Murder at the Cottage | Sky

mamboozle

This is an institutional abuse story more than anything else.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118298232#Comment_118298232

"The keepsake - Well, you have to buy the book for that (already leaked on the net, it's a 'I killed Sophie hat')"

Her watch supposedly.

On his second visit to the scene, Bailey was able to get up close enough to the body to be able to remove her watch ,

without being spotted and without leaving any evidence.

Some feat, that.

https://www.newstalk.com/news/watch-stolen-from-body-of-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-as-trophy-journalist-claims-1287856

PolicemanFox

This is all old stuff which has been gone over already. Basically Leahy found a watch in a cup with a cup on top of it and it had "Pierre" on the back so he got excited about it because Pierre Louis is Sophie's son's name. The Gardai checked it out and it turned out Pierre was the maker's mark.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118299319#Comment_118299319

Reading between the lines I`d say Foster is floundering.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118299515#Comment_118299515

I don't think it's anything to do with the Leahy watch somehow, we'll see.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118299626#Comment_118299626

It`s not like he has discovered anything else particularly groundbreaking. For me the Kali connection is still the most interesting, but even that was underwhelming.

flopisit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118299319#Comment_118299319

The article says immediately after the murder: "It's to do with a watch, a silver watch - so a watch of a specific type - that the killer stole from his victim's body immediately after the murder."

EDIT: It struck me that in many cases, the police will keep back some details in order to guard against false confessions. It's possible that they would keep back the detail that the killer took the watch for that reason.

It's not unusual for serial killers to take trophies from their victims. Jewelry, ID cards, clothes. They do it to be able to remember and relive their crimes. And also they might give the item to a girlfriend/wife to make a connection between them and the victim in their minds. It gives a sense of power or ownership of the victim.

But I don't know how likely it is that the killer would do that in this case. The whole feel of the murder is spur of the moment, "temper flash", blitz attack, over very quickly. But I guess it's still possible....

Usually if an item of jewelry is missing, the family or friends would notice and let the police know that the watch the victim always wears was taken. Or there would be some indication on the arm - blood smear or something like that - left when the killer took the item.

PolicemanFox

Foster said he had been contacted by someone who wanted to know if she had been wearing a watch when she was found. I need to listen again but he seemed to be saying the watch was taken in the morning after discovery. This doesn't add up because the doctor and the Gardai didn't mention it. So it would have to have been stolen before they arrived.

flanna01

Throw away the wine, but keep a personal item of the deceased jewellery..??

Oh Lordy... Really heading into the twilight zone with this one...

Could you imagine Dwyer finding the watch in a cup with the name 'Pierre' engraved on the back of it... He would have shot his load to the point on needing a defibrillator shock to bring him round again...

Like, did nobody publish the small matter of a missing watch.... Was anyone aware that this piece of incriminating evidence might be circulating in the community? Did anybody sport a new time piece around the time of the murder, or receive a gift of a watch from their other half??

Why is the BS alarm in my head ringing about this latest development??

I can just picture Bailey sat outside a tavern in his 'I killed Sophie' hat, the silver ladies watch on his wrist glistening in the sun, whilst reading her diaries neatly stacked on the bench before him.. This whole story is beyond the realms of fiction, where are all the new witnesses coming from?

Are we really that desperate as a nation to please the French Government?

PolicemanFox

The trouble with a famous cold case like this is that it attracts lots of false leads, and people who have a crazy theory. The worst thing to do is to go on the radio every time this happens, it just gives legs to a new rumour.

Glen Immal

Shame that RTE is giving him Airtime with out challenging his disproved theories and lies...( Blindboy podcast)

flanna01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118300637#Comment_118300637

It was wrong to allow Pierre (the Son), time on national television to spout his theories without extending Bailey the same courtesy...

Anyone not familiar with the case, would assume he was talking about a murderer that got away with the crime.

No need to mention the hatchet job that Virgin did, that was an embarrassment to journalism.

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118302354#Comment_118302354

We don't have much by way of independent journalism in Ireland and RTE have to go along with the status quo. The official position appears to be that Bailey can die in Cork, he won't be extradited because he's innocent but no one needs the hassle of getting retired guards to come clean. That is obviously the best solution as the cost of truth would massively outweigh any real benefit. Something we're not unaccustomed to in Ireland, north and south. The recent outcry at the attempt to give real power to GSOC means that reforms are likely to fall far short of what was originally intended. Irish solutions and all that.

