Murder at the Cottage | Sky

SoulWriter wrote: »

Gardai used the papers to that end

Yes, they did.

odyssey06

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Maybe his height isn’t as apparent from the counter of a shop across the street or as you speed past in a car. Unless there was someone beside him you knew and had a reference of I think it would be easy to substantially over or underestimate height.

Which really should give you pause about relying on 'eye witness' testimony for accurate descriptions of suspects where the person is someone they just noticed in passing.
They are notorious for getting it wrong.

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

It’s not like she said ‘I looked over and there was a man who was 5’ 8”’ they had to repeatedly ask her to estimate a figure and she plucked one off the top of her head. She said he was probably as tall as her husband, she obviously wasn’t familiar with the imperial measure.

Thats my point though (and a point made by others), we agree with you, she didn't say "he looked 5'8", I would expect a lot of people to have no idea what 5'8 looks like, I wouldn't argue with that, she said "he looked about the size of my husband" though.....who is (was)...5'8, she made a comparison to someone who's height she was obviously very familiar with...

This really shouldn't be so difficult to grasp....anyway, it's getting very silly now

Table Top Joe wrote: »

I have no idea how many times she saw him (or if she even did) but trust me, his size isn't as apparent in photos and the documentaries, this is a very big fella, like fill up the doorway big..... I will never accept that someone could mistake his size for 5'8 even from the bloody moon, its ridiculous

Maybe his height isn’t as apparent from the counter of a shop across the street or as you speed past in a car. Unless there was someone beside him you knew and had a reference of I think it would be easy to substantially over or underestimate height.

Table Top Joe wrote: »

I have no idea how many times she saw him (or if she even did) but trust me, his size isn't as apparent in photos and the documentaries, this is a very big fella, like fill up the doorway big..... I will never accept that someone could mistake his size for 5'8 even from the bloody moon, its ridiculous

She said she couldn’t put his size down as a figure, she had no idea. She’s not a carpenter or a dress maker and was pressed by the gardai to give a figure they could write down. It’s not like she said ‘I looked over and there was a man who was 5’ 8”’ they had to repeatedly ask her to estimate a figure and she plucked one off the top of her head. She said he was probably as tall as her husband, she obviously wasn’t familiar with the imperial measure.

odyssey06

chicorytip wrote: »

Do you have any theories as to who - apart from Bailey - might have been the killer and the reason she was killed?

I don't, and unfortunately much evidence has been 'lost' that could have led to further forensic analysis.
Bailey has said that re-analysis of a blood found on Sophie's boot was done in 2011 by an outside expert called by in AGS. It found DNA of an unidentified male. I am hoping more information will come to light about that - was the DNA of such poor quality it could only identify the gender of the person?
I don't know what his source is for that.

I'd be curious whether her phone records were analysed from Ireland and France to see who she was in contact with?

She seemed to have concerns someone had been in the holiday home or using the holiday home while she wasn't there.

chicorytip

odyssey06 wrote: »

GSOC are a joke. No disrespect to the individuals there but they are toothless.

The DPP knew this was a frame up job.

Do you have any theories as to who - apart from Bailey - might have been the killer and the reason she was killed?

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

With respect MoonUnit, your scraping the bottom of the barell there.

With respect to MoonUnit,
he has taken the bottom out of the barrel and is two feet down in the earth

SoulWriter wrote: »

when did she drive past him twice? in at least one of her statements she said she passed by kilfeada bridge, I think, three times that night [she was driving around with the mystery man] but only saw the 'Bailey' person one time

I have no idea how many times she saw him (or if she even did) but trust me, his size isn't as apparent in photos and the documentaries, this is a very big fella, like fill up the doorway big..... I will never accept that someone could mistake his size for 5'8 even from the bloody moon, its ridiculous

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

I think you're missing the point here MoonUnit.

I used the example of Marie as an example of manipulative interview techniques.

Marie didn't judge his height in feet ands inches. She said he was "about the same height as Chris" I think she would probably have had a good idea of Chris's height.

The wider issue is the obvious pattern, seen through immediately by the DPP, of interviews taken long after the event, stating precise times , which could not be relied upon and which unless they were accurate to within a very small margin of error, did not support the case.

