Murder at the Cottage | Sky

DontHitTheDitch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118312267#Comment_118312267

Your position seems to be that someone who perpetrates explosive violence against their partner should not be considered a danger to others. Do you have any evidence to back that up?

You seem to suggest that a deviant like Bailey has to fit inside an artificial statistic that you decide?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118312280#Comment_118312280

Have you any idea how different the French courts are to the irish ones?

They accept hearsay and conjecture as evidence for a start AND in a French court the entire policial procedure is overseen by a judge, which means by the time it gets to court, the evidence can be watertight. (there's numerous examples of this not being the case, depending on the judge, but to remain objective I'll state how French law typically runs)

You do realise that France won't extradite their own citizens but apparently expect it off neighbouring states?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118312289#Comment_118312289

It's your claim they are. I'm asking you for statistics to back that up.

Language like 'deviant' and 'explosive violence' doesn't change the statistics. You seem to be trying to use strong language to make up for your lack of substatiation.

I have no idea what having to "fit inside an artificial statistic that you decide" means, seems like exactly the kind of smokescreen nonsense someone would come up with when they are unable to back up what they are saying?

DontHitTheDitch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118312333#Comment_118312333

He has a history of repeated explosive violence, he beat his partner several times. Your position seems to be that this history of violence excludes him from being a murder suspect? Domestic Violence Foreshadows Mass Shootings, Research Shows (thetrace.org)

"A new study released late last month further solidifies the connection between domestic violence and a propensity for future, public acts of violence. Researchers from the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence and Johns Hopkins analyzed 110 gun murders of four or more people between 2014 and 2019 and found that in 68 percent of incidents, the perpetrator either killed an intimate partner or a family member, or had a history of domestic violence."

People with a history of explosive and violent rage, like Ian Bailey, are clearly more likely to be involved in violence against others. His ex-wife said he had an explosive temper and threw things around the house in a rage. He wrote in his diary that he assaulted another person in a pub and he also wrote about how he wanted to kill Jules. One quote: "If I could could kill anyone now I would".

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118312430#Comment_118312430

Where did I say it precludes him? You obviously dont have much of a point when you have to resort to strawman nonsense.

I dont think he did it because of the lack of evidence and motive. What happened with Jules is neither necessary nor sufficient in terns of pointing to murder.

If they are clearly so... where is the evidence? Where are the stats?

Where is the general pattern of violence to others specifically with relation to Bailey?

You link a study on mass shootings not murders in general... which talks about crimes other than domestic violence. It also relates to someone first killing a relative then embarking on a murder suicide spree.

Its neither here nor there.

This is a red herring.

There were many other people in west cork with assault and domestic abuse convictions. As a profile of murderer it is such a weak link it signifies nothing tangible - its not evidence.

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118312430#Comment_118312430

Not only anybody who has committed domestic violence, anybody who has ever committed an assault in public, in a pub or on a sports field, in private or wherever has a propensity for future violence. There are tens of thousands of people in Ireland that this could be said about. As usual your propositions are ridiculous and easily dismissed. There is no reason to believe that the killer of Sophie had to be from the local area, since anybody could have been following her. Bailey's domestic violence history was and is purely for public consumption to portray him as some kind of monster he clearly isn't. If even allowed as evidence in any murder trial it would have been quickly dismissed as irrelevant to the murder which it is. The Guards thought they might have been able to get away with a 'trust us we know what we're doing' but it was seen as such by the DPP.

The DPP was quite clear in his assessment of the file presented to him. More than once he is sceptical of witness statements or supposed confessions. The simple fact remains that were Bailey the perpetrator it is impossible that there wasn't some physical evidence linking him to the scene and the kind of experienced Guards on the case would have found it. All efforts were concentrated on Bailey and we have no real grasp on what level of investigation the immediate houses of the Lyons and Richardsons were subject to. It was all very fishy and it still is.

DontHitTheDitch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118312527#Comment_118312527

You asked to see statistics that domestic abusers commit murder against strangers. I gave it to you, it's ok to want to deny it and weasel out of it. It says that close to 70% of mass-murderers had a history of either domestic abuse or killing a partner. It's what you asked for?

DontHitTheDitch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118312604#Comment_118312604

I really don't see what you admire about a man that beats his partner to a pulp multiple times. No accounting for folks I guess.

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118312646#Comment_118312646

It's already been said that you resort to strong language like "to a pulp" when you are lost for anything useful to say. A bit of mock exasperation thrown in for good measure.

flanna01

Christ, the boys are going at it fairly lively tonight...

Anyway, moving on..

So Nick Foster made a statement to Pat Kenny that I thought was interesting. He stated that the investigation had received some good solid leads, and possible evidence that will bring justice for Sophie's family.

He further stated that Drew Harris had sent a team of detectives down to Cork to follow up on the latest fresh leads they had.

