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

Wildsurfer

riddles wrote: »

Based on Netflix it seems IB was was lot more familiar with her staying there than the sky doc. If the body wasn’t found till 10am what were the other people up the lane doing in the meantime.

The behaviour on the morning of the crime of IB and the fact he went straight there is very incriminating as was his / their changing testimony with respect to stopping their car on the was home from the pub to notice lights on in a Lyons house.

But you must remember Bailey was a journalist, it was his job to be snooping around. And he knew Alfie Lyons
who could have tipped him off about the murder

namloc1980

riddles wrote: »

Based on Netflix it seems IB was was lot more familiar with her staying there than the sky doc. If the body wasn’t found till 10am what were the other people up the lane doing in the meantime.

The behaviour on the morning of the crime of IB and the fact he went straight there is very incriminating as was his / their changing testimony with respect to stopping their car on the was home from the pub to notice lights on in a Lyons house.

He was first seen at the crime scene around 2.30pm which is 4 and a half hours after the body was discovered. He was also the local journalist and by that time news of the murder was spreading like wildfire locally. If anything he was slow to get to the scene.

Weddings ahoy

Please read the Dpp report its linked a few pages back, it page 146 i think, it has raised some interesting points for me and perhaps changed my opinion on a lot of this case,

It's clear to see why IB was never trialled in Ireland for this murder, and the incompetence of the Garda is shocking, also the finding that the star witnesses are at 'best wholly unreliable ' is a true description, most statements were taken by AGS much too late to be any way reliable, for instance the young girl staying in the prairie the next day wouldn't she have been a key witness 5/6 after murder not 2 years later when they took her statement, in the show she intimated it was a coat soaking in a tub, in NF book it was clothes soaking in tub, which is it?
Or the couple who went back to the prairie on NYE , where IB confessed i did it ..i did it...then i went too far, the female overhears this and leaves immediately as you would when you hear a suspect confessing to murder, they both left and year's later testified what went on that night, but they never mentioned that the day after that 'confession' they were both drinking with IB and JT in the pub again, would you??
It makes very interesting reading, a lot of the case was built on the personality of the main suspect, and the savage attacks he inflicted on his partner, but the Dpp report also says MF husband has been charged with assault multiple times, why was he never looked at ? On the whole I believe that IB was the convenient suspect, case closed, we have him no need to look anywhere else , witnesses coerced, evidence missing, its such a shame for Sophie and her family that the person who killed her will likely never be brought to justice

MoonUnit75

Caquas wrote: »

An excellent point - why did the Gardai not look for the other person in the car with her that night?

Her evidence, even taken at face value, was weak. She said she glimpsed a man in a black coat at night as she drove past and then, miraculously, she sees him again the next day and recognises him. If her male companion corroborated the sighting, it would have given it immense support to the only piece of evidence linking Bailey to the crime scene.

But the Gardai didn’t bother finding him? Something stinks.

The gardai can’t force a witness (or suspect) to answer a question about their personal life, especially if it is not related to an actual offender or crime. A judge could press a witness to answer a question or they would find themselves in contempt, so a spell in a cell or provide an answer. What do you want them to do, torture her?

MoonUnit75

Caquas wrote: »

You mean the Gardai allowed their investigation into the most high-profile murder to collapse in order to protect a local man (now conveniently dead)?

This is an even bigger scandal than I imagined.

It amazes me how people an totally disregard so many witness statements and circumstances around the murder but one whiff of madcap conspiracy theories in the ranks or powers that be and they are all over it like a rash.

Gussie Scrotch

Weddings ahoy wrote: »

Please read the Dpp report its linked a few pages back, it page 146 i think, it has raised some interesting points for me and perhaps changed my opinion on a lot of this case,