The DPP are experts in these matters, every book of evidence relating to indictable offences come under their scrutiny. Recognising the fact the the case as presented by the Garda depended almost entirely on people's memory, and knowing that such memory is not reliable and becomes increasing unreliable over time, they quite rightly sent it back. Better than anyone, the DPP know a contrived case when they see one and their report is clear on this:

"once Ian Bailey was believed by the public to be responsible for the murder the fear thereby engendered created a climate in which witnesses became suggestible"

"it is difficult exercise for any person to recall with precision the timing and location of ordinary matters even after a very short time"

"Detective Fitzgerald took a statement from Michael Oliver on 10 February 1998 on which date Oliver was awaiting sentence on a serious harm conviction.
The statement flatly contradicts a questionnaire completed by Oliver a year earlier. This questionnaire was not volunteered by the Gardaí – it had to be sought. It could certainly be argued that Oliver in an attempt to avoid a heavy sentence was anxious to please the Gardaí at the time of making the statement on 10 February 1998."

"the distressed Paul O’Colmain may also have been anxious to please the Gardaí in view of the drug difficulties relating to his son."

"Based on the above conversation and on the allegation by Martin Graham that he was given Hash by the Gardaí, despite D/Gda. Fitzgerald’s denial, the balance of evidence suggests that Graham is telling the truth. Such investigative practices are clearly unsafe to say the least."

"It is abundantly clear that Malachi Reed was not upset by Ian Bailey on 4 February 1997, however, following his conversation with Gda. Kelleher he became upset and turned a conversation which had not apparently up until then alarmed him into something sinister."

"it is a fair inference that such comments were characteristic of the approach of at least some of the Gardaí. Such comments seem to have been intended to elicit a particular response from witnesses who are in effect exhorted to take a particular line in order to avoid further loss of life."

"once Ian Bailey was believed by the public to be responsible for the murder the fear thereby engendered created a climate in which witnesses became suggestible"

Gardai used the papers to that end

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

It’s not evidence of a cover up in the murder case, it may be to prevent sensitive tip-offs that turned out to be false getting into the public domain. It’s a small world down there.

With respect MoonUnit, your scraping the bottom of the barell there.

namloc1980 wrote: »

Nobody ever saw these photos and there is no evidence they exist, so how could McSweeney know that?

And now we have Bailey crawling around the countryside with a massive telephoto lens? :pac: No evidence of course.

nothing about bushes in the DPP report. It does mention McSweeney

Table Top Joe wrote: »

The woman has lied through her teeth for decades but you find it plausible that she confused a 6'3 man with a 5'8 one?

As stated before, Ive seen the man in the flesh, there is no way you could mistake him for an average sized man, as well as being very tall he has a very big frame, you would have to be on drugs or about 15 pints to get his size so wrong.

when did she drive past him twice? in at least one of her statements she said she passed by kilfeada bridge, I think, three times that night [she was driving around with the mystery man] but only saw the 'Bailey' person one time

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Lots of people are bad at putting figures on someone’s height from a distance, especially without a good reference point. They added scales to lots of shop doors so they can get a better idea of the height of a suspect than what Janice behind the deli could estimate.

I think you're missing the point here MoonUnit.

I used the example of Marie as an example of manipulative interview techniques.

Marie didn't judge his height in feet ands inches. She said he was "about the same height as Chris" I think she would probably have had a good idea of Chris's height.

The wider issue is the obvious pattern, seen through immediately by the DPP, of interviews taken long after the event, stating precise times , which could not be relied upon and which unless they were accurate to within a very small margin of error, did not support the case.

The DPP are experts in these matters, every book of evidence relating to indictable offences come under their scrutiny. Recognising the fact the the case as presented by the Garda depended almost entirely on people's memory, and knowing that such memory is not reliable and becomes increasing unreliable over time, they quite rightly sent it back. Better than anyone, the DPP know a contrived case when they see one and their report is clear on this:

"once Ian Bailey was believed by the public to be responsible for the murder the fear thereby engendered created a climate in which witnesses became suggestible"

"it is difficult exercise for any person to recall with precision the timing and location of ordinary matters even after a very short time"

"Detective Fitzgerald took a statement from Michael Oliver on 10 February 1998 on which date Oliver was awaiting sentence on a serious harm conviction.
The statement flatly contradicts a questionnaire completed by Oliver a year earlier. This questionnaire was not volunteered by the Gardaí – it had to be sought. It could certainly be argued that Oliver in an attempt to avoid a heavy sentence was anxious to please the Gardaí at the time of making the statement on 10 February 1998."

