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

fin12

odyssey06 wrote: »

O'Reilly had a strong motive also. Bailey had none.

And caused numerous miscarriages of justice when people were exonerated on forensic evidence.

Which were not confessions.

Untrue.

There is nothing there for a trial and our DPP said so.
The French trial was a a miscarriage of justice, for the reasons explained below.

You cite his scratches, well how could he have scratches and there be no forensic evidence?
Bailey provides hair, DNA, blood and fingerprint samples to AGS to try to clear his name.
In the words of a prominent legal expert:

Despite the bloodied and frenzied nature of the violent attack in a briar-strewn area that left about 50 wounds and briar scratches on the victim’s body “no forensic evidence” was found linking Bailey to the crime scene.
“Had Bailey been the killer, it is inconceivable that he would not have left traces of blood, skin, clothing, fibres or hair at the scene,” said Mr Walsh.
“The problem in the Bailey case is that the police file was compiled under the loosely regulated Irish investigation and then transplanted unfiltered into the French prosecution and trial process,” said Mr Walsh.
“Most unusually, the DPP at the time subsequently described the Garda investigation as ‘thoroughly flawed and prejudiced’ against Bailey,” said Mr Walsh.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30929485.html

I'm not even saying Bailey is not guilty. I am saying he is innocent.

No motive, no forensics, no eye witnesses putting him at the scene of a crime.
Not having an alibi represents insufficient grounds to even on balance of probability put someone as guilty.

How do u know he had no motive just cause he said he didn’t know her Which is bullsh*t. . It was obviously not a premeditated murder.

mioniqa

post #197 from this thread says there was something about the neighbours cat getting into her house and making a mess with soot.

odyssey06

fin12 wrote: »

How do u know he had no motive just cause he said he didn’t know her Which is bullsh*t. . It was obviously not a premeditated murder.

He had no known motive, which is the same thing in terms of how anyone else can respond to this case in terms of a motive that would be considered enough to support murder.

Did he know her? Nobody has established that for sure.
A neighbour thinks he introduced them but was not certain.
Maybe he knew her very slightly, he would have known of her.
Nobody saw them canoodling, or saw Bailey at her house, or saw them alone together.

No motive. No evidence of his ever being at the scene of the crime.

No forensics.

Evidence that could exonerate him or point to other suspects conveniently lost.

He is innocent.

Foweva Awone

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

I believe the real identity of Mrs Farrell's companion, if made public, would have a dramatic impact on the complexion of this case.

Haven't read the entire thread yet so I don't know if this has already been suggested.

But what if Marie Farrell was having some sort of affair or flirtation with Ian Bailey? They are out in her car in the middle of the night, they have a row or something, she dumps him out at that bridge.

She wakes up the next day to hear about the murder, genuinely suspects Ian may have been involved (perhaps he was violent towards her that night, and that's why she kicked him out?), starts making her "anonymous" phone calls.

By the way - while the Gardai messed up big time in so many ways - I still find IB suspicious as ****. Wouldn't say I'm 100% convinced it's him, but probably 60%-70%.

namloc1980

fin12 wrote: »

How do u know he had no motive just cause he said he didn’t know her Which is bullsh*t. . It was obviously not a premeditated murder.

No evidence that they knew each other. Bailey from the very start said he knew of her and that she was pointed out to him by Alfie Lyons up at his house 18 months before the murder. Alfie corroborated this but he also thought he had introduced them but he couldn't be sure.

Nobody ever saw them together in Schull, at the house or anywhere for that matter. In the Netflix doc her friend says that Sophie told her she was meeting a man in Ireland who was a local writer. Again could that be Bailey? Possibly but possibly not. This is also coming out years later and her recollection of it could be wrong.

Gussie Scrotch

chooseusername wrote: »

1

OK, but this is just opinion.....perfectly valid opinion, I accept.

But what I would like someone to do is to demolish the theory with fact or with refutation of the known/accepted facts.

Lets compare the case (as in my theoretical case ) for Alfie being the culprit versus the case against Bailey.

