Murder at the Cottage | Sky

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118344134#Comment_118344134

What is your source for saying Daniel lied?

My point was if spousal abuse equal murderer for toni it also applied to ian

EdHoven

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118344174#Comment_118344174

Daniel's statement to the police. We have covered all this before. I suggest you read this thread from the beginning.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118344134#Comment_118344134

Change the subject why don`t ya

EdHoven

"I am saying that in a telephone call that I received on the morning, my wife had told me she had finally intended to return to France on 24th December and that she had been able to get a seat on a flight arriving in Toulouse at 8.00pm, though she had initially anticipated returning on 25th December.There was no particular reason for this change of plan and it was agreed that I would meet her at Toulouse-Blagnac, on the arrival of the Aer Lingus flight." Daniel's police statement.

I got mixed up. She could not have travelled on Christmas Day as "anticipated" there are no flights out of Dublin Christmas Day. And there were no Aer Lingus flights to Toulouse that winter so Daniel fabricated that entire section.

And I just realised he says this call was IN THE MORNING.

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118341698#Comment_118341698

Was there anything about potential Garda impropriety or the curious case of Nick Foster in that documentary or was it relevant in some obscure way?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118344281#Comment_118344281

No??

We were just discussing him.

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118344235#Comment_118344235

You can say that with a straight face?

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118344289#Comment_118344289

Share your thoughts on Jimmy Saville

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118344279#Comment_118344279

Doubt Daniel would be stupid enough to lie.he would know they would check.

If you got mixed up read the whole thread

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118344303#Comment_118344303

WTF 🤣

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118344337#Comment_118344337

Why do you believe that any new investigation or cold case review should be mostly concerned with investigating the Gardai involved in the investigation to try to determine amongst other things why someone like Bailey was made the no. 1 suspect with zero hard evidence?

EdHoven

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118344336#Comment_118344336

Oh I'm sorry facts get in the way of your man hating.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118344389#Comment_118344389

What's that got to do with a Tomi Ungerer documentary and Jimmy Saville???

I think we all agree that's what needs to happen with a cold case review.

You've lost me.

Or lost the plot. I'm unsure

You don't know any facts

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118344395#Comment_118344395

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118344418#Comment_118344418

You don't know any facts

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118344403#Comment_118344403

Why do you believe the investigating Guards should be investigated?

flopisit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118344279#Comment_118344279

She could not have travelled on Christmas Day as "anticipated" there are no flights out of Dublin Christmas Day. And I just realised he says this call was IN THE MORNING.

Daniel is probably mixed up about what she told him. There was never an intention to travel on the 25th. She arrived with two return tickets, 23rd and 24th.

In his statement he makes it clear, there was a phone call on the morning of the 22nd when she talked about the flights. And another phone call on the night of the 22nd which is the one we are all familiar with.

Daniel TduP couldn't be arsed to travel to the place of his wife's demise.

That's what Ian Bailey says. And in his reporting, just after the murder, Ian claimed Daniel did not travel to Ireland because he had too many business commitments in France. No indication as to how Bailey got this information or if he just made it up himself. Meanwhile, Sophie's family say he did not travel because he was in no fit state emotionally to travel.

Personally, I think he may have suspected Sophie was murdered by a boyfriend/lover in Ireland and that might explain his reluctance to travel straight after the murder.

He lied about arranging to meet her at Toulouse airport on a flight from Dublin on Christmas Day.

No, if you read his statement you will see he says they arranged that he would meet her in Toulouse on 24th when her plane arrived.

Daniel: "I am saying that in a telephone call that I received on the morning, my wife had told me she had finally intended to return to France on 24 December and that she had been able to get a seat on a flight arriving in Toulouse at 8 p.m., though she had initially anticipated returning on 25 December. There was no particular reason for this change of plan and it was agreed that I would meet her at Toulouse–Blagnac, on the arrival of the Aer Lingus flight. During the last telephone conversation, Sophie did not make any reference to any particular plan."

He says Aer Lingus, but how would he know which airline it was. She bought the tickets. He is assuming Aer Lingus because... Ireland.

If being a rotten partner indicates guilt then look no further than Daniel.

The way you are speaking about Daniel, it is like you are channelling the comments Ian Bailey has made about him over the years. You and Bailey share the exact same sentiment about Daniel.

flopisit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118343008#Comment_118343008

The only reason Tomi should have been a suspect is because he was one of the last people to see her alive and they had a deep and meaningful.

