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

Mackinac

Gamb!t wrote: »

Probably not but a person in Uniform (Garda) could possibly persuade he to come out late at night.
What I dont understand is why she put on a pair of boots but no jacket in the dead of winter.

She had her blue nightgown on over the top of her night clothes. She may have gotten up out of bed upon hearing something outside and went out to see what was up. A small hatchet was missing from the house she may have taken it with her. The fact that her boots were on and laced up made me think she went outside willingly rather than being chased from inside the house.
She told her housekeeper she thought someone had been in her house while she was away and using the bath. Maybe that person/persons came to use the house that night thinking it was unoccupied.

Gussie Scrotch

robwen wrote: »

Well going by her story she was lying for the guards by identifying Bailey as the man so if they got the companion they'd have to convince him to lie aswell, they weren't forcing her to identify cause they desperately needed her, they supposedly covered up her driving offences, her son caught multiple times driving without insurance & an assault allegation against her husband

I think they did badly need her......it was the only real evidence linking him.

jimwallace197

Sardonicat wrote: »

In a beret? Was he wearing a striped shirt and a string of onions round his neck as well? Smoking a gauloise and smelling strongly of garlic, too, I suppose. That woman is pathetic.

Marie Farrell should be prison. Her blatant & continuous lies helped the gards focus on Bailey and subsequently destroyed his life.

On top of this, it possibly took the investigation in the wrong direction ensuring that the crime was unlikely to ever be solved.

She is a known Perjurer and if she had kept her mouth shut in the first place, who knows what may have happened.

Massive Bereavement

I've listened to the podcast and only one episode in on the sky docu so far but my belief is that it was someone other than Bailey.

What I find interesting is she seemed desperate for someone to travel to Ireland with her. The invitation stretched beyond immediate family to friends and cousins. Doesn't sound like the actions of someone who was travelling to Ireland to meet up with a romantic interest.

So why then did she want the company so badly? I'd be interested to know who she was seen with on previous trips to West Cork. Did she have a prior romantic interest that turned sour and she wanted to return to the cottage for a couple of days but didn't necessarily want to encounter that person again alone hence the open invitation to travel with her.

Given what looks to me to be a garda cover up disguised as incompetence, here is what I think happened:

Marie Farrell was telling the truth insofar as she was out that night with a lover. If she really was at home in bed then the husband would able to confirm that. If she really was with friends they could confirm. It would have been doubtful she was driving around alone for the hell of it so it could very well be the case she was having an affair and the love interest was with her in the car. I believe the lover may have been that high ranking garda that has been alluded to. While they were out driving the guard see's a light on in sophies house from afar. The house was on a hill after all and Bailey and Jules could see it from some lookout point they stopped at so despite it's remoteness it was visible from multiple vantage points. So the cop saw a light was on indicating to him there was someone there, and quite possibly she was back from France. We already know she contacted the guards voicing her concerns about drug dealing. So perhaps she was making a nuisance of herself from their perspective on that end and it was ruffling their feathers a bit too much. Or perhaps the guard in question went up to the house previously when she made a complaint about the drug dealing and upon meeting her developed an infatuation or else tried it on and was rebuffed and that rebuttal was left stew and grew legs until she returned. So if Farrell ever said who was in the car she would also have to say, if she was being entirely truthful, that the cop commented on the light being on in sophies house. Perhaps negative comments were spouted by the cop upon seeing the light on even.

Then possibly the cop travelled to the house early the next morning. The gate was closed/locked. The house looks down onto where the gate is so I think she was having breakfast, sees the guard get out of the car at the gate, recognizes him and puts her boots on and ventures down to the gate. If this was during the night all she would see is headlights shining right at her and wouldn't be able to identify the car and hence probably wouldn't venture out. From what I can tell it's a shared gate aswell so any car coming to the gate, day or night, could be a visitor for her neighbor anyway. Given that they live there permanently the likelihood of them having guests would be high and wouldn't elicit the reaction of her venturing out of the house to the gate. Virtually all cars arriving to that gate wouldn't be for her anyway. So it's who she see's at the gate that's key.

It all gets out of hand from there. Perhaps she tells him in no uncertain terms that she has no interest in him and she will report him if he doesn't clear off, or tells him that unless something is done about the drug dealing complaints she would go above him. Such a statement wouldn't faze the guard if it was off anyone else but he would have known that she would have been part of high society in France and in fact her threats to report him may have carried weight. She may even have reminded him of that herself. So the guard loses it at that point and afterwards walks up to the cottage to check she was alone. Upon entering the house he sees the axe inside the door and takes that around the house with him to kill anyone else there with her. He then leaves the house with the axe and the axe is never found.

