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

Government buildings

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

While she was hit with a rock, it was a large cavity block which finally killed her.

If he did it, would he not be more likely to say that he killed her with a block.

Big difference between a rock and a large cavity block.

Is not his threatening of the woman who said she saw him at the bridge understandable if she was telling lies from the start.

How did a large farmyard gate with vital evidence on it go missing. Has there been any investigation into this?

Oops!

The missing gate is a very strange one alright.....

I think Jules Tomas is the key to Bailey's movements on that night.... It's been said they have parted ways since last April. I wonder when the dust settles and she has time away from him will she have anymore information on his movements that night and his actions on the days that followed or before the death of Sophie...

As for the guards, either a massive cluster f**k or a strange cover for someone.... Both very possible. Marie Farrell? same story.....

You really do have to feel for Sophie's parents.... broken is an understatement.....

Still so many questions... I think Jules may have a few more answers in time.

Yurt2

Don't know what to make of this, but here is a further contribution from Farrell on leaving Schull after she withdrew her testimony regarding Bailey.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/marie-farrell-family-left-schull-after-garda-bullied-children-1.2027087?mode=amp

I'm of the firm conviction that a deep and thorough dive on whatever went on in the Farrell side of the case would answer a lot of unknowns.

The reaction of the Gardai after she recanted her statements went beyond "oh no, the main pillar of the case against the suspect is gone" and seemed like more: "sh*t, the jig is up."

listermint

Did the guards really eliminate the ex boyfriend who had been to the house before based on just a telephone install receipt , despite the unrequited love. Past danger, French coloured reg vehicle speeding away in the late hours of the morning and a very expensive french bottle of wine tossed in the ditch .

Was the ferries even looked into properly. The alibi seems a bit tenuous on the face of it . anyone could have been at his house for a phone install.

And Sophie seemed to be asking anyone and everyone to come with her. What was she escaping. Did he contact her again recently making threats .

odyssey06

[Deleted User] wrote: »

On the basis of probability its him for sure.

If that crime happened today they would get him because:

crimes of murder are now more frequent.
gardai etc. are alot better.
technology dna much better.

Coercive control with regards to jules.

Manys a woman have stuck by bad men.

On the basis of probability... its him 'for sure'?
Is it probable or certain... your post shows you dont know what you mean.

If it happened today he would be cleared on a proper forensics job of the crime scene.

Biker79

Deleted User wrote: »

Watched the new Netflix series, the Sheridan series is far superior and much more diverse in characters and scope. The Netflix series relies on mainly 4 or 5 contributors, a couple of journos, a couple of Schull residents, one of whom keeps his arms tightly crossed through the whole thing, and the mum of someone who Bailey allegedly confessed to.
Very dissapointing. Bailey looks better in this documentary than he does in Sheridans film.
Bottom line is, Sheridan is a very good film maker. Netflix documentary is painting by numbers. Bailey is most likely innocent of this crime.

100%.

It was good to watch, to be fair, but only because it used a trusted formula pertaining to true crime tv to engage an audience.

Sheridan's provoked more reflection, whereas Netflix attempted to manipulate emotions. Consequently, you had to conclude that IB was more likely not to have done it.

If anything, the Netflix version showed how easy it is to paint someone in a certain light by virtue of selective editing and framing. It clearly added undue weight to witnesses whose only evidence was ' didn't quite feel right ' ...' seemed odd ' etc. Some of whom seemed to be complete stoners.

Wompa1

Biker79 wrote: »

100%.

It was good to watch, to be fair, but only because it used a trusted formula pertaining to true crime tv to engage an audience.

Sheridan's provoked more reflection, whereas Netflix attempted to manipulate emotions. Consequently, you had to conclude that IB was more likely not to have done it.

If anything, the Netflix version showed how easy it is to paint someone in a certain light by virtue of selective editing and framing. It clearly added undue weight to witnesses whose only evidence was ' didn't quite feel right ' ...' seemed odd ' etc. Some of whom seemed to be complete stoners.

But it also shows that Jim's left a lot out. The Italian lady who stayed at his house at the time of the murder seems like a big account to leave out. Jim's had the fact the lad from the Examiner claims he never said the victim was French but it didn't have the timeline with multiple people claiming he knew about the murder as early as 9:30am...Jules claimed she didn't see him until 9am when he brought her coffee...