Alfie definitely knew STDP . Baily at most, knew of her. No one has said they ever saw them together, no one claims anything other than Alfie who says he "might have introduced them"

Alfie was there, regardless of what the time of death actually was. No evidence of Baily being present. And if the event happened after c 08.00hrs, he definitely wasn't there

Alfie had an ongoing dispute with STDP. Baily had not motive

Finally, neither Alfie no Shirley saw or heard anything of the attack, despite being in close proximity.

My point is this: The evidence that exists, such as it can be classed as evidence supports the "Alfie" theory far more than the "Bailey" theory. Just that.

namloc1980

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

OK, but this is just opinion.....perfectly valid opinion, I accept.

But what I would like someone to do is to demolish the theory with fact or with refutation of the known/accepted facts.

Lets compare the case (as in my theoretical case ) for Alfie being the culprit versus the case against Bailey.

Alfie definitely knew STDP . Baily at most, knew of her. No one has said they ever saw them together, no one claims anything other than Alfie who says he "might have introduced them"

Alfie was there, regardless of what the time of death actually was. No evidence of Baily being present. And if the event happened after c 08.00hrs, he definitely wasn't there

Alfie had an ongoing dispute with STDP. Baily had not motive

Finally, neither Alfie no Shirley saw or heard anything of the attack, despite being in close proximity.

My point is this: The evidence that exists, such as it can be classed as evidence supports the "Alfie" theory far more than the "Bailey" theory. Just that.

How do we know this? It's been said numerous times on the thread there was a dispute over the gate but how is this known?

Gussie Scrotch

namloc1980 wrote: »

How do we know this? It's been said numerous times on the thread there was a dispute over the gate but how is this known?

Good point. My understanding is that this information was provided by Sophie's housekeeper. I'll try to find the link.

leath_dub

Alfie Lyons' house for sale. Apparently Alfie passed away earlier this year

http://patmaguireproperties.com/Content/ViewProperty.aspx?pid=1602

[Deleted User]

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Bord failte have a huge asset on their hands with Ian Bailey and need to take advantage of it. With international attention because of the documentaries they should have a big marketing push centred around Bailey and the murders. Could be huge for Cork.

If he needs an agent, Max Clifford is his only man, ..oh wait.

He does have some set of balls to pre-advertise an open air public appearance at this point. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say he has a massive persecution complex and, as someone said in one of the documentaries, like a child he doesn't seem to fully understand the reality of his situation.

I think it's likely that he has always suffered from some form of destructive personality disorder. Also fairly sure that if it was him who killed Sophie and left no trace of his presence behind he could not have resisted fully confessing to it by now. How could he resist reciting his poetry from the dock of a Parisian court?

[Deleted User]

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Except that Alfie Lyons ran out of breath trying to knead dough as far back as 1995 so could no longer do the occasional shift at Arbutus Breads - but you think he could lift a concrete block in the air several times?

You also think he would leave a battered body there for his partner Shirley to find?
The same Shirley he had been counting the days until she retired and moved permanently to West Cork.

That is irrelevant if Alfie lost it. Where else would he put the body and he would not have known it was Shirley who would find the body

padraig1963

chooseusername wrote: »

1

As someone in a much earlier comment said maybe the killer didn't need the strength to lift the 25 kg block but instead just bashed her poor head against it where it lay on the ground as she lay unconscious or dazed from earlier blows with a lighter blunt weapon. Which would not preclude any suspect, man or woman, strong or weak, neighbour or stranger. This might also account for no dna other than Sophies on the block. Gruesome ..sorry.

SeaFields

Some great discussion here to be fair. I suspect it'll never be solved unless there's a death bed confession by someone.

I've only started the Netflix one. Trying to keep an open mind in both series but I just completely switch off when anything is mentioned that involves MF. I just think she is a complete liar whether on purpose or just not all there.

