Murder at the Cottage | Sky

What's the story with her having had breakfast? Is that bull surely they could have placed her time of death somewhat accurately or did the time it took to get down from Dublin riuin this

dublin49

very little new information except from a friend of Sophie who came forward to say Sophie had received a phone call from Ireland from a man claiming to be a poet ,he seemed to have freaked Sophie ,pity this lead wasnt possible to follow up,I didnt watch all 5 episodes but my wife said Bailey did gardening for Sophie's neighbour,never heard that before either.In general theres a lot of circumstantial evidence .The scratches,the fire,the fact he admits he left the house,the confessions,the knowledge of classified detail .history of violence,fixtation with sex,can make me understand the comment further back that well over half the town thought he did it.

monkeybutter wrote: »

What's the story with her having had breakfast? Is that bull duty they could have placed her time of death somewhat accurately or did the time it took to get down from Dublin riuin this

This is real life not Hollywood. Harbison could not get down till the day after, that ruined finding time of death

Loafing Oaf

Fandymo wrote: »

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.

Mightn't necessarily have (yet) developed into a full-blown affair. And obviously from her death onward he has a very strong incentive to keep quiet about any connection they might have had. Whether or not he is guilty...

Yurt2

dublin49 wrote: »

very little new information except from a friend of Sophie who came forward to say Sophie had received a phone call from Ireland from a man claiming to be a poet ,he seemed to have freaked Sophie ,pity this lead wasnt possible to follow up,I didnt watch all 5 episodes but my wife said Bailey did gardening for Sophie's neighbour,never heard that before either.In general theres a lot of circumstantial evidence .The scratches,the fire,the fact he admits he left the house,the confessions,the knowledge of classified detail .history of violence,fixtation with sex,can make me understand the comment further back that well over half the town thought he did it.

Take me to gaol Constable!

dublin49

one thing that struck me as odd is why the scratches on his hand from cutting down Xmas tree wasnt proved or disproved conclusively,he hardly put the xmas tree up on 23rd Dec ,you would imagine with young kids in the house it would have been up for weeks,did Bailey confirm when he cut tree down.

Yurt2

dublin49 wrote: »

one thing that struck me as odd is why the scratches on his hand from cutting down Xmas tree wasnt proved or disproved conclusively,he hardly put the xmas tree up on 23rd Dec ,you would imagine with young kids in the house it would have been up for weeks,did Bailey confirm when he cut tree down.

The claim is he was killing a turkey for Christmas dinner.

dublin49 wrote: »

one thing that struck me as odd is why the scratches on his hand from cutting down Xmas tree wasnt proved or disproved conclusively,he hardly put the xmas tree up on 23rd Dec ,you would imagine with young kids in the house it would have been up for weeks,did Bailey confirm when he cut tree down.

from DPP file "Bailey cut the tree on Sunday 22 December 1996."

Cona44

Yurt! wrote: »

The claim is he was killing a turkey for Christmas dinner.

It was proved, the daughter confirmed the story as well as a local farmer who saw him pulling the tree down the road.

SevenAte9

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 you should re-read the DPP's report.

First, IB was interviewed by a Garda Sergant on December 31st - no mention of marks on hands - not "first questioned a few weeks after the murder."

Secondly, from pg25 of the DPP's report;
Dr. Louise Barnes, a dermatologist (skin specialist) closely observed Bailey some five
days after the murder. She states “at no time, did he strike one as being suspicious.
As a keen observer of peoples appearance due to my profession I certainly did not
notice any marks or injuries to his face or hands.”
Denis O'Callaghan saw Bailey on 24 December 1996 (the day after the murder) and he
noticed multiple light scratches on Bailey's arms.
Such light scratches are not consistent with cuts by razor like thorns.
Richard Tisdall in his statement 190B recalls seeing scratch marks on one of Bailey's
hands on Sunday night 22 December 1996 (prior to the murder but after the cutting of
the tree and the killing of the turkeys)

Does it not strike you as odd that of the 44 page report, the entire forensic evidence was dealt with in 1 section on 1 page.

SoulWriter wrote: »

This is real life not Hollywood. Harbison could not get down till the day after, that ruined finding time of death

You seem like an expert on the subject, do how long is too long after death to be able to determine it

dublin49 wrote: »

very little new information except from a friend of Sophie who came forward to say Sophie had received a phone call from Ireland from a man claiming to be a poet ,he seemed to have freaked Sophie ,pity this lead wasnt possible to follow up,I didnt watch all 5 episodes but my wife said Bailey did gardening for Sophie's neighbour,never heard that before either.In general theres a lot of circumstantial evidence .The scratches,the fire,the fact he admits he left the house,the confessions,the knowledge of classified detail .history of violence,fixtation with sex,can make me understand the comment further back that well over half the town thought he did it.