Not all of the witnesses seemed to be complete stoners plus why would that make them less credible? Bailey is a narcissistic violent drunk without an alibi who lied about his whereabouts on the morning of the murder. There is more in both documentaries to discredit his account than the people he confessed to.

Mackwiss

Icantthinkof1 wrote: »

It doesn’t make sense that a couple came to Sophie’s cottage that night. They would have seen the lights on in her house and a car in the driveway so would have known it wasn’t unoccupied; even if they had been using her house before

I'd argue it makes perfect sense.

First episode on Netflix states she used to not have lights on her room and would prefer to have the room illuminated by Fastnet and on top of that it was full moon.

Couple on a romantic escapade, he has been in the house before so they head over there. They park way before reaching the house just where we see the Garda line on the next day and walk to the cottage. They do this because they know there's a permanent resident in the hamlet, Alfie and wife.

It's dark, there's no light on they can't see the car as it's in the shadow of the house/hidden by the embankment.

They cross the gate and again, to not rise suspiscion or because the man knows how to open the backdoor, they go across the field up the hill instead of through the path which would mean they'd see the car.

At this point Sophie either noticed them coming up the field or is sound asleep. I'd say she probably noticed them, and put and starts to put her boots on to confront them.

She hears them coming in, she's getting ready to confront them and stops tying her shoelaces, downstairs they notice the bottle of wine (I suppose Sophie bought it at the airport) they get two glasses and going to drink it when they hear Sophie coming downstairs.

They head to the door in panic and go down the hill towards the gate. Sophie grabs the axe and goes after them. MF continues to run towards the car, while man turns around to confront person in the house, a fight starts and we know how it ends. Killer gets back in the car and tells MF to not say one word about that night.

You can also theorize that he told MF he knew where to spend the night. He parked on the same spot mentioned above and went alone to the house to check if it was safe. Gets the wine, Sophie comes down to confront him, he runs away in panic, bottle in hand, they both fight at the gate and we know how it ends.

He returns to the car tells MF to not say a word of it.

He would leave MF and come back just before sunrise, he would do this to try and hide the body but when he notices in the early morning light what he's done, he panics and drives away to Cork City.

When story breaks out MF rings him in panic about what he has done. He threatens her to stay silent and coerce her to make the story about the man.

This would explain initial inconsistencies, a man in a dark coat seen around, the killer and witness point towards a fictional killer (this many, many killers do) then they notice there is this guy going around in a long dark coat and decide to pin it to him.

Years later, guilt takes over MF and she changes her statement.

The entire web of lies MF created is 100% typical of people involved in murders.

Have a look at the case of Chris Watts, murdered his pregnant wife and two daughters.

https://youtu.be/Xfg861hO-Ag

He first states she ran away with the daughters.
He then confessed (after hours of police work) that he killed his wife after coming home and finding his wife had killed both his daughters. So he killed her in a fit of rage.
He never admitted killing both daughters until recently where he went into incredible detail on everything.

The same can be seen in Jodi's case: https://youtu.be/N274EurzpAA

The inane amount of times she changes her story along the way but still has never admitted to having committed the crime.

One might argue the same about IB but the reality is, he has stated the same for the last 25 years. He frankly sounds tired of having to answer the same questions all the time and his answer have never changed and the turkey and Christmas tree statement are corroborated by Jules and her daughters as we can see in JS documentary.

On top of this, IB had the chance of escaping and never coming back to West Cork again, he voluntarily returned.

MF on the other hand has left Schull and I wouldn't be surprised she'll be leaving the country soon if the pressure from a book and these two high profile documentaries gets to her.

MacDanger

Wompa1 wrote: »

But it also shows that Jim's left a lot out. The Italian lady who stayed at his house at the time of the murder seems like a big account to leave out. Jim's had the fact the lad from the Examiner claims he never said the victim was French but it didn't have the timeline with multiple people claiming he knew about the murder as early as 9:30am...Jules claimed she didn't see him until 9am when he brought her coffee...

Not all of the witnesses seemed to be complete stoners plus why would that make them less credible? Bailey is a narcissistic violent drunk without an alibi who lied about his whereabouts on the morning of the murder. There is more in both documentaries to discredit his account than the people he confessed to.