One thing that keeps coming up by posters is DNA. I wonder are those views reflecting where DNA analysis is today as opposed to what it was then. It is the latter where the thinking needs to be really.

odyssey06

SeaFields wrote: »

Some great discussion here to be fair. I suspect it'll never be solved unless there's a death bed confession by someone.
I've only started the Netflix one. Trying to keep an open mind in both series but I just completely switch off when anything is mentioned that involves MF. I just think she is a complete liar whether on purpose or just not all there.
One thing that keeps coming up by posters is DNA. I wonder are those views reflecting where DNA analysis is today as opposed to what it was then. It is the latter where the thinking needs to be really.

Even judged by the standards of the day... where was the blood, fingerprints, hair etc that could implicate Bailey in such a 'frenzied' attack?

People have been freed and convicted based on re-analysing the data preserved from the original scene but with latest techniques.

Also, I haven't had secondary confirmation of this, but Bailey was reported in newspapers as claiming that an outside expert was brought in in 2011 to re-analyse the samples, based on blood found on Sophie's boot.
It was that of an unidentified male.
I haven't been able to establish if they only got enough DNA to say it was male, if it was run through any databases. I think we can be sure if a sample was re-analysed and pointed to Bailey, it would be headline news.

This is one such article, if you google you will get hits from other sources on the claim:
https://www.buzz.ie/news/bailey-pleads-inquiry-after-new-24154045

padraig1963

SeaFields wrote: »

Some great discussion here to be fair. I suspect it'll never be solved unless there's a death bed confession by someone.

I've only started the Netflix one. Trying to keep an open mind in both series but I just completely switch off when anything is mentioned that involves MF. I just think she is a complete liar whether on purpose or just not all there.

One thing that keeps coming up by posters is DNA. I wonder are those views reflecting where DNA analysis is today as opposed to what it was then. It is the latter where the thinking needs to be really.

True, but the point is if the guards had kept all the relevant physical evidence like the gate, winebottle , coat, briars, roof tile and block safely and securely they could have been re analysed with the most up to date techniques now for something missed first time around. Why didn't they?
A new independant enquiry into the guards is necessary and not by gsoc .

[Deleted User]

padraig1963 wrote: »

As someone in a much earlier comment said maybe the killer didn't need the strength to lift the 25 kg block but instead just bashed her poor head against it where it lay on the ground as she lay unconscious or dazed from earlier blows with a lighter blunt weapon. Which would not preclude any suspect, man or woman, strong or weak, neighbour or stranger. This might also account for no dna other than Sophies on the block. Gruesome ..sorry.

I think they said that likely happened because there was a depression in the ground under her head.

Mebuntu

padraig1963 wrote: »

A new independant enquiry into the guards is necessary and not by gsoc .

I agree. The serious question of the missing items has not received any attention - in both series.

Nobody noticed (or remembered) a large farmgate with bloodstains and DNA from a murder being removed from Garda custody????Is it possible that whoever removed it was worried that the continuing developments in DNA might be able to prove something if that gate underwent further examination?

Quotes from the GSOC report:

"The missing exhibits included:
a) a blood-spattered gate taken from close to where Madame Toscan Du Plantier's body was found,
b) a French wine bottle found four months after the murder in a field next to the scene,
c) a black overcoat belonging to Ian Bailey,
d) the original memo of interview of Jules Thomas following her arrest in 1997,
e) an original witness statement from Marie Farrell provided on 5 March 2004,
f) an original witness statement from Jules Thomas dated 19 February 1997
In total 139 original witness statements were either missing or not held by the garda Síochána. These included witness statements from garda members, forensic scientists and members of the public."

"The missing pages from the Jobs Book when Ian Bailey was identified as a suspect are of grave concern to GSOC"

"the Jobs Book Two had pages numbered up to 155. "several pages had been removed, possibly by cutting with scissors. "the front fly sheet, the pages numbered 1 to 7 and pages 10 and 11 were missing."

"It is a matter of grave concern to GSOC that a large number of original statements and exhibits relating to the murder investigation are missing".

"Pages missing from the original garda “Jobs Books” in relation to the garda murder investigation are of the most concern to GSOC. These books form a complete record of all activity undertaken in respect of a major or critical incident (or investigation) along with the rationale for the decisions made. This concern is compounded further by the fact that the specific pages missing are from an area of the book when Ian Bailey seems to have first been identified as a potential suspect in the murder by gardaí – and as such, they are potentially very significant."