Foster also stated that he expects at least one arrest if not more, very shortly.

I take it this is concerning the missing watch? Or maybe Shirley Foster has made another statement to go along with the Jules Thomas confession about washing blood off Baileys clothes nonsense?

DontHitTheDitch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118312662#Comment_118312662

You are in denial.

"Admitting he had been "seriously violent" towards his Welsh-born artist girlfriend three times, Mr Bailey said they separated for several months in mid-1996 after she sought a protection order against him.

"It's common knowledge, to my eternal shame, that in the past when I used to drink spirits, that to my eternal shame, that I was involved in incidents of domestic violence with Ms Thomas," Mr Bailey said.

"I don't know what I can say about that other than to say it's to my eternal shame."

In the most recent beating, in August 2001, the court heard Mr Bailey hit Ms Thomas across the face, body and limbs with a crutch after she woke him from a nap on a sofa in their home near Schull, west Cork.

Mr Bailey pleaded guilty to an assault charge and was given a suspended sentence.

In an earlier incident, Mr Bailey told the court, he pulled out a 4cm clump of Ms Thomas' hair, left her with a closed black eye, in need of stitches inside her mouth and bruising to the face and head, hands and arms after a row broke out in her car as she drove them home from a west Cork pub.

Ms Thomas was kept in hospital in Cork city for one night after the attack and the couple separated and got back together before Christmas.

Mr Bailey told the court Ms Thomas grabbed him when they were in her car after a night socialising and drinking. He reacted by pushing her away before attacking her.

He was shown four photos of injuries to Ms Thomas but refused to detail them to the jury.

Pressed on the injuries by senior counsel for the state, Mr Bailey agreed Ms Thomas was shown with a closed, blackened right eye, bandaged and badly bruised arms.

The couple have been side by side since the case started over a week ago.

In the earliest violent attack, in 1993, the court heard Mr Bailey attacked Ms Thomas after waking from sleep with a nosebleed and lashing out"

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118312635#Comment_118312635

This is precisely the kind of nonsense you put out there and suggest you are making a serious argument. It stands to reason that mass-murderers will have engaged in violence in their past, domestic or otherwise. Your ridiculous proposition is that there is a very high probability that a domestic abuser will go on to murder a stranger. There clearly isn't as the ratio of domestic violence incidences to murders is probably far more than 100 to 1 and most of those murders won't be commited by strangers. You can flail around all you like to try and square this circle but your reasons for suggesting Bailey is a reasonable suspect are falling well short of the kind of evidence required to try someone for murder. In short, ridiculous

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118312741#Comment_118312741

So what? Ian Bailey was guilty of domestic abuse. We all know that

flopisit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118310397#Comment_118310397

Some guy to be up at 6am one day after an all nighter and out 2am the next going across fields by moonlight on foot.

But we know that is Bailey's lifestyle. His own account of the night of the murder has him coming home from the boozer, staying up all night writing an article, getting a very brief kip, then bringing Jules a cuppa in bed around 9, then heading off to cover a murder... We also have witnesses who say he was often spotted out late at night, wandering the area, sometimes half-naked and howling at the moon.

Anyone who believes MF originally described Bailey without mentioning his obvious height and build.. seriously? Her description is not Bailey. Beggars belief that was the first time she saw Bailey on Schull Main Street working there for a year too.

It's very common for witnesses to get the height wrong. If you look at serial rape cases, often all of the victims will give vastly varying estimates of the rapist's height. And Marie Farrell is barely 5ft herself. Even in the West Cork podcast, she starts out by saying, "I don't know if he was 5ft 10 or what... I wouldn't be good at telling that".

If her description is not Bailey, that means Bailey and the man in black were outside her shop at the same time 3pm on the 21st. It's a wonder Bailey didn't see this man in black also. Since he followed Bailey to the Murphy's house and was standing outside the Murphy's house when Bailey was staying there the next morning. Very odd behaviour from the man in black.

I don't know of Marie Farrell was lying before 2006, but she is definitely lying now and she is in league with Bailey. We have evidence from Geraldine O'Brien that Marie told her she was getting a cut of the millions Bailey expected to get in the 2014 trial when he sued the state. Marie Farrell's evidence didn't change, except for the fact that she now says the man in black was not Bailey. She also now says Bill Fuller was outside her shop on the morning of the 23rd, another convenient claim that helps Bailey. The only changes she made to her story are changes that help Bailey. Why is that?

We don't know if Marie Farrell knew Bailey before the murder, but I do know one interesting fact, from GSOC. In the Summer of 1997, one of Jules Thomas’ daughters was working as a babysitter for Marie Farrell.

flopisit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118312741#Comment_118312741

Regarding the 1993 attack. Bailey initially claimed Jules elbowed him in the nose as she was getting into bed and that is why he assaulted her. Later he stopped claiming that and the story became that she was just getting into bed and he attacked her.

