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; } } }

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

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

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.

[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

[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.

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)

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.

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

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.

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.

jimwallace197

JimmyVik wrote: »

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.

I wouldn't agree, its already been established she was in dispute with her neighbors over leaving the gate open. This could only be down to security concerns. She would hardly head down there (a woman in a foreign country on her own) and confront some fella(s) in the middle of the night about what he or they were up to.

Also as for Alfie being an actual drug dealer, i dont think thats even been established yet and stoners dont tend to be the type of people going around murdering people. His wife being a retired teacher and then he starts dealing drugs out of his house, i dont know.

milehip

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

TBH, a lot of the speculation about Sophie Toscan Du Plantier's personal life in this thread seems to be echoing that stereotype.

I was paraphrasing Jermerys' statement issued about girls in the 70's, I think it was in relation to William Roche \Ken Barlow allegations.

BailMeOut

Sorry if already been asked but how far is Sophie's house to where Ian Bailey lived? Was this walkable or would he have needed to drive if he did visit her house that night?

chooseusername

BailMeOut wrote: »

Sorry if already been asked but how far is Sophie's house to where Ian Bailey lived? Was this walkable or would he have needed to drive if he did visit her house that night?

here you go;

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/51.5298354,-9.6773175/The+Prairie+Cottage,+Lissacaha+(North),+Schull,+County+Cork,+Ireland/@51.5355733,-9.6728691,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m9!4m8!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x48459b7e5e290ae5:0x1bb8f59382d8d091!2m2!1d-9.6338833!2d51.5387125!3e2

BailMeOut

chooseusername wrote: »

here you go;

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/51.5298354,-9.6773175/The+Prairie+Cottage,+Lissacaha+(North),+Schull,+County+Cork,+Ireland/@51.5355733,-9.6728691,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m9!4m8!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x48459b7e5e290ae5:0x1bb8f59382d8d091!2m2!1d-9.6338833!2d51.5387125!3e2

Interesting. So he would have had to have driven.

chooseusername

BailMeOut wrote: »

Interesting. So he would have had to have driven.

And the Kealfada bridge where he was spotted "near" Sophie's house;

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/51.5298354,-9.6773175/The+Prairie+Cottage,+Lissacaha+(North),+Schull,+County+Cork,+Ireland/51.5168672,-9.6671773/51.529809,-9.6771554/@51.5206073,-9.6773048,5266m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m11!4m10!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x48459b7e5e290ae5:0x1bb8f59382d8d091!2m2!1d-9.6338833!2d51.5387125!1m0!1m0!3e2

BailMeOut

chooseusername wrote: »

And the Kealfada bridge where he was spotted "near" Sophie's house;

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/51.5298354,-9.6773175/The+Prairie+Cottage,+Lissacaha+(North),+Schull,+County+Cork,+Ireland/51.5168672,-9.6671773/51.529809,-9.6771554/@51.5206073,-9.6773048,5266m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m11!4m10!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x48459b7e5e290ae5:0x1bb8f59382d8d091!2m2!1d-9.6338833!2d51.5387125!1m0!1m0!3e2

At night time and especially on clear calm nights you hear cars for miles.

Yurt2

chooseusername wrote: »

here you go;

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/51.5298354,-9.6773175/The+Prairie+Cottage,+Lissacaha+(North),+Schull,+County+Cork,+Ireland/@51.5355733,-9.6728691,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m9!4m8!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x48459b7e5e290ae5:0x1bb8f59382d8d091!2m2!1d-9.6338833!2d51.5387125!3e2

Looking at that route, I think it's fanciful in the extreme that he would have got up in the middle of the night in the depths of winter and walked an hour each way when a vehicle was at his disposal.

monkeybutter

Yurt! wrote: »

Looking at that route, I think it's fanciful in the extreme that he would have got up in the middle of the night in the depths of winter and walked an hour each way when a vehicle was at his disposal.

Do you travel to all your murders in a vehicle with a handy number on the back identifying you?

Do you start up your car in the middle of the night in an attempt to wake you wife before you do?

nc6000

The conduct of the Gardai was a disgrace and they didn't just make a mess of the initial investigation but some of the comments they make in their interviews for the series are remarkable. In episode 4 one of the Gardai (Dermot Dwyer) says you might have to interview a witness up to 10 times before you get the full story. 10 times!? I wouldn't have that was normal.

He also complains about how Ian Bailey was able to be interviewed on TV and make what Dwyer thought were unfair comments about how the Gardai "were doing him" and how a certain percentage of the public will believe this. That's unfair but it's OK for the Gardai to leak stuff about Bailey to the media?

monkeybutter

nc6000 wrote: »

The conduct of the Gardai was a disgrace and they didn't just make a mess of the initial investigation but some of the comments they make in their interviews for the series are remarkable. In episode 4 one of the Gardai (Dermot Dwyer) says you might have to interview a witness up to 10 times before you get the full story. 10 times!? I wouldn't have that was normal.