It's clear to see why IB was never trialled in Ireland for this murder, and the incompetence of the Garda is shocking, also the finding that the star witnesses are at 'best wholly unreliable ' is a true description, most statements were taken by AGS much too late to be any way reliable, for instance the young girl staying in the prairie the next day wouldn't she have been a key witness 5/6 after murder not 2 years later when they took her statement, in the show she intimated it was a coat soaking in a tub, in NF book it was clothes soaking in tub, which is it?
Or the couple who went back to the prairie on NYE , where IB confessed i did it ..i did it...then i went too far, the female overhears this and leaves immediately as you would when you hear a suspect confessing to murder, they both left and year's later testified what went on that night, but they never mentioned that the day after that 'confession' they were both drinking with IB and JT in the pub again, would you??
It makes very interesting reading, a lot of the case was built on the personality of the main suspect, and the savage attacks he inflicted on his partner, but the Dpp report also says MF husband has been charged with assault multiple times, why was he never looked at ? On the whole I believe that IB was the convenient suspect, case closed, we have him no need to look anywhere else , witnesses coerced, evidence missing, its such a shame for Sophie and her family that the person who killed her will likely never be brought to justice

the point you make re the witness statements is very important. Firstly, regarding the time lapse between the murder and the taking the statements and secondly the context of the intentions of the Gardai taking the statements.

IE.Were the Gardai seeking the truth? Or were they seeking statements that could be used to support their belief that IB was the culprit? As is "confirmation bias" or "cognitive dissonance".

Lets say that, when interviewing that young Italian girl, she stated that she had seen a tub with some clothes soaking in it.

"Can you describe the clothes"?

"were they dark coloured"

"Could it have been a dark coat" etc etc.

Thereby leading the statement in the direction they choose. This was very apparent in Marie Farrell's case with the height of the man she says she saw and the way the interviewer manipulated what she said to fit their agenda.

So with a little bit of prompting and suggestion, "I saw clothes soaking in a tub" becomes "I saw a dark coat soaking in a tub" on the signed statement.

I detect this pattern throughout the witness evidence, in particular those concerned with Bailey's "admissions".

It is human nature, to a great extent, to seek confirmation of what you already believe, whilst closing your mind to that which conflicts with that belief.

MoonUnit75

Wildsurfer wrote: »

But you must remember Bailey was a journalist, it was his job to be snooping around. And he knew Alfie Lyons
who could have tipped him off about the murder

Why wouldn’t he mention this in his statements? It wouldn’t be a crime for Alfie Lyons to tell someone about a murder being discovered. Likewise, Alfie would have mentioned it too.

fryup

Caquas wrote: »

You mean the Gardai allowed their investigation into the most high-profile murder to collapse in order to protect a local man (now conveniently dead)?

This is an even bigger scandal than I imagined.

yep, its beginning to look that way when you analysis it...

probably a VIP in the local clique?
a high ranking guard? a wealthy businessman with political connections? some fella high up in the GAA?

EltonJohn69

fryup wrote: »

yep, its beginning to look that way when you analysis it...

probably a VIP in the local clique?
a high ranking guard? a wealthy businessman with political connections? some fella high up in the GAA?

I always suspected the GAA was in involved in the murder.

MoonUnit75

Weddings ahoy wrote: »

Please read the Dpp report its linked a few pages back, it page 146 i think, it has raised some interesting points for me and perhaps changed my opinion on a lot of this case,

It's clear to see why IB was never trialled in Ireland for this murder, and the incompetence of the Garda is shocking, also the finding that the star witnesses are at 'best wholly unreliable ' is a true description, most statements were taken by AGS much too late to be any way reliable, for instance the young girl staying in the prairie the next day wouldn't she have been a key witness 5/6 after murder not 2 years later when they took her statement, in the show she intimated it was a coat soaking in a tub, in NF book it was clothes soaking in tub, which is it?
Or the couple who went back to the prairie on NYE , where IB confessed i did it ..i did it...then i went too far, the female overhears this and leaves immediately as you would when you hear a suspect confessing to murder, they both left and year's later testified what went on that night, but they never mentioned that the day after that 'confession' they were both drinking with IB and JT in the pub again, would you??
It makes very interesting reading, a lot of the case was built on the personality of the main suspect, and the savage attacks he inflicted on his partner, but the Dpp report also says MF husband has been charged with assault multiple times, why was he never looked at ? On the whole I believe that IB was the convenient suspect, case closed, we have him no need to look anywhere else , witnesses coerced, evidence missing, its such a shame for Sophie and her family that the person who killed her will likely never be brought to justice

The DPP’s opinion on the witnesses was tested in the defamation case and the judge in that case did not agree with the DPP that practically every witness apart from Ian Bailey himself was unconvincing and unreliable.

