Murder at the Cottage | Sky

sydthebeat

listermint wrote: »

Tbf notes are made for references all the time for all sorts of matters. Hand drawing references to scratches for recollection purposes later isn't a hill you should die on for the mishandling of this case there are plenty of actually problems with the investigation but not a reference sketch.

Its no hill, it's pretty much peak ineptitude though. If its for reference, just go photo the hands.
If it's so long after the fact that the hands have healed, there's no way anyone can recall the number, position and direction of scratches.

I doubt anyone could recall anything like that 10 mins after seeing it, never mind a number of days.

Screams to me though of another stitch in the stitch up.

listermint

sydthebeat wrote: »

Its no hill, it's pretty much peak ineptitude though. If its for reference, just go photo the hands.
If it's so long after the fact that the hands have healed, there's no way anyone can recall the number, position and direction of scratches.

I doubt anyone could recall anything like that 10 mins after seeing it, never mind a number of days.

Screams to me though of another stitch in the stitch up.

Guards live and die by their notebooks. Notes sketches references all done in the notebook for recollection purposes later. Do you know any guards ? If yes ask them

The sketch has nothing malicious about it. It's not part of the stitch up . There are other things that could be like the bribing the fella to be friend him.

For note I don't think B did it.

sydthebeat

listermint wrote: »

Guards live and die by their notebooks. Notes sketches references all done in the notebook for recollection purposes later. Do you know any guards ? If yes ask them

The sketch has nothing malicious about it. It's not part of the stitch up . There are other things that could be like the bribing the fella to be friend him.

For note I don't think B did it.

Note book??

It was a A4 sheet which clearly someone had outlined their own hand on.

Bailey didn't become a suspect until nearly two weeks after the murder, when his articles drew suspicion.

Are we to believe that a guard randomly drew a sketch of baileys hands prior to that??

If so, why??

If not, why not photo the hands at that first interview?

That particular piece of "investigation" stunk to high heavens for me

listermint

sydthebeat wrote: »

Note book??

It was a A4 sheet which clearly someone had outlined their own hand on.

Bailey didn't become a suspect until nearly two weeks after the murder, when his articles drew suspicion.

Are we to believe that a guard drew a sketch of baileys hands prior to that??

If so, why??

If not, why not photo the hands at that first interview?

That particular piece of "investigation" stunk to high heavens for me

And the bribery and the missing gate didn't ? The wine bottle.

The sketch is a nonsense reference it's not the lynch pin you think it is

sydthebeat

listermint wrote: »

And the bribery and the missing gate didn't ? The wine bottle.

The sketch is a nonsense reference it's not the lynch pin you think it is

I don't think it's a lynch pin or "Hill to die on"

Why do you keep saying things like that??

My comment was its hilarious in its ineptitude

listermint

sydthebeat wrote: »

I don't think it's a lynch pin or "Hill to die on"

Why do you keep saying things like that??

My comment was its hilarious in its ineptitude

Your words

"That particular piece of "investigation" stunk to high heavens for me"

This reads as if you think this was a particular cunning plan to catch him.

So that's why I'm pointing to your own words ...

sydthebeat

My words :

Four of us watched it together on Sunday night.. We all broke our **** laughing when we saw the drawings of the hands and cuts.

Is that really how basic the gardai were in 1996??

sydthebeat

listermint wrote: »

Your words

"That particular piece of "investigation" stunk to high heavens for me"

This reads as if you think this was a particular cunning plan to catch him.

So that's why I'm pointing to your own words ...

"this reads as if"....

That's YOUR taking of what I'm saying.

So once more for clarity, that particular piece of the case completely highlighted the ineptitude of the gardai for me as it was a comical sketch.

Mackwiss

monkeybutter wrote: »

maybe you did it?

I'm actually Portuguese and was a high school nerd in 96.

And in Portugal we don't have the habit of hiding killings I'm afraid.

We do have loads of them and done by a whole generation that came from Africa's colonial war with heavy undiagnosed PTSD. Just last year, an elderly ex-soldier from this war openly shot and killed in broad daylight an African man while throwing racial insults at him. The weapons where weapons he had kept since the war. After the fact he just walked into the police station.

