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

bemak

there was mention on another forum of a german man with a history of violence towards women living locally at the time. He returned to Germany the following year and committed suicide. Apparently he left a note saying "I can't live with what I've done". None of his friends or family know what he's referring to. I'd be curious to know where he lived in relation to the scene.

bemak

TomCor1 wrote: »

Looking forward to watching the Netflix doc. I feel sorry for Sophie's family who have been lead astray by the corrupt investigation. The French verdict means nothing in my opinion as they take hearsay as fact.

It looks to me as if Sophie had breakfast that morning (fruit and nuts recently ingested), saw a car approach her gate, put her boots on and went down to have a look. Whatever exchange happens here causes the killing. He is then possibly paranoid that someone else was in the house, grabs the axe and walks in the door to see was there anyone else inside, then leaves.

Mad as IB is I don't think it was him.

That is a very good theory. Going back to the house is interesting. Like you say it could be because the killer needed to check if there was anyone else in the house. The alternative is that the killer had been in the house previously and needed to clean up the scene. The second wine glass doesn't necessarly mean there was company in the house - she was drinking an expensive bottle of wine - it's not outrageous to get a new glass when opening a new, expensive bottle of wine. Fruit and nuts would suggest breakfast, but could it also be a snack when having a few drinks. Could be a cheese board with nuts and fruit.

Someone else said that there were no lights on in the house when the Guards arrived. While that would back up the claim (with the stomach contents) that the killing occured in the morning bear in mind that this was in the winter so if it had been in the morning I suspect a light would have been on anyway. Maybe the killer turned the lights off when they went back up to clean the house of any traces.

Sophie could have been the one to bring the axe to the gate to see what was going on.

retro:electro

In Jim’s doc when Ian is asked to recant his version of events from that night he is very sketchy. He resists answering it and says he’ll answer it later, and then proceeds to get hammered on whiskey. I don’t believe he did it but things like that don’t help him and lead to more questions than answers. He really didn’t want to go there for whatever reason

nc6000

Mackinac wrote: »

It’s there, I watched the first episode this morning.

What did you think of it?

FrankN1

I expect/hope the Netflix one is better. It's only 3 episodes which is far better. Gave up after 10 mins of the Sheridan one.

chicorytip

Massive Bereavement wrote: »

A theory I've not heard mentioned before is regarding her being spooked at that lake the day before and calling in on a family she knew from France that lived in the area. Think Jim referred to them as the Ungerers. Well they would be one of the very few in the area that knew her and knew she was back visiting at that time.

What if the man of the house decided to call in on her the next day to make sure she was alright. He would have known she was spooked, would have known she lived alone in a remote area and it being the depths of winter where it is dark and dreary for most of the time it would make sense for him to call in on her to see if she was ok. Would also make sense that she would go down to the gate upon seeing him as she knew him. But what if he made a pass at her and she threatened to tell his wife.

I firmly believe she was down at the gate because she knew her killer. The gate was also used by two other houses so in all likelihood any car at the gate would not be for her and would not have prompted her to lace her boots up and head down there. Especially seeing as at least one of her neighbors lived there permanently and given the fact she had only arrived there a day or two before why would any car at the gate be for her. So a car coming to the gate would have not called for her to leave the house. But seeing someone she knew down at the gate might have. She was either going down there to assist them through the gate or she was down there to confront them as she did not want them to come up to and into the house.

It seems more likely that she was attempting to flee from her attacker and made it to the end of the driveway before the fatal assault took place rather than going outside to meet a visitor at the gate. It must have been a cold and wet evening and the (shared) entrance gate is located 200 metres downhill from the house along an unpaved driveway. I seem to recollect one of the neighbours - it may have been Shirley Foster - saying at the time that the gate was always left open and unlocked so any car arriving could have just driven up to the house. The fact that she was wearing boots with her night attire is of no great significance. She probably just wore those around the house at night anyway. It is more probable that she had already admitted the killer into the house or he had called to the door and forced his way inside but that there had been no pre arranged meeting. Would she have been wearing night clothes if there had been? Anyway, once inside and alone with her killer things had turned nasty and, fearing for her life, she found an opportunity to run and attempt her escape. The only question arising from this scenario is why did she just not run to one of her adjacent neighbours properties and raise the alarm? I can only surmise that both houses were unoccupied on the particular night and, therefore, she realised her only hope was to run and hopefully make it as far as another (occupied) property down the road or find some hiding place that may have occurred to her.

