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

TalleyRand83

Yurt! wrote: »

Where were you on the night of the 23rd of December 1996? I have it that a local spotted you in the vicinity of the cottage wearing a long black coat. She's even willing to give a statement to the Guards to that effect and I've tipped off the Cork Examiner to your presence near the scene. I'd advise you to check tomorrow's edition.

You see how this works?

*I'm not seriously accusing you of anything btw, merely illustrating how one's 'innocence' can be stripped away when we play fast and loose with these things.

Did the poster you direct this at also admit on a couple of occasions to the killing? Admitted not being in the house all night at odd times to leave?
Did he have scrape marks on his hands and face?
Does he have previous for beating up his partner?

qwerty13

Watched episodes 1&2.

It’s so made for a non-Irish market. The opening credits, the lady in the lake stuff - just cringe, along with the general tone of it. JS really hams it up in front of the camera too. It’s like he needed a rather strict editor.

As remarked by others, I think Ian Bailey revelled in the attention he was getting as the star/connected reporter on this. And he’s a total arse. There really does seem to be a willingness from very early on to doggedly pursue the IB line of enquiry, rather than cast the net wide and follow the evidence. There’s something about the way that Garda who got subtitled (Dwyer, I think) speaks, which makes me feel that he’s enjoying the attention aspect too.

It’s still a fascinating story, after all these years. Unfortunately for Sophie’s family. It’s hard to see how anyone will be caught for it at this stage.

TomOnBoard

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Maybe he set up a twitter account to capitalise on the new found interest in his case? You know, due to the documentary we are all talking about?

New found interest????

It's like Y'All was born yesterday!!

NOTHING today would match the interest in this case back then!!

A Twitter account born in June 2021, alleging patronage by Ian Bailey is simply impossible for me to believe!

You: Do as you wish!

Yurt2

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Yeah, WoW!

Truly believable Twitter account!

Anyone wonder why THE Ian Bailey would suddenly start tweeting malarkey in June 2021???

Anyone?

Yeah, Ian! About as credible as all the other oul' ****e!

Ah c'mon that account is pure Bailey. I don't see what's so fantastical about him setting up a Twitter account is.

riclad

The French legal system is totally different , they simply looked at the evidence and info they got from the Gardaí mostly even though the Gardaí investigation was flawed
and badly organised

StupidLikeAFox

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Yeah, WoW!

Truly believable Twitter account!

Anyone wonder why THE Ian Bailey would suddenly start tweeting malarkey in June 2021???

Anyone?

Yeah, Ian! About as credible as all the other oul' ****e!

Maybe he set up a twitter account to capitalise on the new found interest in his case? You know, due to the documentary we are all talking about?

TomOnBoard

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Ian Bailey said the case is being reviewed on twitter yesterday:

https://twitter.com/IanKennethBail1/status/1408320009504542722?s=19

Yeah, WoW!

Truly believable Twitter account!

Anyone wonder why THE Ian Bailey would suddenly start tweeting malarkey in June 2021???

Anyone?

Yeah, Ian! About as credible as all the other oul' ****e!

StupidLikeAFox

nc6000 wrote: »

Hopefully it does cause them problems and at the very least they should have to explain how they made such a balls of this investigation.

Ian Bailey said the case is being reviewed on twitter yesterday:

https://twitter.com/IanKennethBail1/status/1408320009504542722?s=19

[Deleted User]

Shelga wrote: »

I wondered this too. When watching Pierre Louis I thought- has he ever, for a moment, allowed himself to sit with the possibility that it wasn’t Ian Bailey who killed his mother? It doesn’t seem like he has, despite extremely flimsy evidence. It’s like they just need something to work towards, something to focus on, rather than the agony of being back to square one with no suspects, no evidence, no leads. I don’t know how any of us would feel until we are in a similar situation (god forbid).

Was thinking about this earlier too, the gap between the Irish version and the French version, and where did that cultural differences come from?
I believe it's not a French/Irish issue at all, it's a class issue!
These people are the French elite. They are the ruling class, Jacquie Chirac, multi millionaire, film producers but name a film they made.

As any son I have ultimate sympathy for the grieving elderly parents. But the blinkered establishment view is them versus us.
They want Bailey's head on a plate.
Even though, be in no doubt, they understand he most likely is innocent.

Shelga

threeball wrote: »

Just watched the trailer for the netflix documentary coming next Wednesday but it looks scarcely worth watching as even the trailer looks like the entire narrative will be about Bailey and how he's gotten away with murder.

It always amazes me how many families who lose a loved one to murder are happy to see anyone convicted as long as someone is convicted even in the complete absence of any evidence. Convicting the wrong person would haunt me more than the murder itself.

