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

Padre_Pio

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

So yes you do agree dpp would drop a case even though they’d be near certain the person did it? No more questions your honour

What does it matter?
If the DPP and the Gardai were certain he did it, then they'd do their jobs and bring a case.

But they didn't so ho hum. Bailey is innocent. He's as innocent as you are for Sophies murder.
Whether you like it or not, that's the reality. I hope the killer is found one day and maybe it's Bailey, but I won't hold my breath

Yurt2

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

So yes you do agree dpp would drop a case even though they’d be near certain the person did it? No more questions your honour

See post above about Bandon tapes, cops errors and hamming it by using sh1t witnesses to lay it on like Marie Farrell.

I’ve looked at case inside out for years, he did it…..I’m neither a judge nor jury so it matters not, but he did it

The DPP are maximalists in legal terms. If they think they'll get the hop of a ball in front of a jury with evidence which is convincing but not complete, they'll run with it. Particularly for a crime like murder if they'd be 'near certain' of the perp as you'd put it.

The DPP excoriated the book of evidence. It tells its own story.

riclad

It seems the Gardaí messed up the investigation so badly maybe cos at that time there were very few cases of murder in rural areas
There's basically no forensic evidence
So we will never find out who committed the crime
Having a crime happening at christmas did not make it easy to proceed in a normal way
If it happened now there, d likely be more DNA evidence collected and it would be investigated in a more professional manner
Just because the Bailey acted in a strange way at the time of the investigation does not mean he was guilty of a crime
He was always abit eccentric
How many poets , journalists are there in Cork?

Loafing Oaf

MacDanger wrote: »

There's already a credible explanation for the scratches

Is there really though? I mean if you're already convinced of his innocence you'll buy his explanation for that but it sounds dodgy to me...

TalleyRand83

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well yes, but not in this case.
Dispute the evidence. It's a free talking forum. Tell us where they went wrong.
Bring details, not feelings.

So yes you do agree dpp would drop a case even though they’d be near certain the person did it? No more questions your honour

See post above about Bandon tapes, cops errors and hamming it by using sh1t witnesses to lay it on like Marie Farrell.

I’ve looked at case inside out for years, he did it…..I’m neither a judge nor jury so it matters not, but he did it

[Deleted User]

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

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.

Well yes, but not in this case.
Dispute the evidence. It's a free talking forum. Tell us where they went wrong.
Bring details, not feelings.

TalleyRand83

Yurt! wrote: »

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.

What evidence did I mention was “nuked” by DPP?
Would you ever consider the bandon tapes, bad Garda practice etc influenced the DPP who were already relying on circumstantial evidence?

And a separate point, do you concede (it’s a fact!) that Ian Bailey was ultra violent and aggressive towards women, or at least Jules Thomas?

chicorytip

MacDanger wrote: »

That's disputed, the most you could say for sure is that he knew of her

Fair enough although he has a credible explanation for what he was doing i.e. story deadline

He's a scumbag but that doesn't make him a murderer

Not a crime

No evidence of this

There's already a credible explanation for the scratches

Not even sure why you've included this point

Absolutely no evidence of this

He's also denied it an endless amount of time. He's explained the "admissions" as black humour and while it's not something most people would do, I think it's credible for a narcissist like him

He writes bloody awful poetry and ought to be convicted for it. Seriously, both the leading Garda investigator and the other senior detective interviewed in the Netflix documentary came across as entirely credible and were clearly convinced of Bailey's guilt although neither stated so explicitly on camera. To arrest somebody on suspicion of murder is not a decision based on spurious theorising. Elements of the investigation were cack-handed and ameteurish but this talk of Garda corruption and framing of an innocent suspect is complete nonsense.

Loafing Oaf

listermint wrote: »

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.

If Bailey is guilty I think it must be assumed that he had established some connection with Sophie prior to the murder but somehow managed to keep it completely secret from the rest of the community. On the surface highly unlikely but something very much out of the ordinary happened here.

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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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!

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?

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

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

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

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

[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.

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

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.

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.

[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?

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

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.

[Deleted User]

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Who should play Bailey ???

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

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.