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

Loafing Oaf

john123470 wrote: »

Sophie "complained about drug use"
- was this referring to Alfie's being a pothouse and because of their rowing, she was trying to make some trouble for him ?

I mean what happened in Alfie's house should not have really bothered her.

Yes I would be surprised someone from her artistic background would be seriously upset about a bit of weed use in her neighbourhood.

Mackwiss

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

To me this is virtually a slam dunk against the hired gun theory (or anyone thinking even semi-rationally really). The hitman's number one priority (even beyond getting the job done) is always to get in and out without incriminating themselves or their client. Even dragging the body behind a ditch could easily have given the killer a few days grace before the alarm was raised.

Hitman would have a number of other ways to do the deed. The afternoon in Three Castles Head just do it there and throw her off a cliff and no one will ever know it was a hit.

Passionate french lover obsessed with her (Bruno Carbonet which alibi apparently was one receipt) and knew the place of being there with her?

Or... MF's companion on that night just by her continuous lying always moving the case in a different course

odyssey06

Mackwiss wrote: »

Passionate french lover obsessed with her (Bruno Carbonet which alibi apparently was one receipt) and knew the place of being there with her?

That's a pretty weak alibi isn't it?
Whatever about someone living alone not having witnesses to where they were overnight or for a day ... for the the amount of time it would take to get to Cork and back at Christmas - no witnesses to corroborate that alibi?

J2CVC

There's no doubt he's a weird dude. And beating Jules is unforgiveable.

But watching him getting shouted at at the market and seeing him drinking his way through it all - I just really hope he did it. He's had 25 years of this.

And I really hope Jules wasn't hiding anything. I feel very sorry for her.

[Deleted User]

J2CVC wrote: »

There's no doubt he's a weird dude. And beating Jules is unforgiveable.

But watching him getting shouted at at the market and seeing him drinking his way through it all - I just really hope he did it. He's had 25 years of this.

And I really hope Jules wasn't hiding anything. I feel very sorry for her.

Funny enough the more of her I see in the episodes the less I believe her.

And at one point she said when the guards arrested Ian first time it was so shocking it was as if the guards were 'acting'. Which is exactly what I was beginning to think about her.

john123470

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I don’t get the thinking here.

Could it be the husband? Despite being divorced a couple of times he decided hiring a hitman and a possible conspiracy to murder charge was his best option on this occasion.

Could it be Alfie? They had a dispute about a gate being left open.

Could it be Bailey? Nah, he’s only been known to hospitalise a woman a few times after extremely violent and unpredictable outbursts, lived close to the victim and knew her to see, gave a false alibi and then a ridiculous reason for leaving in the middle of the night after a fill of pints, told several people he had done it, knew a concerning amount of detail very quickly and wrote some articles anonymously even though he was trying to resurrect his career, had scratches on his arms and one on his face which his partner said wasn’t there when he was going to bed, stopped to ‘admire the view’ on his way home from the pub on a hill from which you can see the murder scene and told his partner there appeared to be a light on in her neighbours house, suggested he might go over to Alfie, cancelled a couple of appointments the next morning before he should have known, appears to have been watching who the gardai were talking to and visiting them afterwards to ask what the gardai wanted to know about him, told journalists he had photos of the murder scene before he was supposed to have known about it, had a statement made that he had wanted photos developed while he watched and the person developing them claimed to have seen the body of a woman in the photos etc. etc.

Options 1 and 2 obviously are far more persuasive!

Yes indeed

IB is such an odd ball tho (violent and unpredictable too, yes) .. he thrives on attention .. even as a murder suspect. Playing it up ... smtimes seeming to invite suspicion just to keep the attention alive.
None of the locals in the Netflix docu had a good word to say about him

If it was IB, what were they doing at the gate ..he would have called to her house surely ? It's quite a stretch from house to gate

Saying all that, he may well be the man

Then there are the other oddballs to complicate matters. MF and her ever changing stories.
Are she and IB trying to outdo each other for attention

Inspector Clouseau and his team

And Alfie - who did live closest to her and had a running dispute with the woman.
They really did not like each other

Gussie Scrotch

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I don’t get the thinking here.

