nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Murder at the Cottage | Sky

CorkGunJonny

Anyone know what channel it's on? The jim sheridan documentary about sophie toscan du plantier

Find more posts tagged with

Sophie

Quick Links

Comments

monkeybutter

Yurt! wrote: »

Allo Monsieur MoonUnit,

We 'av received very reliable how you say evidence from not so crazy local dairy farmer that you were present in Schull West Cork zee night of zee murder. We hear from locals you 'av been a very naughty boy and 'av very bad reputations. Please come to Paris at earliest convenience so we can conduct un très très fair trial.

Repondez s'il vous plaît,

Cordialement,

Very important French person with your best interests in mind.

suspiciously like the man Marie now claims she saw at the bridge

[Deleted User]

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Don't you mean payees?:P

I meant players actually:D. have corrected

monkeybutter

fryup wrote: »

who are you alluding to??

I'd drag Larry into it, but the vanishing triangle can only stretch so far

Muahahaha

monkeybutter wrote: »

Not sure he would be expecting the man himself to be jumping at the opportunity to be interviewed were he alive

More like, did this allegation rear its head

Yeah thats what I was asking, did the Sky documentary raise the allegation from this Graham chap that the Gardai were giving him free hash in exchange for a statement that would help to frame Bailey

threeball wrote: »

It would tie in with why the Guards made such a botch of the investigation too. We saw in Raphoe how protective they were of their own and this was around the same era.

The Raphoe case has some similarities and is also an unsolved murder where Gardai tried to frame an innocent man Frank McBrearty. That resulted in the Morris Tribunal and McBrearty having his name cleared and paid 2.5 million in compensation for suffering years of harassment from the Gardai

odyssey06 wrote: »

France should have been told to take a running jump with the abuse of power they claim for themselves in terms of trying a case that occurred on Irish territory.

Agree fully but no doubt but it was part of horse trading between France and Ireland. Varadkar met Macron in Paris in 2017 after the du Plantier family had already met officials in the highest levels of the French government. Ireland needed Frances support at EU level on Brexit, France needed the DPP files so they could put on a show trial to keep the du Plantier family happy. Both events happened after that meeting.

Timck

Ian Bailey is Innocent although he should be locked up for spousal abuse.

notahappycamper

Just finished the West Cork podcast. I hadn’t heard of it prior to it been discussed earlier in this thread. Wow, some level of detail and investigation. Weighing things up there is obviously no concrete evidence against IB. Only he knows the truth. But Jesus, the level of incompetence by the Gardai, bribing of witnesses and missing exhibits is absolutely diabolical. The podcast comments on the GSOC investigation in the last episode. The French court case was a a farce.

gmisk

I am up to episode 4..
It feels a tad biased...I don't think Sheridan thinks Bailey did it...and it shows.

I honestly think he did it. But the gardai made an absolute hames of the investigation, disaster after disaster, people like that clown Marie Farrell are not credible and muddied the waters absolute eejit.

ClosedAccountFuzzy

fryup wrote: »

irish licence plates were wishy washy back then, most were red some were black and some were white...its only in the late 90's that rules got strict about number plates with all new cars sold with the standard type we have today

Red rear plates with black letters were used here in the 1980s. You might have still found them on older cars at that stage back in the mid 90s. They disappeared in 1987, when the current numbering scheme was introduced.

We would have had various non standard plates until the current EU format with the flag was introduced in 1991. From that point on they looked like they do today. It wasn’t unusual to have silver lettering on black plates for example.

French plates in that era would have been a mix of black letters on yellow rear plates and white plates on the front, or for cars up to 1993 they were black plates with silver lettering.

Irish and French numbering of that era can also clash randomly sometimes too as you could end up with something like 94 RN 38

Format was: NN AA XX
Where NN was 1 to 4 numerical digits.
AA was two letters
XX was the two digit department number (equivalent to our county letters)

France also issued red plates for temporary registration. They would have looked very similar to our old plates, but I’m bit sure why a temporary reg car would have been outside France. They’re usually dealer plates or import plates, like the ZZ series here.

The only other source of red plates would be Belgium, where they were the standard on that era.

I’d be fairly confident the Gardai at the time would have been fairly well able to figure out plate colours of Irish and French cars though.

Biker79

Some reasons why I believe Bailey couldn't have done it.

1. The jaunty way he engaged with a video camera hours after the killing, reciting a limerick/ poem. He hadn't a care in the world and was in high spirits. Unless he was a complete psycho, that's not the behavior of a killer.

2. His partner, knowing all of his faults which included a physical attack on her, is certain he didn't / couldn't have done it.

3. He doesn't try to hide his foibles. They are there for everyone to see. You would imagine he would have kept up some sort of façade if he was guilty.