I wondered this too. When watching Pierre Louis I thought- has he ever, for a moment, allowed himself to sit with the possibility that it wasn’t Ian Bailey who killed his mother? It doesn’t seem like he has, despite extremely flimsy evidence. It’s like they just need something to work towards, something to focus on, rather than the agony of being back to square one with no suspects, no evidence, no leads. I don’t know how any of us would feel until we are in a similar situation (god forbid).

TomOnBoard

fryup wrote: »

i suggested that in an earlier post myself

i envisage something like this...

Sophie see's car pull up and walks down to the gate...

Sophie: who are you?
Handyman: i've come to fix the heating?
Sophie: but it's too early i was expecting you later!
Handyman: well fek it lady i'm here now!
Sophie: well it's too early come back later! go on go! *and ushers him out
Handyman then loses his head, and strikes out at her...the rest plays out as so..

I had the EXACT same situation last week when the Tesco lad turned up to deliver the messages at 10 to 5 which was in the €5 15:00-17:00 slot, and me having paid for the dearer €7 17:00-19:00 slot, and me in me boots and feck all else had to go out and give out the pay to him for arriving early, and he went for me with a huge rock through the gate and luckily I had a side of smoked salmon in the order and was able to beat him off by holding the fish by the tail and smashed his face in with the bony oul chest of the yoke Tesco sent out and he ****ed off licking himself and his wounds (after rubbing on some dill and a pinch of salt) and when he came back (on time) I refused the whole shop coz the feckin salmon was in bits!!!

Ya have to watch out for early delivery/trades men!!

[Deleted User]

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Aaaand, not a word about the horse who, at one point, allegedly kicked the poor woman to death!!

Not to mention the chickens and the cat

TomOnBoard

Deleted User wrote: »

Joking aside, all possible scenarios for this poor woman's death are still on the table. It wasn't an ordinary set of circumstances so we can't really laugh or dismiss any theory however daft it might sound at first glance. The papers are full of weird crimes and coincidences every day.
If you write off Bailey as a potential killer, as I have after looking at the availabile evidence, the only scenarios left are a bit outlandish.
Affairs, mistaken identity, hit men, angry tradesmen, are all possible.
Nothing is probable here.
That's the problem.

Aaaand, not a word about the horse who, at one point, allegedly kicked the poor woman to death!!

theoneeyedman

I haven't seen this yet, might catch up on it yet, and I don't know who did the deed, but I've been of the opinion for a long time that it isn't Bailey. Personally I'd suspect someone in the Garda, or someone very close to the force, but that's only a guess really - a lot of the incompetence is very convenient.

What I found listening to the West Cork doc a while ago, was the access given by the likes of RTE, via prime time radio shows like Pat Kenny and Sean O'Rourke's shows, to various witnesses to blacken Bailey's name, especially Marie Farrell. These things don't generally happen by accident, access to these shows are generally tightly managed and controlled, so someone with power and or contacts wanted public opinion looking at Bailey and nobody else.

Very sinister imho, and a damning commentary of media in our country.

[Deleted User]

Joking aside, all possible scenarios for this poor woman's death are still on the table. It wasn't an ordinary set of circumstances so we can't really laugh or dismiss any theory however daft it might sound at first glance. The papers are full of weird crimes and coincidences every day.
If you write off Bailey as a potential killer, as I have after looking at the availabile evidence, the only scenarios left are a bit outlandish.
Affairs, mistaken identity, hit men, angry tradesmen, are all possible.
Nothing is probable here.
That's the problem.

nc6000

Ludikrus wrote: »

It’s early days but it will be interesting if there’s a shift in public opinion after these documentaries have been digested. I haven’t read every post here but generally speaking, a lot of people seem to be expressing doubt about his guilt now. For a long time almost no one thought he was innocent (or at least not many said so). I was one of them and have always had an interest in the case. Primarily because I thought that Bailey had got away with murder. I’m not so certain anymore. The renewed interest could cause problems for the gardai.

Hopefully it does cause them problems and at the very least they should have to explain how they made such a balls of this investigation.

oceanman

Ludikrus wrote: »

It’s early days but it will be interesting if there’s a shift in public opinion after these documentaries have been digested. I haven’t read every post here but generally speaking, a lot of people seem to be expressing doubt about his guilt now. For a long time almost no one thought he was innocent (or at least not many said so). I was one of them and have always had an interest in the case. Primarily because I thought that Bailey had got away with murder. I’m not so certain anymore. The renewed interest could cause problems for the gardai.

hopefully it will.