Farrell over the coming days in then forced to give her statement that she saw the man with the long black coat in order to place someone, anyone in that area to deflect. She would have seen what happened to sophie and what the man is capable of so that would be incentive enough to keep her mouth shut. Maybe the lies and story changes that came after was an insurance plan to make her sound non-credible in the event she ever really did tell the truth.

The cover up then begins - local cops refusing to move the body to the morgue in Cork at the pathologist/forensic teams request, something they say they have never encountered before as all local guards defer to them once they arrive. They were adamant that the pathologist had to come to the scene even though they were told that it would be useless for him to do so as too much time would have passed by then. So forensic data is lost as a result. The gate going missing is an interesting one. Could it be the mans fingerprints are all over it from when he was trying to open it at the same time sophie was lacing up her boots to go down to him? At that very moment in time when he was trying to open the gate he may not have intended to murder and therefore was not being careful with prints etc.

I don't think it was someone coming back to use her house and got spooked like had been mentioned before as on approach to her house the car was visible in the drive, so they would have known someone was there. This can be seen in photos of the crimescene. I also don't think she was fleeing the house from someone as she had time to put boots on and there isn't any evidence of anyone else having been there. I've seen mentioned why didn't she run to the neighbors but I think it started as a conversation down at the gate that escalated. She didn't get a chance to run anywhere except try to escape over some brambles when she realized the full extent of what was happening to her. I think she went down there willingly and was never a foot or two away from the murderer.

All wild speculation on my part of course but this is such a strange case who knows.

jimwallace197

Mackinac wrote: »

She had her blue nightgown on over the top of her night clothes. She may have gotten up out of bed upon hearing something outside and went out to see what was up. A small hatchet was missing from the house she may have taken it with her. The fact that her boots were on and laced up made me think she went outside willingly rather than being chased from inside the house.
She told her housekeeper she thought someone had been in her house while she was away and using the bath. Maybe that person/persons came to use the house that night thinking it was unoccupied.

I agree that no struggle or fight took place inside the house, there was zero evidence of it except for a blood stain on the doorhandle. She most likely went outside willingly & this gives weight to the theory it was a gard (or someone in a position of authority) because I doubt she would have left the security of her house if it was some randomer. This is someone who was in dispute with her neighbours over leaving the gate at the end of the road open, she knew it was a risk & she wasnt stupid.

I dont think she was chased from inside the house either because she had time to put on her boots and some clothes.

chooseusername

Deleted User wrote: »

A very diverse range of expressions in that photo.

https://www.granger.com/wmpix/age/rue/0145419-ISABELLE-HUPPERT-AND-DANIEL-TOSCAN-DU-PLANTIER-French-actress-Isabelle-Huppert-with-director-Daniel-Toscan-du-Plantier-and-behind-Roger-Moore-at-YvesMontand-concert-at-Olympia-october-14-1981-Full-credit.jpg

French actress Isabelle Huppert with director Daniel Toscan du Plantier, and behind Roger Moore, at YvesMontand concert at Olympia october 14, 1981.

Loafing Oaf

Massive Bereavement wrote: »

So it's who she see's at the gate that's key.

It all gets out of hand from there.

This is the point where theories to explain this murder run into credibility problems...

jojofizzio

This thread Is far more entertaining than Jim Sheridan’s documentary,Nick Foster’s book and whatever’s to come in the Netflix documentary (if IB doesn’t get it pulled before airing this week) put together!!

[Deleted User]

Another theory is that an Air Lingus passenger jet had an issue with its landing gear, so while fixing it an engineer used a breeze block to hold the part in place. Of course when the job was done he forgot to remove said breeze block. After taking off from Cork the next morning the block became dislodged and, well, you can guess the rest.

autumnbelle

Watching the sky documentary if he is innocent I really feel for him he has no life

chooseusername

I think she had just had breakfast , as heating had not kicked in yet she had her outdoor boots on.
The two chairs by radiator still there from night before( she usually put her feet up on 2nd chair)
The light would have been on as still dark in the house till at least 9am.
She may have heard a noise outside.
She switched off the light, picked up the poker (or small axe, depending on which report) and went to open the door.

unplayable

chooseusername wrote: »

I think she had just had breakfast , as heating had not kicked in yet she had her outdoor boots on.
The two chairs by radiator still there from night before( she usually put her feet up on 2nd chair)
The light would have been on as still dark in the house till at least 9am.
She may have heard a noise outside.
She switched off the light, picked up the poker (or small axe, depending on which report) and went to open the door.