There is, though, a clue in all this that the nearest thing to a body we've ever had that conducts Garda oversight has been the DPP's office, which can politely decline to go along with the more 'robust' attempts at gaining convictions. Otherwise the cops are on our side for good or bad. It's quite reasonable to suggest there have been a few operations where the law was broken and, most likely either by mistake or due to difficult circumstances, people have been murdered. Sh*t happens.

I found that Pierre had only one uneasy moment, it was when Ryan Tubridy suggested that the very short visit might cause people to wonder what Sophie was up to. Apart from that, there was no real conviction in his belief that Bailey is guilty. All things considered we've reached the end of the line on this one. For raisons d'etat.

dublin49

Having stayed in touch with this thread without contributing for awhile now I think most of the anti Bailey brigade have been run out of town,we have now reached a stage where any barking mad theory will be considered ,examined to the nth degree with the caveat it cannot in anyway ascertain that Bailey might be guilty.I cannot 100% state Bailey did it ,but if my life depended on the the choice between he did it or didnt I would pick he did it,thats my honest opinion,having read both threads regularly ,watched 2 Docs and listened to Podcast,IMO the posters that state there is nothing to tie him to the crime are in total denial,there is definitely an anti garda vibe on here ,thats fine ,but does not make Bailey innocent.The pro Bailey side have definitely won the debate,havent changed my opinion though.

DontHitTheDitch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118303462#Comment_118303462

It’s probably something to do with Bailey being quite a charasmatic guy. He could have been a cult leader and clearly has a number of people wound around his finger. It’s a skill to hold on to a partner you beat into a pulp. It seems like people will swallow any bullshit that allows them to indulge in fantasies about deathbed confessions and the like. God help that poor family that had nutters calling to the door looking for information. Might even have been some of the people posting in this thread.

flanna01

I'm still of the opinion that this murder was a moment of insanity.. A spur of the moment flashpoint that exploded in a split second. This is based solely on the method used by the murderer.. Shows no forward planning at all in my opinion.

I'm still leaning towards a morning murder, based simply on the known facts: Night dress attire, cereal in the stomach, unopened bread ready to cut on the side, no alcohol in the system (even after drinking wine previous evening), no lights on, and wet blood around the nose and mouth still visible when the Guards turned up.

Looking at the lay out of the land, it appears that Alfie Lyons and Shirley Foster have to drive past Sophie's residence to get to theirs..

The only other property in the area was vacant at the time.

Some pictures posted on this thread clearly show work had been started on Sophie's land. There are fence posts fitted, and more fence posts waiting to be fitted.. The only reason for this can be to define the boundaries of ones property..

We know there was some dispute going on about leaving the entrance gate open, did this sour the relationship? If so, to what extent?

Sophie had laced her boots up before venturing out to meet her demise, does that infer that she had seen something from her window and was driven to confront the situation? I don't believe a caller came to the door, there is no supporting evidence to suggest any altercation occurred around the property itself.

I suggest the murderer was already in the vicinity at the time, and was not intent on murdering anybody.

Bailey clearly stated, that on the way home from the pub that night, he seen lights on at Alfie's house, possibly referring to a party being underway? Did Bailey head over there an hour later? Maybe, I have no idea? If he did, he didn't leave one trace of evidence behind him.

Or was some late night reveller on their way home weary from drink? Did Alfie have influential guests at his party?

For nobody to see or hear anything during the killing, is as hard to fathom as the murderer not leaving a shred of evidence behind them....

Dwyer was right about one thing, the answer is within the locality.

EdHoven

I half heard Foster. I think he started by saying the person who contacted him about the watch was theorising the perp took the watch because it was damaged in the struggle and that would give the time of the murder. Then it seemed to turn into it was for a "trophy".

I will try to listen back but the Foster and Kenny aren't my favourite duo.

