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

dmn22

Watched the Netflix doc tonight, it raised some interesting new evidence I hadn’t heard before i.e. an Italian woman who stayed with Ian and Jules that Christmas who spotted Ian’s jacket soaking in a bucket in the bathroom.

Another poster mentioned it already but I have to say that the guard Dermot Dwyer came off very badly to me. He seemed extremely arrogant and has a real smug look about him. He reminds me of someone who gets into a position of power and thinks he’s infallible. Very unlikeable character to me, especially considering the guards have zero things to be smug about in this case. Incompetence left, right and centre.

ShamNNspace

Im watching the Netflix series now ep 2, what I take from it is that that inspector fancies himself as some sort of Poirot (in his head) though in reality he's as thick as two very short planks... How unlucky that lad had to be in charge of such an important investigation

FrankN1

Is there any doubt it's IB? 99pc yes. 1pc maybe not.

Gussie Scrotch

Yurt! wrote: »

Was it Bailey mentioning the Indian goddess Kari en passant to the media? Sophie apparently was into Hinduism and was writing something about that goddess.

I haven't read the book but I will get it tomorrow.

I have read that, after all the interviews and research, but before the book was published, Foster called IB and asked him straight "why did you kill her? He says that Bailey immediately hung up.

Its interesting that he put it like that because Sophie was killed for a reason and I can't for the life of me see a reason for Bailey to have killed her.

CoBo55

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

I haven't read the book but I will get it tomorrow.

I have read that, after all the interviews and research, but before the book was published, Foster called IB and asked him straight "why did you kill her? He says that Bailey immediately hung up.

Its interesting that he put it like that because Sophie was killed for a reason and I can't for the life of me see a reason for Bailey to have killed her.

He called over to her with some of his Pam Ayres "poetry" and she laughed him out of the ranch, we know what happened next.

Weddings ahoy

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

I haven't read the book but I will get it tomorrow.

I have read that, after all the interviews and research, but before the book was published, Foster called IB and asked him straight "why did you kill her? He says that Bailey immediately hung up.

Its interesting that he put it like that because Sophie was killed for a reason and I can't for the life of me see a reason for Bailey to have killed her.

Yes IB mentioned that kari ritual to a journalist and apparently Sophie had written about it in her diaries, ergo they must have discussed it proving IB met her, well that's the gist of it ,

Padre_Pio

FrankN1 wrote: »

Is there any doubt it's IB? 99pc yes. 1pc maybe not.

Ian Bailey is an innocent man.

People can have suspicions and doubts all they want, but he's innocent until the DPP being a case against him and an Irish court finds him guilty.

Honestly, part of me feels sorry for him.
Even if he didn't do it, but plead guilty, knowing our courts, he'd be out of prison 10 years ago and free to get on with his life.

Gussie Scrotch

Weddings ahoy wrote: »

Yes IB mentioned that kari ritual to a journalist and apparently Sophie had written about it in her diaries, ergo they must have discussed it proving IB met her, well that's the gist of it ,

Tenuous.............

The_Honeybadger

bb12 wrote: »

after watching the NF doc I think I'm leaning more towards IB now. The scratches on his head and arms are pretty telling. he tries to explain it away by saying he was cutting down the top of a pine tree for christmas and got the scatches when climbing it to cut off the top...but pine tees don't have needles that would scratch you...also if you were up a tree in december you'd be wearing a jacket with long sleeves because of the cold, so even less likely to get any scratches from softer pine as opposed to wrestling with someone in a briars bush...also his explanation of how killing a turkey caused the scratch on his forehead doesn't gel with me...and interestingly he says that sophie's house was 2 or 3 km away but only about 1 mile as the crow flies.

Yeah binged it this evening and thinking the same. I thought it was more factual than the JS Documentary. I reckon he did actually know Sophie, or at least had met her, talked about the project mentioned in the documentary etc. He was infatuated with her, went to her house that night drunk, his advances were rebuffed and he subsequently just lost it. His history of violence after taking a drink would lend credence to this theory.

If that is the case then he got extremely lucky in the aftermath with everything that happened with the state pathologist, Gardai not preserving the scene or moving the body etc. Crazy story altogether.

The Marie Farrell factor is completely bizarre and I’ve no idea what to make of her at all. I think that anything she says should be disregarded, I just don’t believe a word she says.

FrankN1

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Ian Bailey is an innocent man.

People can have suspicions and doubts all they want, but he's innocent until the DPP being a case against him and an Irish court finds him guilty.

Honestly, part of me feels sorry for him.
Even if he didn't do it, but plead guilty, knowing our courts, he'd be out of prison 10 years ago and free to get on with his life.