Without looking at the hard evidence, those reasons alone made him an unlikely suspect.

monkeybutter

notahappycamper wrote: »

Just finished the West Cork podcast. I hadn’t heard of it prior to it been discussed earlier in this thread. Wow, some level of detail and investigation. Weighing things up there is obviously no concrete evidence against IB. Only he knows the truth. But Jesus, the level of incompetence by the Gardai, bribing of witnesses and missing exhibits is absolutely diabolical. The podcast comments on the GSOC investigation in the last episode. The French court case was a a farce.

They didn't bribe a witness as such, they tried to coerce him to go undercover and befriend bailey, ply him with a bitta gange and confess

I mean that was the smartest thing they did

With Marie Farrell mad as a bag of spanners, so discount anything she said

Again they weren't prepared for this kinda thing, so as much an institutional failure as individual

monkeybutter

gmisk wrote: »

I am up to episode 4..
It feels a tad biased...I don't think Sheridan thinks Bailey did it...and it shows.

I honestly think he did it. But the gardai made an absolute hames of the investigation, disaster after disaster, people like that clown Marie Farrell are not credible and muddied the waters absolute eejit.

No motive and no evidence though

gmisk

monkeybutter wrote: »

No motive and no evidence though

I honestly don't believe him about the scratches from the tree and turkey.
He also admitted doing it to multiple people.
But yeah no hard evidence, partially I would say due to gardai incompetence

monkeybutter

gmisk wrote: »

I honestly don't believe him about the scratches from the tree and turkey.
He also admitted doing it to multiple people.
But yeah no hard evidence, partially I would say due to gardai incompetence

If he had scratches etc from the brambles he wouldn't have left more blood on them when he was up walking around, was he even allowed in the house

It's surely impossible for someone in a rage killing like this to remove all evidence after

Yet as far as I know nothing was found

One of those people was a 14 year old schoolboy

The other was at a party when all were drunk

It could mean something, but it's paper thin

monkeybutter

gmisk wrote: »

I honestly don't believe him about the scratches from the tree and turkey.
He also admitted doing it to multiple people.
But yeah no hard evidence, partially I would say due to gardai incompetence

If we could only see the brilliant drawing

I mean you could get scratches from anything

Hardly unbelievable

Fandymo

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

If there was some sort of flirtation between them, is it surprising that it was completely secret?

Have you seen/heard Ian Bailey? If he was having an affair with a French writer and wife of a famous French director, do you think he’d be able to keep quiet about it? He’d love telling everyone about it.

Fandymo

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

If there was some sort of flirtation between them, is it surprising that it was completely secret?

odyssey06

monkeybutter wrote: »

If we could only see the brilliant drawing

I mean you could get scratches from anything

Hardly unbelievable

They didn't know how to use a camera?

monkeybutter

odyssey06 wrote: »

They didn't know how to use a camera?

I had the first camera in whest cork you know

MoonUnit75

odyssey06 wrote: »

They didn't know how to use a camera?

From my reading of the DPP report, Bailey was first questioned a few weeks after the murder. The reason there were drawings instead of photographs is probably because the visible scratches had healed by then so drawings were made to provide some record of the observations of gardai who had dealings with him shortly after the murder. You don't generally photograph the hands of people attending the scene of a crime or suspected of a crime without first arresting them.

I think the DPP was too eager to dismiss the case, perhaps to avoid an embarrassing demolition of the hapless gardai at trial. Several times the DPP describes Ian Bailey's behaviour as 'indicating innocence' without giving any consideration to a perpetrator having a fatalistic resignation to being caught, or hoping for full co-operation to reflect well on them when it came to sentencing. This would be consistent with the several witnesses who made statements that Bailey basically admitted to it, perhaps even wanting to be caught and enjoying the notoriety. Nearly all of these witnesses are described as either being suggestible or wanting to please the gardai. This is not even considered once when his partner and children's statements are presented as corroborating his account.

Some of the reasoning is contradictory. The DPP says Marie Cassidy's statements are completely unreliable and should be dismissed. But they also use her description of Bailey wearing a long coat to argue that wearing this long coat would have prevented him getting scratches from the thorn bushes.

Tipsy McSwagger

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

From my reading of the DPP report, Bailey was first questioned a few weeks after the murder. The reason there were drawings instead of photographs is probably because the visible scratches had healed by then so drawings were made to provide some record of the observations of gardai who had dealings with him shortly after the murder. You don't generally photograph the hands of people attending the scene of a crime or suspected of a crime without first arresting them.

I think the DPP was too eager to dismiss the case, perhaps to avoid an embarrassing demolition of the hapless gardai at trial. Several times the DPP describes Ian Bailey's behaviour as 'indicating innocence' without giving any consideration to a perpetrator having a fatalistic resignation to being caught, or hoping for full co-operation to reflect well on them when it came to sentencing. This would be consistent with the several witnesses who made statements that Bailey basically admitted to it, perhaps even wanting to be caught and enjoying the notoriety. Nearly all of these witnesses are described as either being suggestible or wanting to please the gardai. This is not even considered once when his partner and children's statements are presented as corroborating his account.