Did it not take 2 or 3 years for this allegation to surface

odyssey06

Yurt! wrote: »

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.

If you watched half a dozen Murder She Wrotes or Columbos you'd have picked up enough tips to do a better job than was done investigating this case!

* Assuming you were genuinely trying to solve it instead of pin it on someone

monkeybutter wrote: »

You seem like an expert on the subject, do how long is too long after death to be able to determine it

I'm not an expert . I think they said after a few hours when the body temp cools it becomes more or less impossible. I could be wrong not sure where i read that maybe in DPP file. edit not in dpp file. It is mentioned in the doc about 32 mins in. It says the body was actually frozen due to the cold weather

crackcrack30

Didn't see it yet... any mention of an expensive bottle of wine?

SoulWriter wrote: »

I'm not an expert . I think they said after a few hours when the body temp cools it becomes more or less impossible. I could be wrong not sure where i read that maybe in DPP file. edit not in dpp file

Well you seemed pretty sure of yourself

I mean not much benefit in finding time of death after say 2 hours, but the next day yes

Perhaps it being pretty cold would have affected it also, ambient temp etc

Shelga

If Sophie had been scratching him to defend herself, wouldn’t she have had his DNA under her fingernails?

monkeybutter wrote: »

Well you seemed pretty sure of yourself

I mean not much benefit in finding time of death after say 2 hours, but the next day yes

Perhaps it being pretty cold would have affected it also

Paraphrasing James Donovan Senior Forensic Scientist, Garda Technical Bureau about 32 mins into doc

I don't think Ian Bailey killed Sophie, but it was a local.

My theory is that she may have had a flirtation with someone locally, perhaps someone she was speaking to in the local bar where she often went to have tea and scones. Perhaps it wasn't even a flirtation, but merely a fledgling friendship. This would explain the two wine glasses and the missing bottle of expensive wine found in the ditch by the lane.
The barman said she had expressed an interest in going to the Christmas party that night and perhaps this person offered to escort her. He arrived, they had a glass of wine, but she felt tired, or perhaps felt the person was looking for more than she was willing to offer and he left. Perhaps they didn't even touch the wine at all.
She gets changed for bed, calls her husband and settles down for the night. However, the person comes back a while later, perhaps after having a few drinks at the party to see if she'll change her mind. This could be why she had her boots and dressing gown on, to walk the unwanted guest back to his car.
He presses her and gets a bit more handsy, so she pushes him or says she'll call the police if he doesn't leave and that's when he panics and gets violent. He hits her and she tries to get back into the house, but he pulls her away and she starts running away from him, probably crying out at this stage. He catches up with her, they struggle and he hits her with the rock first, just to keep her quiet.
He then realises if he leaves her alive, he's in big trouble, so he finishes her off with the block he finds a few metres away.
I don't think he was on foot, as there were apparantly fresh track marks by the gate, so I'm not entertaining Marie Farrell's sighting at the remote bridge. I think she was a pure attention seeker.

The police made a complete hames of the investigation and I doubt they'll ever find out who killed the poor woman. I think they know the killer alright, as he's a local, but they've invested too much time in Bailey at this stage to ever make an about face and admit they were wrong.

SoulWriter wrote: »

Paraphrasing James Donovan Senior Forensic Scientist, Garda Technical Bureau about 32 mins into doc

Fair enough

Shelga wrote: »

If Sophie had been scratching him to defend herself, wouldn’t she have had his DNA under her fingernails?

You would think so, but I think they said that the cuts and grazes were caused by her trying to extrapolate herself from the brambles and barbed wire she was caught in when she fell, as well as trying to shield herself from the blows of the rock/block.

monkeybutter wrote: »

Fair enough

What he says is

"The longer a body is around the more difficult it becomes to assess actual time of death. You can be reasonaly accurate if the body is found quickly in an ongoing temperature but once a day passes you have variation in the ambient temperature"

dark crystal wrote: »

I don't think Ian Bailey killed Sophie, but it was a local.

