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

Gussie Scrotch

isha wrote: »

I really want to watch Murder at the Cottage now that I have seen 2 Netflix episodes. It is absorbing.
The garda comes across as arrogant. I can hardly believe the amount of errors.
Bailey is a very unpleasant man and his false tones of voice make me think he is a liar.
I do not have a steady idea yet on who did it.
The big burning behind the house seems to be very suspicious. So does driving to the scene before word was out.

The light not on in her house has people estimating death at 8 ish or so. But she might not have been lured to the gate. She might have been up early, had a bit of breakfast and then put on her boots to check out the dawn. She might have turned off the house light so she could experience the natural dawn or even pre dawn light. Maybe even she wanted to walk the lane in the dark. Maybe she walked down the familiar lane to the gate just to have the sensation of the cold still early dawn or even moonlit walk in a remote place she loved. I think she was the kind of person who would have liked that kind of thing. Maybe someone happened to be there at the end of her peaceful stroll who had an interest in her.

The lack of a light on in the house is key. The fruit and nuts found in her stomach ay the PM and the uncovered loaf of bread on the table all support the probability of it being morning when Sophie went down to the gate. Sunrise in west Cork at that time of year is at about 08.45.

If the attack happened at that time, the Kealfadda bridge sighting is not relevant to the case and, critically, it rules out Bailey as he brought coffee to Jules at 9am.

Such a pity the SP was delayed in the way he was.....the time of death is critical in this investigation.

padraig1963

To me it's strange there was no dna got off the final murder weapon, the heavy concrete block. Surely if the killer violently lifted a 25kg rough surfaced block like that as many times as is suggested some skin cells would have been grated off onto the block. Unless the murderer was wearing gloves in which case there wouldn't be scratches on his hands, wouldn't be blood left on briars or any fingerprints left on the gate etc.
If the killer was wearing gloves then it leans more to a premeditated killing by whoever I would believe, and away from IB.
I wonder if that block is still in a garda evidence store somewhere for a more advanced examination? If not skin cells then maybe there's fibres from gloves.Or has the 17 inch block gone the way of the gate, the bottle of wine, the missing files, the torn out notebook pages etc.

irishgeo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I really want to watch Murder at the Cottage now that I have seen 2 Netflix episodes. It is absorbing.
The garda comes across as arrogant. I can hardly believe the amount of errors.
Bailey is a very unpleasant man and his false tones of voice make me think he is a liar.
I do not have a steady idea yet on who did it.
The big burning behind the house seems to be very suspicious. So does driving to the scene before word was out.

The light not on in her house has people estimating death at 8 ish or so. But she might not have been lured to the gate. She might have been up early, had a bit of breakfast and then put on her boots to check out the dawn. She might have turned off the house light so she could experience the natural dawn or even pre dawn light. Maybe even she wanted to walk the lane in the dark. Maybe she walked down the familiar lane to the gate just to have the sensation of the cold still early dawn or even moonlit walk in a remote place she loved. I think she was the kind of person who would have liked that kind of thing. Maybe someone happened to be there at the end of her peaceful stroll who had an interest in her.

Jules has said he didn't have the mark on his forehead before the day of the murder. What does she say about the arm scratches?

[Deleted User]

I really want to watch Murder at the Cottage now that I have seen 2 Netflix episodes. It is absorbing.
The garda comes across as arrogant. I can hardly believe the amount of errors.
Bailey is a very unpleasant man and his false tones of voice make me think he is a liar.
I do not have a steady idea yet on who did it.
The big burning behind the house seems to be very suspicious. So does driving to the scene before word was out.

The light not on in her house has people estimating death at 8 ish or so. But she might not have been lured to the gate. She might have been up early, had a bit of breakfast and then put on her boots to check out the dawn. She might have turned off the house light so she could experience the natural dawn or even pre dawn light. Maybe even she wanted to walk the lane in the dark. Maybe she walked down the familiar lane to the gate just to have the sensation of the cold still early dawn or even moonlit walk in a remote place she loved. I think she was the kind of person who would have liked that kind of thing. Maybe someone happened to be there at the end of her peaceful stroll who had an interest in her.