"While there was general cooperation from garda members during the course of the GSOC investigation, a number of garda members were less than cooperative"

Yet, despite all of the above, their final conclusion was:
"GSOC found no evidence of corruption."

To me this is incompatible.

The full GSOC report available here:
https://www.gardaombudsman.ie/news-room/archive/information-report-from-the-garda-siochana-ombudsman-commission-at-the-completion-of-the-investigation-into-the-complaints-of-ian-bailey-catherine-jules-thomas-and-marie-farrell/?download=file&file=2748

[Deleted User]

Mebuntu wrote: »

I agree. The serious question of the missing items has not received any attention - in both series.

Nobody noticed (or remembered) a large farmgate with bloodstains and DNA from a murder being removed from Garda custody????Is it possible that whoever removed it was worried that the continuing developments in DNA might be able to prove something if that gate underwent further examination?

Quotes from the GSOC report:

"The missing exhibits included:
a) a blood-spattered gate taken from close to where Madame Toscan Du Plantier's body was found,
b) a French wine bottle found four months after the murder in a field next to the scene,
c) a black overcoat belonging to Ian Bailey,
d) the original memo of interview of Jules Thomas following her arrest in 1997,
e) an original witness statement from Marie Farrell provided on 5 March 2004,
f) an original witness statement from Jules Thomas dated 19 February 1997
In total 139 original witness statements were either missing or not held by the garda Síochána. These included witness statements from garda members, forensic scientists and members of the public."

"The missing pages from the Jobs Book when Ian Bailey was identified as a suspect are of grave concern to GSOC"

"the Jobs Book Two had pages numbered up to 155. "several pages had been removed, possibly by cutting with scissors. "the front fly sheet, the pages numbered 1 to 7 and pages 10 and 11 were missing."

"It is a matter of grave concern to GSOC that a large number of original statements and exhibits relating to the murder investigation are missing".

"Pages missing from the original garda “Jobs Books” in relation to the garda murder investigation are of the most concern to GSOC. These books form a complete record of all activity undertaken in respect of a major or critical incident (or investigation) along with the rationale for the decisions made. This concern is compounded further by the fact that the specific pages missing are from an area of the book when Ian Bailey seems to have first been identified as a potential suspect in the murder by gardaí – and as such, they are potentially very significant."

"While there was general cooperation from garda members during the course of the GSOC investigation, a number of garda members were less than cooperative"

Yet, despite all of the above, their final conclusion was:
"GSOC found no evidence of corruption."

To me this is incompatible.

The full GSOC report available here:
https://www.gardaombudsman.ie/news-room/archive/information-report-from-the-garda-siochana-ombudsman-commission-at-the-completion-of-the-investigation-into-the-complaints-of-ian-bailey-catherine-jules-thomas-and-marie-farrell/?download=file&file=2748

Barry Roche mentioned the gate in Netflix doc. GSOC is just a joke

Treppen

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Well that is his side and a bunch of witness have a different story, including another journalist. So it depends who you believe. Bailey has been inconsistent from the start which he admitted, saying it's hard to remember everything. The witnesses have been consistent on that point.

There were no witnesses to the murder.

mioniqa

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Well that is his side and a bunch of witness have a different story, including another journalist. So it depends who you believe. Bailey has been inconsistent from the start which he admitted, saying it's hard to remember everything. The witnesses have been consistent on that point.

the witnesses have been far from consistent :eek:. Have you read the DPP report?

mioniqa

Does anyone know when Alfie Lyons died?

chicorytip

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

I think the "hitman theory is worthy of consideration"

The husband did have a possible/plausible motive.

The husband was wealthy and well connected enough to be able to arrange it.

The husband refused to come to Ireland.

Again, almost all circumstantial evidence, but interesting at least.

