User Reviews

I thought that telling this sad tale over 5 episodes might be stretching it too far, but Jim Sheridan proved me wrong. Some might think his decision to make the series about his own quest for the truth makes him as narcissistic as Ian Bailey, the chief suspect, but that too would be wrong: the approach worked.

Initially the police had 50 suspects, but soon focused on Bailey and, some would say, tried to stitch him up. Bailey did himself no favours, A freelance journalist, he was the first journo to visit the scene. His assertion that the victim had not been sexually assaulted, before the police had released that fact, naturally aroused suspicion. He allegedly told a boy to whom he gave a lift that he'd done it, but as Sheridan said, that could just have been him being English, saying the opposite of what he meant in a sarcastic fashion. He'd viciously attacked his partner in a drunken rage, and why she stayed with him for decades was a mystery (it seemed to have worn her down.) Being British in Ireland no doubt prejudiced many against him, and then there were the scratches on his arm.

However, the DPP refused to prosecute him because the evidence was too flimsy. He wouldn't confess to the police, and despite the savagery of the attack and the amount of bloodshed there was no trace of his fingerprints or DNA at the scene. The blood under the victim's nails wasn't his. Then the only witness against him, who alleged she'd seen him stalking Sophie outside her shop and again at night near the road leading to the cottage, retracted her evidence. This led to a scandal, as she asserted the police had pressured and bribed her to make the original statement. The victim's family, certain that Bailey was the killer, managed to get a French court to hear the case, though how such a court had jurisdiction is beyond me.

The hearing was a farce. I love French farce: 55 years on from when I saw the National Theatre production of Feydeau's " A Flea in her Ear", directed by Jacques Charon of the Comedie Francaise, it's still the funniest play I've ever seen, but there was nothing funny about that court case, as the only thing ever in doubt was the length of the sentence. Bailey clear expected a home town decision and didn't attend, and no lawyer presented his side of the story. The witness's original statement was presented as gospel truth, and her subsequent retraction and allegations weren't mentioned. The boy's mother told of Bailey's alleged confession to her son (double hearsay!) and Bailey was duly found guilty. The Irish State refuses to extradite him.

This series was gripping throughout, with Sophie's grieving parents and son, the police and local residents all having their say, and Mr. Sheridan has done a great job of story-telling. I read that Netflix will soon stream its own documentary on the case. It will have to be very good to stand up against this series for Sky.

It's fascinating to read reviews of a documentary and start to wonder if you watched the same series as other people?

I was enthralled by the very first opening shots and credits - the bleak but beautiful landscape and the gothic celtic cross, which turns out to be placed at the spot where Sophie was murdered.

It wasn't slow - it set the pace of the place in winter. Cosmopolitan? It was explained that the place has many tourists in the summer. Sophie had a second home there, and she was french; she wasn't the only foreign visitor.

I found myself pitching from one opinion to another all the time - and I loved the fact that this documentary makes you see just why it is so hard to convict Bailey.

I think that he did it, and it is great how Sheridan held back with the information of how Bailey had beaten his partner, Jules, so badly that she needed facial reconstruction, until after we had started to doubt the circumstantial evidence against him.

But what about the blood under Sophie's nails?

I BELIEVE that Bailey is guilty - but there is no proof beyond reasonable doubt.

I loved Sheridan's narration. Every single documentary has a personal slant one way or another, because some scriptwriter/film-maker chooses how to present the facts in a way that is their personal choice. They make descisions based on the way they view the story, and Sheridan is very open about his interests.

All in all, I've been thinking about the case ever since watching the documentary.

Surely that's what any documentary should make you do?

Have managed three and a half episodes before giving up and looking at other user reviews. Had hoped that the final episode would reveal the killer but clearly not the case despite the strap line for the series!

I find it bizarre that Sheridan didn't look at suspects other than Bailey or consider what his motive might have been anyway, surely a prime consideration in any murder case?

While the Garda may not have covered themselves with glory in their approach to the case, I would certainly question the conduct and testimony of Marie Farrell who appears to have been their primary "evidence", based on a very fleeting glimpse of a man in a dark coat near Sophie's home.

It was pitch black, she couldn't possibly have seen him for more than a few seconds as she was driving and certainly couldn't have seen enough to come even close to identifying anyone.

While I wouldn't rule out Bailey as the murderer, to base pretty much the whole case on this very flimsy evidence seems ridiculous.

Bailey and his partner come across as weird and Farrell doesn't inspire confidence either.

Irrespective of the truths behind the case, Sheridan sheds absolutely no light on it and the whole series seems totally irrelevant to me!

Don't waste your time.......!

Sheridan spoils this documentary with his tedious narrative deflecting from the facts that are readily available. No mention of the shoe print at the scene of the crime. No mention of Sophie's affairs, her planning to leave her husband. Myths that no one locked their doors in Schull before the murder when photos show that Sophie did. Silly narrative about "the devil in the woods" and "Her body is in France; her soul is in Ireland". Schull portrayed as a "cosmopolitan" place when it's a desolate place with virtually nothing, populated by a variety of drop-outs. Explaining Sophie's anxiety via premonitions, seeing a ghost on the lake, etc., when there is good reason to believe her anxiety was due to her visiting Schull to end her relationship with yet another lover. The Netflix version is more dispassionate and factual. The Garda incompetence is breathtaking but so is Sheridan's.