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

mioniqa

irishgeo wrote: »

They didn't lose them, the pages were ripped out.

I would say I’m shocked but I’m beyond being shocked it this.

Padre_Pio

notahappycamper wrote: »

I believe the podcast is being made into a tv show by the same production team that did “Chernobyl”.

Three TV shows now?

Jesus wept.

mioniqa

Addle wrote: »

I thought he was alluding to it being Bailey.

I didn’t get that from it actually, more like someone else at the time who he had suspicions about?

EltonJohn69

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Three TV shows now?

Jesus wept.

Who should play Bailey ???

TomCor1

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It is really quite stunning that there was so little evidence of the perpetrator left at the scene. Especially as the weather was fine and nothing was washed away. Clothing fabric on the brambles, a mass of footprints especially when struggling and carrying the rock, dna on the body. Nothing.

Add this to the story about her seeing the 'White Lady' and being very frightened by it, and then the death poem left open on the table, the weird mention of the dogs in t DPP report, and it's more like a Stephen King story than real life.

The fact that the poetry book on the table was left open on the poem 'A Dream of Death' is quite bizarre.

Probably mentioned here before but Yeats wrote this poem at the time the woman he loved, Maud Gonne, was traveling to France. Yeats believed she would die on this trip.

mioniqa

Yurt! wrote: »

I think his point was the community went a bit like the Arthur Miller play The Crucible, and people started going to the Gardai with old grudges, tittle tattle and shaggy dog stories such was the level of paranoia.

I can only think of the rural area I grew up in, if something like this happened there, the place would melt down with all the recriminations flying from old axes to grind, and like everywhere, there's more than enough local oddities to go around to point the finger at.

Bailey in my view became a canvass for everyone's fears and I'd be sure enough some of the stuff reported about him are tall tales and Chinese whispers. Sifting through the b*ll**** is one of the challenges of this case.

Even 25 years later, half baked rumours and uncorroborated stories about him are still being churned up and beamed worldwide on the world's biggest video platform. You can see the challenge for the guy to keep his sanity and salvage his name.

I completely agree and the DPP report mentions the local frenzy.

The story about Billy Fuller at the bridge is a case in point. I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him.

Yurt2

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Who should play Bailey ???

Ian Bailey: The Musical

Shelga

I started watching the second Netflix episode… I actually can’t watch any more of Ian going around in his fur trapper hat, talking about the same things I’ve heard over and over now, I’m going to bed!

No doubt I’ll gobble up the rest tomorrow, ASAP :pac:

listermint

Other than the two french friends of Sophie whom say they had phone conversations describing a poet. Years after the fact when all of the evidence at hand is known. Has anyone in the locality actually made any connections to the pair. From what we've seen so far no. None. And he does appear to be the type to have been ever present if he saw her in a pub and was interested or anywhere for that matter.

Surely without that connection the whole thing falls at the first hurdle. To killing was brutal and personal and rage. There's a strong connection having come out in the nature of her demise.

If it's proven that he did in fact know her and met her multiple times then that nearly guarantees the guilt with the rest of the more tenuous stuff included.

chooseusername

Someone earlier mentioned a possible disagreement over land.
I had a look on landdirect.ie and if Im reading it right it appears there are a total of nine parcels of land in the folio totalling about 16 acres ,
so small parcels averaging less than 2 acres.
J.S would probably have explored this angle bearing in mind his "Field"
But people have been killed in this country for a couple of acres or less.

Attachment not found.

[Deleted User]

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Who should play Bailey ???

Dave McSavage?
Or in this woke world, Scarlet Johansen?

MoonUnit75

TomCor1 wrote: »

The fact that the poetry book on the table was left open on the poem 'A Dream of Death' is quite bizarre.

Probably mentioned here before but Yeats wrote this poem at the time the woman he loved, Maud Gonne, was traveling to France. Yeats believed she would die on this trip.