The DPP report itself is a farce. After throwing out over a dozen witnesses as ‘dangerously unreliable’ etc. but whose testimony later stood up against cross examination in court, he suggests it was totally reasonable for Bailey, who had been drinking into the late night, to say he got out of bed to go to a cold, unheated studio to write an article. Bailey claimed he had to have it in the next day but lo and behold when he contacts the paper they tell him he still has another day to work on it. He places no weight on the false alibi previously given.

Polly701

I know very little about Alfie Lyons.. I know he has died since but Shirley is still alive.

They had disagreed about the gate. She was concerned about someone possibly staying in her house when she was away.. Had she talked to her closest neighbours Alfie and Shirley about this? Had they any thoughts on the matter?

She was concerned about drugs in the area.. Perhaps she was aware that Alfie used drugs? Or had people who used drugs coming through the open gate?

Apparently Alfie had said she complained about things a lot.. Perhaps this escalated at the gate on the morning in question?!

Bailey gave blood sample.. Did Alfie?

Gussie Scrotch

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

It amazes me how people an totally disregard so many witness statements and circumstances around the murder but one whiff of madcap conspiracy theories in the ranks or powers that be and they are all over it like a rash.

Well, I see your point but a dispassionate view on the way the Guards conducted themselves leads me to only two possible conclusions:

1) The entire investigation team was totally incompetent, unprofessional and incapable to the extent that heads should have rolled.

or

2) They were not incompetent and were trying to cover up/destroy evidence for some sinister reason.

Its hard to accept that such levels of hopeless ineptitude could exist within a trained, professional organisation but its also hard to accept that the Gardai would cover for a vicious murderer like this.

EmmetSpiceland

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

Well, I see your point but a dispassionate view on the way the Guards conducted themselves leads me to only two possible conclusions:

1) The entire investigation team was totally incompetent, unprofessional and incapable to the extent that heads should have rolled.

or

2) They were not incompetent and were trying to cover up/destroy evidence for some sinister reason.

Its hard to accept that such levels of hopeless ineptitude could exist within a trained, professional organisation but its also hard to accept that the Gardai would cover for a vicious murderer like this.

This is it. And because of this the main suspect can never be tried properly. Had the Gards taken a “by the book” approach Bailey may well have been convicted on witness statements and circumstantial evidence alone.

Instead, the gardaí acted like a bad guy in an 80s teen movie. Going out of their way to make things more complicated and, eventually, doing enough damage that no jury could convict Bailey due to, at best, incompetence or, at worst, corruption.

[Deleted User]

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

"Can you describe the clothes"?

"were they dark coloured"

"Could it have been a dark coat" etc etc.

So with a little bit of prompting and suggestion, "I saw clothes soaking in a tub" becomes "I saw a dark coat soaking in a tub" on the signed statement.

I still have not decided on who I think is guilty (although Bailey is an obnoxious man) but it did occur to me that getting a full length heavy woolen coat for a 6 foot man into an ordinary plastic/tin bucket to soak it in water would be some squeeze.

Weddings ahoy

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The DPP’s opinion on the witnesses was tested in the defamation case and the judge in that case did not agree with the DPP that practically every witness apart from Ian Bailey himself was unconvincing and unreliable.

The DPP report itself is a farce. After throwing out over a dozen witnesses as ‘dangerously unreliable’ etc. but whose testimony later stood up against cross examination in court, he suggests it was totally reasonable for Bailey, who had been drinking into the late night, to say he got out of bed to go to a cold, unheated studio to write an article. Bailey claimed he had to have it in the next day but lo and behold when he contacts the paper they tell him he still has another day to work on it. He places no weight on the false alibi previously given.

I agree IB did himself no favours in regards to Alibi, and his mannerisms turn of phrase whatever around the time of the murder are hugely suspicious to say the least, but the fact he so easily gave Dna, hair samples, and nothing forensically was ever found to link him to the murder is astonishing, especially as this was such a frenzied attack,

ShamNNspace

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

I always suspected the GAA was in involved in the murder.

