Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

Murder at the Cottage | Sky

1276277279281282350

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 279 ✭✭ MrMischief




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Ah yes, have that one. It's a brilliant resource.

    Forgot there was photos on there. Cheers 👍



  • Registered Users Posts: 653 ✭✭✭ mamboozle


    I think most of what you say is the most plausible lead up to the murder, that she went down to the gate (early morning) to confront/meet somebody. All blood traces are between the gate and the house so a car would seem to me to be the only way there wouldn't be anything on the road leading away from the house. But if somebody did come to meet her in a car why would they go up to the house after the murder? I don't think the idea of an attack at the house and a chase is credible nor that the wine is relevant.

    There were some small traces of blood in the field, and outside the back door, from the house to the gate which led to the chase theory. But the killer travelling the opposite direction, leaving very small traces behind, is far more plausible. Even with a lot of blood on their clothes there is no reason to believe it was dripping but the bloodstain on the door indicates a bloodstained/ bloody gloved hand that may have been unnoticed by the person who left it there even though they were being careful.



  • Registered Users Posts: 362 ✭✭ Gussie Scrotch


    Why would the killer take the time and trouble to walk from the gate back to the house ?



  • Registered Users Posts: 279 ✭✭ MrMischief


    To turn the house lights off not to draw attention or close the house door for the same reason as the keys were left in the door so perhaps she had this ajar. Or to remove any incriminating evidence from the house that would link them to a motive for the murder e.g. one of her diaries that went missing or reclaim bottle of wine? Who knows but plenty of possibilities.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I'm pretty sure the light was off? That door was locked from the inside I think.

    Maybe they tried the door and realised it was locked.

    The different doors, keys, latches in general is one of the most confusing parts of this case, alongside the fact everyone seemed to drive a fiesta!



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,373 ✭✭✭ FishOnABike


    Unless there was something other than small traces of blood in the field and by the back door e.g. footprints, direction grass deflected by walking, direction of blood drops, etc. all that the blood drops can indicate is that Sophie or her attacker or both or possibly even a third party went through the field in one direction or the other.



  • Registered Users Posts: 653 ✭✭✭ mamboozle


    Do you know the path/direction the killer went when leaving the scene? It's already been established that going from the gate past the house and over some fields to the dunmanus bay road could easily be done.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,373 ✭✭✭ FishOnABike


    I wouldn't say easily. It's more rugged uncultivated marginal hillside land with heather and rock outcrops than fields. Possible, but I wouldn't fancy trying to walk it in the dark.



  • Registered Users Posts: 362 ✭✭ Gussie Scrotch




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 757 ✭✭✭ flanna01



    The crime scene photo's are interesting.

    Two wine glasses & two coffee cups on the draining board along with a silver coffee pot...

    I would assume a French person of Sophie's stature would be particular about their coffee..??

    Surely the coffee pot would have to be washed out before making a fresh brew? So would one not rinse the cups out as well whilst you're at it?

    The point I'm making is, given the low volume of cutlery & vessels to wash, would you not do them at the same time as washing the coffee pot?

    The obvious suggesting being there was two washed cups on the draining board along with the washed coffee pot..?? Two people had coffee, Sophie had a guest, there was somebody else there.

    Her bed suggests it wasn't slept in to me... More like somebody sitting up, maybe reading a book trying to keep warm?

    The jam acting as a bookmark suggest that Sophie may have been unexpectedly interrupted by something whilst she was reading?

    Did I read correctly that there was a bottle of Champagne on the table top?? Champagne is traditionally a celebration drink is it not? Was Sophie not talking to some man who previously owned a sex slave and was an artist with an interest in bondage and depicting women in painful poses..? Was there not some talk of joining up in some joint future artistic enterprise with him, cause for celebration maybe..??

    Her laced up boots tell me something else.. She already had them on before she met her demise.. If she had been startled by something outside, there was multiple pairs of wellington boots at the back door, she could have slipped these on in a matter of seconds, no need to be messing with laces..

    Yeah.. The photo's are interesting.



  • Registered Users Posts: 922 ✭✭✭ tinytobe


    I was often considering that she didn't lace up the boots herself, but possibly the killer did, after she was killed. It's not impossible. However it is odd that she was not dressed warmly for a walk outside but still found time to lace up the boots, - and didn't consider slipping into her wellingtons. Also, if the killer did put her boots on and lace them up, he would have run the risk of leaving DNA on them. Maybe she was also dressed differently, like a warm coat, but then again, the injuries lead to suggest that she wore the clothes she was found in. Another riddle.....



  • Registered Users Posts: 653 ✭✭✭ mamboozle


    It's highly likely that Alfie left the blood on the door when checking for whatever reason, he might have touched the body but didn't want to say he had. That doesn't mean he had anything to do with the murder but it seems like everything he said was accepted without question. For all that Detective Dwyer says Bailey tried to point them in the direction of France, he very quickly came up with the idea of the monster in the night supported by the nonsense about Kealfadda bridge. Any half serious investigation would have come to a conclusion that there were only two people in the immediate vicinity so they would have to be arrested. The fact they weren't indicates there was no desire to hear what they had to say.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Alfie emphatically denied even going near Sophies body as far as we know. I'm not saying it's impossible, but he'd have no reason to lie, if for example he touched her then tried the back door (why tho? If he knew it was sophie who had been murdered), because there would be a possibility of his dna etc on the body which could implicate him. I find this implausible.