Innocent by the court of law to date doesn't mean innocent. It means it hasn't been proven without doubt. In the laws of probability, it points to him.

FrankN1

bb12 wrote: »

after watching the NF doc I think I'm leaning more towards IB now. The scratches on his head and arms are pretty telling. he tries to explain it away by saying he was cutting down the top of a pine tree for christmas and got the scatches when climbing it to cut off the top...but pine tees don't have needles that would scratch you...also if you were up a tree in december you'd be wearing a jacket with long sleeves because of the cold, so even less likely to get any scratches from softer pine as opposed to wrestling with someone in a briars bush...also his explanation of how killing a turkey caused the scratch on his forehead doesn't gel with me...and interestingly he says that sophie's house was 2 or 3 km away but only about 1 mile as the crow flies.

Also cutting a tree down on the 22nd or 23rd...not very likely.

ACitizenErased

Watched the Netflix doc. Meh. Very dramatic. Quite clearly biased towards Bailey, lots of locals interviewed. Bit more challenging of the Gardai tho and some criticism put to Dwyer who laughs it all off. No closer to solving it.

Yurt2

FrankN1 wrote: »

Innocent by the court of law to date doesn't mean innocent. It means it hasn't been proven without doubt. In the laws of probability, it points to him.

There is no law of probability in criminal cases in the common law world. He is factually innocent under the laws of our land and under our constitutional framework.

[Deleted User]

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

Yeah binged it this evening and thinking the same. I thought it was more factual than the JS Documentary. I reckon he did actually know Sophie, or at least had met her, talked about the project mentioned in the documentary etc. He was infatuated with her, went to her house that night drunk, his advances were rebuffed and he subsequently just lost it. His history of violence after taking a drink would lend credence to this theory.

If that is the case then he got extremely lucky in the aftermath with everything that happened with the state pathologist, Gardai not preserving the scene or moving the body etc. Crazy story altogether.

The Marie Farrell factor is completely bizarre and I’ve no idea what to make of her at all. I think that anything she says should be disregarded, I just don’t believe a word she says.

I too believe that that's the way it happened.

dark crystal

FrankN1 wrote: »

Innocent by the court of law to date doesn't mean innocent. It means it hasn't been proven without doubt. In the laws of probability, it points to him.

How so?

No motive, no DNA evidence, no witnesses. What's probable about his guilt exactly?

[Deleted User]

Just watched NF doc.

Guilty as sin.

A vile and disgusting man.

Im glad Jules finally threw him out.

A very violent man who left his partner hospitalised from his abuse months earlier.

He burnt all incriminating evidence before police
searched house.

The french court case was essentially a civil case here (law of probability). Is he guilty of crime or innocent of crime on law of probability?

Guilty.

I feel sorry for the villagers of schull.

I think he is in for rough time ahead in ireland. Good enough for him given what he did. A failure of a man with a large ego.

The_Honeybadger

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just watched NF doc.

Guilty as sin.

A vile and disgusting man.

Im glad Jules finally threw him out.

A very violent man who left his partner hospitalised from his abuse months earlier.

He burnt all incriminating evidence before police
searched house.

The french court case was essentially a civil case here (law of probability). Is he guilty of crime or innocent of crime on law of probability?

Guilty.

I feel sorry for the villagers of schull.

I think he is in for rough time ahead in ireland. Good enough for him given what he did. A failure of a man with a large ego.

If he did it then Jules almost certainly knew from the off and was complicit in covering it up and standing by him. I don’t believe that he could have kept it from her. She also has a lot to answer for if that’s the case, as much as I feel for her having the misfortune to meet him in the first place.

qwerty13

FrankN1 wrote: »

Also cutting a tree down on the 22nd or 23rd...not very likely.

Why not? It would have been done around that time in my house growing up.

Also, it wouldn’t surprise me if he was half pissed cutting down the tree, and had only had a beer jacket on.

I’m not saying that I don’t think he did it, but a lot of botched or very circumstantial things have been put forward as ‘proof’ of his guilt.

FAILSAFE 00

Bonfire 4 days after the murder. Surely he would have instantly burned the evidence.

[Deleted User]

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

If he did it then Jules almost certainly knew from the off and was complicit in covering it up and standing by him. I don’t believe that he could have kept it from her. She also has a lot to answer for if that’s the case, as much as I feel for her having the misfortune to meet him in the first place.

Coercive control is now a crime in ireland.

She looks emotionally battered.

I have no feelings with regards to her other than im glad she has the courage to ask him to leave.

He seems a very controlling and dangerous person.