He also complains about how Ian Bailey was able to be interviewed on TV and make what Dwyer thought were unfair comments about how the Gardai "were doing him" and how a certain percentage of the public will believe this. That's unfair but it's OK for the Gardai to leak stuff about Bailey to the media?

Have you watched the savage eye? Not far from the truth is it

Yurt2

monkeybutter wrote: »

Do you travel to all your murders in a vehicle with a handy number on the back identifying you?

Do you start up your car in the middle of the night in an attempt to wake you wife before you do?

I had it that the allegation all along was that he stumbled there and back pished and committed the murder in between? It just doesn't seem plausible to me given the distance or that no one else would spot him over the some 8km total route, even taking the time of night into account.

chooseusername

BailMeOut wrote: »

At night time and especially on clear calm nights you hear cars for miles.

You'd see the headlights in Castletown Bearhaven.

jimwallace197

nc6000 wrote: »

The conduct of the Gardai was a disgrace and they didn't just make a mess of the initial investigation but some of the comments they make in their interviews for the series are remarkable. In episode 4 one of the Gardai (Dermot Dwyer) says you might have to interview a witness up to 10 times before you get the full story. 10 times!? I wouldn't have that was normal.

He also complains about how Ian Bailey was able to be interviewed on TV and make what Dwyer thought were unfair comments about how the Gardai "were doing him" and how a certain percentage of the public will believe this. That's unfair but it's OK for the Gardai to leak stuff about Bailey to the media?

Nail on the head. If what they did to bailey was not the very definition of doing someone, well I dread to think what they feel really doing someone is. Especially considering they had no real evidence on Bailey

nc6000

jimwallace197 wrote: »

[/B]

Nail on the head. If what they did to bailey was not the very definition of doing someone, well I dread to think what they feel really doing someone is. Especially considering they had no real evidence on Bailey

Yeah and I should have mentioned how they shared their original interviews with the French for use in the trial in France. They still included the interviews with Marie Farrell even though she has since disowned them and claims the Gardai pressured her into making them.

There is basically zero evidence that Bailey killed her and also zero evidence that can be used to prove anyone else did either.

Yurt2

jimwallace197 wrote: »

[/B]

Nail on the head. If what they did to bailey was not the very definition of doing someone, well I dread to think what they feel really doing someone is. Especially considering they had no real evidence on Bailey

That guy was a picture book old school Garda. I also had a good laugh at his mopey shoegazing comments that it was awful altogether that Bailey was allowed to go to the media to defend himself when it looked like he was subject to a ham-fisted fit-up which included members of the force briefing against their favoured suspect.

jimwallace197

nc6000 wrote: »

Yeah and I should have mentioned how they shared their original interviews with the French for use in the trial in France. They still included the interviews with Marie Farrell even though she has since disowned them and claims the Gardai pressured her into making them.

There is basically zero evidence that Bailey killed her and also zero evidence that can be used to prove anyone else did either.

Didnt realise that, what an absolute disgrace, even after all those years, they still were trying to maliciously convict him. Probably trying to curry favour with the french authorities, what a bunch of absolute cretins and cowards considering they knew full well Marie Farrell is one of the most unreliable witnesses out there.

nc6000

I started off thinking the Gardai carry-on and later interviews were cringe worthy but now I actually think it's scary.

The incompetence shown in this investigation is staggering and to think of the power these guys have to ruin a person is genuinely worrying.

jimwallace197

nc6000 wrote: »

I started off thinking the Gardai carry-on and later interviews were cringe worthy but now I actually think it's scary.

The incompetence shown in this investigation is staggering and to think of the power these guys have to ruin a person is genuinely worrying.

Its high time people started looking at our so called police force in a different way. An absolute law onto themselves and one of the reasons why I feel a senior local gard who has since passed away should have been the chief suspect instead of Bailey.

As I understand it, this case was either indirectly or directly linked to Martin Callinans (former garda commissioner) resignation. With the recording of telephone calls from garda stations.

The more you look into this case, the murkier it gets and says a lot about those with authority in our country.

thecretinhop

i have been in court where outright lies were told.
certain cohorts of society church guards politicans co councils are like a cult. even if they know your inmocent whistleblower etc there aim is to destroy you and cover up the real crime culprit. why? in there sick heads a few innocents jailed killed no bother. its for the greater good. scary people out there i can tell ye.

Biker79

Also more euphemistically known as " going along to get along "