"the distressed Paul O’Colmain may also have been anxious to please the Gardaí in view of the drug difficulties relating to his son."

"Based on the above conversation and on the allegation by Martin Graham that he was given Hash by the Gardaí, despite D/Gda. Fitzgerald’s denial, the balance of evidence suggests that Graham is telling the truth. Such investigative practices are clearly unsafe to say the least."

"It is abundantly clear that Malachi Reed was not upset by Ian Bailey on 4 February 1997, however, following his conversation with Gda. Kelleher he became upset and turned a conversation which had not apparently up until then alarmed him into something sinister."

"it is a fair inference that such comments were characteristic of the approach of at least some of the Gardaí. Such comments seem to have been intended to elicit a particular response from witnesses who are in effect exhorted to take a particular line in order to avoid further loss of life."

namloc1980

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

How many gardai are there in the Schull station on any particular day, 2, 3? This was just an hour or so after the murder was reported, it would be easy in that rough and heavily overgrown landscape to get photos from a ridge with a long lens without being spotted by 2 or 3 local gardai who are the first to attend a grisly murder scene. They hardly were standing there saying ‘right, you check the house, I’ll check the body and Paddy, you scope the hills for photographers’. McSweeney said the photos were taken through bushes remember.

Nobody ever saw these photos and there is no evidence they exist, so how could McSweeney know that?

And now we have Bailey crawling around the countryside with a massive telephoto lens? :pac: No evidence of course.

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

MF says she saw him three times, once from across the road while she was in her shop and twice more as she drove past him. She didn’t stand anywhere near him and saw him briefly on each occasion. If there was no one else standing beside him I think it’s entirely possible a wild guess attempt, which MF admitted it was, could be substantially out.

The woman has lied through her teeth for decades but you find it plausible that she confused a 6'3 man with a 5'8 one?

As stated before, Ive seen the man in the flesh, there is no way you could mistake him for an average sized man, as well as being very tall he has a very big frame, you would have to be on drugs or about 15 pints to get his size so wrong.

Caquas wrote: »

Bailey is 6’ 3”. Everyone who described him during the Netflix documentary said he was “imposing” or “towering” or similar. But MF said her man was 5’10”, a vast difference.

If I was on a jury, I’d give bonus points for creativity to the Gardai for suggesting the drop to the pavement to explain away the glaring inconsistency but I would know that whoever MF saw that day was not Ian Bailey.

MF says she saw him three times, once from across the road while she was in her shop and twice more as she drove past him. She didn’t stand anywhere near him and saw him briefly on each occasion. If there was no one else standing beside him I think it’s entirely possible a wild guess attempt, which MF admitted it was, could be substantially out.

Treppen wrote: »

Who knows if she even did see someone

I don't think even MF knows if she really did see someone that day at this stage.....

Treppen

Caquas wrote: »

Bailey is 6’ 3”. Everyone who described him during the Netflix documentary said he was “imposing” or “towering” or similar. But MF said her man was 5’10”, a vast difference.

If I was on a jury, I’d give bonus points for creativity to the Gardai for suggesting the drop to the pavement to explain away the glaring inconsistency but I would know that whoever MF saw that day was not Ian Bailey.

Who knows if she even did see someone

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Lots of people are bad at putting figures on someone’s height from a distance, especially without a good reference point.

As a Cork man I have seen Bailey a few times in the city, right up close and from a distance, the man is huge, there is no way on earth, under any circumstances he could be mistaken for an average sized, 5'8 man, its a ludicrous suggestion to say she could have gotten his height that wrong if she really saw him

Caquas

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Lots of people are bad at putting figures on someone’s height from a distance, especially without a good reference point. They added scales to lots of shop doors so they can get a better idea of the height of a suspect than what Janice behind the deli could estimate.

Bailey is 6’ 3”. Everyone who described him during the Netflix documentary said he was “imposing” or “towering” or similar. But MF said her man was 5’10”, a vast difference.