The DPP file (41 pages in total) is well worth a read for anyone interested in settling/clarifying many of the supposed & actual inconsistencies in the case; Sections 11 & 12 specifically deals with his alleged knowledge of the crime scene. In particular, the dates when certain statements were made makes for interesting reading

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/540818-83548065-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-dpp-file-2001.html

Biker79

Wompa1 wrote: »

But it also shows that Jim's left a lot out. The Italian lady who stayed at his house at the time of the murder seems like a big account to leave out. Jim's had the fact the lad from the Examiner claims he never said the victim was French but it didn't have the timeline with multiple people claiming he knew about the murder as early as 9:30am...Jules claimed she didn't see him until 9am when he brought her coffee...

Not all of the witnesses seemed to be complete stoners plus why would that make them less credible? Bailey is a narcissistic violent drunk without an alibi who lied about his whereabouts on the morning of the murder. There is more in both documentaries to discredit his account than the people he confessed to.

The timing of obtaining information is not relevant. IB was/is an experienced journalist who was able to get information quicker than most, and perhaps able to draw conclusions/ make projections based on that information. Perhaps he might even embellish it depending on what publication he was writing for ( tabloids etc ) .

Small town pub talkers and stoners are not credible because there is a propensity to ' guild the Lily ' for the sake of entertainment, social currency etc. That's before the effects of booze/ pot etc. are added into the mix.

The most obvious example of that in the Netflix edition was that chap who took a lift from Bailey, who heard him 'confess'. He later turned up to court in dreadlocks and an ill fitting suit, looking a bit out of it. Hardly a credible witness. What is likely to have happened? He took a lift from Bailey, they chatted away, Bailey spoke bitterly about the case and becoming a suspect, he made a sarcastic remark about committing the crime which was taken out of context/ misunderstood because the young chap himself had been smoking weed before getting into the car. He then told his mates, word got around, and suddenly everyone who experienced Baileys offhand remarks/ dark humor was re-imagining it as an admission of guilt.

notahappycamper

Is the Netflix documentary the only documentary where it is stated that the Italian lady was staying with IB and JT? It wasn’t mentioned anywhere else was it? Did IB ever confirm that this person was staying with them and was it ever put to him what she saw?

Just another theory/speculation: what if IB and JT both went to Alfie’s house that night like they suggested and IB had some sort of confrontation with Sophie at the gate (over what who knows) and JT witnessed the whole thing from their car? The “hold” IB has over her is not a hold as such as is it she witnessed the whole episode?

Loafing Oaf

Oops! wrote: »

The missing gate is a very strange one alright.....

I think Jules Tomas is the key to Bailey's movements on that night.... It's been said they have parted ways since last April. I wonder when the dust settles and she has time away from him will she have anymore information on his movements that night and his actions on the days that followed or before the death of Sophie...

Would she not possibly be incriminating herself as an "accessory after the fact" or whatever the crime is if she did that though?

[Deleted User]

Biker79 wrote: »

100%.

It was good to watch, to be fair, but only because it used a trusted formula pertaining to true crime tv to engage an audience.

Sheridan's provoked more reflection, whereas Netflix attempted to manipulate emotions. Consequently, you had to conclude that IB was more likely not to have done it.

If anything, the Netflix version showed how easy it is to paint someone in a certain light by virtue of selective editing and framing. It clearly added undue weight to witnesses whose only evidence was ' didn't quite feel right ' ...' seemed odd ' etc. Some of whom seemed to be complete stoners.

Not really, there were far more additional details in the Netflix doc. If these details are true, it’s not selective editing which pushes a specific narrative

Mackwiss

notahappycamper wrote: »

Is the Netflix documentary the only documentary where it is stated that the Italian lady was staying with IB and JT? It wasn’t mentioned anywhere else was it? Did IB ever confirm that this person was staying with them and was it ever put to him what she saw?

Just another theory/speculation: what if IB and JT both went to Alfie’s house that night like they suggested and IB had some sort of confrontation with Sophie at the gate (over what who knows) and JT witnessed the whole thing from their car? The “hold” IB has over her is not a hold as such as is it she witnessed the whole episode?

Seems like it... and well... all these witnesses coming to light 20 plus years later just add more intrigue than actual closure to the case. The woman saw scratches and a jacket being washed... seriously...

