Murder at the Cottage | Sky

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

You think someone came all the way from France or some other country to kill her but used a stone and then a concrete block that just happened to be lying at an obscure location in a badly overgrown area of the garden?

Exactly - this wasn't planned imo.

Another thing is that Sophie arrived alone in Ireland on 20th December. She was killed on the night of the 22nd, having planned to return to France on the 24th.

During her very brief stay, it was very unlikely she was with a companion, as her 2 day visit was quite well documented as having been in the local bar for tea and scones, shopping in the local boutique and taking a long solitary walk to the isolated castles by the lake, which she recounted to a friend in her home.

Whoever killed her only turned up sometime after she had visited the local bar earlier that day, the 22nd (sorry, not sure of the exact time she was there) and likely after she spoke to her husband on the phone that evening. Not much of an illicit rendezvous if her out-of-town-lover only decided to make an appearance for a mere 24 hours before she was to leave the country again and without as much as a phone call made beforehand.

Whoever killed her, knew where she lived alright, but I don't think she was expecting them.

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

You think someone came all the way from France or some other country to kill her but used a stone and then a concrete block that just happened to be lying at an obscure location in a badly overgrown area of the garden?

Jaysus I never said they came from France

fryup

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

You think someone came all the way from France or some other country to kill her but used a stone and then a concrete block that just happened to be lying at an obscure location in a badly overgrown area of the garden?

maybe not to kill her but to meet her, maybe rekindle an old friendship or relationship and was rebuffed

didn't one of her ex boyfriends have a fixation with her? stalking her in Paris? a certain Bruno Carbonnet?

Mackwiss

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

You think someone came all the way from France or some other country to kill her but used a stone and then a concrete block that just happened to be lying at an obscure location in a badly overgrown area of the garden?

This is actually a very good point. The place is in the middle of nowhere, so was the night cloudy? Moonless? Because if you need to walk to get the concrete block and hit here straight on there needs to be light. This got me thinking if the murder happened at the early hours instead of middle of the night? If this is the case the murder happened between probably 8 AM and the time the body was discovered?

Or the light from the headlights of a car illuminated the whole situation?

P.S. - To those that answered the previous questions about license plates. Thanks! So it should be an 80s registered vehicle?

MoonUnit75

SevenAte9 wrote: »

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.

No one disputes he had scratches on his hands, he admits himself he had scratches on his hands, so Dr. Barnes' observations five days later are pointless. Sophie had a light night shirt on her, presuming the killer was warmly dressed on this cold night you would not expect scratches from briars to tear up a well dressed person in a similar way to someone in light night clothes.

There are multiple witnesses who said he had no obvious scratches on the night leading up to the murder, a couple of people close to him and one independent witness who claim to have seen scratches before the murder. These are the kind of inconsistencies that would be ironed out much, much better in the witness box than in a report.

dark crystal wrote: »

With the Keystone Guards on the case, it appears whoever did it hasn't been caught, so they did, in fact, get clean away with murder.

The nature of the attack just doesn't seem planned to me - no weapons involved, just whatever was to hand. Looks more like a crime of passion or opportunity.

Maybe that was indeed the plan

MoonUnit75

monkeybutter wrote: »

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

You think someone came all the way from France or some other country to kill her but used a stone and then a concrete block that just happened to be lying at an obscure location in a badly overgrown area of the garden?

gussieg

so what about the unknown intruder in the house as mentioned previously by the house keeper? or was it a cat? what bottle of wine? and the missing gate? i dont recall a mention of that either. most of these stories /theories/documentaries are notable by the absence of mr t de p, and other relevant parties.
and is it too late to do dna now or is the perpetrator already dead? who Knows? who indeed..

readysetgo

Barring a confession it'll never be solved.
Personally don't think it was IB.

Given the lack of a conviction, missing/tampered evidence etc I think there was a garda involved and a cover up of some sort. or perhaps a relation of a garda.
just think its a logical enough explanation for the case never being solved.

monkeybutter wrote: »

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

With the Keystone Guards on the case, it appears whoever did it hasn't been caught, so they did, in fact, get clean away with murder.

The nature of the attack just doesn't seem planned to me - no weapons involved, just whatever was to hand. Looks more like a crime of passion or opportunity.

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

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

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: »

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....

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.

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

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"

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.

SoulWriter wrote: »

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

Fair enough

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.

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

Shelga

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

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

crackcrack30

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

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

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

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