If it was morning which does seem plausible
From what we know? What about the bottle of wine in the bush then? Was that from another night or could the killer have stayed over with her? The morning killing theory surely brings the speeding blue car into play also.

MoonUnit75

autumnbelle wrote: »

Watching the sky documentary if he is innocent I really feel for him he has no life

Whether or not he killed Sophie he should have done serious time for putting his partner in hospital on more than one occasion.

Watched the rest of the series and in part 5 he is watching Claire Byrne on TV and gets annoyed. When the programme ends he barks at her repeatedly ‘TV off, TV off, TV off, TV OFF’ so he can give his ‘instant reaction’. I think his really shows that deep, deep down, right to the core, he is and was a thoroughly horrible person. Other people seem like nothing more than an extension to his own thoughts for him. At her birthday party he makes a total show of himself and gets up to sing, making her party all about him. “I knew Princess Diana, she liked me” he blurted out. Delusional, violent and narcissistic IMO.

[Deleted User]

unplayable wrote: »

If it was morning which does seem plausible
From what we know? What about the bottle of wine in the bush then? Was that from another night or could the killer have stayed over with her? The morning killing theory surely brings the speeding blue car into play also.

The wine was not available in the local off licences but was for sale in airport duty free shops

Biker79

Its not an exaggeration to say things have been playing out for Bailey like some Shakespearean tragedy. Something that he seems to secretly relish...

There's something noble in the suffering of an artist.....he might announce to a weary audience after a few drinks.

Doesn't make him a killer though. Just eccentric.

I think the Brits have more regard for eccentricity than small town rural Ireland.

MoonUnit75

jimwallace197 wrote: »

I agree that no struggle or fight took place inside the house, there was zero evidence of it except for a blood stain on the doorhandle. She most likely went outside willingly & this gives weight to the theory it was a gard (or someone in a position of authority) because I doubt she would have left the security of her house if it was some randomer. This is someone who was in dispute with her neighbours over leaving the gate at the end of the road open, she knew it was a risk & she wasnt stupid.

I dont think she was chased from inside the house either because she had time to put on her boots and some clothes.

I don’t think it would have taken too much to coax her from the house, it was in the middle of nowhere and she made a point of not having curtains. She wasn’t afraid there. All it would have taken would be for someone familiar with the place to bang on the door and say ‘Alfie has had an accident, we need to use your phone’ or even ‘it’s Alfie, I need to talk to you’.

MoonUnit75

Biker79 wrote: »

Its not an exaggeration to say things have been playing out for Bailey like some Shakespearean tragedy. Something that he seems to secretly relish...

There's something noble in the suffering of an artist.....he might announce to a weary audience after a few drinks.

Doesn't make him a killer though. Just eccentric.

I think the Brits have more regard for eccentricity than small town rural Ireland.

There’s a certain type of narcissist who would enjoy people thinking he was some kind of genius, carrying off the perfect crime and making fools of the police. He doesn’t seem to dwell on the fact that there is someone else out there responsible for this. Jim Sheridan even asks him, if I am remembering correctly, if he is angry or full of rage for what happened to her and he says he does not carry rage or anger, clearly a lie.

Sophie doesn’t seem to figure much in the story for him, it seems like it’s his case, his story and his struggle against people who think they can take him on. His obsession with press clippings and talking to people about it, it all makes me think he would not enjoy someone else being associated with this case.

nc6000

SoulWriter wrote: »

The wine was not available in the local off licences but was for sale in airport duty free shops

She could have bought it on her way over.

[Deleted User]

nc6000 wrote: »

She could have bought it on her way over.

true, but who threw it in the ditch? it was about 60/70 pounds worth

Biker79

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

There’s a certain type of narcissist who would enjoy people thinking he was some kind of genius, carrying off the perfect crime and making fools of the police. He doesn’t seem to dwell on the fact that there is someone else out there responsible for this. Jim Sheridan even asks him, if I am remembering correctly, if he is angry or full of rage for what happened to her and he says he does not carry rage or anger, clearly a lie.

Sophie doesn’t seem to figure much in the story for him, it seems like it’s his case, his story and his struggle against people who think they can take him on. His obsession with press clippings and talking to people about it, it all makes me think he would not enjoy someone else being associated with this case.

Exactly right.