Could it be the husband? Despite being divorced a couple of times he decided hiring a hitman and a possible conspiracy to murder charge was his best option on this occasion.

Could it be Alfie? They had a dispute about a gate being left open.

Could it be Bailey? Nah, he’s only been known to hospitalise a woman a few times after extremely violent and unpredictable outbursts, lived close to the victim and knew her to see, gave a false alibi and then a ridiculous reason for leaving in the middle of the night after a fill of pints, told several people he had done it, knew a concerning amount of detail very quickly and wrote some articles anonymously even though he was trying to resurrect his career, had scratches on his arms and one on his face which his partner said wasn’t there when he was going to bed, stopped to ‘admire the view’ on his way home from the pub on a hill from which you can see the murder scene and told his partner there appeared to be a light on in her neighbours house, suggested he might go over to Alfie, cancelled a couple of appointments the next morning before he should have known, appears to have been watching who the gardai were talking to and visiting them afterwards to ask what the gardai wanted to know about him, told journalists he had photos of the murder scene before he was supposed to have known about it, had a statement made that he had wanted photos developed while he watched and the person developing them claimed to have seen the body of a woman in the photos etc. etc.

Options 1 and 2 obviously are far more persuasive!

OK, I'll explain my thinking.

1) I think that whoever did it had a motive. First and foremost, I see the husband as having a motive. I see Alfie has having a possible motive. I see Bailey as having no motive. So I regard those with a motive as being more likely to do something like this

2) Alfie and Shirley were there at the time of the death. That is certain. There is no evidence of anyone else being present. So I regard anyone definitely present at the time of the attack to be more likely to have done it than anyone not known to be there.

3) I believe from what is known about the scene, that the attack occurred in the morning after Sophie had got up and while she was having breakfast.

4) If it did happen at that time. Bailey couldn't have done it.

5) Finally, I find it inexplicable that, despite the ferocity and apparent duration of the attack, nobody will admit to hearing anything. If Alfie did do it then this explains that anomaly because If anyone else had done it I would expect either Alfie or Shirley to have heard or seen something.

So I think the explanation that would fit all the known facts, is the Alfie theory.

And it is, of course, just a theory.

Yyhhuuu

Please forgive me if answered already, but is this series available on you tube. I did watch one episode on you tube?

Ultimate Gowlbag

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

OK, I'll explain my thinking.

1) I think that whoever did it had a motive. First and foremost, I see the husband as having a motive. I see Alfie has having a possible motive. I see Bailey as having no motive. So I regard those with a motive as being more likely to do something like this

2) Alfie and Shirley were there at the time of the death. That is certain. There is no evidence of anyone else being present. So I regard anyone definitely present at the time of the attack to be more likely to have done it than anyone not known to be there.

3) I believe from what is known about the scene, that the attack occurred in the morning after Sophie had got up and while she was having breakfast.

4) If it did happen at that time. Bailey couldn't have done it.

5) Finally, I find it inexplicable that, despite the ferocity and apparent duration of the attack, nobody will admit to hearing anything. If Alfie did do it then this explains that anomaly because If anyone else had done it I would expect either Alfie or Shirley to have heard or seen something.

So I think the explanation that would fit all the known facts, is the Alfie theory.

And it is, of course, just a theory.

The Alfie theory was put to bed earlier the thread for me....actually a lot of theories were,just a lot of rehashing going now!

Gussie Scrotch

Ultimate Gowlbag wrote: »

The Alfie theory was put to bed earlier the thread for me....actually a lot of theories were,just a lot of rehashing going now!