On what basis?

Gussie Scrotch

Weddings ahoy wrote: »

I agree IB did himself no favours in regards to Alibi, and his mannerisms turn of phrase whatever around the time of the murder are hugely suspicious to say the least, but the fact he so easily gave Dna, hair samples, and nothing forensically was ever found to link him to the murder is astonishing, especially as this was such a frenzied attack,

Yes, Ian Bailey's mouth got him into a lot of trouble.

He has a big ego and wants to be the centre of attention all the time. Even if he has to shock to do so. To be crude about it, he's a prat.

namloc1980

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Why wouldn’t he mention this in his statements? It wouldn’t be a crime for Alfie Lyons to tell someone about a murder being discovered. Likewise, Alfie would have mentioned it too.

Bailey never said he heard it from Lyons. He said he got a phone call from Eddie Cassidy in the Cork Examiner that there had been a murder in Toormore, Dunmanus and the victim was a French lady. The incident was first broadcast on Cork local radio at 2pm news bulletin and even they knew that the victim was a French woman at that point. Bailey didn't arrive at the scene until around 2.30pm.

I mean, him being the local journalist and being at the scene of the biggest story in the area in 100 years is hardly incriminating. It's even less incriminating in that he arrived after a journalist in Cork knew about it and phoned Bailey to get over there, and after it had been broadcast on the news on local radio at 2pm. Bailey said that Eddie Cassidy told him where it had happened and it was a French lady. Didn't need to be a genius to work out who it might be especially as Bailey said he knew of Sophie and that she lived in Toormore next door to Alfie's house (which be knew exactly where that was as he'd been there before). Eddie Cassidy corroborates Baileys version.

odyssey06

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

It amazes me how people an totally disregard so many witness statements and circumstances around the murder but one whiff of madcap conspiracy theories in the ranks or powers that be and they are all over it like a rash.

Why would pages have been ripped from the evidence book relating to the witness statements and how Bailey was identified as a suspect?

Why was MF pressured by AGS to say she saw Bailey when she didnt and originally identified someone of a different description?

This what a miscarriage of justice looks lke.

[Deleted User]

odyssey06 wrote: »

Why would pages have been ripped from the evidence book relating go the witness statements and how Bailey was identified as a witness?

Why was MF pressured by AGS to say she saw Bailey when she didnt and originally identified someone of a different description?

This what a miscarriage of justice looks lke.

And losing a gate.

Gussie Scrotch

odyssey06 wrote: »

Why would pages have been ripped from the evidence book relating go the witness statements and how Bailey was identified as a witness?

Why was MF pressured by AGS to say she saw Bailey when she didnt and originally identified someone of a different description?

This what a miscarriage of justice looks lke.

yes, another good point, whilst there are aspects of the Garda performance which can be "accepted" as mistakes or oversights or even carelessness, the removal of pages from the book of evidence could only be deliberate.

thecretinhop

how has the guards not been checked on this. is it the case of yeah sorry bout that like wtf?

[Deleted User]

namloc1980 wrote: »

Bailey never said he heard it from Lyons. He said he got a phone call from Eddie Cassidy in the Cork Examiner that there had been a murder in Toormore, Dunmanus and the victim was a French lady. The incident was first broadcast on Cork local radio at 2pm news bulletin and even they knew that the victim was a French woman at that point. Bailey didn't arrive at the scene until around 2.30pm.

I mean, him being the local journalist and being at the scene of the biggest story in the area in 100 years is hardly incriminating. It's even less incriminating in that he arrived after a journalist in Cork knew about it and phoned Bailey to get over there, and after it had been broadcast on the news on local radio at 2pm. Bailey said that Eddie Cassidy told him where it had happened and it was a French lady. Didn't need to be a genius to work out who it might be especially as Bailey said he knew of Sophie and that she lived in Toormore next door to Alfie's house (which be knew exactly where that was as he'd been there before). Eddie Cassidy corroborates Baileys version.

He doesn't. Cassidy claime he did not tell Bailey the victim was French or that it was a murder and that he thought it might be a hit and run. But Cassidy is discredited in The DPP report claiming he didn't phone people phone records show he did

frosty123

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

I always suspected the GAA was in involved in the murder.

