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

john123470

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I think the ‘she ran in a panic to a friend’s house’ from Three Castle Head is a bit of a myth? They said she seemed a bit morose when she arrived and had a bad feeling up at the lake, from what I recall. She had tea in the local pub and don’t think she mentioned it to the barman there.

Ok .. so no White lady

What about the stoned goats what ate Alfie's drugs then

.. normally placid animals .. after a bale of Alfie's Sensimilia grass .. who knows .. rampage, pillage goat-devil things .. ?

Just sayin .. and Det Clouseau Dwyer could have run with it

- Twas the goats ..

[Deleted User]

Why is no mention made of Karl Heinz Wolney?

MoonUnit75

odyssey06 wrote: »

Which is why it was so important to preserve you know the gate for future analysis.. except the Guards conviently lost that too.

Zero forensics found at the scene in any way connected to Bailey.
Zero hair samples left on these briars.
Zero anything.
A supposedly frenzied drunken attack.
Absolute nonsense from the Guards.

Your experience just goes to show that such scratches in and of themselves are evidence of no crime committed.

I think people imagine that because it’s a murder, there’s DNA from the perpetrator flying all over the place. If someone broke in to your house with cotton gloves and a hat on and smashed your TV with a brick, I’d be very, very surprised if they found any hair or DNA. They usually find DNA under the victim’s fingernails after a fight, on clasps where the perp tried to force clothing off, semen from a sexual assault etc. If Sophie didn’t go pulling hair off her attacker’s head or scratch up their face and if the killer didn’t physically beat them with their bare hands or try to pull their clothes off, the chances of leaving a detectable hair or DNA trace is very small.

When you have thousands of thorns to test with a new, expensive, time consuming and crude process you would need a miracle to locate and retrieve a profile from a few bags of thorns. These were not lost and I believe evidence was later sent to the USA for analysis using newer techniques.

odyssey06

Deleted User wrote: »

Experience in violence.
A very strange term, but I understand what you mean.
A normal man does not chase a small woman around a field until her pants catch on barbed wire leaving her tangled and helpless and then crush her head with a concrete block.
It takes a person with an experience of violence to carry out that act.
To imagine that Bailey did it, then brought coffee to his partner, then got on the phone to the papers, then went down to the scene and started writing. Unless he is a clinical psychopath he couldn't do that, and whichever documentary you watch, he doesn't display the traits of a psychopath.

He was also supposed to be drunk \ hungover and gotten to the scene on foot by moonlight in the small hours of a December night... yet be functional the next day to be doing his job as a journalist \ stringer at the location.
Go figure.

Gussie Scrotch

Bellbottoms wrote: »

That's a bit of a leap. The government can't even get covid travel certs up and running.

But now they are covertly funding Netflix series and the like to soften people up for IB extradition.

Was Waterworld a failed attempt to soften people up for water charges?

I think you are clutching at straws here.

Yes, you're probably right.

[Deleted User]

Biker79 wrote: »

Well...it was either a jilted lover, or an Anton Chigurh type character from Corks criminal underbelly.

I'll go with the latter, as I think a person would need experience in violence to commit such a crime.

Experience in violence.
A very strange term, but I understand what you mean.
A normal man does not chase a small woman around a field until her pants catch on barbed wire leaving her tangled and helpless and then crush her head with a concrete block.
It takes a person with an experience of violence to carry out that act.
To imagine that Bailey did it, then brought coffee to his partner, then got on the phone to the papers, then went down to the scene and started writing. Unless he is a clinical psychopath he couldn't do that, and whichever documentary you watch, he doesn't display the traits of a psychopath.

tibruit

Mackwiss wrote: »

the question is, could you see at night under moonlight? would the cottage shadow at night hide the car?

My theory is they went up to the gate and crossed the field to enter the house from the left side. They get in and notice the bottle of wine. Sophie hears them and comes down they rush through the door in the kitchen bottle in hand. Sophie in pursuit locking herself out.

At this part I think MF kept running, and the guy turned to face Sophie.

The rest we all know.

In this theory I'd say they park before by the police line where there's space on the side of the road to park and would walk to the cottage.

MF goes to the car, guy/lover comes back bloodied and tells her not to mention one word.

They go their separate ways and once she gives her statement, he forces her to give other statements to throw the Garda off and that's where the Fionna calls start...

I suppose there are people who have never been in a rural setting under a full moon. You don`t need a torch to get about, that`s for sure.