Now and then it comes on the news, either murder suicides or plain murders and the murderer gives himself to the police.

We do have our own botched police investigations like Maddie's case which just like Sophie's, the international pressure led to a number of mistakes, though thankfully the evidence is still saved and the whole team that lead that investigation was fired years ago.

This team of investigators was actually known in the press for their brutality. They took a confession by physical force from a couple whom their daughter disappeared, after they found out blood splatters all over the house they lived in. The body was never found, they confessed to have gotten rid of it.

listermint

sydthebeat wrote: »

My words :

Four of us watched it together on Sunday night.. We all broke our **** laughing when we saw the drawings of the hands and cuts.

Is that really how basic the gardai were in 1996??

I'm not sure of your age but yes the technology you take for granted today was not as ubiquitous back then. There was not cameras for next to nothing in the local Currys. It's really not that odd for the time .

nc6000

I watched the first few episodes last night, one thing I've noticed which I don't recall seeing mentioned here was something odd in the interview with Sophie's parents.

When news made it to them on the 23rd that a French woman was found dead in Ireland they tried ringing Sophie. When they couldn't get through to her they rang her husband Daniel. It was about 10PM.

The subtitles say he said he spoke to her about an hour ago. That can't be correct as her body had been found about 12 hours earlier.

MoonUnit75

sydthebeat wrote: »

"this reads as if"....

That's YOUR taking of what I'm saying.

So once more for clarity, that particular piece of the case completely highlighted the ineptitude of the gardai for me as it was a comical sketch.

It's literally just a reference sketch. It doesn't have to be anatomically correct in every way or lifelike. A defence solicitor asks the witness in court 'where were these scratches', the witness replies 'all along the back of the hand and up towards the elbow, on the underside.', 'how can you be sure you remember this correctly?' 'I made a sketch noting the areas that had been scratched for the file'.

You don't see drawings of Ford Transits or Volkswagen Golf's on the road after a crash, you see little corners and straight lines marking their positions. It's just a note of the positions.

sydthebeat

listermint wrote: »

I'm not sure of your age but yes the technology you take for granted today was not as ubiquitous back then. There was not cameras for next to nothing in the local Currys. It's really not that odd for the time .

Jesus christ..... Photography Cameras were invented in the early 1800s. LOL.

"ubiquitous"..... As in would i expect a guard station to have a camera???

Well yes of course. Would it be odd that a guard didn't have a camera readily available in 1996... Well yes of course it would be.

If they didn't, then that just straight back to me question, were the guards really that basic in 1996??

Bannasidhe

listermint wrote: »

I'm not sure of your age but yes the technology you take for granted today was not as ubiquitous back then. There was not cameras for next to nothing in the local Currys. It's really not that odd for the time .

Ah jayzuz, it wasn't the Stone Age.
A disposable 35mm camera could be bought in any chemist for a few quid.
Especially in a tourist area like West Cork.

Gussie Scrotch

dark crystal wrote: »

I don't think Ian Bailey killed Sophie, but it was a local.

My theory is that she may have had a flirtation with someone locally, perhaps someone she was speaking to in the local bar where she often went to have tea and scones. Perhaps it wasn't even a flirtation, but merely a fledgling friendship. This would explain the two wine glasses and the missing bottle of expensive wine found in the ditch by the lane.
The barman said she had expressed an interest in going to the Christmas party that night and perhaps this person offered to escort her. He arrived, they had a glass of wine, but she felt tired, or perhaps felt the person was looking for more than she was willing to offer and he left. Perhaps they didn't even touch the wine at all.
She gets changed for bed, calls her husband and settles down for the night. However, the person comes back a while later, perhaps after having a few drinks at the party to see if she'll change her mind. This could be why she had her boots and dressing gown on, to walk the unwanted guest back to his car.
He presses her and gets a bit more handsy, so she pushes him or says she'll call the police if he doesn't leave and that's when he panics and gets violent. He hits her and she tries to get back into the house, but he pulls her away and she starts running away from him, probably crying out at this stage. He catches up with her, they struggle and he hits her with the rock first, just to keep her quiet.
He then realises if he leaves her alive, he's in big trouble, so he finishes her off with the block he finds a few metres away.
I don't think he was on foot, as there were apparantly fresh track marks by the gate, so I'm not entertaining Marie Farrell's sighting at the remote bridge. I think she was a pure attention seeker.