DontHitTheDitch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118303755#Comment_118303755

Sounds like someone is winding Foster up. Killing someone in a rage and then taking a trophy? Highly unlikely. If it was a cold, calculated strangulation or stabbing then maybe.

mamboozle

I don't believe there is enough consideration of the high bar that exists to securing a murder conviction. While the general public might not be expected to understand this, the Gardai are well aware of it. It is simply not credible that the Gardai who compiled the file against Bailey that was sent to the DPP ever had any genuine belief in its chance of success. Alongside the particularly hurried arrest of Bailey, a little over a month after the body was found and the very senior nature of the Guards(the head of the National Drugs Squad why?) assigned to the case, it is astonishing how little many people see in all of this. It is a bit pathetic to say that pointing out things like this means someone is anti-guards. It is almost like saying the DPP is anti-guards. It is simply about recognising that sometimes this state working with other states carries out operations to foil serious criminality that the general public will never be told about. Everything about this case suggests this.

The idea that such high ranking experienced police officers were not able to find one single shred of physical evidence to connect Ian Bailey to Sophie Toscan du Plantier tells you a few things. First that there was none because he was innocent. This cannot be stated enough. Even with breakthroughs in DNA testing there is still nothing against Bailey, because he had nothing to do with it.

But there is something else that people have suggested indicates the police investigation was above board; the fact that evidence wasn't planted. However there is a much more persuasive case for not planting evidence that indicates police caution. What if evidence had been planted leading to Bailey's conviction and jailing and then the actual murderer turns up. Now the investigating Guards are in trouble. While there are some very credible accounts of how the Guards tried to cajole or coerce witnesses into making statements against Bailey because they believed him guilty it is telling that they didn't go the easy route of planting evidence.

Apart from all this, Judge Patrick Morans astonishing pronouncements during the libel trial indicates some very fishy business.

flopisit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118303604#Comment_118303604

I have to disagree with your theory about the time of the murder. Blood takes a while to dry at room temperature, indoors, especially such a large amount of blood. Temperature has a massive impact on the drying time of blood. When you have this amount of blood, outdoors at near freezing temperature, that is going to take a long time to dry.

Also, regarding time of death in general, it is a very inexact science. It amounts to the pathologist's best guess, based on a lot of different factors and his own experience. There's only one person who had enough knowledge to estimate time of death and that was Dr John Harbison. His educated guess was between midnight and 2am. Despite what you read in the papers and the books on this case, not being able to take body temperature until 23 hours later is actually not as big of a problem as they would have you think. There are many other methods used.

Regarding the lights being off - I don't think that's a good indicator. When you're inside and someone is outside, if you turn on the lights, you can't see them but they can see you. If the lights are off, you can see them. There are also many other reasons we could speculate as to why she may not have turned on the lights.

Stomach contents are not a good indicator either. Quite inexact. People digest food at different rates depending on size, metabolism, age etc. Harbison of course would certainly have already taken this into account in his estimate. Not to mention the fact that plenty of people eat cereal before going to bed.

The same goes for alcohol in the system. When someone has two glasses of wine... How big were the glasses? How much of the glass did they drink? Many factors affect how the body metabolizes alcohol - sex, age, size, drinking water, eating food etc. But anyway, I am confused why people bring up the alcohol, because in the timeline, she visited the Ungerers "Between 2.00pm and 4.00pm", Daniel in his statement says she got home from the Ungerers around 9:30pm but he's wrong. She left the Ungerers , met the O'Sullivans and was home some time before 5:30pm. So she had 10 to 12 hours to process those two supposed glasses of wine...

And all of this is kind of a moot point, because a local doctor (Dr O'Connor if I remember) was at the crime scene at 11:00 am and noted that rigor mortis had set in. Usually that sets in 2 to 6 hours after death, but it is greatly delayed by low temperature. If the body is partially frozen, rigor sometimes won't set in until it thaws...

Regarding Alfie's Party.... There was no party. Alfie and his wife were in bed asleep (around 9 or 10, I can't remember offhand. I think you probably read a comment in this thread where some user claimed there was a party, but there are no serious witnesses in this case claiming Alfie had a party that night. I am pretty sure Ian Bailey doesn't even accept that he said anything about lights on in Alfie's house. Isn't that one of the things he claims the police added to his interview statement.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118300029#Comment_118300029

I thought he was saying the opposite...i.e....that the watch was taken before the gardaí arrived and probably in the immediate aftermath of the murder. So I am going to be very speculative here and say that the person that Foster is corresponding with is Jules. I can`t think why the specific time that the watch was taken could be important to anybody else. But I can think of a reason why it could be important to Jules. Ultimately if the watch that was found can`t be traced back to Sophie, then I don`t see any significant breakthrough.

flopisit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118304012#Comment_118304012

" It is simply not credible that the Gardai who compiled the file against Bailey that was sent to the DPP ever had any genuine belief in its chance of success. "

Quite the opposite. This happens all the time. ALL THE TIME. You can see it in the UK and the US as well. Police pressuring the prosecutors and prosecutors refusing to prosecute.