My theory is that she may have had a flirtation with someone locally, perhaps someone she was speaking to in the local bar where she often went to have tea and scones. Perhaps it wasn't even a flirtation, but merely a fledgling friendship. This would explain the two wine glasses and the missing bottle of expensive wine found in the ditch by the lane.
The barman said she had expressed an interest in going to the Christmas party that night and perhaps this person offered to escort her. He arrived, they had a glass of wine, but she felt tired, or perhaps felt the person was looking for more than she was willing to offer and he left. Perhaps they didn't even touch the wine at all.
She gets changed for bed, calls her husband and settles down for the night. However, the person comes back a while later, perhaps after having a few drinks at the party to see if she'll change her mind. This could be why she had her boots and dressing gown on, to walk the unwanted guest back to his car.
He presses her and gets a bit more handsy, so she pushes him or says she'll call the police if he doesn't leave and that's when he panics and gets violent. He hits her and she tries to get back into the house, but he pulls her away and she starts running away from him, probably crying out at this stage. He catches up with her, they struggle and he hits her with the rock first, just to keep her quiet.
He then realises if he leaves her alive, he's in big trouble, so he finishes her off with the block he finds a few metres away.
I don't think he was on foot, as there were apparantly fresh track marks by the gate, so I'm not entertaining Marie Farrell's sighting at the remote bridge. I think she was a pure attention seeker.

The police made a complete hames of the investigation and I doubt they'll ever find out who killed the poor woman. I think they know the killer alright, as he's a local, but they've invested too much time in Bailey at this stage to ever make an about face and admit they were wrong.

Are you writing a novella?

They would have been spotted in the bar surely

I seriously doubt a small flirtation would turn into smashing her head in with a block

She was over at Xmas for a reason, that's the real clue, wasn't someone in the direct local vacinity

SoulWriter wrote: »

What he says is

"The longer a body is around the more difficult it becomes to assess actual time of death. You can be reasonaly accurate if the body is found quickly in an ongoing temperature but once a day passes you have variation in the ambient temperature"

Yeah especially outdoors too

That's why I asked the question, might be other technique used

dark crystal wrote: »

I don't think Ian Bailey killed Sophie, but it was a local.

My theory is that she may have had a flirtation with someone locally, perhaps someone she was speaking to in the local bar where she often went to have tea and scones. Perhaps it wasn't even a flirtation, but merely a fledgling friendship. This would explain the two wine glasses and the missing bottle of expensive wine found in the ditch by the lane.
The barman said she had expressed an interest in going to the Christmas party that night and perhaps this person offered to escort her. He arrived, they had a glass of wine, but she felt tired, or perhaps felt the person was looking for more than she was willing to offer and he left. Perhaps they didn't even touch the wine at all.
She gets changed for bed, calls her husband and settles down for the night. However, the person comes back a while later, perhaps after having a few drinks at the party to see if she'll change her mind. This could be why she had her boots and dressing gown on, to walk the unwanted guest back to his car.
He presses her and gets a bit more handsy, so she pushes him or says she'll call the police if he doesn't leave and that's when he panics and gets violent. He hits her and she tries to get back into the house, but he pulls her away and she starts running away from him, probably crying out at this stage. He catches up with her, they struggle and he hits her with the rock first, just to keep her quiet.
He then realises if he leaves her alive, he's in big trouble, so he finishes her off with the block he finds a few metres away.
I don't think he was on foot, as there were apparantly fresh track marks by the gate, so I'm not entertaining Marie Farrell's sighting at the remote bridge. I think she was a pure attention seeker.

The police made a complete hames of the investigation and I doubt they'll ever find out who killed the poor woman. I think they know the killer alright, as he's a local, but they've invested too much time in Bailey at this stage to ever make an about face and admit they were wrong.

That's the case solved....

monkeybutter wrote: »

Are you writing a novella?

No, it's just a theory. Sorry it wasn't as brief as yours.

They would have been spotted in the bar surely

Who would have thought anything about her chatting with a bar patron? The barman said she chatted away with him easy enough.

I seriously doubt a small flirtation would turn into smashing her head in with a block

No, but someone trying to take it further than a flirtation or friendship and a threat to call the cops might.

She was over at Xmas for a reason, that's the real clue, wasn't someone in the direct local vacinity

So it was someone from outside the vicinity who had visited her house previously then? They must have visited previously, as there's no way you'd find the house otherwise. It wasn't the French artist, as he had an alibi, so any ideas yourself?

dark crystal wrote: »

No, it's just a theory. Sorry it wasn't as brief as yours.

Who would have thought anything about her chatting with a bar patron? The barman said she chatted away with him easy enough.

No, but someone trying to take it further than a flirtation or friendship and a threat to call the cops might.

So it was someone from outside the vicinity who had visited her house previously then? They must have visited previously, as there's no way you'd find the house otherwise. It wasn't the French artist, as he had an alibi, so any ideas yourself?

to randomly do this and not get caught is not easy

Too many mistakes blood up, gruesome close up killing

You'd have to plan it

If you can follow a simple map you'd find it, even with basic directions from schull

fryup

I think Sophie's son Pierre-Louis overstepped the mark by making that speech in the church during sunday mass, it wasn't the place for that and i'm surprised the local PP allowed it to happen