The police made a complete hames of the investigation and I doubt they'll ever find out who killed the poor woman. I think they know the killer alright, as he's a local, but they've invested too much time in Bailey at this stage to ever make an about face and admit they were wrong.

This is a plausible theory. I would also suggest that, perhaps, having killed Sophie, he realised that there was evidence inside linked to him( possibly the wine bottle) and returned to get it, leaving the stain on the door as he opened it with his bloody hands , before making his escape, ditching the wine bottle en route.

It is sinister, in my opinion, that any forensic evidence which could identify the attacker was lost (gate, hair) cleaned up (wine glasses ) or contaminated (failure to properly keep the crime scene sterile) . Coupled with the persistent, though clumsy attempts to pin the crime on IB, it stinks.

Marie Farrell's initial; refusal to identify her companion, and subsequent contention that he was now, rather conveniently for all concerned, deceased, is at the heart of this. I would suggest, that either she wasn't at the bridge as she claimed, or, if she was, that identification of her companion would be very revealing.

Bannasidhe

sydthebeat wrote: »

If they didn't, then that just straight back to me question, were the guards really that basic in 1996??

They weren't great tbh.

Summer 1995 a woman I know was alone in her holiday home in West Cork - between Skibb and Clon - and rang us in a total panic as someone had tried to get into her house in the middle of the night. She dialed 999 only to be told that Bandon Garda Station was covering her region (at least an hour away) and it was closed for the night so someone would have to come out from Cork City (back then at least 2 hour drive as roads weren't great).
We were close so she asked us to come wait with her as she was terrified.

Still waiting for those guards to turn up.

listermint

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ah jayzuz, it wasn't the Stone Age.
A disposable 35mm camera could be bought in any chemist for a few quid.
Especially in a tourist area like West Cork.

And these were beat guards not detectives. Once again cameras were not ubiquitous . It wasn't a go too thing at hand. People are clouded by technology these days and trying to put a Instagram 2021 mindset in 1996 is wrong.

JimmyVik

dark crystal wrote: »

Exactly - this wasn't planned imo.

Another thing is that Sophie arrived alone in Ireland on 20th December. She was killed on the night of the 22nd, having planned to return to France on the 24th.

During her very brief stay, it was very unlikely she was with a companion, as her 2 day visit was quite well documented as having been in the local bar for tea and scones, shopping in the local boutique and taking a long solitary walk to the isolated castles by the lake, which she recounted to a friend in her home.

Whoever killed her only turned up sometime after she had visited the local bar earlier that day, the 22nd (sorry, not sure of the exact time she was there) and likely after she spoke to her husband on the phone that evening. Not much of an illicit rendezvous if her out-of-town-lover only decided to make an appearance for a mere 24 hours before she was to leave the country again and without as much as a phone call made beforehand.

Whoever killed her, knew where she lived alright, but I don't think she was expecting them.

Imagine traveling all the way from her home in France to that house for 2 nights and one full day in it. She was definitely meeting someone.

listermint

JimmyVik wrote: »

Imagine traveling all the way from her home in France to that house for 2 nights and one full day in it. She was definitely meeting someone.

I think so .


However , I could also er on the side that she just wanted to get away . Be on her own for a few days. She seemed to be that sort of character. So I'm not necessarily set in stone of a pre arranged meet up . This doesn't seem to be out of character for her.

Loafing Oaf

Polly701 wrote: »

Marie Farrell should be charged with wasting everyone's time - she is a fantasist who really muddied the waters.

Can the guards, higher level ones, normally not sense when they're dealing with this sort of witness and make sure she doesn't drag them down a rabbit hole?

JimmyVik

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I've hired cars in at least 13 countries on average twice a year and have never been given a car with either seat pushed all the way back towards the back seat. Especially not in a compact car similar in size to a Fiesta. I normally throw a few bits and pieces, maps in the old days and tablets and the like these days, and would notice if the seat was set well back from the drivers position.