A Primal Nut

Actually reading over the evidence of the Joe O'Reilly case, the parallels with him and Bailey's behaviour are amazing, as far as saying things about the case that weren't publically known. Bailey is just lucky that mobile phones were not invented yet.

O’Reilly told a woman on the day of Rachel’s murder that no sexual assault had taken place on his wife’s body, even though the post mortem did not take place until the following day. Gardaí maintain that only her killer could have been certain of such a fact.

O’Reilly told Jackie Connolly, a close friend of Rachel’s, that he was afraid of being framed for the murder as there were “a few hours” when he didn’t have an alibi.

Another witness, Fiona Slevin, claimed O’Reilly questioned why garda were searching fields for the murder weapon when it was in the water on the day of Rachel’s funeral.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20037948.html

There are many more witness statements of a similar nature implicating Bailey. But the DPP regarded them all as unreliable. But in O'Reilly's case they were accepted.

It's interesting that the French believe that Bailey has the Irish justice system by the balls (as stated by her aunt). I don't see how he would but some stuff about the case is odd.

orangerhyme

For some reason I think Ian Bailey is innocent and the Gardai wasted a tremendous amount of time, energy and resources on him.

They probably detested him due to his unlikable personality and wanted to nail him.

The assumption that a local did it cos her house is so far out of the way might be a false assumption.

She may have had a relationship with someone (romantic or otherwise) not local who knew where she lived and they confronted her on the night in question.

Was her last movement that she ran through the field to the right and was snagged on the barbed wire climbing over the wall to get out the gate?

I've seen no mention of footprints in the field.

bewareofthedog

A Primal Nut wrote: »

It's strange the DPP didn't go forward with the prosecution. There is much more evidence than other high profile murder cases that got a guilty verdict (Joe O'Reilly comes to mind).

Not true imo, O'Reilly left his phone turned on and in essence it acted like a gps tracking his every movement.

orangerhyme

crooked cockney villain wrote: »

I'm two episodes in about a case I remember happening but never really followed.

Compulsive viewing. I have little doubt that the Netflix one is probably a pale shadow of it. TV productions are always simply better.

Only thing- if I weren't Irish I'd struggle with the odd bit. The opener where the statement she says she would ring the guards- if I were foreign I'd be assuming the area or house had a private security guard presence.

The term blow in wasn't explained very well for foreign folk either I thought.

All up though, addictive viewing.

I've just read somewhere that the bed was unmade. It's possible she didn't make her bed every morning on waking but it's certainly implied she got out of bed to answer the door.

The gate was open also when her body was found.
Did she habitually close the gate at night?

Did they test the pipes in Ian Bailey house for DNA after he was arrested? It's never mentioned.

Is it confirmed that no lights were on in the house when her body was found?

Good point about sound travels far on clear, rural nights but if the neighbors had been, drinking then nothing would wake them.

I agree about Dermot Dwyer coming across badly. I find his accent very strange and I'm from Kerry. Is it Kerry mixed with west Cork?

I think forensics did a poor job.
No DNA evidence, no footprints, lost evidence, no time of death etc. It left the Gardai very little to go on.

Dr John Harbison had been out of the office and they couldn't contact him apparently but surely he'd have a beeper if not a mobile phone.
The first 24 hours are most important

A Primal Nut

riclad wrote: »

The French verdict of guilty makes no sense,
There's basically close to zero forensic evidence,
the Gardaí investigation was mediocre and disorganised
Yes bailey acted in a strange and eccentric manner
but that's not enough to get a conviction in court
If the crime had happened in dublin it would likely have been investigated in a more professional manner
And it seems the Gardaí presumed Bailey was guilty and did not try to look for any other possible leads

Joe O'Reilly had no forensic evidence against him either and he was convicted in Ireland. There is plenty of other types of evidence. O'Reilly was convicted purely because phone masts showed he travelled home when he said he didn't, so he lost his alibi. Bailey lost his alibi a long time ago when both he and wife admitted he got up in the middle of the night and wasn't seen back home until 9am.