Also, the above 1993 attack happened in August, but that means there was another previous attack that Jules and Ian have not admitted to. Because we have a statement from Colette Gallagher claiming that in the Summer of 1993, Jules showed her terrible bruises she had on her body and legs and told her that Ian had done that to her.

Also, there were two attacks in 1996. The one Jules and Bailey admit is the one from May 15th - The hair, eye, lip attack. But there is another attack that happened on April 17/18. We know about it from the statement of Ginny Thomas. “On the night of April 17th, 1996 - my mother’s birthday - or the night of April 18th, 1996, Ian and my mother had gone to the Courtyard Bar (in Schull) for a music concert.” Ginny Thomas said she was also at the concert and afterwards, her mother and Mr Bailey had a row. She said she noticed afterwards her mother had a bite mark on her arm and when she asked her what happened, she told her Mr Bailey had bitten her. Ms Thomas said she then went to Mr Bailey and demanded an explanation from him for the assault. In her statement, she said he told her he did not have to justify himself to her and did not say anymore about it.

Just so everyone is clear... Jules and Ian claimed under oath in court that he assaulted her on 3 separate occasions, in August 1993, May 1996 and August 2001. As you can see, they both lied.

EdHoven

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118312288#Comment_118312288

So what happened to Alfie Lyon's wife and daughter when he lived with them at Basil Bush?

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118312916#Comment_118312916

If you like you can look up 100 other domestic violence incidents from the early 1990s anywhere in Ireland, since we don't know where the killer came from, and tell us why you believe one is more relevant than others to the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier.

EdHoven

1981 this clipping shows there was a wife and daughter living at Basil Bush, what happened to them? We hear Alfie Lyons was a chef in London and when he retired he and SAF moved to Dreenane but we never hear about this first family. Whilst also he was a Russian and Italian speaker who lived in the US. Can it be both?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118312891#Comment_118312891

Bailey was not seen by MF on that bridge, the amount of hoops and jumps you go to on everything from him being physically capable of such exploits over 36 hours, down to Marie Farrell's utterly unreliable testimony and the mystery man in the car. Nope, not buying it.

She didn't just get the height wrong, I'm not talking about exact feet and inches, but whether this was a big guy or not. She said the guy was of thin build. That's not Bailey. Had she never looked out that window before? You would build up an idea of relative heights and builds, that this person was bigger or small than average, or just average. And Bailey is not average. Nope, not buying it.

Also, she was working on Schull main street for a year, running a shop, and never saw Bailey about before? Nope, not buying it.

Her testimony simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and the DPP agrees. It's obvious her original description is changing shape to fit Bailey, when it's clear her original description was not of Bailey.

In her statement dated 14 February 1997 she states that on Monday 23 December 1996 at about 3 a.m. she was with a male friend in her motorcar and she saw a man walking on the road. He was stumbling forward and had his two hands to the side of his face but she could see his face. She states that she identified the man as being the same person she had seen on 21 December 1996 in Schull and on the morning of 22 December 1996. A person in a motor car being driven in an unlighted country area during the hours of darkness is unlikely to be in a position to make a reliable identification of a person on the roadway under the circumstances described above. Marie Farrell’s powers of observation and identification are diminished even further by virtue of the statement she made on 22 January 1997. She describes the man she saw in the town who she later purports to identify as Bailey as being very tall. 

mamboozle

I would suggest to people here who would genuinely like to see justice that all these attempts to steer the focus back on things like Ian Bailey's domestic abuse, watches and blood-stained clothes, Marie Farrell etc., are because of the cracks that began to appear during Bailey's case against the Guards four years ago which had to have been causing ructions behind the scenes, where it is highly likely some Guards made threats along the lines of - if I go down you're coming with me. I would suggest that this is why the state stepped in late in the day to bury the case. There is probably a bit of paranoia out there now because of the appointment of Drew Harris so the constant concentration on Bailey could be designed to steady some nerves.

The case against Bailey is this ; Bailey is violent, the murder was violent so Bailey's the murderer. It is beyond doubt that the Guards were up to something with witnesses so most of their case deserves the dismissal it got from the DPP.

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118313366#Comment_118313366

This is a credible witness that the Guards were prepared to manipulate witnesses. It's obvious this is what was happening with Marie Farrell from day one so she can be forgotten about as having any relevance to the truth.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/gardai-told-ian-baileys-friend-that-theyd-made-a-mess-of-sophie-case-high-court-hears-30828217.html

DontHitTheDitch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118313448#Comment_118313448

She says herself she is a very close friend of Ian, spent a lot of time alone with him and was shunned for 'the company she keeps'. So we are supposed to believe that the gardai go to a known friend of Ian Bailey, peep over her wall and then go on to tell her they made such a mess of the case and are in trouble? lol.