    It's also nonsense that they should have been arrested!! Gardai can't just arrest people for murder because they were neighbours. Like come on now.

    They were both questioned several times I think, which is normal. Arrested tho?

    *smh*



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Good point.

    Wasn't there an unusual knot on one of the boots? Cant remember where I read that



  • Registered Users Posts: 922 ✭✭✭ tinytobe


    It's just another speculative point from my side.

    If she didn't lace up her boots herself than the killer did, which would also suggest that she wasn't killed outside, as well. Also, could the killer have considered the wellingtons instead of the boots as he would have left fewer traces on the wellingtons as well.

    There are just too many unknown possibilities in this case, and with real DNA and real evidence missing speculations are rampant



  • Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭ BarneyJ


    Jaysus that's all wrong, you can't arrest someone just because they happen to live closest to a crime scene. Reasonable cause to suspect that an arrestable offence had been committed by them is required. There was definitely a desire to hear what they had to say. Statements were taken from Alfie and Shirley.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Why would it suggest she wasn't killed outside?? There's absolutely no evidence that it happened anywhere BUT outside.

    It's clear that everything occurred at the gate. Apart from that faint blood smear on the door there's zero sign of violence elsewhere, or struggle. The house was undisturbed.



  • Registered Users Posts: 653 ✭✭✭ mamboozle


    The Guards were able to find bs reasons to arrest Bailey. You had two people who said they approached the house after seeing a dead body that should instantly have been recognised as being the owner of the house. There's reason straight off as that doesn't sound credible. Not only would there have been no problem arresting them, there would have been a public acceptance of the logic. Bailey was arrested twice but never charged. What was Jules Thomas arrested for?

    Giving a statement where all you have to say is I heard/saw nothing is very different from the kind of grilling Bailey got, which might have yielded something useful in Alfie's case. If people are innocent they'll get over it, won't they?



  • Registered Users Posts: 653 ✭✭✭ mamboozle


    Ian Bailey emphatically denied any involvement so what difference does denial make. There were plenty more grounds for arrest in Alfie's case than there were for Bailey. Motive for a start.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 922 ✭✭✭ tinytobe


    It would just be a speculation in case if the killer put her boots on and laced them and carried her out. However it's just another line of speculation nothing more. Suppose if she was killed inside the house, screams wouldn't have been heard by Alfie or Shirley, the killer would have to have carried her to where she was found, and have returned to the house and cleaned up the murder site, re-arranged everything so everything appeared to be in order. It's not impossible, I'd say. None of us know.

    I would also suggest that Sophie was really killed where she was found, or nearly where she was found. At least there is a strong likelihood that it was that way. It's also possible that she was trying to climb over the gate and trying to flee, and was already injured leaving that blood on the gate, but if so, why didn't she rather try to open the gate. The gate would neither have been locked nor difficult to open, I'd suggest?

    The more one thinks about the case the more questions and speculations are coming up.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Ians arrest was a disgrace too, I think we can agree on that. But there was no grounds to arrest Alfie either.

    Question, yes. Arrest, no.

    I imagine the Gards also looked at how him and Shirley reacted after the murder and found shock and upset, nothing abnormal.

    Look i dont think Alfie is uninvolved, I've shared my thoughts multiple times on this, and they should certainly have dug deeper. I'm of the opinion that if Alfie knew more they probably knew this. He was likely complicit in the cover up wether he realised or not.

    But the whole point of them targeting Ian was they found a good suspect and tried to make the evidence fit. They didn't explore other leads and it was a damn disgrace.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I hear ya, but from what we know about the crime scene eg an indent on the ground where her head was hit so many times, I find it impossible to think that was not where she was killed



  • Registered Users Posts: 922 ✭✭✭ tinytobe


    Agreed. But we're all speculating, with certainty, we don't know not much in this case.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Tbh the only certainty really is that Sophie was murdered, by her gate.

    It's one of the rare certainties about this case in my opinion



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I think you mean grounds for *suspicion*. Agreed.

    There were still no grounds for arrest tho.



  • Registered Users Posts: 653 ✭✭✭ mamboozle


    So they should have dug deeper but not arrested Alfie and Shirley? How else do you dig deeper? Ian Bailey's arrest was cobbled together far too quickly, most probably because of what would have become inevitable; the arrest of the only two people who were in the immediate vicinity, who discovered the body and whose dna/fingerprints were very likely on external (internal?) surfaces of the house.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    You don't just flat out arrest someone do you??

    It's a matter of gathering evidence and having enough to be able to.

    And by dig deeper I mean find out about Alfies drug dealing/growing and how that could be connected.

    Except they didn't. Because that would mean looking in a direction they wanted to avoid.



  • Registered Users Posts: 653 ✭✭✭ mamboozle


    The Guards already knew about plant growing in Alfie's land since they'd busted him, so try to be serious. It's almost amusing how on this thread so many people believe they have an idea of the kind of person that is capable of killing another person when time and again it's been proven that almost anybody is. Since nothing remotely like a credible suspect has ever been found for this crime, the most logical conclusion is that this was a dispute between neighbours that went too far. Manslaughter.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I'm being serious. Obviously they knew. It possibly connected sophie with a garda. Perhaps that's why they didn't go after Alfie as a suspect.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement