Murder at the Cottage | Sky

CowgirlBoots

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117904844#Comment_117904844

Also coat buttons.

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117904963#Comment_117904963

Keep at it! You are well aware that the full GSOC report wasn't ready for years after.

"James B Dwyer BL, for GSOC, said his client was not in a position to provide all the documentation sought before the full trial in front of a judge and jury begins next month due to limited resources.

Paul O’Higgins SC, for the Garda Commissioner and the State, said the matter could be dealt with if disclosure was initially limited to the material relating to Mr Bailey, Ms Thomas, Ms Farrell and Mr Graham which is unlikely to be more than 20 documents."

drumm23

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117904541#Comment_117904541

They didn't understand that talking about a murder before anybody knew might be foolish?

And Jules didn't know who was responsible because Ian, when he gave her the cup of coffee, said

"Oh, by the way Jules, that French girl got murdered last night" ;

"OMG Ian, that is the most shocking thing ever to happen in this area, who told you?"

"Oh... I just felt it in my bones."

"Cool."

drumm23

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905041#Comment_117905041

haha, excellent 👍

typical shenanigans from the moonie, found out again

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905059#Comment_117905059

He probably told her one of the papers had contacted him. She apparently said to James Camier before 11-30...."it`s sad, but that`s his job, to report on these things"

MoonUnit75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905041#Comment_117905041

Initially limited to 'the material relating to Mr Bailey', two years after the investigation by GSOC began and long after the garda file had been delivered to them.

The judge said discovery of the material should be of the initial material within 12 days and the remainder within four weeks. The documents are to be supplied to both sides in the action.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/gsoc-ordered-to-share-documents-with-ian-bailey-1.1959238

You are certain the 20 documents did not contain a report on the garda file? How do you know? The Bandon Tapes were included in the trial despite the Fennelly report not appearing until it was over. The issue was not put to the jury as most of the actions were statute barred, we don't know what was in the files that were not admissible.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117904859#Comment_117904859

Netflix part 2 41 mins in Detective Gilligan has a mention of boots and clothes not lace eyelets but i am sure lace eyelets are mentioned somewhere in one of the docs https://streamable.com/wv8zpb

Also West Cork https://voca.ro/13tgQG698OR2 and JS doc 3 @19.40 mins in

MoonUnit75

The mention of shoe eyelets, bits of jeans etc. in the bonfire by Eugene Gilligan is in West Cork, episode 7, around 20 minutes or so in. It also includes Delia Jackson talking about the fire definitely occurring around St. Stephen's Day. She was only home in West Cork for the Christmas holidays.

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905252#Comment_117905252

That must have been what you meant to say to sporina was it? That the jury, if they were still awake, didn't get an opportunity to look at this aspect of the file, it being from 1996, along with LOTS more. Outrageous to think there might have been "grave allegations" against gardai. We got fudge and bullsh*t instead of justice, but you'd have people think it's all been examined. The judge had to reluctantly accept the very late application by the state that so much of this was statute barred. I'm surprised he didn't say something like this application looks more corrupt than the investigation into Bailey.

"The judge queried why an application under the statute was not made earlier, either at the start of the case or at the end of the evidence called on behalf of Mr Bailey, the 37th day of the trial. Mr Bailey’s lawyers also strongly opposed the application, insisting its making at such a late stage after enormous costs had been incurred by both sides amounted to abuse of process. The case involved issues of huge public interest and the jury should determine them, it was argued.

The State argued it was open to it to raise the statute point at any stage, that gardai against whom grave allegations had been made were entitled to have an opportunity to deny them in public and it was necessary to await evidence in the case because certain aspects of the claim were not sufficiently detailed.