It's like the other woman that said she saw the scratches on IBs hands... 10 years later...

The problem with all of this is... that is still ZERO evidence he did it. That is all still words from one person against the other. And none of these testimonies corroborate anything to prove he did it or even corroborate each other.

If you look at it, there aren't ever two witnesses to any of these statements it's always "oh IB told me this" "oh IB told me that"

That hardly stands as evidence or proof of anything at all... IB has clearly learned ever since not to be so big mouthed with his kind of humor or behavior (which is very typically British) and you can see how he's always trying to be careful with what he says even to the press not to be misused against him again...

He is guilty of always wanting to be the center of attention, he was before this happened and he adopted it ever since and my guess is because he believed for so many years he'd be able to clear his name and get paid for the whole situation in a book and civil case. Both failed.

I really fear that he'll die before having this situation cleared, he has no next of kin no one to continue his fight and he'll die in the limbo he is in...

Yesterday on Newstalk they where pressuring him stating "oh you've been cleared in the Irish courts haven't you so why do you continue with this?"

Obviously he isn't clear in an Irish court, specially after his civil case against the press and the Gardai... he's still in a limbo in Ireland and now considered a convicted killer in France and in International Law...

As many say, I almost hope he did it, because if he didn't the amount of crap he has endured in the last 25 years trying to clear his name has been an insane odyssey...

BarneyJ

FrankN1 wrote: »

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

The cutting down of the tree on Sunday 22nd December has been corroborated by a number of witnesses, namely Jules Thomas, her two daughters, and also a local farmer Liam O'Driscoll who saw him "pulling a Christmas tree" while accompanied by one of Jules' daughters.

This is one matter that we can probably take as a fact.

coolisin

BarneyJ wrote: »

The cutting down of the tree on Sunday 22nd December has been corroborated by a number of witnesses, namely Jules Thomas, her two daughters, and also a local farmer Liam O'Driscoll who saw him "pulling a Christmas tree" while accompanied by one of Jules' daughters.

This is one matter that we can probably take as a fact.

And as a person who has being attacked by many a Christmas tree over time the scratches I have being left with are nuts. That doesn't include me maybe being half cut climbing 20ft into the air with a saw.

The netflix doc does not lean enough into the Garda mishandling of the whole affair I thought.
It also implies the French allowed the Gardai to interview people in France.

Im still of the Opinion that West Cork Podcast is the most balanced of the lot to be released.
Offer and debunk myths.

Padre_Pio

Mackwiss wrote: »

Seems like it... and well... all these witnesses coming to light 20 plus years later just add more intrigue than actual closure to the case. The woman saw scratches and a jacket being washed... seriously...

It's like the other woman that said she saw the scratches on IBs hands... 10 years later...

The problem with all of this is... that is still ZERO evidence he did it. That is all still words from one person against the other. And none of these testimonies corroborate anything to prove he did it or even corroborate each other.

This is what bothers me most.
You have people trying to recall banal events that surround the murder from nearly 25 years ago.

Was Ian Bailey introduced to Sophie?
Did people see scratches?
What clothes was he burning?
Who saw a man on the road and what time?

Even at the time, the people answering these questions were unreliable. There's no chance they can get any reliable witnesses at this stage. Unless there's a significant breakthrough from the Gardai, this case should be left in the past.

EDIT: There's a great opening line from the Serial podcast, where Sarah Koenig asks the question " Imagine you were asked where you were at a particular time on a particular day two weeks ago, who you were with, who you saw and what you talked about. How many people would accurately answer the question and how many conflicting points of view would you get?".

That's really what you have here, and what I got from the West Cork podcast. So many "I'm not sure", I don't know", "maybe" and on the flip side, so many people who are absolutely convinced that an event happened that was later proven wrong.

Mackwiss

Padre_Pio wrote: »

This is what bothers me most.
You have people trying to recall banal events that surround the murder from nearly 25 years ago.

Was Ian Bailey introduced to Sophie?
Did people see scratches?
What clothes was he burning?
Who saw a man on the road and what time?

Even at the time, the people answering these questions were unreliable. There's no chance they can get any reliable witnesses at this stage. Unless there's a significant breakthrough from the Gardai, this case should be left in the past.