How much was Ian due to make if his action against the state was successful again? A few million?

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118313557#Comment_118313557

The knee-jerk misogyny comes out again. Another 'poor' woman under the influence of the monster but looking for a few quid as well the hussy? And then you have the nerve to write lol.

Unfortunately for your gang we all know the truth when we see it

DontHitTheDitch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118313660#Comment_118313660

Ian admits trying to persuade neighbours of his to give the gardai false information to see if they could get cash for it. It's in one of the podcasts, he calls it 'a breach of security'. It's entirely consistent with what the neighbours reported and what Geraldine O'Brien testified about Marie Farrell hoping to get a few bob. And give up the 'misogyny' horseshit, you're the one trying to make out Jules being beaten to a pulp is an exaggeration.

mamboozle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118313695#Comment_118313695

We all know she wasn't "beaten to a pulp" and we know domestic violence is irrelevant to the case.

There was plenty of lol with you last night so goodbye

EdHoven

In my opinion all this "me too" stuff about Ian is distraction. On the surface does he appear a violent, egotistical, bully? There seems to be some known incidents that lend credence to that in my opinion. Does that make him Sophie's killer beyond all reasonable doubt? No.

Was he the only weirdo in the area? No. There were plenty of others. Including Sophie and Tomi Ungerer with their bonding over bondage. The mysterious Alfie Lyons and his link to drugs and disappearing family and disappearing dog. The various other colourful characters libel laws prevent me from mentioning.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118314126#Comment_118314126

This is what the French psychiatrist and psychologist had to say about him.

Though they may not be as well qualified as DontHitTheDitch

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/narcissist-ian-baileys-personality-based-on-violence-court-hears-38163025.html

Especially;

"The two experts, who were not present in court yesterday, said that Mr Bailey had "no impairment" to influence him in carrying out a criminal act and that he was not psychotic."

flanna01

What if Maria Farrell had never made that first phone call..?

What direction would the investigation have taken?

If there was one of their own involved in the murder (in whatever capacity), they would still need a 'distraction' to divert the attention from themselves whilst they came up with a plan b..

Ian Bailey put himself in the eye of the storm, he was full on from the beginning. The scratches on his hands were probably the corner stone to which his attempted demise would be built upon.

One search of his name would reveal his domestic abuse woe's, another damning attribute to making a murderer.

It appears to me, that once Bailey had been ear marked for the murder, every other line of investigation was dropped. They had their man, just needed to get the supporting evidence to throw him in prison for the rest of his life.

You can imagine the dismay when no evidence was found placing Bailey at the scene.. And then he volunteers his dna without needing to?? How can this be? Not one iota of evidence linking him to the murder, nor indeed the person either... Nothing!

Then Fiona rings.... It's a game changer.

Her description of the man she seen by the bridge doesn't match Bailey, but that can be sorted. The other fella in the car can't be identified, but shur what of it..?? Have a look at the video there of Ian Bailey, see if it jogs your memory, I'll just nip out and take care of them £1,500 worth of traffic offence fines.. take our time..

Once Maria Farrell's memory had been refreshed, and she identified the man by the bridge as Bailey, the game was afoot..

Unfortunately, even Dermot Dwyer could see the potential of Farrell being ripped to shreds on the stand. You couldn't trust her to give you the proper time of day, her testimony was shot.

Instead of dismissing Farrell and her fertile imagination, the directive was to source supporting evidence to nail Bailey proper for the murder. This was akin to digging a deeper hole, one that they could never get out of.

Enter the many coerced stooges that gladly took the shillings, the drugs and the reward of lighter sentences for their own misdemeanors.

With the investigation fully lost to the twilight zone, there was no turning back. It was Bailey or nothing.. sh*t or bust. With all the chips placed on Bailey's arrest and conviction, all other avenues of the investigation were ignored.

The seed that started this sh*t storm off, can be traced back to the infamous telephone call to the Garda Confidential Line

'Hello, this is Fiona'

Without that phone call, without that distraction, maybe the case would have been solved many, many years ago.. Sophie's family never got the justice the deserve, and the murderer has never been punished for the crime.

Was that down to an inadequate investigation?

Or does the book stop with 'Fiona'?

EdHoven

To get back to the case. The photo of the bedroom Sophie was in seems to show a round brass object that looks like a bell you'd ding in a shop to gain attention.

This room wasn't her normal bedroom, she was using this room because there was more heat coming up from the kitchen.

If it is a bell would that not indicate there was someone staying with her? What is the point of a bell to summon someone if there is nobody there?

Maybe is is an ashtray or pot pourri but it looks like a bell to me.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118314301#Comment_118314301

It was a hot water heater. Like an old school hot water bottle.