In an important ruling on day 62, the judge said it was clear many of the claims were statute barred. The case was initiated in May 2007 and the application of the six year limit meant any aspects of the claim related to events prior to May 1st 2001 could not be pursued. This included the claims for wrongful arrest as both of Mr Bailey’s arrests were in February 1997 and January 1998. The statute point also caught the meeting between west Cork State Solicitor Malachy Boohig and a number of gardai in Bandon garda station in March 1998, in which Mr Boohig alleged he was asked to put pressure on the DPP to charge Mr Bailey. The judge also ruled no case for wrongful arrest had been made out. He said there were several grounds for both arrests which did not relate in any way to statements made by Ms Farrell and it would be “perverse” to find wrongful arrest. Negligence was also not part of the case as the gardai have no duty of care in the context of investigations."

MoonUnit75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905355#Comment_117905355

Who do you blame for the delay in bringing proceedings, which resulted in the statute of limitations being raised? Was it the gardai, the state or Ian Bailey?

You should read Judge Hedigan's judgement on why he was awarding all costs towards the Garda Commissioner etc.:

"From when I first dealt with this case about two years ago in discovery proceedings it was clear to all concerned i.e. the plaintiff, the defendant and the court, that the allegations made against the gardaí were so grave that the fullest possible ventilation of the evidence was required in open court and before a jury. I expressed the view on more than one occasion that I was unreceptive to any argument that anything other than the fullest discovery of documents by both parties but particularly by the defending gardaí should be made.

Thus emerged the Bandon tapes inter alia.

....

I should note in passing that it is incorrect to state that most of the plaintiff’s case was withdrawn from the jury. The opposite is the case. The central plank of the plaintiff’s case was that the gardaí conspired to suborn false statements from Marie Farrell in order to implicate the plaintiff in murder and also intimidate her. This central plank or core of the plaintiff’s case is what went to the jury for their decision."

DivilsAdvocate

If Bailey did kill Sophie, how would he have known she had travelled alone?

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905507#Comment_117905507

He didn`t go over there planning to kill her. He also saw her alone in Schull the day before.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905570#Comment_117905570

That doesnt answer the question.

People who travel to a destination together arent joined at the hip. How did he know there wasnt some friend, guy or husband back at the cottage?

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905440#Comment_117905440

Like many right-minded people I was disgusted by the state acting like a criminal gang, cynically invoking the statute. "My country, right or wrong". All the insincere high-minded declarations from Hedigan don't mean a thing. Like Moran in the libel trial he knew the result he wanted.

We still have a situation where GSOC is nothing more than a talking shop and the Gardai like something from the 1930s, while the legal establishment have no desire for real reform.

People can read what was asked of the jury. All the state had to do was discredit Marie Farrell and make the jury's option a judgement on that. The only real verdict is the absolute refusal to extradite Ian Bailey which tells you the truth behind this case.

"When retiring to consider their verdict at noon today, the jury were given two questions to answer.

The first was: “Did Gardai Jim Fitzgerald, Kevin Kelleher and Jim Slattery or any combination of them conspire together to implicate Mr Bailey in the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier by obtaining statements from Marie Farrell by threats, inducements or intimidation which purportedly identified him as the man she saw at Kealfadda Bridge in the early hours of December 23rd 1996, when they knew they were false?”

The jury answered No to that question.

The second question was: “Did Det Garda Fitzgerald and Sergeant Maurice Walsh conspire by threats, inducements or intimidation to get statements from Marie Farrell that Ian Bailey had intimidated her, when they knew they were false?” The jury answered to that question. They also answered No to that question.

DivilsAdvocate

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905570#Comment_117905570

People say that was the first time she travelled to Ireland alone, seeing her in Schull alone doesn't mean he knows someone wasn't back in the house.

Bailey also said on Monday that the time he did claim to see her from Alfie Lyons' house that her son and I think his cousin was in the garden playing and they were only teenagers at time.

How would he have known they weren't there at the time of the murder?

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905587#Comment_117905587

Did he have to know that? Sure he might have been only heading to Alfies. One possibility is he might have approached her the day before in Schull. She may have told him to p**s off. Worse still for her in my opinion, she might have rejected his art in some way. It could have been festering with him. Something that always stuck in my mind was an interview with Jules, I think on RTE, where she said Bailey said he had a premonition that something bad was going to happen later that night or words to that effect. We are never going to know now.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117904895#Comment_117904895

You'd be masively pumped for hours afterward.