I keep reading that she left the book open on this particular poem. When you look at the photograph of the scene showing the kitchen table with the book held open with a jar of honey, it looks more like a novel with full pages of text in paragraphs.

TalleyRand83

I find it absolutely bizarre that so many people have such a strong conviction that Ian Bailey is innocent, original Garda investigation and behaviours aside, also legal right aside as I’m not posting from the legal point of view.

Circumstantially he is a slam dunk for the case, if there was ONE clear bit of irrefutable evidence to suggest he didn’t do it I’d take that and move on, but for me, he did it and nothing up to now will change my mind (yes I’m not the Irish judicial system so I’ll rob you of that retort)

People so passionate about his innocence fascinate me in a strange way

[Deleted User]

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

I find it absolutely bizarre that so many people have such a strong conviction that Ian Bailey is innocent, original Garda investigation and behaviours aside, also legal right aside as I’m not posting from the legal point of view.

Circumstantially he is a slam dunk for the case, if there was ONE clear bit of irrefutable evidence to suggest he didn’t do it I’d take that and move on, but for me, he did it and nothing up to now will change my mind (yes I’m not the Irish judicial system so I’ll rob you of that retort)

People so passionate about his innocence fascinate me in a strange way

And yet you can't articulate exactly why?
Is there one clear bit of evidence to suggest I didn't do it?

Yurt2

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

Circumstantially he is a slam dunk for the case

This is a logical (never mind legal) contradiction in terms.

People who engage in upsidedown thinking fascinate me.

MoonUnit75

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

I find it absolutely bizarre that so many people have such a strong conviction that Ian Bailey is innocent, original Garda investigation and behaviours aside, also legal right aside as I’m not posting from the legal point of view.

Circumstantially he is a slam dunk for the case, if there was ONE clear bit of irrefutable evidence to suggest he didn’t do it I’d take that and move on, but for me, he did it and nothing up to now will change my mind (yes I’m not the Irish judicial system so I’ll rob you of that retort)

People so passionate about his innocence fascinate me in a strange way

Yes, indeed. I'm not sure why this is. One of the talking heads in the Jim Sheridan documentary made the same point, the gardai might have been trying to pin it on him and he can also be guilty, both can be true. It seems like the suggestion that the gardai were stitching him up makes him innocent by default.

Ultimate Gowlbag

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

People so passionate about his innocence fascinate me in a strange way

And people who are convinced he is guilty scare me

[Deleted User]

People are convicted by the evidence that shows they commited a crime.
Not by a lack of evidence to show they didn't.

TalleyRand83

Yurt! wrote: »

This is a logical (never mind legal) contradiction in terms.

People who engage in upsidedown thinking fascinate me.

This isn’t a court, it’s an online forum so relax there rushing to the woman beaters defense, if there was one clear alibi for him I’d be on my bike but you won’t have any?

Occam’s razor, known nutcase (even if you only believe a quarter of the locals stories), woman beating , scratches on face and hands, disappeared during the night after changing statement, prior knowledge before nearly everyone.

Amazing the motley collection of different locals would put him in it (young couple at after party in particular) and all conspire to stitch him up yet not one can alibi him.

Like I said, bizarre the rush to his defence, saint Ian the poor little gent

Yurt2

One of the important lessons that one can draw about human nature from this entire case is that mud sticks, there are those who think that centuries of legal precedent and rites exist in an ethical vacuum, and are a mere inconvenience in condemning individuals that are accused, and that the course of justice only runs one way.

TalleyRand83

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Yes, indeed. I'm not sure why this is. One of the talking heads in the Jim Sheridan documentary made the same point, the gardai might have been trying to pin it on him and he can also be guilty, both can be true. It seems like the suggestion that the gardai were stitching him up makes him innocent by default.

Yes the hamming it up by cops, read: The Man, seems to have left swung people completely, and that above point about both being true really makes most sense.