CoBo55

I wonder is it on the torrents yet, I'm too stingy to reinvigorate my Netflix sub..

odyssey06

chicorytip wrote: »

The only question arising from this scenario is why did she just not run to one of her adjacent neighbours properties and raise the alarm? I can only surmise that both houses were unoccupied on the particular night and, therefore, she realised her only hope was to run and hopefully make it as far as another (occupied) property down the road or find some hiding place that may have occurred to her.

I think someone said earlier that her closest neighbour's property was occupied on the night, but the neighbours didn't hear anything.
The neighbours lived there fulll time, wasn't a holiday home afaik so would be reasonably expected to be there.

BarneyJ

chicorytip wrote: »

It seems more likely that she was attempting to flee from her attacker and made it to the end of the driveway before the fatal assault took place rather than going outside to meet a visitor at the gate. It must have been a cold and wet evening and the (shared) entrance gate is located 200 metres downhill from the house along an unpaved driveway. I seem to recollect one of the neighbours - it may have been Shirley Foster - saying at the time that the gate was always left open and unlocked so any car arriving could have just driven up to the house. The fact that she was wearing boots with her night attire is of no great significance. She probably just wore those around the house at night anyway. It is more probable that she had already admitted the killer into the house or he had called to the door and forced his way inside but that there had been no pre arranged meeting. Would she have been wearing night clothes if there had been? Anyway, once inside and alone with her killer things had turned nasty and, fearing for her life, she found an opportunity to run and attempt her escape. The only question arising from this scenario is why did she just not run to one of her adjacent neighbours properties and raise the alarm? I can only surmise that both houses were unoccupied on the particular night and, therefore, she realised her only hope was to run and hopefully make it as far as another (occupied) property down the road or find some hiding place that may have occurred to her.

In Ep 1 of JS's documentary he said that the gate was found open by the neighbour and that this would have been very unusual.

I think that we can rule out that anything turned nasty within the house itself. There is no evidence at all to suggest this. Everything was neat and tidy in there and there was no blood found inside.

At least one of the neighbouring houses was occupied because it was the occupant of one of those houses who discovered Sophie's body in the morning.

dmn22

chicorytip wrote: »

It seems more likely that she was attempting to flee from her attacker and made it to the end of the driveway before the fatal assault took place rather than going outside to meet a visitor at the gate. It must have been a cold and wet evening and the (shared) entrance gate is located 200 metres downhill from the house along an unpaved driveway. I seem to recollect one of the neighbours - it may have been Shirley Foster - saying at the time that the gate was always left open and unlocked so any car arriving could have just driven up to the house. The fact that she was wearing boots with her night attire is of no great significance. She probably just wore those around the house at night anyway. It is more probable that she had already admitted the killer into the house or he had called to the door and forced his way inside but that there had been no pre arranged meeting. Would she have been wearing night clothes if there had been? Anyway, once inside and alone with her killer things had turned nasty and, fearing for her life, she found an opportunity to run and attempt her escape. The only question arising from this scenario is why did she just not run to one of her adjacent neighbours properties and raise the alarm? I can only surmise that both houses were unoccupied on the particular night and, therefore, she realised her only hope was to run and hopefully make it as far as another (occupied) property down the road or find some hiding place that may have occurred to her.

How is it more likely that she was attempting to flee from her attacker than meeting a visitor at the gate? It's been said Sophie liked to have the gate locked. I'm sure if she's staying on her own she would be even more likely to lock it.

I think a car pulled up, she threw on her boots quickly and went down to investigate or unlock the gate and that's when the incident occurred.