But none of that makes him a murderer. Just an annoying tool who has experienced some extreme bad luck - well beyond what you might consider as karma for his self centeredness.

thecretinhop

was the bottle open or unopened

[Deleted User]

As the nearest neighbour, was Alfie ever questioned to rule him out?

[Deleted User]

thecretinhop wrote: »

was the bottle open or unopened

unopened https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderAtTheCottage/comments/o4pjr4/an_unopened_bottle_of_wine_was_found_in_bushes/

Mackwiss

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I don’t think it would have taken too much to coax her from the house, it was in the middle of nowhere and she made a point of not having curtains. She wasn’t afraid there. All it would have taken would be for someone familiar with the place to bang on the door and say ‘Alfie has had an accident, we need to use your phone’ or even ‘it’s Alfie, I need to talk to you’.

agree, but not even this... from what we know from her personality she wasn't afraid and confrontational apparently. Her words and attitude might have triggered the reaction from the killer.

The wine bottle question is interesting. Was there a receipt proving she bought it? a Credit Card transaction? If no brings the theory someone else buying it at the airport?

Only issue with this is the car... why/how rent an old fiesta with red plates?

If she bought the wine. She sees someone at the gate (maybe is the guy that was using her house) She goes down to the gate, little axe in her belt for defense and bottle in hand, maybe to give the wine to the person to make the person go away?

Words happen, things escalate he approaches her, she picks the axe to defend herself a fight ensues and we know what happens next.

All speculation of course...

Mackwiss

This is interesting. Sadly this was only taken 10 years after the fact but it connects with MF initial testimony:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/missing-link-man-in-sophie-case-offers-new-help-26461911.html

Deeec

Mackwiss wrote: »

This is interesting. Sadly this was only taken 10 years after the fact but it connects with MF initial testimony:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/missing-link-man-in-sophie-case-offers-new-help-26461911.html

Thanks for that - thats interesting. Its a pity this was never followed up.
I wonder if any records were held by the B & B/ Hotels from that time - info probably wasnt saved on computer at the time but they may have held onto guest books. The B & B could be long closed at this stage though.

Mackinac

jimwallace197 wrote: »

I agree that no struggle or fight took place inside the house, there was zero evidence of it except for a blood stain on the doorhandle. She most likely went outside willingly & this gives weight to the theory it was a gard (or someone in a position of authority) because I doubt she would have left the security of her house if it was some randomer. This is someone who was in dispute with her neighbours over leaving the gate at the end of the road open, she knew it was a risk & she wasnt stupid.

I dont think she was chased from inside the house either because she had time to put on her boots and some clothes.

A few years ago someone tried to break in to my house at the rear patio doors. I heard them, went outside and ran up the lane after them but they got away from me. I had always thought the safest thing in that situation would be to immediately call the police instead of trying to confront them but I guess in the spur of the moment adrenaline kicked in and I went after them. I never thought I would have done such a thing but I did, just goes to show you never know how you’ll react in some situations. I’m lucky it didn’t turn out worse, I’m the last woman you’d expect to confront a burglar.

Furze99

Biker79 wrote: »

But none of that makes him a murderer. Just an annoying tool who has experienced some extreme bad luck - well beyond what you might consider as karma for his self centeredness.

Apart from the small issue of confessions that he done it. Agree though that he's a complete attention seeker, a tosser who should have been sent off to France to go before their investigations and case. Any completely innocent person would be happy enough to do and bury the rumouring once and for all. No time at all for him.

Yurt2

Furze99 wrote: »

Apart from the small issue of confessions that he done it. Agree though that he's a complete attention seeker, a tosser who should have been sent off to France to go before their investigations and case. Any completely innocent person would be happy enough to do and bury the rumouring once and for all. No time at all for him.

I'd doubt that very much.

Yurt2

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

There’s a certain type of narcissist who would enjoy people thinking he was some kind of genius, carrying off the perfect crime and making fools of the police. He doesn’t seem to dwell on the fact that there is someone else out there responsible for this. Jim Sheridan even asks him, if I am remembering correctly, if he is angry or full of rage for what happened to her and he says he does not carry rage or anger, clearly a lie.

Sophie doesn’t seem to figure much in the story for him, it seems like it’s his case, his story and his struggle against people who think they can take him on. His obsession with press clippings and talking to people about it, it all makes me think he would not enjoy someone else being associated with this case.

This post is kind of illustrative of how justice, the pursuit of justice and investigative procedure can be corrupted by amateur psychologists and curtain twitching impulses.