Being the last person to see her alive wouldn't automatically make you a suspect. It would depend on the circumstances. The gardai have a process. You are nominated as a suspect and there have to be valid reasons. Your status as a suspect means you can be arrested and questioned. Can't do that if you are not a suspect.

The Ungerers weren't even the last people to see her alive.

She was with them between 2.00pm and 4.00pm. Then she drove to Crookhaven where she called into Billy and Angela O’Sullivan for a cup of tea, then left after about fifteen minutes and drove back home. where I think she rang her friend Agnes at 5.30pm and left a message on the answer machine. 

Neither Ian being violent to Jules or Tomi Ungerer having a penchant for S&M mean anything, when it comes to murdering sophie.

I think if this crime had anything to do with S&M, you would see that at the crime scene - bindings, some form of control etc. A beating death like this has no link to S&M.

Also Ungerer was a pensioner at this time, as someone said above. The motivation and drive for a man to commit a crime such as this one is largely gone in your 60s. This, in my opinion, is a younger man's crime. The killer's age could be 20s to 40s, maybe up to early 50s in some cases. I would say most likely around the age of the victim, give or take. In other similar cases of women beaten to death in this manner, the attacker's age was around the same age range as the victim, probably because the victim is in an age range he is attracted to and anticipates he will have success with.

However, I disagree that Ian being violent has nothing to do with it. Domestic abuse is not common. The vicious nature of Ian's attack on Jules is extremely uncommon. He bit her, shoved his hand in her mouth and pulled, pulled out her hair, attacked her eyeball.... This is savage. You or I would not be capable of doing something like this. Just not capable of it. Ian Bailey was capable of it. Multiple times. That marks him out as a certain type of offender who has no problem attacking and badly injuring a woman. Strangely, neither his compassion nor conscience stopped him as it would us.

If we were to describe our unknown killer - what we would expect him to be like - he would be someone with a history of using violence against women. If he is in a relationship, it will be a very unstable relationship, marked by violence.

Jules said of Ian Bailey that he would fly into a rage in a flash and then it would be over. This, I think, is the kind of person the killer is. A man who flies into a rage in a flash, commits sudden violence and then... its over as quickly as it began.

In the 2003 libel trial Jules said "The devil drink was the cause of it," she told Judge Patrick Moran. "It's like a temper flash," she said. "It's not something that goes on. It's always like it's two minutes and that's it."

And from Ian's testimony:

"You did the biting, the hair-pulling from two parts of the head, the severing of the lip from the gum?" asked defence lawyer Paul Gallagher SC. "Was it frenzied?"

"It was just something that happened in the heat of the moment," Bailey replied.

A man does not simply wake up one day and beat a woman to death. If he beats a woman to death, he has previous form for violence against women and this violence is going to be directed at women in his life. That can be wife/girlfriend... but also mother or sister.

flopisit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118331569#Comment_118331569

• MF her contempt for the court and lack of will from AGS or the courts to put her behind bars where she should have gone (suggests she's was with AGS member hence protection from law)
• This is an interesting one. Marie Farrell hasn't really changed her story... not by much.... She still said she saw the mysterious man in the black coat outside her shop, on the road in the morning and at Kealfadda... The only change she made is in claiming now it was definitely not Ian Bailey. So it would be difficult for her to be prosecuted for this. We know prosecuting her was looked into, it was reported in the papers. But I would say they didn't prosecute because they didn't want all the hassle and would be unable to prove it. In a perjury case, you have to prove intentional lying under oath. And perjury is very rarely prosecuted anyway unless it is very obvious.
• Interestingly, Marie had trouble with the gards in 2004. She claims they were harassing her and her son. She was stopped for driving without insurance on the very same day she contacted Bailey's lawyers. That's the point where she started claiming all this stuff. We know from Geraldine O'Brien that MF told her she would be getting a cut of Ian Bailey's millions when he sued the state. Bailey's lawyers would have explained to her how to change her story without leaving herself open to prosecution.
• MF and the house she and CF built from zero no mortgage no nothing (suggests proceeds of crime)
• Well, I only know what I read in GSOC. That the politician said the gard never met with him. That MF received no special treatment. That the politician said everything was done according to normal process and he was not pressured by anyone.
• The house keeper Josephine Hellen pointing the finger at AL for using the bath (suggests willingness to break laws and also that JH had reason to distrust him)
• This only happened once and could only have happened at the latest in the summer of 1993. Also, we are not given any reason for her thinking it was Alfie. It could have been anyone and it may not have even happened, since she could have forgotten to clean the bath or Bruno could have dirtied it himself.
• The lack of any into on AF before he moved to Schull and bought the Basil Brush (suggests lack of AGS will to actually look anywhere but IB)
• Do you mean a lack of information on the internet when you search? We only started using the internet properly in ireland around 1997/1998. Prior to that I would be surprised if any random person's information was on the internet.
• Body not moved to mortuary as requested by state pathologist (willingness of AGS to allow forensics to disappear)
• I think this was a garda in charge who thought the best course of action was for the body to be examined in situ (which usually is what they do for best results). The pathologist told them to take the body to the mortuary just because he would be delayed. There was a murder case in the UK in 2010 - The murder of Joanna Yeates - The woman's body was found outside in freezing conditions in December. The forensics team had to decide whether to remove the body or examine it in situ. They said it was much of a muchness because they were afraid of losing evidence either way. They decided the best course of action was to leave the body there where it was found overnight and do the evidence collection there. They ended up getting a very low level DNA sample that matched one of the suspects and solved the case.
• I think the gard in charge in Sophie's case insisted on leaving the body there because he thought that was the best chance to collect any evidence that might be on the body.
• Fiesta sightings prior to murder no re-enactment on crimewatch but poorly discredited (suggests willingness from AGS to ignore obvious lead and is also typical AGS car at time)
• This one deserves a much longer answer. Isn't the source of this information Ian Bailey. I don't think it has appeared independently. Just what he claims is in the garda evidence.
• The witness supposedly said he saw a car driving fast on a different road around 7:30am before the body was discovered. To even believe this is related, we would have to believe Sophie was murdered a little while before this car was supposedly seen. The pathologist says she was killed around 2am. For her to be killed at 7am and be already in rigor mortis at 10:30am would be unbelievable since it was near zero temperatures which delays rigor mortis a hell of a lot. For example, in the case of Joanna Yeates in the UK, the body was found 3 days after the murder around Christmas in freezing conditions. The body only went through rigor mortis after they removed it from the scene and before the pathologist was able to examine it. That's an example of how temperature affects rigor mortis.
• AGS bribing of witnesses (will at all costs from AGS to frame IB. They are incredibly aware they have no case, and have no interest in catching real killer)
• Another one that deserves a much longer answer. I think a lot of people hear that Martin Graham was given some money and some clothes by the gardai and think that is bribery. Most people don't realize that the gards commonly give "operational expenses" to informants. It is not illegal, nor is it bribery. It is how the gards normally operate with informants. They give the informant money out of pocket and then the gards claim this money back from the state.
• In this case, I do believe they gave Martin Graham some small amounts of hash from the evidence room. This is not allowed and they broke the rules doing this. I think their intention was that Graham would meet Bailey, they would smoke hash and Bailey would confide in Graham, possibly giving a confession. This was their intention. We know Graham gave them some evidence from Bailey and told them to plant it in order to implicate Bailey. We know the gards got angry with him for this suggestion and told him that was not what they wanted. They wanted him to ingratiate himself with Bailey and if Bailey confessed, to record it.
• AL drug infringements and past history of growing (willing to deal or dabble in drugs)
• Alfie grew hash, I am sure he grew it to smoke himself and I am sure he sold a bit here and there to people he knew as well, but he was not a drug dealer in the real sense. We know Bailey smoked hash prior to the murder. Where did he get it? Probably from his friend Alfie. In Schull, how could there be any big drug scene? How many people lived in the area? About 200. Most of these were tourists. So about 100 permanently lived there. Most of them older people. Of these, how many smoked hash regularly? Not nearly enough to make a business out of selling drugs. Barely any...
• STDP drugs complains
• We know from a recent Irish Times article that the gards say Sophie never made any complaint about anything to the gards. There was never any reason to think she did.
• AL and STDP tension over the gate, access issues, shed issues etc.,
• I think it would be very hard to get pissed off over access issues with a woman who was only in the country 4 weeks a year maximum. In 1996, she was only in the country 2 weeks in Spring and the few days she was here in December. Josie said there was no tension over these issues and they were all sorted easily and amicably. And she was in a position to know.
• AGS tampering with Job books (AGS very aware casework won't stand up to scrutiny and is again willing to break law to prevent poor casework becoming criminal matter)
• This happened. It's in GSOC. I don't know why someone would do this. All I can think of is the gards didn't want to give the DPP evidence of other early suspects. So they tore out the pages associated with those suspects. Which would be illegal and wrongdoing.
• The jobs books just contain info about the jobs the gardai carry out. Just to clarify, it is not a book of evidence. It is a book of actions to be carried out and the reasons for those actions. ... for example, checking out the sighting of Sophie at the petrol station. That would be written down in the job book and assigned to a gard.
• It's interesting to note that in GSOC, they say that there was a previous review of the garda job books in 2002 and that prior review did not find any pages to be missing. GSOC says that the prior review would have noticed if there were pages missing, which indicates that the missing pages disappeared many years after the murder, long after the case was defunct. So if the missing pages indicate garda wrongdoing, it had to have happened at the very earliest, sometime after 2002, or thereabouts. When nobody had any intention of bringing a case against Ian Bailey