Wompa1

retro:electro wrote: »

In Jim’s doc when Ian is asked to recant his version of events from that night he is very sketchy. He resists answering it and says he’ll answer it later, and then proceeds to get hammered on whiskey. I don’t believe he did it but things like that don’t help him and lead to more questions than answers. He really didn’t want to go there for whatever reason

He also called himself impulsive and then took it back immediately. Also when Jim called him and had it out a little with him during the French trial about being aggressive, he wouldn't accept the negatives about himself. This morning on Newstalk when he was asked if he brought some of this on himself and that he's a narcissist, he also said no....saying he looks in the mirror and sees his hold face but all he has so many traits of a narcissist...

He's his own worst enemy. He signed a release for the Nextlix documentary but his partner did not. He couldn't help himself. He craves the attention.

Addle

retro:electro wrote: »

In Jim’s doc when Ian is asked to recant his version of events from that night he is very sketchy. He resists answering it and says he’ll answer it later, and then proceeds to get hammered on whiskey. I don’t believe he did it but things like that don’t help him and lead to more questions than answers. He really didn’t want to go there for whatever reason

I thought that was very contrived.
He knows what the talk will be if he doesn’t answer.
He wants people to talk about him.

EmmetSpiceland

Wompa1 wrote: »

He also called himself impulsive and then took it back immediately. Also when Jim called him and had it out a little with him during the French trial about being aggressive, he wouldn't accept the negatives about himself. This morning on Newstalk when he was asked if he brought some of this on himself and that he's a narcissist, he also said no....saying he looks in the mirror and sees his hold face but all he has so many traits of a narcissist...

He's his own worst enemy. He signed a release for the Nextlix documentary but his partner did not. He couldn't help himself. He craves the attention.

Regarding the time he’s asked to go over the night, I’d say he’s terrified of saying something wrong. Same goes for saying he’s impulsive.

You could tell that the time in court, where he was asked if he ever said he was an animal and he answered no but then they whipped out part of his personal writings where it contradicted his answer, got to him.

Whether that’s out of fear of being put on trial again or a guilty conscience, I don’t know.

[Deleted User]

FrankN1 wrote: »

I expect/hope the Netflix one is better. It's only 3 episodes which is far better. Gave up after 10 mins of the Sheridan one.

I skipped through the parts where JS was on screen /narrating. Netfix one is much better watching part one now

[Deleted User]

Addle wrote: »

I thought that was very contrived.
He knows what the talk will be if he doesn’t answer.
He wants people to talk about him.

very amateur to be filming him drunk.

Mackwiss

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Regarding the time he’s asked to go over the night, I’d say he’s terrified of saying something wrong. Same goes for saying he’s impulsive.

You could tell that the time in court, where he was asked if he ever said he was an animal and he answered no but then they whipped out part of his personal writings where it contradicted his answer, got to him.

Whether that’s out of fear of being put on trial again or a guilty conscience, I don’t know.

If we'd arrest poets/writers wannabes on their written ramblings then we'd have prisons filled with them.

Surprisingly the most famous poets are the ones that precisely dare to go on these kinds of ramblings in some instances and other kinds of ramblings in other poems.... but in a court and how it was presented... was basically "he wrote this so he did it for sure".

buttercups88

Ive just been reading through the thread and the block that her blood was found was mentioned and it would have needed to be a strong person to hit her over the head with a block 17? times I think I saw. But could it have been possible that she wasn't hit with the block but more her head was hit against it, if she was lying on ground next to it and killer had her by the hair, it might be why she had clump of her own hair in her hands??

Also thr fruit and nuts in her stomach could easily be an evening snack or breakfast.

Do we know the last time she had been to the cottage or Ireland prior to this trip? Who had gone with her, who did she meet where did she visit?

The time and duration of her trip so close to Christmas, in the middle of winter for such a short stay is so odd. Could there have been another reason for the trip? Meet someone?

[Deleted User]

TomCor1 wrote: »

Looking forward to watching the Netflix doc. I feel sorry for Sophie's family who have been lead astray by the corrupt investigation. The French verdict means nothing in my opinion as they take hearsay as fact.

It looks to me as if Sophie had breakfast that morning (fruit and nuts recently ingested), saw a car approach her gate, put her boots on and went down to have a look. Whatever exchange happens here causes the killing. He is then possibly paranoid that someone else was in the house, grabs the axe and walks in the door to see was there anyone else inside, then leaves.