Exactly! The only hope is in the evidence left (the one not disappeared) go through all of it to find the minimum speck of DNA evidence and try to find anything that would point out at someone. West Cork Podcast mentions the DNA of an unknown male found on her fingernails I think? Get that checked to see if it matches IB and you know immediately if he did it or not and that would be enough to convict him...

If not... Irish State is set for a hell of a reckoning with IB and if I was him I would sue half the Gardai individually for 25 years of damages. I'd sue also MF and the press yet again... and make my case in France...

Then of course we'd need to know who did it, and that's another completely different story but possible to convict as the case against Stephanie Lazarus so well puts it...

Gussie Scrotch

Padre_Pio wrote: »

This is what bothers me most.
You have people trying to recall banal events that surround the murder from nearly 25 years ago.

Was Ian Bailey introduced to Sophie?
Did people see scratches?
What clothes was he burning?
Who saw a man on the road and what time?

Even at the time, the people answering these questions were unreliable. There's no chance they can get any reliable witnesses at this stage. Unless there's a significant breakthrough from the Gardai, this case should be left in the past.

Yes, I think the Netflix doc took the approach, from the outset, that IB did it. This set the tone for the whole programme (s). The circumstantial evidence against Bailey was accentuated and emphasised. , whilst the background context was glossed over. The Detective was not pushed hard enough on the Garda "failures" and I'm really not convinced by the Italian lady's claims.

I detected a kind of "desperation" to labour the circumstantial pointers while ignoring some key points.

1) He had no motive.

2) nothing physical linked him

3) He (almost definitely) didn't know Sophie

the basis of the evidence against him consists of:

1) He was a violent wife beater

2) He lived in the same locality

3) He behaved oddly and enjoyed drawing attention to himself.

4) He was inappropriately sarcastic on a number of occasions.

He's an obnoxious pig and I have little sympathy for him as a person. But there is a much wider issue here. The principle of innocence until proven guilty.

The Brits made a classic goof-up, in similar circumstances with the Colin Stagg case and I remember being absolutely convinced of Staggs guilt...as were many. But he was properly cleared due to lack of evidence and when they got the guilty guy, that decision demonstrated the importance of the principle

He might have done it. But I, for one, if on a jury hearing the case would not vote guilty unless more compelling evidence was presented.

There is an understandable desire to see Bailey get his comeuppance, he's an awful person and probably deserves to be inside for what we know he has done to Jules Thomas.

But on this particular crime, the evidence isn't sufficient to charge and convict him and, to their credit, the office of the DPP recognise this.

Padre_Pio

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

But on this particular crime, the evidence isn't sufficient to charge and convict him and, to their credit, the office of the DPP recognise this.

This is what the DPP has said for years:

Bailey "has voluntarily provided, at the request of the gardaí, forensic samples which have failed to yield incriminating evidence. The fruit of the investigation have been considered not once but several times by the DPP who has concluded and reiterated that there is no evidence to warrant a prosecution against him.”

EmmetSpiceland

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

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

Jules Thomas said the fire was a lot earlier. Superintendent Dwyer said Bailey burned the coat but then, in the Jim Sheridan doc, we see a Garda file stating the cost was taken by the Gards and sent for analysis.

Jack1985 wrote: »

The Netflix documentary now finally cleared this up, the Gardai noticed the keys inside the main front door, clearly inferring Sophie had opened it and the most plausible explanation is that the door closed behind her. She had put her boots on, someone had drawn her out. Sophie now had no way back into her property, the main front door was a deadbolt locking mechanism, I would presume the rear door was locked, she was a lady from Paris after all very different to what most of us done then in Cork with open doors.

In the photos of the keys in the door, in the Netflix doc, it looks like the lock is on latch so the door wouldn’t lock behind her if it closed.

Garlinge

If they were clearing the old house of junk, it is probable that the bonfire was on the go over many weeks. There was a witness who claimed she saw the bonfire near to Christmas and she was only in the area for the Christmas period.

Bailey seemed to have a fondness for overcoats and probably had more than one, perhaps he kept an eye out in charity shops for same? He later boasted of getting some fine sets of clothes from charity shops including up to 40 shirts for his court appearance, It does seem very odd to attempt to wash such an item and at that time of year. Really a decent coat is not washable but dry cleanable.