Tongue in cheek comment?

MoonUnit75

Weddings ahoy wrote: »

I agree IB did himself no favours in regards to Alibi, and his mannerisms turn of phrase whatever around the time of the murder are hugely suspicious to say the least, but the fact he so easily gave Dna, hair samples, and nothing forensically was ever found to link him to the murder is astonishing, especially as this was such a frenzied attack,

The case in Dublin around the same time was solved because the perpetrator willingly offered a DNA sample. I suppose if you weigh it up, it’s a toss-up. If you refuse, that makes you more suspicious and the gardai might have you arrested so a sample can be taken. If you offer willingly and your DNA isn’t detected at the scene you are off the hook. It’s actually quite hard to leave DNA on a scene, especially back in those days before low-copy number and other techniques were perfected. Unless you left semen on the body or clothes it’s quite likely you wouldn’t be detected even if you did commit the crime.

namloc1980

SoulWriter wrote: »

He doesn't. Cassidy claime he did not tell Bailey the victim was French or that it was a murder and that he thought it might be a hit and run. But Cassidy is discredited in The DPP report claiming he didn't phone people phone records show he did

Sorry you're right on that. But the DPP report clearly shows Cassidy must've known all of the details and that his classics that he didn't ring certain people are false as phone records, as you say, show he did. C103FM news broadcast at 2pm that the victim was a French lady and their knowledge of that is traced back to Cassidy by the DPP (even though Cassidy claims otherwise).

notahappycamper

The GSOC report discredits MF’s claim that she signed a blank statement. They tested the the pages and found no evidence to corroborate her claim - surprise, surprise. I do want to know why some Gardai did not wish to be involved if they had nothing to hide? Also, the report mentions a “key witness” who is in the UK who did agree to meet them but failed to provide a statement.

MoonUnit75

odyssey06 wrote: »

Why would pages have been ripped from the evidence book relating to the witness statements and how Bailey was identified as a suspect?

Possibly the same reason freedom of information requests sometimes have certain parts redacted. If these statements were from people saying ‘I really think George my neighbour did it, he’s the type who would smash a woman’s head in with a concrete block’ or ‘my sister is having an affair with a journalist in the local paper and she heard x, y and z’, you can imagine lots of reasons the gardai might feel it’s wise to redact statements that are of no real relevance to the case. This is particularly the case if they have active informants or informants who would be associated with drug gangs etc. where the source of the information is extremely sensitive.

Why was MF pressured by AGS to say she saw Bailey when she didnt and originally identified someone of a different description?

She said at the time she wasn’t pressured and the Bandon tapes also show she wasn’t pressured by them. It seems to be the exact opposite in fact, she seems to have been using her power as a witness to get herself and family members off driving offences and other possible charges. She changed sides to being Bailey’s star witness and came out with ludicrous stories about detectives, starting exactly on the day she was caught driving with no insurance. She sent Bailey’s solicitor a letter that day saying she would retract all her previous statements.

[Deleted User]

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Possibly the same reason freedom of information requests sometimes have certain parts redacted. If these statements were from people saying ‘I really think George my neighbour did it, he’s the type who would smash a woman’s head in with a concrete block’ or ‘my sister is having an affair with a journalist in the local paper and she heard x, y and z’, you can imagine lots of reasons the gardai might feel it’s wise to redact statements that are of no real relevance to the case. This is particularly the case if they have active informants or informants who would be associated wit drug gangs etc. where the source of the information is extremely sensitive.

An FOI Request is not the same as a GSOC investigation though. Anyone can make an FOI Request. Just anyone would not see the garda books so the sources would be protected

[Deleted User]

namloc1980 wrote: »

Sorry you're right on that. But the DPP report clearly shows Cassidy must've known all of the details and that his classics that he didn't ring certain people are false as phone records, as you say, show he did. C103FM news broadcast at 2pm that the victim was a French lady and their knowledge of that is traced back to Cassidy by the DPP (even though Cassidy claims otherwise).

Cassidy was shown to be extremley untrustworthy