Before forensic science was developed, witnesses were relied upon. In this case you have dozens of witnesses willing to testify that:

Bailey knew Sophie (from her previous trips to Ireland) - he says he never talked to her
He had no scratches or mark on his forehead the day before the crime, they were there after - he says he got it a few days earlier from christmas trees or turkeys, even his own wife contradicted that in her statements.
The confessions
That he knew about the murder of a French woman many hours before he claims he did.

That's a lot of people who would have to lie and be mistaken. But we've become so dependant on forensic evidence that somehow witnesses aren't considered enough anymore.

The idea that he was targeted because he's non-local doesn't make sense either. Some of these witnesses are fellow British, the Italian woman, Sophie's French friends and relatives.

There's enough there for a trial. It's possible that a criminal trial would have put it beyond reasonable doubt. Maybe, maybe not.

A Primal Nut

There is an insane amount of witness statements that contradict Bailey on key points. The latest doc was the first I heard of the Italian woman who visited the house the day after. It's one after the other.

It's strange the DPP didn't go forward with the prosecution. There is much more evidence than other high profile murder cases that got a guilty verdict (Joe O'Reilly comes to mind).

If Bailey is guilty than he is both the most careless and luckiest murder suspect of all time. If he is innocent then he only has himself to blame for all the stupid **** he has done and said over the years.

riclad

The French verdict of guilty makes no sense,
There's basically close to zero forensic evidence,
the Gardaí investigation was mediocre and disorganised
Yes bailey acted in a strange and eccentric manner
but that's not enough to get a conviction in court
If the crime had happened in dublin it would likely have been investigated in a more professional manner
And it seems the Gardaí presumed Bailey was guilty and did not try to look for any other possible leads

A Primal Nut

Marcusm wrote: »

The Reed woman (mother of Malachi, the 14 y/io to whom Bailey "confessed") plays a more significant part than I would have thought. I am shocked that her hearsay concerning what her son said to her was ever admitted as evidence. She, probably rightly, detests Bailey and I suspect this informs her activity.

Malachi himself testified at the libel trial and presumably would have testified if there was a criminal trial. Witness statements that a suspect confessed are admissable as evidence.

The most important exception to the hearsay rule is admission or confession evidence. Generally, it is assumed that someone would not make a statement against their own interests, so the statement must be true. This means that you can give evidence that the accused said to you on the day the victim died, "I did it. I killed him". Normally, this would be hearsay evidence as it is an out-of-court statement and it has been introduced to prove that the accused killed the deceased. However, because confessions are an exception to the hearsay rule, that evidence can be admitted in court.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/evidence/hearsay_evidence.html

Mebuntu

I've watched both series now and I will never be convinced that there is any evidence that a proper judicial system could convict on. The French "trial" was a complete farce and is an indictment of the French justice system.

The suggestion of a French hitman was dismissed basically because "a hitman would have done a more professional job" so it "had to be someone local".
My argument against that assessment is that if the murder did look like a professional job it would (could) point more easily to a sinister French involvement so the hitman would be under instructions to make it look like it was the work of a crazy local.

kyote00

The ‘Cork Columbo’

Several things were badly handled by the Gardai..
- the fire pit search was very adhoc
- how the **** can a gate taken evidence go missing
- no photos taken of the scratches ( surely there was one camera in Cork….)

The Netflix series has very annoying bs about ‘white Lady’ and local superstitions

It was 1996 ffs, not the 1800s

retro:electro wrote: »

The superintendent comes across terribly in the Netflix doc. Sitting there laughing and ridiculing everyone completely blind to his own ineptitude and how he made a balls of the whole thing from start to finish.

bb12

it really was quite an audacious murder. it seems she was killed in the morning time, probably just before dawn around 8.30...but the killer knew there was a house close by...and by all accounts it had been a very still quiet night...anyone living rural will know how far sound will travel on nights like these...surely there must have been some screams...how on earth did the neighbours not hear anything and why did the killer not take that into consideration. maybe that;s why she was lured down the drive, but even still,it was a bold move on behalf of the murderer. very high risk of being caught

as for the neighbours; if there are only 2 houses sitting on the side of a mountain with nothing else about, you're absolutely going to be very conscious of any cars or people about. i read or saw somewhere where they said they often wouldn't even know if sophie had arrived to the house or not. i find that incredibly hard to believe. if nothing they would easily hear her car coming up the drive if she was coming from the airport for a weekend.