flopisit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118341796#Comment_118341796

In Bailey's action against the Guards, Detective Fitzgerald admitted writing out one of Marie Farrell's statements from memory about a week after she'd been interviewed. He wrote it in the first person as that made it 'easier' for him.

This did happen. I believe the reason was Marie Farrell refused to let them write anything down when she was being interviewed. Which is odd alright. When they say the Gard wrote it in the first person... It's not that strange because he was writing down what she said. He was not claiming she wrote the statement. When a gard takes a statement from you, he writes it out in the first person, in your words. But anyway he should have been writing it down after the interview. not a week later.

But then Marie Farrell's current claims couldn't be true:She now claims the gardaí asked her to sign blank statements that they would fill in later...

Why would a Gard be writing down her statement a week later, when he supposedly could be just filling in her blank, signed statement? Most likely because there were no blank signed statements.

EdHoven

Nick Foster pushing the "murderer returned to scene at 11 and took watch" claim. Inferring Foster himself walked off-road from the Prairie to Dreenane and back in a certain timescale.

Either that or he has produced a new suspect.

https://twitter.com/NFoster66/status/1472490904665604097?t=ImPEpVj4NJ4qbx5LtlRqig&s=19

dmc17

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118345664#Comment_118345664

It's on the front page of the Irish Mirror today as well. So he has a witness who was at the crime scene and observed the 'killer' interfering with the body while the Gardai didn't notice either of them there. I wonder is this the same witness who watched the initial confrontation taking place at the door over the bottle of wine..?

EdHoven

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118345705#Comment_118345705

Yes. I read the article slightly wrong. He is saying the "killer" took the watch during the initial incident (at night, presumably), then the "killer" returned at 11 a. m.

Why would the killer return? For kicks? To retrieve something? Take photos (alleged before, I think).

Maybe Nick is like the Pushing Daises character who can get information from the dead.

almostover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118345664#Comment_118345664

Is NF now insinuating that it's not IB?

EdHoven

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118345162#Comment_118345162

MoonUnit. You are obsessed. Just because you think it was Bailey you have made it your demented mission to spam everyone else into submission. Thank God the Irish justice system isn't run by harpies like you.

mamboozle

When the Minister for Justice, John O'Donoghue was asked about the seeming lack of co-operation with French authorities on this case in 1997 he said ;

"It is not true, as has been suggested, that the request was ignored or that no contact was made with the French authorities. The position is that the French authorities have been kept informed of developments through the usual diplomatic channels used in such cases."

The "usual diplomatic channels..." sounds like something was being dealt with very quietly. "...in such cases"? Could he have given us an example of another if asked?

Into all this steps a 'writer' Nick Foster but someone who's had a former life as an EU Diplomat, so presumably accustomed to dealing in the usual diplomatic channels. Now he's on the Irish Mirror with a source who won't go to the Gardai with some cock and bull story and we're expected to believe this could be a breakthrough. Wouldn't it be better if the source allowed Nick to publish his/her name and then went to the Guards? If it were a credible story there would be a public demand that it be followed up.

Nick likes to deal in mystery, just like his career has been

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118345833#Comment_118345833

No. He'll never think it's anyone else.