MoonUnit75

john123470 wrote: »

Lookit, at this point .. Everyone's a suspect. Even Sheridan.

Meanwhile, everyones forgotten about 'the White Lady' up in 3 Castle Head that scared the bejasus out of her on that very day.

She reportedly ran in a panic to the nearest neighbour

Jim himself expressed shivers being up there .. alone

What about her then .. Is she exempt from suspicion or what ?

I mean even "the horses" were considered suspect on one video

And why stop there .. what about
the stoned goats .. how did their day go after eating all that grass .. ?

I think the ‘she ran in a panic to a friend’s house’ from Three Castle Head is a bit of a myth? They said she seemed a bit morose when she arrived and had a bad feeling up at the lake, from what I recall. She had tea in the local pub and don’t think she mentioned it to the barman there.

threeball

Mackwiss wrote: »

the question is, could you see at night under moonlight? would the cottage shadow at night hide the car?

My theory is they went up to the gate and crossed the field to enter the house from the left side. They get in and notice the bottle of wine. Sophie hears them and comes down they rush through the door in the kitchen bottle in hand. Sophie in pursuit locking herself out.

At this part I think MF kept running, and the guy turned to face Sophie.

The rest we all know.

In this theory I'd say they park before by the police line where there's space on the side of the road to park and would walk to the cottage.

MF goes to the car, guy/lover comes back bloodied and tells her not to mention one word.

They go their separate ways and once she gives her statement, he forces her to give other statements to throw the Garda off and that's where the Fionna calls start...

They may also have brought a bottle of wine to share but end up tossing it as they made their escape.

EdHoven

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What this case really needed was a trial, where defence and prosecution barristers cross examine and shred such characters as Clueso Dwyer, Mad as a box of frogs Farrel, Crazy Bailey, Alfie in wonderland Lyons, Daniel de Wienstien Tuscon de plantier, The French affair connection, Cassidy the forgetful journalist, a couple of local stoners coerced by the gaurds, and other random characters. Oh, and they need to drag that ****ing white lady in for a chat as well.
Unfortunately instead we are left with pure amateur sleuth speculation, as per this thread.

Now that's a show.
Unfortunately a seance would be required.
I think her family have to let it go. Persecuting IB to salve their consciences is unfair on him.
The Met couldn't find who killed Jill Dando and set up the local weirdo but her family haven't made a cottage industry out of it.

Mackwiss

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

You could see it from outside the Garda cordon up the road from the gate.

the question is, could you see at night under moonlight? would the cottage shadow at night hide the car?

My theory is they went up to the gate and crossed the field to enter the house from the left side. They get in and notice the bottle of wine. Sophie hears them and comes down they rush through the door in the kitchen bottle in hand. Sophie in pursuit locking herself out.

At this part I think MF kept running, and the guy turned to face Sophie.

The rest we all know.

In this theory I'd say they park before by the police line where there's space on the side of the road to park and would walk to the cottage.

MF goes to the car, guy/lover comes back bloodied and tells her not to mention one word.

They go their separate ways and once she gives her statement, he forces her to give other statements to throw the Garda off and that's where the Fionna calls start...

Biker79

Well...it was either a jilted lover, or an Anton Chigurh type character from Corks criminal underbelly.

I'll go with the latter, as I think a person would need experience in violence to commit such a crime.

Whether they were randomly floating around high on booze and drugs, looking for the tail end of a party to crash, or out specifically looking for Sophie, is hard to say.

I think MF knows something about the above though. Or knows somebody who knows.

john123470

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I think Sheridan’s thinking was to show Bailey as the perfect oddball, weirdo, loud, obnoxious person that locals would be only too happy to throw to the wolves.

Lookit, at this point .. Everyone's a suspect. Even Sheridan.

Meanwhile, everyones forgotten about 'the White Lady' up in 3 Castle Head that scared the bejasus out of her on that very day.

She reportedly ran in a panic to the nearest neighbour

Jim himself expressed shivers being up there .. alone

What about her then .. Is she exempt from suspicion or what ?

I mean even "the horses" were considered suspect on one video

And why stop there .. what about
the stoned goats .. how did their day go after eating all that grass .. ?

mgn

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I think Sheridan’s thinking was to show Bailey as the perfect oddball, weirdo, loud, obnoxious person that locals would be only too happy to throw to the wolves.