I dont think thats evidence of anything. Just more fitting the evidence to the tall man theory.
I worked in a car hire company in Dublin airport in my teens. You would push the front seats all the way back if you hoovered the back before you hoovered the front of the car. You started wherever had the most dirt, so it was totally random where you would leave them.

Also im average height and whenever i get into a car as a passenger i push the seat all the way back to stretch my legs, unless there is someone sitting in the back.

Idioteque

dark crystal wrote: »

...This could be why she had her boots and dressing gown on, to walk the unwanted guest back to his car.

Interesting theory. The only bit that deosn't stack up for me is the nightclothing. It's dead of winter and much quicker to throw a coat on than lace up some boots to go outside.

It wasn't a 'dressing gown' she was wearing, aparantly it was pyjama bottoms (long-johns) and a short top/nightgown.

khalessi

listermint wrote: »

And these were beat guards not detectives. Once again cameras were not ubiquitous . It wasn't a go too thing at hand. People are clouded by technology these days and trying to put a Instagram 2021 mindset in 1996 is wrong.

In regards to cameras, it was fairly normal to have a camera at the time and in early cases from years before this, crime sites were photographed, so it is a bit strange no one thought to call forensics photographer or just lift up a camera to take a picture. Twasn't the stone age.

listermint

khalessi wrote: »

In regards to cameras, it was fairly normal to have a camera at the time and in early cases from years before this, crime sites were photographed, so it is a bit strange no one thought to call forensics photographer or just lift up a camera to take a picture. Twasn't the stone age.

This was West cork. It's not a regional division nor a metropolitan city. Don't confuse the two. I really don't think people are in the mindset of 1996.

And no one said it's the stone age so don't use hyperbole to make a point. It doesn't make any point.

Creamy Goodness

Sure even the Christmas swim was video taped, camcorders were super expensive back then way more than point and shoots. Whilst yes some people are forgetting how fast technology has moved on in terms of DNA and the likes, to suggest cameras weren't accessible is a bit too far especially in a murder case.

sydthebeat

There was a camera readily available within 2.4 miles of the murder site

MoonUnit75

The 'camera' debate seems to me a red herring, the issue is more likely the opportunity to ask a local person, particularly a journalist working on the story, for consent to photograph their hands when they are not under arrest or cautioned etc. They may have felt that tipping Bailey off that they were on to him may have been delayed for operational reasons.

listermint

Creamy Goodness wrote: »

Sure even the Christmas swim was video taped, camcorders were super expensive back then way more than point and shoots. Whilst yes some people are forgetting how fast technology has moved on in terms of DNA and the likes, to suggest cameras weren't accessible is a bit too far especially in a murder case.

I know how much they were I used to sell them for a living.

My point was they were not ubiquitous.guards didn't carry them around in their pockets or even in their cars. It wasn't a must have thing and especially not for taking reference noted and sketches. Don't confuse holiday makers who purposefully had cameras to capture their holidays that was an entirely different mind set . Witness or scene photography was a specialist job then and is now for the most part.

MoonUnit75

JimmyVik wrote: »

I dont think thats evidence of anything. Just more fitting the evidence to the tall man theory.
I worked in a car hire company in Dublin airport in my teens. You would push the front seats all the way back if you hoovered the back before you hoovered the front of the car. You started wherever had the most dirt, so it was totally random where you would leave them.

Also im average height and whenever i get into a car as a passenger i push the seat all the way back to stretch my legs, unless there is someone sitting in the back.

It was noted by the gardai that morning that the seat had been pushed all the way back. There were no suspects or leads at the time. I remain doubtful that a car hire company would valet a car and leave the passenger seat pushed all the way back.

listermint

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

It was noted by the gardai that morning that the seat had been pushed all the way back. There were no suspects or leads at the time. I remain doubtful that a car hire company would valet a car and leave the passenger seat pushed all the way back.

Tbh simple thing like bottle of wine rolling under the seat and moving it back to get it would explain that.

I think the killer was driving the speeding vehicle and the tyre tracks at the gate.