True, but that's the way these things always go...a bit circular in the end.

threeball

monkeybutter wrote: »

Thanks for posting

That article was of the usual standard of guff you'd expect from the info

He has no idea nothing to add other than his predjudice

One line in it stood out to me. I didnt hear about the gate being swung at her head to finish her off. If that's true it really re-enforces my suspicions around AB and the possibility of her confronting him about the gate. What more fitting way to complete a fit of rage than to use the implement the row was about. It also fits the timeline of death with the breakfast contents in her stomach and walking down to the gate in early morning rather than in the middle of the night. Is there any connection between MF and AB where she might lie to divert attention from him?

john123470

threeball wrote: »

One line in it stood out to me. I didnt hear about the gate being swung at her head to finish her off. If that's true it really re-enforces my suspicions around AB and the possibility of her confronting him about the gate. What more fitting way to complete a fit of rage than to use the implement the row was about. It also fits the timeline of death with the breakfast contents in her stomach and walking down to the gate in early morning rather than in the middle of the night. Is there any connection between MF and AB where she might lie to divert attention from him?

She owed him for weed

TheW1zard

After watching the series I cant decide.

EmmetSpiceland

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

5) Finally, I find it inexplicable that, despite the ferocity and apparent duration of the attack, nobody will admit to hearing anything. If Alfie did do it then this explains that anomaly because If anyone else had done it I would expect either Alfie or Shirley to have heard or seen something.

I dunno, the attack could have happened suddenly giving the victim no chance to cry out. At least not to a level required to be heard by the neighbours.

odyssey06

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

OK, I'll explain my thinking.
4) If it did happen at that time. Bailey couldn't have done it.

Can you expand on that - what are the times it is certain Bailey couldn't have done it?

threeball

The only possible reason I could see IB killing her for are

a. He wanted to get his leg over and she told him to take a hike. This seems an unlikely thing to walk 4km with a hard on and end up killing someone after getting rejected.

Or

B. He was struggling to make ends meet and he needed a story to put him front and centre. This also appears unlikely as he was writing articles for numerous papers and lived a pretty modest life.

Very few murders happen without motive and I dont see another one for IB outside these two.

Mam of 4

I don't think Jules would have covered up for IB for all these years if she thought he'd done it .
What better way to get rid of your abusive , violent partner than to tell the Guards yes , he did it , he told me x,y,z . They so wanted it to be him that there's no way he'd have been released from custody .
In fairness , even if she thought he did not do it , she still could have told them that and ended up free from him .

Gussie Scrotch

odyssey06 wrote: »

Can you expand on that - what are the times it is certain Bailey couldn't have done it?

I think it was daylight when Sophie went down to the gate, hence no lights on in the house. Sunrise in west Cork in Late December approx 08.50.

Jules Thomas said IB brought her coffee in bed at 09.00.

If all the above is correct, he couldn't have been there at the time of death.

Gussie Scrotch

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

I dunno, the attack could have happened suddenly giving the victim no chance to cry out. At least not to a level required to be heard by the neighbours.

Yes, that's possible. But from the number and severity of the cuts and bruises it would suggest a prolonged attack and I'm pretty sure she would have been screaming throughout. The neighbours were less than 100 yards away and it was a clear, cold still morning.

Heat_Wave

Does anyone have a link for Irish viewers to watch this back?

[Deleted User]

Mam of 4 wrote: »

I don't think Jules would have covered up for IB for all these years if she thought he'd done it .
What better way to get rid of your abusive , violent partner than to tell the Guards yes , he did it , he told me x,y,z . They so wanted it to be him that there's no way he'd have been released from custody .
In fairness , even if she thought he did not do it , she still could have told them that and ended up free from him .

I agree, is there any chance she drove around looking for him in the morning, went to Alfie's and something kicked off at the gate, unlikely she'd be able to keep to herself this long if she'd witnessed anything I suppose.

MF is very interesting, her whole story is ridiculous and instead of implicating IB it does the total opposite imo. If they hadn't set her up to give a false statement the case against IB would be much stronger imo.
I don't believe she saw anyone on the street or by the bridge, I wouldn't even believe that Sophie was definitely in her shop.

dublin49

moonunit 75 says IB had scratches the morning after that Jules says werent there the previous evening.Is this accepted as I knew abouT the scratches but never heard that Jules had said they were not there the evening before the murder

EdHoven

Ultimate Gowlbag wrote: »

The Alfie theory was put to bed earlier the thread for me....actually a lot of theories were,just a lot of rehashing going now!