FAILSAFE 00

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/uncle-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-24408601

However, according to the Sunday Independent, Ms Farrell now believes she can identify the man as someone known to Ms Toscan Du Plantier’s deceased husband Daniel.

Jesus, it seems she's a bit like Bailey. Loves the attention.

Yurt2

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/uncle-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-24408601

Jesus, it seems she's a bit like Bailey. Loves the attention.

She's either barking mad or hiding something.

FAILSAFE 00

Yurt! wrote: »

She's either barking mad or hiding something.

Yeah, It really feels she could have something essential to the case or she's mad, craving attention.

Maybe there was never anyone in the car with her at all. She might be craving the spot light.

ShamNNspace

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just watched NF doc.

Guilty as sin.

A vile and disgusting man.

Im glad Jules finally threw him out.

A very violent man who left his partner hospitalised from his abuse months earlier.

He burnt all incriminating evidence before police
searched house.

The french court case was essentially a civil case here (law of probability). Is he guilty of crime or innocent of crime on law of probability?

Guilty.

I feel sorry for the villagers of schull.

I think he is in for rough time ahead in ireland. Good enough for him given what he did. A failure of a man with a large ego.

A vile and disgusting man, a violent man, a failure, a man with a large ego... the country's full of em, still doesn't prove he committed this particular crime. There is no evidence that he burned any incriminating items in that fire, tis a common sight out the country to see the smoke rising from a backyard fire matter of fact according to Jules the Gardai took possession of his long black coat and found nothing,
So far fwis there's nothing of any significance to connect him to this crime... Sometimes if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's still not a duck no matter how much the Gardai want us to see it as a duck

Noodles81

marklazarcovic wrote: »

that may very well have been the intention though. to not look like a hired hit.

This.

I always thought if they wanted it to look like it wasn't a hired hit, then that is what they'd do. A silencer gun shot would immediately point to a hired hit. A concrete block, not so much.
The hired killer could've been Irish too, he doesn't have to be French just because he was hired by a French man.

However, it'll never be solved now.

[Deleted User]

ShamNNspace wrote: »

A vile and disgusting man, a violent man, a failure, a man with a large ego... the country's full of em, still doesn't prove he committed this particular crime. There is no evidence that he burned any incriminating items in that fire, tis a common sight out the country to see the smoke rising from a backyard fire matter of fact according to Jules the Gardai took possession of his long black coat and found nothing,
So far fwis there's nothing of any significance to connect him to this crime... Sometimes if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's still not a duck no matter how much the Gardai want us to see it as a duck

So you think the country is full of men that hospitilise women needing stitches in their mouth and pass it off as it takes two to tango in IBs words.

Not sure of what circles you mix in to say country is full of these. Prisons are full of these types definitely

Boards is not an irish court of law but i agree with the french on the law of probability he is guilty.

I also think he is a scumbag with no redeeming features. Most abusive men who beat the **** out of women to the point of hospitilisation or death have many other personality problems. Ian Bailey is one of lifes losers and takes that out on women.

Padre_Pio

[Deleted User] wrote: »

.

The french court case was essentially a civil case here (law of probability). Is he guilty of crime or innocent of crime on law of probability?

Guilty.

I feel sorry for the villagers of schull.

I think he is in for rough time ahead in ireland. Good enough for him given what he did. A failure of a man with a large ego.

It doesn't matter a jot what people say or think.
The DPP never ever brought a case against him.
It never even went to trial.
They have nothing only circumstances, and he said, she said nonsense.

The Gardai well and truly f*cked this up and Bailey lives with it.

We live in a civil society. This sort of parochial witch hunting belongs in the last century.

[Deleted User]

Padre_Pio wrote: »

It doesn't matter a jot what people say or think.
The DPP never ever brought a case against him.
It never even went to trial.
They have nothing only circumstances, and he said, she said nonsense.

The Gardai well and truly f*cked this up and Bailey lives with it.

We live in a civil society. This sort of parochial witch hunting belongs in the last century.

The french found him guilty.

He hospitalised his partner months earlier and passed off as a fair fight between two adults.

I think hes guilty as do alot of other people in ireland.

Why would you tell a 14 year old lad in a car i smashed a womans skull in with a block.

All evidence pointing to him.

I dont really care that he has never been convicted. Hes paying the price now anyhow. Karma.

Ultimate Gowlbag

Woody79 wrote: »

The french found him guilty.

I think hes guilty as do alot of other people in ireland.
.

That's it so,prepare the noose!

[Deleted User]

Ultimate Gowlbag wrote: »

That's it so,prepare the noose!

So hospitalising a woman months before isnt strong evidence given he was sophies neighbour?

A violent man towards woman.