So guess work?

gussieg

so, does that mean Jules and her daughter are lying, is that what you mean?

MoonUnit75

gussieg wrote: »

so, does that mean Jules and her daughter are lying, is that what you mean?

No, I think they should apply the reasoning about the credibility of witnesses consistently, not just when it implicated Bailey.

MoonUnit75

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

So guess work?

Do you think police drawings based on witness accounts are all guess work? They are used very often.

weadick

am_zarathustra wrote: »

Has anyone read the book by Foster, Murder at Roaringwater.....half tempted to buy it but he seems to have made his mind up regardless.

I have read it. It is a very good book, well written.

odyssey06

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Do you think police drawings based on witness accounts are all guess work? They are used very often.

Drawings taken from descriptions from these keystone cops weeks after the event?
I wouldn't even call it guess work, I'd call it garbage.

monkeybutter

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

From my reading of the DPP report, Bailey was first questioned a few weeks after the murder. The reason there were drawings instead of photographs is probably because the visible scratches had healed by then so drawings were made to provide some record of the observations of gardai who had dealings with him shortly after the murder. You don't generally photograph the hands of people attending the scene of a crime or suspected of a crime without first arresting them.

I think the DPP was too eager to dismiss the case, perhaps to avoid an embarrassing demolition of the hapless gardai at trial. Several times the DPP describes Ian Bailey's behaviour as 'indicating innocence' without giving any consideration to a perpetrator having a fatalistic resignation to being caught, or hoping for full co-operation to reflect well on them when it came to sentencing. This would be consistent with the several witnesses who made statements that Bailey basically admitted to it, perhaps even wanting to be caught and enjoying the notoriety. Nearly all of these witnesses are described as either being suggestible or wanting to please the gardai. This is not even considered once when his partner and children's statements are presented as corroborating his account.

Some of the reasoning is contradictory. The DPP says Marie Cassidy's statements are completely unreliable and should be dismissed. But they also use her description of Bailey wearing a long coat to argue that wearing this long coat would have prevented him getting scratches from the thorn bushes.

In fairness you don't normally let journalists walk around a crime scene either

If he had been wearing a coat as she said and it happened outside they why the searches is entirely logical if she had seen him

If she didn't see him then the scratches could be from anything

People go on about him contaminating the crime scene, but they didn't find anything

The dpps decision was entirely logical

[Deleted User]

weadick wrote: »

I have read it. It is a very good book, well written.

anything new in it? was going to buy it but there seems nothing new anywhere

monkeybutter

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

No, I think they should apply the reasoning about the credibility of witnesses consistently, not just when it implicated Bailey.

The person who implicated bailey did a fine job of destroying her own credibility all on her own

The others could be credible, but we have no way of knowing, but it's nowhere near enough

monkeybutter

SoulWriter wrote: »

anything new in it? was going to buy it but there seems nothing new anywhere

This is real life not Hollywood

Nothing new

Yurt2

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

From my reading of the DPP report, Bailey was first questioned a few weeks after the murder. The reason there were drawings instead of photographs is probably because the visible scratches had healed by then so drawings were made to provide some record of the observations of gardai who had dealings with him shortly after the murder. You don't generally photograph the hands of people attending the scene of a crime or suspected of a crime without first arresting them.

I think the DPP was too eager to dismiss the case, perhaps to avoid an embarrassing demolition of the hapless gardai at trial. Several times the DPP describes Ian Bailey's behaviour as 'indicating innocence' without giving any consideration to a perpetrator having a fatalistic resignation to being caught, or hoping for full co-operation to reflect well on them when it came to sentencing. This would be consistent with the several witnesses who made statements that Bailey basically admitted to it, perhaps even wanting to be caught and enjoying the notoriety. Nearly all of these witnesses are described as either being suggestible or wanting to please the gardai. This is not even considered once when his partner and children's statements are presented as corroborating his account.

Some of the reasoning is contradictory. The DPP says Marie Cassidy's statements are completely unreliable and should be dismissed. But they also use her description of Bailey wearing a long coat to argue that wearing this long coat would have prevented him getting scratches from the thorn bushes.

The reason the DPP dismissed it is because they know there wasn't a chance they'd get anything past a jury. Even the softest Director of Prosecutions wouldn't sit on a murder charge if they had a scintilla of compelling evidence.

This isn't Murder She Wrote; prosecutors aren't going to trial over a crude pencil drawing of scratches on hands and the word of a daft woman who you wouldn't leave in charge of your cat.