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

Yurt2

BnB wrote: »

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say he's guilty just because I don't like him. Based on the evidence that we have right now (which is probably all we will ever have at this stage) there is no way he should even stand trial, let alone be found guilty. The French "trial" was a complete farce and a really poor reflection on their justice system.

All I am saying is that after watching the doc and listening to the podcast, I disliked him so much as a person that I find it difficult to feel pity for him. I'm not trying to justify that, I'm just saying that's how I felt.

That's a balanced post. Bailey isn't my cup of tea either and the man has glaring flaws as a human. Justice isn't a personality contest though and unfortunately, the initial investigation phases turned into that between floundering and incompetent Gardai zoning in on oddball Johnny Foreigner and a red-top frenzy corrupting the entire process.

The DPP for all their flaws did their job in rubbishing the threadbare evidence against Bailey.

Even if you transplanted the murder to France with French prosecutors and magistrates leading the case with a cool head under their system, I doubt they would have been able to secure a conviction against Bailey. The French made a mockery of their own notions of justice I feel. Shouldn't be forgotten that Sophie's husband was personal friends with Jacques Chirac and that the trial sexed up the bungled Irish evidence without the failsafes of French magistrates, prosecutors and judges applying their own evidential standards.

An unholy mess from start to finish.

BnB

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not defending him at all. On the record here as saying I found him to be a self-important boor overly fond of the sound of his own voice but in my few conversations with him I also learned he could be charming, witty, surprisingly self-depreciating, and when he was the butt of good humoured ribbing took it very well. He's very intelligent, widely read, knowledgeable about a wide range of subjects.

He is utterly broken now. Guilty or Innocent he has paid a huge price. If he had been jailed back then he would most likely be out by now. Instead this shadow remains over his head.

I feel sorry for him tbh.

Fair enough, I take all that. Maybe if something came out in the morning that 100% proved his innocence, I might soften towards him some bit. The fact that I do still think that there is a good chance that he did it is certainly coloring my opinion of him.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Lots of bullying wife (and husband) beating alcoholics are also praised for being "pillars of the community" and rarely a word said against them.

They certainly are and I would have the same distain for every single one of them as I do for Bailey.

Biker79

I felt sorry for Bailey.

He came to Ireland to create new life for himself after a divorce, after which he seemed have lost his business.

As he attempted to re-invent himself he was then hit with this false accusation, ruining any hopes of getting his life and himself back on track.

Sure he had his faults and I wouldn't want to be glib about violence towards his partner. But he didn't strike me as a fundamentally bad guy - just unlucky and perhaps someone who made bad decisions surrounding booze/ mental health.

BnB

Ludikrus wrote: »

That's ridiculous though. There's people in the world who don't like you. They could say that you did something even if there wasn't a shred of evidence that you did. The same burden of proof that protects Bailey protects us all.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say he's guilty just because I don't like him. Based on the evidence that we have right now (which is probably all we will ever have at this stage) there is no way he should even stand trial, let alone be found guilty. The French "trial" was a complete farce and a really poor reflection on their justice system.

All I am saying is that after watching the doc and listening to the podcast, I disliked him so much as a person that I find it difficult to feel pity for him. I'm not trying to justify that, I'm just saying that's how I felt.

chooseusername

:Or perhaps some peeping tom whom she may have recognised and confronted ,
but if time of death was morning then unlikely,
as peeping tommery usually takes place late night ( so I'm told)

[Deleted User]

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No.
And by 'drug habits' you mean he was a long time stoner?
He had quit smoking the grass he used to grow himself for himself for health reasons..

Was it possible he was still selling some at that time? Might a potential customer have been looking for his elusive house.
I think it was mentioned earlier in the thread that Sophie was concerned about drug dealing in the nearby area.

[Deleted User]

JimmyVik wrote: »

Or someone driving around looking for a remote house or to to rob.

Yes.the problem then is the bottle of wine but that could have been in the ditch years

JimmyVik

SoulWriter wrote: »

That occurred to me when it was said the person knew the area. Maybe it was omeone wandering who came upon the house by chance

Or someone driving around looking for a remote house or to to rob.

Ludikrus

BnB wrote: »

Mainly because, he is such a genuinely dislikable character. Yes, watching him drunkenly mumbling and rambling in the chicken coop was pathetic - But the vast majority of that was completely of his own making. He was a bullying, wife(partner) beating, self centered egomaniac and alcoholic long before that poor girl was ever murdered.