Well he certainly done that,

[Deleted User]

What this case really needed was a trial, where defence and prosecution barristers cross examine and shred such characters as Clueso Dwyer, Mad as a box of frogs Farrel, Crazy Bailey, Alfie in wonderland Lyons, Daniel de Wienstien Tuscon de plantier, The French affair connection, Cassidy the forgetful journalist, a couple of local stoners coerced by the gaurds, and other random characters. Oh, and they need to drag that ****ing white lady in for a chat as well.
Unfortunately instead we are left with pure amateur sleuth speculation, as per this thread.

Bellbottoms

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

as another poster has mused, I wonder if it is part of a softening up process, preparing the public for his eventual surrender to the French?

That's a bit of a leap. The government can't even get covid travel certs up and running.

But now they are covertly funding Netflix series and the like to soften people up for IB extradition.

Was Waterworld a failed attempt to soften people up for water charges?

I think you are clutching at straws here.

odyssey06

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I think this is the ‘CSI Effect’ in a nutshell. There was no LCN dna analysis available at the time and you would have to be very, very lucky to get a profile from the bags with thousands of thorns sent by the detectives.
I think people tend to forget he could have been wearing fabric or cotton gloves which would leave no fingerprints but would absolutely allow thorns to scratch you quite badly. You would need good thick leather or gardening gloves to avoid scratches while running through a bramble patch. Speaking here from bitter experience!

Which is why it was so important to preserve you know the gate for future analysis.. except the Guards conviently lost that too.

Zero forensics found at the scene in any way connected to Bailey.
Zero hair samples left on these briars.
Zero anything.
A supposedly frenzied drunken attack.
Absolute nonsense from the Guards.

Your experience just goes to show that such scratches in and of themselves are evidence of no crime committed.

As far as anyone knows, he was the first journalist to turn up, where have you heard different?

I may have mis-read this as to whether he was first at the location, but certainly absolutely nothing to suggest contamination of the crime scene.
By lunchtime, word had spread across west Cork about the discovery of a body and a possible murder investigation being launched by Gardaí. The Examiner’s west Cork correspondent, Eddie Cassidy, was the first journalist to be alerted to the grim news. Not long afterwards, other members of the Cork media would begin trying to determine precisely what was involved in the grim Toormore discovery and whether, as feared, the death might prove suspicious.
Eddie Cassidy immediately began to make calls to local ‘stringers’, or news contacts, to determine if anyone had heard anything about developments in Toormore. At around 1.40 pm, he made contact with a Schull-based freelance journalist named Ian Bailey. The exact details of that conversation would prove to be of enormous importance over the years to come.
Mr Bailey later said he arrived at Toormore around 2.20pm He approached the scene and was met by two Gardaí, who immediately asked him who he was and what he was doing there. When informed that Mr Bailey was a journalist, one Garda asked the couple to step back from the scene and to contact the Garda Press Office with any specific queries they might have. The journalist said he left the scene but returned sometime between 3.30pm and 4pm, by which time other members of the media, most from Cork city, had started to appear.

https://evoke.ie/2020/05/31/life-style/sophie-toscan-du-plantier-murder-book

MoonUnit75

mgn wrote: »

I cant figure out what's Sheridan game is showing him in that light, I don't think I seen him sober in any part of the documentary.

As for the Netflix one you would except that with all her family and friends involved in the making of it, in fact I think it was a family friend who made the documentary.
Still Bailey came across a lot better and gave a good account of himself.

I think Sheridan’s thinking was to show Bailey as the perfect oddball, weirdo, loud, obnoxious person that locals would be only too happy to throw to the wolves.

MoonUnit75

odyssey06 wrote: »

Could you have seen that from the gate I wonder?

You could see it from outside the Garda cordon up the road from the gate.

MoonUnit75

odyssey06 wrote: »

He turned up at the location in the mid afternoon.
He wasn't the first journalist to turn up.
There's no indication he had access to the crime scene i.e. within the Garda cordon. So he had no more or less access than any other passer by.
He took photographs from outside the cordon.
If you have something solid to show he had access to the actual crime scene please share.

And no forensics evidence has been found putting Bailey at the crime scene.
Not, well we found something but it is probably from his afternoon visit.
Just nothing at all.
Which is really something considering the Guards put him as a suspect because of scratches on his hands.
How do you get scratches on your hands at the crime scene and leave no forensics.