The hitman theory was put forward by Bailey when he was interviewed by journalists in the days following the discovery of the body. He also penned articles for the Daily Star alleging Sophie may have met her death at the hands of one of the many lovers she had entertained at the cottage in the aftermath of the break up of her marriage. It transpired that she had only one short lived romantic relationship during this period with a sixty nine year old French film director. Bailey also claims Daniel Du Plantier was in financial difficulties and may have had Sophie bumped off to prevent her getting half his assets under the terms of any divorce. All of this was scurrilous, self serving tactics by Bailey purely to deflect attention away from himself being a strong suspect for her killing.

Treppen

SeaFields wrote: »

Some great discussion here to be fair. I suspect it'll never be solved unless there's a death bed confession by someone.

I've only started the Netflix one. Trying to keep an open mind in both series but I just completely switch off when anything is mentioned that involves MF. I just think she is a complete liar whether on purpose or just not all there.

One thing that keeps coming up by posters is DNA. I wonder are those views reflecting where DNA analysis is today as opposed to what it was then. It is the latter where the thinking needs to be really.

Same here, very hard to listen to MF.

But I think her descriptions are very tantalising, first it was Bailey who was following Sophie and out at the bridge.

Then it was a foreign person "with a beret".

The fact that she would never reveal the man in her car (was she ever in the car?) Could mean it was a Garda.

What has her husband said under questioning?

Can anyone put up a source for where she was going on about being able to identify a mark/mole on a Garda's private?

leath_dub

mioniqa wrote: »

Does anyone know when Alfie Lyons died?

I got my info from here:

https://www.buzz.ie/news/neighbour-murdered-french-filmmaker-sophie-23995031

Mackinac

SeaFields wrote: »

Some great discussion here to be fair. I suspect it'll never be solved unless there's a death bed confession by someone.

I've only started the Netflix one. Trying to keep an open mind in both series but I just completely switch off when anything is mentioned that involves MF. I just think she is a complete liar whether on purpose or just not all there.

One thing that keeps coming up by posters is DNA. I wonder are those views reflecting where DNA analysis is today as opposed to what it was then. It is the latter where the thinking needs to be really.

If they still have DNA I believe that is what will close this case as forensic technology is constantly evolving.

Very random but I wonder if a forensic linguist has examined IB’s stories from those very early days after the murder.

Gussie Scrotch

chicorytip wrote: »

The hitman theory was put forward by Bailey when he was interviewed by journalists in the days following the discovery of the body. He also penned articles for the Daily Star alleging Sophie may have met her death at the hands of one of the many lovers she had entertained at the cottage in the aftermath of the break up of her marriage. It transpired that she had only one short lived romantic relationship during this period with a sixty nine year old French film director. Bailey also claims Daniel Du Plantier was in financial difficulties and may have had Sophie bumped off to prevent her getting half his assets under the terms of any divorce. All of this was scurrilous, self serving tactics by Bailey purely to deflect attention away from himself being a strong suspect for her killing.

Yes, I think it is probably one of the less likely scenarios.

But it was interesting that he had a baby with his lover about a year after Sophie's death and married her a few months after that. He didn't mourn for long.

EmmetSpiceland

chicorytip wrote: »

It transpired that she had only one short lived romantic relationship during this period with a sixty nine year old French film director.

What about the mysterious German lad? The one who committed suicide the year after the murder, allegedly, leaving a note saying he’d done something terrible.

monkeybutter

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

What about the mysterious German lad? The one who committed suicide the year after the murder, allegedly, leaving a note saying he’d done something terrible.

this was not true, followed up by an Garda and no note

Loafing Oaf

chicorytip wrote: »

The hitman theory was put forward by Bailey when he was interviewed by journalists in the days following the discovery of the body. He also penned articles for the Daily Star alleging Sophie may have met her death at the hands of one of the many lovers she had entertained at the cottage in the aftermath of the break up of her marriage.

That's pretty odious even by his standards. Even it was true, tell the guards what you know but don't go blabbing about it in the press unless and until there is strong evidence linking one of these alleged lovers to the crime...

mioniqa

leath_dub wrote: »

I got my info from here:

https://www.buzz.ie/news/neighbour-murdered-french-filmmaker-sophie-23995031

Thanks. I couldn't find an rip.ie notice for him (yes I know I'm too invested in this case!)