That's ridiculous though. There's people in the world who don't like you. They could say that you did something even if there wasn't a shred of evidence that you did. The same burden of proof that protects Bailey protects us all.

JimmyVik

MAXFANTANA wrote: »

I think it was during the trial section they mentioned she was hit 45 times with the block. Was this true or a mis translation for 4-5? Lifting a concrete up and down 45 times takes a lot of effort and you’d surely be sweating profusely regardless of the ambient temperature. Not trying to be graphic but would there be any head left after 45 blows with a block.

Good point. I could maybe lift a concrete block up and down about 5 times before id be ready to drop it on my own head.

But sure the French trial wouldnt let anything like reality get in the way of their show trial.

At least we've established now that the killer was a weightlifter

JimmyVik

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sweetest Divine.

Look - take on board that people familiar with Alfie's house had difficultly finding it in 1996 after his paint job from someone who was there in 1996 or don't .
I honestly don't give a monkeys at this point.
I am telling my experience of being there.

Ya'll can rattle yer maps and talk about how many times ye drove that road away.

Can you not understand that perhaps there could have been someone not from the area but who knew how to get there. Maybe even some roving criminals who might have been spotted parked up at the gate. Sophie went down and ...

The fact its remote doesnt make it certain that it was a local who did it.

Only a year or two ago there was a farmer in a rural area of Dublin who walked down to his gate when he saw 2 lads from his bedroom window at it and asked them what they were doing. Looking for our dog they said. Another came from the direction of his house behind him and hit him on the back of the head. They beat him to within an inch of his life and left him there. Never caught.
People were saying oh, they must be locals or they never would have found that house. When he woke up he said he had never seen them before.

This kind of thing happens. Somehow criminals always find their way to where they commit their crime.

[Deleted User]

JimmyVik wrote: »

Obviously the killer was in the area.
And there are plenty of criminals even today, that travel around remote areas where they are not from to rob houses, even with people in them.
A fair few have been caught in the act and some have even badly beaten the occupants of the houses they have broken into.

That occurred to me when it was said the person knew the area. Maybe it was omeone wandering who came upon the house by chance

JimmyVik

dark crystal wrote: »

It's not just the remoteness of the location that leads me to believe it was a local, it's the timing of the attack. Who else would be in that remote an area in the middle of the night? Some backpacker lost in the wilds of Cork?

Obviously the killer was in the area.
And there are plenty of criminals even today, that travel around remote areas where they are not from to rob houses, even with people in them.
A fair few have been caught in the act and some have even badly beaten the occupants of the houses they have broken into.

Bannasidhe

BnB wrote: »

I don't feel any pity for him at all. I will be up front and admit that my lack of pity is more than likely somewhat colored by the fact that I do think he's guilty.

But, even trying to look at it objectively, if it came out in the morning that we knew for a fact that he was innocent, I think I would still find it very difficult to have any pity for him.

Mainly because, he is such a genuinely dislikable character. Yes, watching him drunkenly mumbling and rambling in the chicken coop was pathetic - But the vast majority of that was completely of his own making. He was a bullying, wife(partner) beating, self centered egomaniac and alcoholic long before that poor girl was ever murdered.

Not defending him at all. On the record here as saying I found him to be a self-important boor overly fond of the sound of his own voice but in my few conversations with him I also learned he could be charming, witty, surprisingly self-depreciating, and when he was the butt of good humoured ribbing took it very well. He's very intelligent, widely read, knowledgeable about a wide range of subjects.

He is utterly broken now. Guilty or Innocent he has paid a huge price. If he had been jailed back then he would most likely be out by now. Instead this shadow remains over his head.

I feel sorry for him tbh. Lots of bullying wife (and husband) beating alcoholics are also praised for being "pillars of the community" and rarely a word said against them.

BnB

retro:electro wrote: »

.....I also feel deep pity for him. Like how could you not? Seeing him sitting there in the chicken coop drunk as shlt relentlessly recanting and being tortured by the last 25 years is a sorry sight.....

I don't feel any pity for him at all. I will be up front and admit that my lack of pity is more than likely somewhat colored by the fact that I do think he's guilty.

But, even trying to look at it objectively, if it came out in the morning that we knew for a fact that he was innocent, I think I would still find it very difficult to have any pity for him.