Not sure I'd entire agree with your choice of words there. Massively pumped after chasing a petite woman around a field in the dark and smashing her face to pieces with a rock? But I get where you are coming from.

A few hours after the attack, when the reality sinks in, most normal people would go into some form of shock.

There was no evidence at all of that happening to Bailey that day, despite many people talking to him on the phone and in person.

And before people say Bailey isn't a normal person, a narcissist he is, but a psychopath he certainly is not. He does not seem the type capable of hiding much regarding his own feelings.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905605#Comment_117905605

Marie Farrell has proved to be an unmitigated disaster for both sides of the fence. It cuts both ways.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905691#Comment_117905691

Something that always stuck in my mind was an interview with Jules, I think on RTE, where she said Bailey said he had a premonition that something bad was going to happen later that night or words to that effect

You seem to do this a lot, quote something you half remember without giving it a source or a context.

I don't think Jules said this in an interview on RTE or anywhere else.

MoonUnit75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905605#Comment_117905605

Marie Farrell discredited herself. She walked up to the witness box and said she had committed perjury in the libel trial in 2003.

Do you accept though that, even after all ranting and raving, if the case had been taken in a timely manner the statute of limitations would have been irrelevant? It was ten years after the events. You can't go crying about a lack of justice when all they had to do was lodge the action on time.

You can't go accusing Judge Hedigan of wanting a particular result, that's a very nasty insinuation given that he had ruled that the jury could decide on MF's claims when he could easily have said it too was statute barred?

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905692#Comment_117905692

Wikipedia essay on psychopathy......"a personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited and egotistical traits".

I`d say there`s plenty of him there.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905734#Comment_117905734

I have a life. As you get older you appreciate the value of time. I`m just hoping someone else knows the interview I`m talking about and cites it.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905766#Comment_117905766

I was at a dinner party and one Wikipsychiatrist declared one in ten of us has psychopathic tendencies,

After a quick count I killed the other nine.

( black humour, for those of you who might take it the wrong way)

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905766#Comment_117905766

Again, you quote a bit you like and leave the rest.

I also have a life, that's why I tend not to reference stuff I can't be bothered checking because I know I'm most likely not getting it accurate.

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905744#Comment_117905744

There were several grounds for appeal and a lot of criticism by Bailey's lawyers of what were seen as prejudice in Hedigans rulings during this trial. He acted reprehensibly when not discharging the jury after warning MF about perjury.

GSOC can't carry out their investigations in a timely manner with all the resources of the state behind them, but Ian Bailey's legal team should be able to or tough?

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905709#Comment_117905709

That's rich. All the investigators had to do the first day was say we need the name of the person you were with to corroborate your evidence, otherwise it just sounds like bullshit we made up ourselves.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905766#Comment_117905766

In order to say Ian Bailey is a psychopath, you'd have to go back to his adolescent years and see what he was like then, because it's a condition which usually manifests by this time. During this time was he torturing small animals, displaying a flat affect or lack of remorse over misdeeds? A grandiose sense of narcissism? Generally worrying personality traits which his contemporaries took note of if only in hindsight?

Bailey was involved in few domestic incidents with his partner Jules Thomas of varying severity. Domestic violence is a terrible, terrible thing, but I don't know if it's an indicator of psychopathy either when there can be other factors at play with drink taken and arguments simply getting way out of hand. Does he have a consistent history of trying to harm people? Do people who know him note him as being cold and manipulative?

MoonUnit75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905734#Comment_117905734

It's in the RTE documentary 'The Du Plantier Case' around 14 mins, she said he spoke about a feeling that 'it's really strange, something is going on somewhere'. In her statements she referred to it as a premonition.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905893#Comment_117905893

Well they weren`t going to do that were they. They needed a leg up to arrest Bailey and she provided it for them whether by accident or design. Once Jules became aware that a witness saw himself down at the bridge at 3 AM, she became more forthcoming with the truth. The initial lies by both were exposed and he no longer had an alibi.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905852#Comment_117905852

I think you will find I`m usually accurate enough.