Mad as IB is I don't think it was him.

in the netflix docThe forensic detective say her door keys were in the lock inside.[about 19 min 20 secs ] in like she was inveigled out and the door closed behind her. I think she was and was struck and bled and that is why her blood is on the door she tried to get back in, failed and fled. The killer could not have cleaned up without leaving some forensic like shoes prints or some dirt or grit from their shoes

qwerty13

SoulWriter wrote: »

very amateur to be filming him drunk.

And quite unfair, I felt. I can’t stand the man - but filming him drunk just felt like it was deliberately stoking the fire about him. Although I guess it is ‘Jim telling story of events’, rather than an actual documentary.

Yurt2

Watched the first episode. It gets a bit Jessica Fletcher / Scooby Doo at one stage with 'the White Lady' and the premonition by the lake.

The bits with her parents were genuinely sad. You could tell the murder broke them.

tibruit

The Netflix doc is damning for Bailey. It doesn`t really present anything that isn`t already in the public arena, with the exception perhaps of an Italian girl who stayed in the Thomas house that Christmas and saw a bucket in the bathroom that had a black coat soaking in it and she also witnessed the scratches on Baileys hands. Netflix leaves a self indulgent Jim Sheridan in the halfpenny place in my opinion. In his own words, Bailey lived only a mile from Sophie`s house as the crow flies.

[Deleted User]

qwerty13 wrote: »

And quite unfair, I felt. I can’t stand the man - but filming him drunk just felt like it was deliberately stoking the fire about him. Although I guess it is ‘Jim telling story of events’, rather than an actual documentary.

very unfair. JS was hoping to catch him out and break the story.JS is as big an attention seeker as bailey

[Deleted User]

SoulWriter wrote: »

very unfair. JS was hoping to catch him out and break the story.JS is as big an attention seeker as bailey

Hard to film someone for a documentary who looked like they were constantly drinking, and only using sober material

StringerBell

I think the filming of him drunk was fair enough given it seems to be a true portrayal of his life. He drinks a lot.

Treppen

SoulWriter wrote: »

very amateur to be filming him drunk.

Might be hard to catch him when he's sober.
Thats probably the reason why they kept focusing on the multitude of empty bottles in their gaffe during interviews.

Say he had committed the crime... Do people think he could have walked all the way from his house to hers (at 1am I think they said he left Jules' bed).
Roads were unlit.
Then get back into bed after changing his clothes etc
Anyone know the distance?

Yurt2

Treppen wrote: »

Might be hard to catch him when he's sober.
Thats probably the reason why they kept focusing on the multitude of empty bottles in their gaffe during interviews.

Say he had committed the crime... Do people think he could have walked all the way from his house to hers (at 1am I think they said he left Jules' bed).
Roads were unlit.
Then get back into bed after changing his clothes etc
Anyone know the distance?

Somebody on the thread had it about an hour each way on foot.

Mackwiss

Treppen wrote: »

Might be hard to catch him when he's sober.
Thats probably the reason why they kept focusing on the multitude of empty bottles in their gaffe during interviews.

Say he had committed the crime... Do people think he could have walked all the way from his house to hers (at 1am I think they said he left Jules' bed).
Roads were unlit.
Then get back into bed after changing his clothes etc
Anyone know the distance?

Posted a good few posts ago... it's about an hours walk between both houses through hills and country lanes, not passing through the bridge. Passing by the bridge is around 90 minutes walk.

odyssey06

Yurt! wrote: »

Somebody on the thread had it about an hour each way on foot.

I wonder is that walking in daylight or walking by moonlight at night on unlit roads...

SupaCat95

deisedude wrote: »

The family were interviewed for the series but they felt the documentary was too sympathetic to Bailey and asked that all their interviews be removed so the filmmakers could only use archived footage from interviews in the past

I thought the Du Plantier family made their peace with Ian Bailey when they met him afew years back. Remember it is not a documentary its an interpretation of what happened from someone who wasnt there based on other peoples stories.

SupaCat95

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Are Bailey and Jules still together?

No I think they split up a few months back. They are both alcoholics and they have a fairly turbulent relationship as many suffering from and with family members of the that condition do.