on, reeking of booze and bleeding on his hands and partially from the face? The Guards would have known that something was odd, incompetent as they were or pretended to be.....

I don't think that's all credible, even though I would never exclude Bailey as well.

The story is told now, if it's the truth he's innocent. ie. he got up and did some work, and heard nothing until 2pm.

If it's fabricated he's likely guilty, ie. he lied and said he got up and worked and heard nothing.

It's the same story, but he'd have made a better job of it fabricating it.

The lie would have be a plausible never changing story requiring preparation and thought, which he was well capable of.

"not aware enough to wear clothes to conceal scratches."

He had an excuse for scratches. How would he explain Sophie`s blood in his car?

"Not aware enough to get rid of the incriminating clothes, just when he is out and about"

So bloodstained clothes in the car and the area swarming with Gardaí. Wow. The fire makes more sense by the minute.

One minute he can hike across West Cork by moonlight whenever he wants... next, he can't get about because he'd be stopped by Guards!

Was 'the area' swarming with Guards? He'd no way of getting past the very small area where the Guards were, to somewhere they weren't...

Why would he be stopped?

Your narrative of the murder gets less plausible with each post.

Ok. So the point you are making is that he should have disposed of the clothes before he went home. Fair enough. I assumed you meant in the days after the murder.

I have no specific narrative. I am open minded about how it all went down. The rolled up clothes was a specific reply to a poster who couldn`t see how he could have driven home without contaminating the car. If he was aware he had blood on him, he knew he would contaminate the car. Jim Sheridan maintained that the killer took the time to go back up to the house and attempted to open the side door.

It is a weird case but then... if you were the murderer, would you engage in these shenanigans?

IN the (alleged) statement made to the Guards, the photo developer is claimed to have said:

He said the area looked like the laneway where Ms Toscan du Plantier's body had been discovered. He said he thought the photos may have been taken at night.

Can someone explain how the photos could have been taken at night? Bailey brought a camera to the murder???

Is this the same photo developer who withdrew his evidence... as noted on this thread from a 2007 Mirror article:

So there is no doubt there has been attempts to pervert the course of justice here, there is the indisputable evidence of pages deliberately ripped from the book of evidence. And now we have witnesses withdrawing statements which do not seem credible in the context of the murder...

The thing is, if he was fabricating the story, he would not have asked Jules to lie.

He would have kept Jules out of it altogether, only to confirm he left the bed, because as you say yourself;

So did he get up and perhaps forgot?,

and maybe Jules thought he was in bed all night;

Mavbe they had trouble reading her writing;

Arrested 12:30 pm, no solicitor until 4:30, released half past midnight.

All this in the media glare. I wonder how they knew about the arrests, Dwyer was media savvy I hear.

I've had these thoughts about Jules as well. However would Jules really have lied for Bailey, considering all the domestic abuse she's been getting from him? I understand this domestic abuse was some time ago, but still, I find that theory hard to believe.

Suppose Bailey did it, and Jules helped him, she drove and then disposed of and dealt with the evidence whilst Bailey cleaned himself up at the studio. Like they both decided on the spur of the moment, after the night in the pub, to kill Sophie for whatever reason or motive? It could theoretically all have happened that night. Only what motive could they have had? None, I could think of.

There is neither evidence for that, or against that. Sophie would probably have opened the door to a man and a woman together, rather than a man alone, especially that late at night.

It's worth a consideration.

I don`t think pic 1 is part of her statement. It looks like a record of her initial questioning, handwritten by one of the questioners. The question and the reply are by the same hand. She initially stated that Bailey never got out of bed. But then they told her that a witness saw Bailey at Kealfada at 3 am on the night of the murder and she then admitted that he had got out of bed and that is what you have in pic 2 which is part of the statement that she signed. I dunno why the first pic is labelled "statement". Where is that taken from?