Without reading the whole thread apart from a mutual alibi with his partner why is he discounted?
It seems coincidental to me the house is up for sale just at the moment a spotlight is shone on events and his death isn't mentioned anywhere but in that one article. Nothing on Rip.ie
From the pics online it looks like the house has been cleared of furniture and thoroughly cleaned.
I wonder did he ever give DNA and if his body was cremated.
Personally I think the husband was behind it but the disappearing neighbour makes me curious.

dark crystal

dublin49 wrote: »

moonunit 75 says IB had scratches the morning after that Jules says werent there the previous evening.Is this accepted as I knew abouT the scratches but never heard that Jules had said they were not there the evening before the murder

Yeah, not sure that's right. Bailey said that the weekend of December 21-23rd, he killed turkeys in the shed. I assume this was corroborated by his partner and her children? He says it wasn't a deep cut, just a 'nick' around his hairline. Perhaps Jules didn't even notice it until it was pointed out, although I can't remember for sure when she said she noticed it.

The scratches on his hand were, he says, from cutting a tree on December 22nd, which was corroborated by Saffron Thomas, who accompanied him.

fin12

Mam of 4 wrote: »

I don't think Jules would have covered up for IB for all these years if she thought he'd done it .
What better way to get rid of your abusive , violent partner than to tell the Guards yes , he did it , he told me x,y,z . They so wanted it to be him that there's no way he'd have been released from custody .
In fairness , even if she thought he did not do it , she still could have told them that and ended up free from him .

Or she’s terrified he will kill her , wouldn’t u be ?

Ultimate Gowlbag

EdHoven wrote: »

Without reading the whole thread apart from a mutual alibi with his partner why is he discounted?
It seems coincidental to me the house is up for sale just at the moment a spotlight is shone on events and his death isn't mentioned anywhere but in that one article. Nothing on Rip.ie
From the pics online it looks like the house has been cleared of furniture and thoroughly cleaned.
I wonder did he ever give DNA and if his body was cremated.
Personally I think the husband was behind it but the disappearing neighbour makes me curious.

Someone who knew Alfie posted about him and why it would be a stretch for him to do it....you should try readin the first 50 odd pages if you can get around to it,alot more information there than the last 50.

Ultimate Gowlbag

fin12 wrote: »

Or she’s terrified he will kill her , wouldn’t u be ?

She's so terrified that she has kicked him out?

Mam of 4

fin12 wrote: »

Or she’s terrified he will kill her , wouldn’t u be ?

Yes I would be , but the point I was making was if the Guards seemed to want it to be him (rightly or wrongly) , if Jules had said it was him , there would have been no way they'd have released him , a murderer , from custody, so he'd have had no opportunity to harm Jules.

dark crystal

fin12 wrote: »

Or she’s terrified he will kill her , wouldn’t u be ?

Between making her initial statement in 1996 or 1997 and 2005 when she retracted her statements (which changed frequently from beginning to end), she lived in the same town as Bailey. She wasn't scared enough to move at any stage during that decade. That's a long time to stay in a small town with someone you're in deathly fear of.
She says she was coerced by the police into making false statements implicating Bailey, as was another potential witness, who was bribed to do so. Many of these calls were recorded and released as part of a probe into Garda corruption. There were 36 calls between Farrell and the police included.

https://www.thejournal.ie/garda-recordings-1397232-Apr2014/

Edit: Apologies, I see you were actually talking about Jules Thomas, not Marie Farrell.

dublin49

I think every spouse or partner would back their other half until they have concrete proof to their guilt .Jules may have backed him up initially ,not knowing all the subsequent questions that would emerge and Bailey may have been able to manipulate her with threats of being an accessory to the murder.Remember she stayed with him after violent episodes which would suggest he could manipulate her as he should have been sent on his way after the assaults if she was acting rationally.