Yurt2

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

This isn’t a court, it’s an online forum so relax there rushing to the woman beaters defense, if there was one clear alibi for him I’d be on my bike but you won’t have any?

Occam’s razor, known nutcase (even if you only believe a quarter of the locals stories), woman beating , scratches on face and hands, disappeared during the night after changing statement, prior knowledge before nearly everyone.

Amazing the motley collection of different locals would put him in it (young couple at after party in particular) and all conspire to stitch him up yet not one can alibi him.

Like I said, bizarre the rush to his defence, saint Ian the poor little gent

Occam's razor has no place in the administration of justice. In drinking parlours and knitting circles maybe, but not in matters of the law. And the common law flows from natural justice.

There are probably many circumstances in your life where if we unplugged our brains and refused to engage with the world ethically, Occam's razor would have had the finger pointing at you. Maybe not for the crime of murder, but for some malfeasance.

TalleyRand83

Yurt! wrote: »

One of the important lessons that one can draw about human nature from this entire case is that mud sticks, there are those who think that centuries of legal precedent and rites exist in an ethical vacuum, and are a mere inconvenience in condemning individuals that are accused, and that the course of justice only runs one way.

So by following your logic, you believe our justice system is beyond reproach and perfect? Every sentence handed down is correct and absolute justice?

TalleyRand83

Ultimate Gowlbag wrote: »

And people who are convinced he is guilty scare me

Why? If I walked out of my house covered in blood with a knife in my hand say and my wife had been murdered inside would it scare you that people think I’m guilty?

I’d have Bailey a few evidential notches below above example obviously, don’t be scared…..I repeat, this is an online forum not a court!

Yurt2

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

So by following your logic, you believe our justice system is beyond reproach and perfect? Every sentence handed down is correct and absolute justice?

There is no system of justice that can say that. But at least we live in a part of the world that takes such matters seriously, and does not reduce justice to a parlour whispering game.

Edit: and no, your hypothesis would not be following my logic. It would be inferring something I never said or was going in the direction of.

[Deleted User]

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

So by following your logic, you believe our justice system is beyond reproach and perfect? Every sentence handed down is correct and absolute justice?

There's no sentence in this case because the DPP realised there was no genuine evidence against Bailey.
You're assessment is basically, - I think he's guilty so he should be convicted.
Not how it works.

TalleyRand83

Yurt! wrote: »

There is no system of justice that can say that. But at least we live in a part of the world that takes such matters seriously, and does not reduce justice to a parlour whispering game.

What parlour whisper did I mention? Point out anything at all I said remotely like that? I Hardly said he had shifty eyes so therefore he did it

TalleyRand83

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There's no sentence in this case because the DPP realised there was no genuine evidence against Bailey.
You're assessment is basically, - I think he's guilty so he should be convicted.
Not how it works.

Yeah I know that, thanks for pointing it out. Since we are being very legal and technical, answer me this:

Do you think the DPP has ever rejected proceeding in a prosecution because they don’t feel they have enough, legally, to convict someone even though they “know” the person did it? Answer that honestly please in a normal human way, not a technical or legal way.

Yurt2

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

What parlour whisper did I mention? Point out anything at all I said remotely like that? I Hardly said he had shifty eyes so therefore he did it

A few posts ago you were saying cobbled together circumstantial evidence (much of which has been nuked by the DPP) made him 'a slam dunk'.

In legal terms, and logical terms, you're putting lipstick on a pig and trying to pass it off as a catwalk model. You're a fanny hair away from engaging in parlour games.

listermint

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

What parlour whisper did I mention? Point out anything at all I said remotely like that? I Hardly said he had shifty eyes so therefore he did it

He's a woman beating scumbag with an ego the size of a house.

But where's the evidence that he knew or met her ever? Under what guise does he turn up around 8am and beat her to death only to be serving Jules coffee at 9am.

If you can prove he met and knew her you'll get my attention and swing my entire thought process.