If you watch the UK tv series "24 Hours in Police Custody", which is a documentary series showing behind the scenes in an average UK police station - You will see the police on the phone to the prosecutors office, trying to pressure them, despite not having enough evidence.

A famous example in the UK is the Colin Stagg/Rachel Nickell murder. The prosecutors ended up bringing the case, with no credible evidence and the judge threw it out at the start of the trial.

Another famous example in the US is the Jonbenet Ramsey case. The police ended up essentially going to war with the District Attorney's office over their refusal to prosecute the girl's parents. The police very obviously didn't have enough evidence to tell anything, but they were genuinely convinced the parents did it. They shouldn't have been, but they were.

In Sophie's case, the gardai clearly went overboard in attempting to pressure the DPP to prosecute. But it happens a lot, maybe just not to that extent. The gardai pressure the DPP. It's the way the system is set up, not just in our country. And from what we know of the Bandon tape recordings, you can see that the police are convinced they have their man and they are very clearly worried that Bailey will kill again if he is not prosecuted.

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118304068#Comment_118304068

Do you deliberately misinterpret what I say. I obviously say the file has no chance of success in securing a conviction and nothing about pressure on the DPP.

Please quote me anything from the Bandon tapes that supports your assertion the Guards were convinced they had their man and were worried he'd kill again

flopisit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118304075#Comment_118304075

No, I don't think I am misinterpreting. You said the gardai didn't have a genuine belief that it would succeed. And I pointed out that the police in many countries regularly do think their case will succeed and pressure the prosecutors to bring the case even though, objectively, they don't have the evidence.

My point was that it is very common for police to think that they do have enough evidence for a successful prosecution, even though they do not.

flopisit

Nick Foster on The Pat Kenny Show:

"It turns out that a person with a close link to this case was keen - even desperate - to know the precise moment that the watch was taken from Sophie's wrist. And this person wanted to know if the watch was still on the body in the late morning after the crime... I have been able to tell this person through a letter that it was not. The question has been preying on this person's mind. I told this person that, in fact, the killer stole the watch before fleeing the scene. I think it must be terrible for this person to have this question in their head for a while..."

champchamp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118304153#Comment_118304153

If this is true then it's very interesting.

However as it's Foster who knows if there's anything to it or it's just made up.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118304243#Comment_118304243

Sophie wore her watch on her right wrist;

watch.jpg

The crime scene photos showing her right arm has no watch.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118299756#Comment_118299756

You're right, he clearly says that now.

I was interpreting these tweets from earlier , reading them in numerical order it appeared to say otherwise;

twitter.jpg

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118304094#Comment_118304094

Nothing about the Bandon tapes to follow up your assertion that the Guards were Convinced of Bailey's guilt?

Like many other people you bend over backwards to suggest that, while rare, the actions of the Guards have been mirrored in other countries so therefore it is somehow acceptable. All you are saying is that dodgy investigations aren't unheard of but so what, we're concerned with WHY this one was dodgy and the idea of being convinced of someones guilt while not being good enough does not logically add up.

John Montague gets all this in a nutshell;

"It is highly possible that a great many locals, including, perhaps, the gardaí, would have been pleased to put him away for this murder simply because they did not approve of him."

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118304019#Comment_118304019

How do you know she didn't drink wine after arriving home?

There were three wine glasses , two washed by the sink and one unwashed on the mantle.

Also your rigor mortis theory does not take into account activity immediately prior to death.

While the temperature on the night was below freezing, at sun-up it would have risen.

So strenuous activity just prior to death added to rising morning temperatures would speed up rigor mortis.

It was noted the blood was still wet at 10 am. and the doctor could only say she had been dead "for some hours" by 11am.

so anything from 2 to 10 hours, between midnight and 9 am.