Mainly because, he is such a genuinely dislikable character. Yes, watching him drunkenly mumbling and rambling in the chicken coop was pathetic - But the vast majority of that was completely of his own making. He was a bullying, wife(partner) beating, self centered egomaniac and alcoholic long before that poor girl was ever murdered.

[Deleted User]

I think it was during the trial section they mentioned she was hit 45 times with the block. Was this true or a mis translation for 4-5? Lifting a concrete up and down 45 times takes a lot of effort and you’d surely be sweating profusely regardless of the ambient temperature. Not trying to be graphic but would there be any head left after 45 blows with a block.

BnB

Bannasidhe wrote: »

.....I do think he was planning on spinning being the accused into an eventual book once he was cleared. A tell all 'I fought the Law and I won' exposé.
He was a bit of a grifter, living casual job to casual job. This probably looked like his big break. Chat shows, interviews, book sales beckoned.

If he's not guilty, then I think what you've said there could be spot on. He was b0ll0xin' around in West Cork, pretty much flat broke and saw this as a chance for himself to make some money (and get some much needed attention) by being close to the scene. He got so close, that he ended up being a suspect, and seeing even further opportunity to make something out of it, he was happy enough to string the Gardai along for a while. The Gardai were desperate for a suspect so they jumped on board and it all just went too far on both their sides.

Even if he is guilty, then a lot of the above is probably still true.

Bannasidhe

Mackinac wrote: »

I’ve read different accounts that refer to them as being Dr Marten boots or Dr Marten “style” boots so not sure which is correct. I guess they would have been worn by younger people but also older people who lived a more bohemian lifestyle.

Lots of chefs and Guards wore them too.
They were designed for people who were on their feet a lot and needed footwear that had a safety aspect to them.

Bannasidhe

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I can't get my head around this, his house might have been 'sky blue' but surely the slate roof was dark grey. Seems a weird suggestion that it would blend in on a hillside if it's light blue with a dark grey roof. The photos from the time show a house with sky blue paint and yellow windows, is that it?

All I can say is Man who knew where we were going was discombobulated enough that he got confused when driving from the direction of Clon.
He was not the only one.
There was teasing and laughter about it.
Alfie Lyons himself said people were complaining they couldn't find him.

And I'm sorry I ever mentioned it now.

Mackinac

dark crystal wrote: »

She was wearing a dressing gown. It was found under some brambles next to her body.

Also interesting were the parallel marks found on her face and neck, consistent with a Doc Marten boot. I wonder how distinctive the soles of that particular brand of boot are? I would have thought that type of boot would have been worn by someone in a younger demographic, rather than someone middle-aged or older.

I’ve read different accounts that refer to them as being Dr Marten boots or Dr Marten “style” boots so not sure which is correct. I guess they would have been worn by younger people but also older people who lived a more bohemian lifestyle.

MoonUnit75

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And all I'm saying is a man who had been at Alfie's house many many times was unable to find it in the Summer of 1996.
Perhaps he couldn't read a map.

Or perhaps he 'knew' where he was going but when he got there was confused because he couldn't see Alfie's house where he expected to see Alfie's house so thought he was in the wrong place.
And he wasn't the only person that happened to. Alfie himself admitted by accidently camouflaging his house he had caused massive confusion. It was an unintended consequence.
The point being it wasn't easy peasy for locals who knew the place to find. Locals don't tend to use maps when they are going to a familiar place. They go by landmarks.

Ironically, it would have been easier to find in the dark as one wouldn't have been looking for familiar 'landmarks'.

I can't get my head around this, his house might have been 'sky blue' but surely the slate roof was dark grey. Seems a weird suggestion that it would blend in on a hillside if it's light blue with a dark grey roof. The photos from the time show a house with sky blue paint and yellow windows, is that it?

Bannasidhe

JimmyVik wrote: »

Im form a very remote rural area myself.
We always somehow found our way around. And also strangely whenever we went to other parts of the country and even other countries we found our way around - without a phone too.
Im laboring the point i know

But people have always found their way around. And just because some people feel that they cant, then they assume that the murderer had to be local. Its an invalid assumption.

Sweetest Divine.

Look - take on board that people familiar with Alfie's house had difficultly finding it in 1996 after his paint job from someone who was there in 1996 or don't .
I honestly don't give a monkeys at this point.
I am telling my experience of being there.