Padre_Pio

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

Not in France he’s not!!

Again, doesn't matter.
He's innocent in Ireland. Now he just can't take any holidays.

retro:electro

The superintendent comes across terribly in the Netflix doc. Sitting there laughing and ridiculing everyone completely blind to his own ineptitude and how he made a balls of the whole thing from start to finish.

Ultimate Gowlbag

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

Would you have liked him to have gotten a custodial sentence for the battering of jules even?

Can we please stop with this absolute w@nk ....nobody will disagree he is a monumental cnut for that,give him jail for it even...but that doesnt make him a killer!

TalleyRand83

Ultimate Gowlbag wrote: »

The trial in France was laughable

Out of curiosity, Would you have liked him to have gotten a custodial sentence for the battering of jules even?

Like I initially said, bizarre the Bailey defenders, truly fascinating, Im sure it was a French hitman who carried a cavity block as his weapon of choice. Certainly not the only clear suspect in the case

[Deleted User]

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

Okay, poor saint ian, none of the heaps of circumstantial evidences means squat…….I’m quietly confident the truth will come out someday, hopefully for the victims family it does.

I hope so too.
So ok, list off the circumstantial evidence.

Ultimate Gowlbag

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

Not in France he’s not!!

The trial in France was laughable

TalleyRand83

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So where is your evidence or even conjecture in this case besides ".. he looks really guilty"?
You have none. Because there is none.
Therefore in this case the DPP is correct.
Your argument is because they can be wrong sometimes they are always wrong.
Makes no sense at all I'm afraid.

Okay, poor saint ian, none of the heaps of circumstantial evidences means squat…….I’m quietly confident the truth will come out someday, hopefully for the victims family it does.

TalleyRand83

Padre_Pio wrote: »

No it doesn't. The lead Garda could believe in little green men, but its meaningless if he cant prove it.

As I said,right now, Bailey is as innocent as you or I.

Not in France he’s not!!

[Deleted User]

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

So where is your evidence or even conjecture in this case besides ".. he looks really guilty"?
You have none. Because there is none.
Therefore in this case the DPP is correct.
Your argument is because they can be wrong sometimes they are always wrong.
Makes no sense at all I'm afraid.

Padre_Pio

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

The lead Garda quite clearly believes he did it, so kinda scuttles part of your argument

No it doesn't. The lead Garda could believe in little green men, but its meaningless if he cant prove it.

As I said,right now, Bailey is as innocent as you or I.

riclad

This case is getting attention on American websites since the documentary is up on netflix
I think it's simple there is no forensic evidence there to convict anyone in this case no DNA evidence
There were no witness, s to the crime
It's simply not possible to bring the case to court
It would simply be a waste of time to have a full court case
This is not like the golden state killer
They had ample DNA evidence collected from various crime scenes from 30 years ago
They tracked down the killer thru using the latest DNA
testing technology

bb12

chooseusername wrote: »

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.

there was a couple who were interested in buying the land off sophie, circa 13 acres. the woman kept her horses there and wanted to start a trekking business. they were brought in for questioning but nothing came of it.

TalleyRand83

Padre_Pio wrote: »

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

The lead Garda quite clearly believes he did it, so kinda scuttles part of your argument

TalleyRand83

Yurt! wrote: »

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.

You missed my woman beating question there, answer it if you want

TalleyRand83

riclad wrote: »

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?

It’s a bit more than him being a bit eccentric! Jeez

If Garda drove around Schull and randomly pulled in the local weirdo I’d be up in arms, they happened to pull the man with all circumstantial evidence mentioned above as well as him being the only person who multiple times said he killed her (the only man in Ireland to do so) ….not exactly Gerry Conlon, maybe Jules might shed some light one day