Ludikrus

It’s early days but it will be interesting if there’s a shift in public opinion after these documentaries have been digested. I haven’t read every post here but generally speaking, a lot of people seem to be expressing doubt about his guilt now. For a long time almost no one thought he was innocent (or at least not many said so). I was one of them and have always had an interest in the case. Primarily because I thought that Bailey had got away with murder. I’m not so certain anymore. The renewed interest could cause problems for the gardai.

Loafing Oaf

Ludikrus wrote: »

So a plumber is admonished for calling too early and he decides to bash her skull in? T’is a good bit beyond the bounds of possibility actually.

Even Fred West didn't turn on his clients this way, as far as we know...

MoonUnit75

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn't it always the way?

Remember the Daniel O'Donnell ad where he offers to take a look at the old ladies' boiler and she kicks him out? Heavily edited. The cameras stopped rolling once a machete and blowtorch were produced.

[Deleted User]

fryup wrote: »

i suggested that in an earlier post myself

i envisage something like this...

Sophie see's car pull up and walks down to the gate...

Sophie: who are you?
Handyman: i've come to fix the heating?
Sophie: but it's too early i was expecting you later!
Handyman: well fek it lady i'm here now!
Sophie: well it's too early come back later! go on go! *and ushers him out
Handyman then loses his head, and strikes out at her...the rest plays out as so..

Isn't it always the way?

Ludikrus

fryup wrote: »

well its not beyond the bounds of possibility now is it

So a plumber is admonished for calling too early and he decides to bash her skull in? T’is a good bit beyond the bounds of possibility actually.

freshpopcorn

After watching this I only trust his cat and the chickens!

AudreyHepburn

monkeybutter wrote: »

Would you convict of on a jury?

No, it would be too unsafe to convict.

threeball

Just watched the trailer for the netflix documentary coming next Wednesday but it looks scarcely worth watching as even the trailer looks like the entire narrative will be about Bailey and how he's gotten away with murder.

It always amazes me how many families who lose a loved one to murder are happy to see anyone convicted as long as someone is convicted even in the complete absence of any evidence. Convicting the wrong person would haunt me more than the murder itself.

siblers

Wonder how will Ian pay back the 5 million for his failed civil case?

MoonUnit75

Yurt! wrote: »

That was a civil libel trial, he won on two counts and the 6 others settled on appeal, worth noting. And this was before Farrell (a key plank of the libel defense) retracted her statement.

Not exactly a shredding and a spectacular own goal as you would describe it.

Yes, settled on appeal. There was zero prospect of him paying the paper's fees in any case, with no assets and no steady income. Settlement to make him go away seems a sensible option to me rather than racking up even more legal fees he is never in a million years going to be able to pay.

As far as Farrell goes, it's worth remembering a witness gave testimony under oath that Farrell, whom she had worked for years before, had told her Bailey was in for a windfall if he won his case and she was lined up to get some of it. Of course, I am not saying this is why she went from state witness, which brought her nothing but trouble and infamy, to Bailey's star witness. There's more detail on this in Nick Foster's recent book.

bugsyb4

Just finished watching this there now and haven't read through any of this thread yet.

My opinion from watching it is that he didn't have anything to do with the murder and at the time was an eccentric who loved the attention and probably thought let them have me as a suspect until they actually arrest the real killer and it will all blow over in a few weeks/months, how wrong he was!!

You could see near the end he was a shell of a man outside the court when he was walking away and didn't want to speak to the press, the whole affair has just taken it's toll on him and you would nearly feel if he did do it eventually he would own up to it. His partner sticking by him so long as well was a positive for me, although very surprised seeing they have since broke up.

Last 2 episodes didn't enjoy as much probably because a lot more court stuff but thought first 3 very good.

Guards and that Marie Farrell one IMO come out of it way worse and I fully endorse the DPP decision to not go after him as the evidence which they botched was not strong enough. Also the French trial using old statements that were since recanted was only going to go one way, hopefully the family feel they got something out of it and they can try somewhat to get on with their lives now.

fryup

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

This is worse than the Trevor Deely threads for daft speculation.

well its not beyond the bounds of possibility now is it

Yurt2

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Talk about 'belief' all you want. That's the exact attitude Bailey and his legal team had going into his defamation case, that it was all rumour and gossip and the team would shred them to pieces. It was a spectacular own goal and the exact opposite happened.

That was a civil libel trial, he won on two counts and the 6 others settled on appeal, worth noting. And this was before Farrell (a key plank of the libel defense) retracted her statement.

Not exactly a shredding and a spectacular own goal as you would describe it.