Ya'll can rattle yer maps and talk about how many times ye drove that road away.

Bannasidhe

chooseusername wrote: »

Oddly enough if you type in Sophie Toscan du Plantier house in google maps
it takes you there and even names Shirley and Alfie's house ,and The Prarie Cottage.
Shame you didn't have Google maps back then Bannasidhe like Monkey butter
has now.

TBH if we'd been on time it would have meant spending even more time listening to Ian expounding on everything as it wouldn't have made Alfie produce the food any faster.

Bannasidhe

monkeybutter wrote: »

could you not have taken charge and not followed a lost person around for an hour

No.
For he was Man.
And Man knew where he was going.
Man who knows where he is going needs neither map or directions.
Never question Man who knows the way.

I had never been there before.
Man's wife had. She got us there.

As I just said - it was people familiar with the place who ran into difficulties.

dark crystal

JimmyVik wrote: »

Im form a very remote rural area myself.
We always somehow found our way around. And also strangely whenever we went to other parts of the country and even other countries we found our way around - without a phone too.
Im laboring the point i know

But people have always found their way around. And just because some people feel that they cant, then they assume that the murderer had to be local. Its an invalid assumption.

It's not just the remoteness of the location that leads me to believe it was a local, it's the timing of the attack. Who else would be in that remote an area in the middle of the night? Some backpacker lost in the wilds of Cork?

JimmyVik

Just as an aside.
I would recommend a TV series called "I'll be gone i the dark" to everyone here.
I bet you will all love it. I did.

dark crystal

Idioteque wrote: »

Interesting theory. The only bit that deosn't stack up for me is the nightclothing. It's dead of winter and much quicker to throw a coat on than lace up some boots to go outside.

It wasn't a 'dressing gown' she was wearing, aparantly it was pyjama bottoms (long-johns) and a short top/nightgown.

She was wearing a dressing gown. It was found under some brambles next to her body.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/court-shown-images-of-injuries-sustained-by-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-38156885.html

Also interesting were the parallel marks found on her face and neck, consistent with a Doc Marten boot. I wonder how distinctive the soles of that particular brand of boot are? I would have thought that type of boot would have been worn by someone in a younger demographic, rather than someone middle-aged or older.

JimmyVik

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And all I'm saying is a man who had been at Alfie's house many many times was unable to find it in the Summer of 1996.
Perhaps he couldn't read a map.

Or perhaps he 'knew' where he was going but when he got there was confused because he couldn't see Alfie's house where he expected to see Alfie's house so thought he was in the wrong place.
And he wasn't the only person that happened to. Alfie himself admitted by accidently camouflaging his house he had caused massive confusion. It was an unintended consequence.
The point being it wasn't easy peasy for locals who knew the place to find. Locals don't tend to use maps when they are going to a familiar place. They go by landmarks.

Ironically, it would have been easier to find in the dark as one wouldn't have been looking for familiar 'landmarks'.

Im form a very remote rural area myself.
We always somehow found our way around. And also strangely whenever we went to other parts of the country and even other countries we found our way around - without a phone too.
Im laboring the point i know

But people have always found their way around. And just because some people feel that they cant, then they assume that the murderer had to be local. Its an invalid assumption.

Bannasidhe

JimmyVik wrote: »

Even without roadsigns you follow the roads.
On the map there are two roads to the right coming up. Take the second one. And the first left after that.
The point is that someone who had a map can get somewhere. Its kinda the point of a map.
People are saying that because the killer got there he must have been local because he would not have found it otherwise.
We thats just not true. If he bought a map he could have.

And all I'm saying is a man who had been at Alfie's house many many times was unable to find it in the Summer of 1996.
Perhaps he couldn't read a map.

Or perhaps he 'knew' where he was going but when he got there was confused because he couldn't see Alfie's house where he expected to see Alfie's house so thought he was in the wrong place.
And he wasn't the only person that happened to. Alfie himself admitted by accidently camouflaging his house he had caused massive confusion. It was an unintended consequence.
The point being it wasn't easy peasy for locals who knew the place to find. Locals don't tend to use maps when they are going to a familiar place. They go by landmarks.

Ironically, it would have been easier to find in the dark as one wouldn't have been looking for familiar 'landmarks'.

chooseusername

monkeybutter wrote: »

how dare you, I use my esso road atlas for all my mapping needs

You wont find Sophie's house on that!