I think this is the ‘CSI Effect’ in a nutshell. There was no LCN dna analysis available at the time and you would have to be very, very lucky to get a profile from the bags with thousands of thorns sent by the detectives.

I think people tend to forget he could have been wearing fabric or cotton gloves which would leave no fingerprints but would absolutely allow thorns to scratch you quite badly. You would need good thick leather or gardening gloves to avoid scratches while running through a bramble patch. Speaking here from bitter experience!

As far as anyone knows, he was the first journalist to turn up, where have you heard different?

odyssey06

dark crystal wrote: »

Sophie's rental car would have been parked outside the house, I presume, so anyone showing up at the house would know the house was occupied.

Could you have seen that from the gate I wonder?

dark crystal

threeball wrote: »

Could MF and her fella been using Sophies house as a love nest and were unaware that she had returned. Tried to enter the house and was confronted with an altercation taking place. MF then concocts a load of nonsense to divert attention away from her involvement by implicating IB.

Sophie's rental car would have been parked outside the house, I presume, so anyone showing up at the house would know it was occupied.

mgn

odyssey06 wrote: »

And the weird thing is Sheridan has said he has no angle re: Bailey being the killer.
But the rest of the Netflix content seems to be pointing that way.

I cant figure out what's Sheridan game is showing him in that light, I don't think I seen him sober in any part of the documentary.

As for the Netflix one you would except that with all her family and friends involved in the making of it, in fact I think it was a family friend who made the documentary.
Still Bailey came across a lot better and gave a good account of himself.

john123470

odyssey06 wrote: »

And the weird thing is Sheridan has said he has no angle re: Bailey being the killer.
But the rest of the Netflix content seems to be pointing that way.

True.
Most annoying thing about him is he keeps wandering out in front of the camera !
Musing

I thought in beginning he was a local drunk who wandered on set after his morning perk up
Someone going to shout Oi, fcek off !!

Sorry Jim

Gussie Scrotch

odyssey06 wrote: »

And the weird thing is Sheridan has said he has no angle re: Bailey being the killer.
But the rest of the Netflix content seems to be pointing that way.

For me the NF doc is contrived and focuses on anything that may support the case against Bailey - no matter how tenuous or unreliable - and the maelstrom
of emotions surrounding this horrible crime.

as another poster has mused, I wonder if it is part of a softening up process, preparing the public for his eventual surrender to the French?

odyssey06

mgn wrote: »

The one thing I did learn from the Murder at the cottage one, is that Jim Sheridan made a complete mug out of Bailey by shown him up as someone who is drunk day and night and filmed him ranting on about nothing to do with the case.
Take the Netflix documentary, Bailey comes across as a totally different man, sober and articulate.

And the weird thing is Sheridan has said he has no angle re: Bailey being the killer.
But the rest of the Netflix content seems to be pointing that way.

mgn

After watching both Murder at the cottage and the one on Netflix, I'm still on the fence as to whether Bailey did it or not, but if pushed I don't think he did.
I think this case would be dead year ago only for

1, Bailey being a dislikeable man, and keeps seeking attention.

2 If he never attempted to sued the newspapers years ago.

3 The family of Sophie are a powerful family in France.

The one thing I did learn from the Murder at the cottage one, is that Jim Sheridan made a complete mug out of Bailey by shown him up as someone who is drunk day and night and filmed him ranting on about nothing to do with the case.

Take the Netflix documentary, Bailey comes across as a totally different man, sober and articulate.

odyssey06

Henry... wrote: »

Did he not.turn up at the crime scene that morning

He turned up at the location in the mid afternoon.
He wasn't the first journalist to turn up.
There's no indication he had access to the crime scene i.e. within the Garda cordon. So he had no more or less access than any other passer by.
He took photographs from outside the cordon.
If you have something solid to show he had access to the actual crime scene please share.

And no forensics evidence has been found putting Bailey at the crime scene.
Not, well we found something but it is probably from his afternoon visit.
Just nothing at all.
Which is really something considering the Guards put him as a suspect because of scratches on his hands.
How do you get scratches on your hands at the crime scene and leave no forensics.

Pirate Master

Henry... wrote: »

Did he not.turn up at the crime scene that morning

He didn't turn up at the crime scene until after 2 in the afternoon.

threeball

Could MF and her fella been using Sophies house as a love nest and were unaware that she had returned. Tried to enter the house and was confronted with an altercation taking place. MF then concocts a load of nonsense to divert attention away from her involvement by implicating IB.