If I was on a jury, I’d give bonus points for creativity to the Gardai for suggesting the drop to the pavement to explain away the glaring inconsistency but I would know that whoever MF saw that day was not Ian Bailey.

monkeybutter

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

How many gardai are there in the Schull station on any particular day, 2, 3? This was just an hour or so after the murder was reported, it would be easy in that rough and heavily overgrown landscape to get photos from a ridge with a long lens without being spotted by 2 or 3 local gardai who are the first to attend a grisly murder scene. They hardly were standing there saying ‘right, you check the house, I’ll check the body and Paddy, you scope the hills for photographers’. McSweeney said the photos were taken through bushes remember.

Where are the photos so? I mean the body was found early l, how early were they taken, the police were up less than an hour after finding the body

patobrien12

Netflix has completly changed my opinion. Murder in the cottage leaves out so much.

Why did murder in the cottage not include the fact that Marie Farrell was made give the identity of her lover that was apparently in the car when she saw the supposed killer. But the man was made up??? according to Netflix.

This women cant be trusted and it is the main reason I thought Ian Bailey was innocent after Jim Sheridans one.

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The pages were removed before it reached the DPP as far as I know, this was years before GSOC were established and the DPP doesn’t investigate Garda procedures as far as I know. It’s more likely the information was irrelevant or contained allegations of a sensitive nature about people unrelated to the case that were later shown to be false. He only noted some pages were missing.

then it is smething the gardai didn't want the DPP to see and it was denied to GSOC too

It’s more likely the information was irrelevant or contained allegations of a sensitive nature about people unrelated to the case that were later shown to be false

DPP is not a threat in that case they would not divulge it. highly suspect hiding pages from DPP. The dpp is well capable of discerning if something is false and or should be prosecuted

SoulWriter wrote: »

It is evidence of corruption in the murder case.Removing page when GSOC are going to investigate. Probably some info that showed Bailey innocent

could apply to the pages left

The pages were removed before it reached the DPP as far as I know, this was years before GSOC were established and the DPP doesn’t investigate Garda procedures as far as I know. It’s more likely the information was irrelevant or contained allegations of a sensitive nature about people unrelated to the case that were later shown to be false. He only noted some pages were missing.

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

This is true of most of the "incriminating statements"

After five months , even one month, after an event, memory is not reliable to the extent of remembering things to the exact minute.

However, if the questioning is framed in a certain way, an experienced interviewer can use subtle prompting and suggestive rhetoric to lead an interviewee to the required point.

Marie Farrell initially said that the man she saw on Main street, watching Sophie in her shop, was about the same height as her husband 5'8". the guard interviewing her asked her to think carefully...bear in mind that her side of the street was a little higher than the side the subject was standing....could be be wrong etc etc. Bailey is 6'2".

This was the "same man she saw at Kealfada.

Lots of people are bad at putting figures on someone’s height from a distance, especially without a good reference point. They added scales to lots of shop doors so they can get a better idea of the height of a suspect than what Janice behind the deli could estimate.

namloc1980 wrote: »

The DPP disregarded Beirne's statement as it didn't really tally with what anyone else said. His statement was also 5 months after the murder so his ability to recall precise details is questionable.

This is true of most of the "incriminating statements"

After five months , even one month, after an event, memory is not reliable to the extent of remembering things to the exact minute.

However, if the questioning is framed in a certain way, an experienced interviewer can use subtle prompting and suggestive rhetoric to lead an interviewee to the required point.

Marie Farrell initially said that the man she saw on Main street, watching Sophie in her shop, was about the same height as her husband 5'8". the guard interviewing her asked her to think carefully...bear in mind that her side of the street was a little higher than the side the subject was standing....could be be wrong etc etc. Bailey is 6'2".

This was the "same man she saw at Kealfada.

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

It’s not evidence of a cover up in the murder case, it may be to prevent sensitive tip-offs that turned out to be false getting into the public domain. It’s a small world down there.

It is evidence of corruption in the murder case.Removing page when GSOC are going to investigate. Probably some info that showed Bailey innocent

It’s a small world down there.

could apply to the pages left

Wompa1

namloc1980 wrote: »

Jules and Bailey said it was his shorts that were in a bucket outside the back of the house because they had blood on them from the turkeys. There's nothing to refute that. The Italian students testimony that it was his black coat (heavy woolen coat) is frankly incredulous.

What was he doing with shorts in West Cork in December while butchering Turkeys? He was hardly wearing them....