So here we are, a few days before the 25th anniversary, with Foster spewing his shite as fact on the front page of irish press.

Do people really take this seriously?

Who else could have been there to see the killer breach the cordon.?

odyssey06

Breached the cordon? Baileys black coat is an invisibility cloak?

So who was inside the cordon? Unless A Guard? Doctor? Alfie?

this is total BS from Foster.

His clickbait is getting more desperate.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118346368#Comment_118346368

Alfie and Shirley.

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118346514#Comment_118346514

Bingo! If Alfie was 90% sure he saw this and Shirley just 50% sure, that's still 140% certainty

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118346597#Comment_118346597

Fear is the greatest persuader.

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118346601#Comment_118346601

Wow! there's prompt. No thoughts on Nick "the Diplomat" Foster?

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118346614#Comment_118346614

Fear of Bailey reduces certainty from 100% to 90%.

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118346618#Comment_118346618

Fear that talking about Nick Foster might get you sacked?

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118345980#Comment_118345980

Anyone who calls witness testimony and evidence spam, surely can`t expect to be taken seriously by logical thinkers. But then it was you that thought there was a giant counter bell beside Sophie`s bed a few pages back. So that sort of explains it.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118346618#Comment_118346618

Ignore. This post and the above!

flopisit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118345980#Comment_118345980

1. I'm not "moonunit" and have no idea who that is.
2. I replied to the claims you made, pointing out how you were misreading the text of the statement.
3. I don't know that Bailey is guilty or innocent. We don't have enough evidence.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118346634#Comment_118346634

I can`t be sacked. Apart from that, if you`d read anything I`ve said about Foster you would see that I`m not exactly a groupie. But I am prepared to delay a decision on what he may come up with until he actually presents it.

dmc17

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118346910#Comment_118346910

You could be waiting a while

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118346940#Comment_118346940

Yeah well I won`t be holding my breath.

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118346910#Comment_118346910

For someone who has expended a lot of energy analysing the character of Bailey you, like many others, appear to have zero curiosity about Nick Foster, who quite recently came on the scene to be more convinced of the guilt of Bailey, and more importantly the evidence from the original investigation against him, than any other Irish journalist.

I can be reasonably certain that had Foster become convinced of Bailey's innocence and immersed himself as completely as he has in this case, there would be an almighty racket to find out who this pr*ck was. But there is no interest in speculating if there might be any more to his story than meets the eye. He saw this case was unsolved and for no other reason other than he's apparently a real nice guy he wants 'justice for Sophie'. I'm just a little surprised, knowing that there are a myriad of unsolved cases around, why this crusader for justice is only interested in finding justice for a very rich influential French family.

crackcrack30

Who identified the body and at what time?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118347167#Comment_118347167

Finbarr Hellen because he was working on the land up there anyway. I think around midday but would have to check.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118346635#Comment_118346635

"giant counter bell"

Ding

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118346503#Comment_118346503

"So who was inside the cordon? Unless A Guard? Doctor? Alfie?"

We know Shirley and Alfie were there before the Guards arrived, then the Doctor and the Priest were there along with the Guards.

So, besides the above think about who else was inside the cordon between 10:40 and noon.

They didn't "breach" the cordon as such but were invited in by the guards.

Any DNA or fingerprints found there would have to be discounted.

Much as I hate to admit it, if this is Fosters new tack there may well be something in it.

flanna01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118347595#Comment_118347595

Are you suggesting Alfie Lyons or Shirley Foster are in the frame...??

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118347083#Comment_118347083

I have put no effort into analysing Bailey at all. I have more important things to be doing. He was only barely keeping a lid on it at times in the Sheridan documentary when under no provocation. In fact Jim Sheridan has done far more damage to the Bailey public persona outside of his own locality than Foster ever will.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118347766#Comment_118347766

No.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118347595#Comment_118347595

They didn't find any one's DNA or fingerprints on the body or the murder weapon - I haven't seen anything to suggest they found person X's, discounted or otherwise. The concrete block doesn't retain fingerprints. They weren't looking for touch transfer DNA back then and there are no reports of any later touch transfer DNA being identified and discounted. It's also doubtful a perpretrator back then would be concerned about touch transfer DNA.

There was only Sophie's DNA \ blood and possible poor quality unmatched sample of blood from one of the boots.

Just not adding up for me...