EmmetSpiceland

Garlinge wrote: »

If they were clearing the old house of junk, it is probable that the bonfire was on the go over many weeks. There was a witness who claimed she saw the bonfire near to Christmas and she was only in the area for the Christmas period.

Bailey seemed to have a fondness for overcoats and probably had more than one, perhaps he kept an eye out in charity shops for same? He later boasted of getting some fine sets of clothes from charity shops including up to 40 shirts for his court appearance, It does seem very odd to attempt to wash such an item and at that time of year. Really a decent coat is not washable but dry cleanable.

Why wash it when you can burn it? And if it had been burned why did no buttons turn up in the fire?

And why doesn’t the superintendent know they took a long black coat for analysis?

jimwallace197

Just watched the netflix documentary last night, what a load of nonsense.

If I was Bailey, id be considering suing them over it. Ridiculously biased, a load of information that paint a much honest picture of the whole thing was left out. It really calls into question their impartiality with true crime documentaries.

- Nothing about Gardai corruption & only a little on their incompetence.
- Making out Marie Farrell was in fear of her life from Bailey and this is why she changed her statements. Nonsense, she is a lot more afraid of the gards even now.
- The Italian student noticing something black like a coat in a bucket at Jules Thomas residence giving her account nearly 25 years later. Looking her five minutes of fame more like. Ridiculous, it could have been anything, even what she says is true.
- Nothing about the other so called witnesses who have since admitted they were coerced, threatened, bribed by the gards. Nothing about a number of them also being known criminals & liars.
- Very little about the litany of reasons why the DPP rightfully didnt want to charge Bailey.
- No interview with Jules Thomas, Bailey's partner who would have contradicted a number of things the gards said about her and Bailey during the interviews.
- A lot of dramatic nonsense in relation to the French trial making out that they finally got justice for Sophie.

The podcast especially puts it to shame at no doubt a fraction of the price.

Garlinge

Buttons on a coat made of plastic and would have melted in a fire.

[Deleted User]

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Why wash it when you can burn it? And if it had been burned why did no buttons turn up in the fire?

And why doesn’t the superintendent know they took a long black coat for analysis?

There were buttons in the fire ash

tibruit

Padre_Pio wrote: »

EDIT: There's a great opening line from the Serial podcast, where Sarah Koenig asks the question " Imagine you were asked where you were at a particular time on a particular day two weeks ago, who you were with, who you saw and what you talked about. How many people would accurately answer the question and how many conflicting points of view would you get?".

That's really what you have here, and what I got from the West Cork podcast. So many "I'm not sure", I don't know", "maybe" and on the flip side, so many people who are absolutely convinced that an event happened that was later proven wrong.

It`s a poor opening line in reality though. I would suggest that if you lived in a rural area where someone local was brutally murdered by an unknown assailant, you would have a distinct memory of where you were and what you were doing at the time for years afterwards, never mind a couple of weeks.

EmmetSpiceland

SoulWriter wrote: »

There were buttons in the fire ash

I only heard eyelets from a shoe and bed springs from an old mattress we’re found.

qwerty13

tibruit wrote: »

It`s a poor opening line in reality though. I would suggest that if you lived in a rural area where someone local was brutally murdered by an unknown assailant, you would have a distinct memory of where you were and what you were doing at the time for years afterwards, never mind a couple of weeks.

There was a programme on C4 a couple of years ago - obviously not a controlled experiment - but it took something like 10 ‘witnesses’ through a mock up event. Anyway, the difference in recollections was astounding. And this was for something that they’d all just ‘witnessed’. I can’t recall whether they were showing that as a commentary on witness testimony in general, or because of a specific case, but I thought it was interesting.

Padre_Pio

tibruit wrote: »

It`s a poor opening line in reality though. I would suggest that if you lived in a rural area where someone local was brutally murdered by an unknown assailant, you would have a distinct memory of where you were and what you were doing at the time for years afterwards, never mind a couple of weeks.

Nope. That's a fallacy.
They say people remember where they were when they heard that JFK had been shot on November 22, 1963, or John Lennon on December 8, 1980.

Its one thing to remember when you heard it, but another to remember what you were doing the exact time of, or the days before it.

Also, it's been shown that every time your remember an event your memories change. There's just no reliable witnesses anymore.