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

Gussie Scrotch

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

As a few posters above suggest, it seems obvious she is a fantasist. There was no man, that’s why no one Conan find him! Who is so important in west cork that would have US president style pull that would have every relevant person in the area as well as risking international relations with a very important neighbour France? Some mid level copper?

Lads, she’s a nut that weaved a tangled web of lies without an exit plan…she didn’t see anyone either at her shop or the bridge, lucky the one witness seeing the “killer” twice yet no one else managed to see him.

I personally completely ignore her chatter, whether it helps or hinders Bailey.

This is a distinct possibility. The only thing that makes me think otherwise is that she said she was with another man. If she was inventing all the stuff she was telling the Guards, why use that as an excuse for being out and about at that time of night ...why risk damaging her marriage and infuriating her husband? She could have come up with something else....?

dublin49

I personally completely ignore her chatter, whether it helps or hinders Bailey.[/QUOTE]

I havent paid much attention to her but she did seem geniunely frightened by Bailey in the clip in the 3rd Sophie programme to the point she was pleading for the guards to do something about the constant intimidation by Bailey and could she have taken matters into her own hands to end Baileys harassment of her and her family by changing her story as she claimed Bailey was instructing her to do,

Gussie Scrotch

dublin49 wrote: »

I personally completely ignore her chatter, whether it helps or hinders Bailey.

TalleyRand83

dublin49 wrote: »

I personally completely ignore her chatter, whether it helps or hinders Bailey.

I havent paid much attention to her but she did seem geniunely frightened by Bailey in the clip in the 3rd Sophie programme to the point she was pleading for the guards to do something about the constant intimidation by Bailey and could she have taken matters into her own hands to end Baileys harassment of her and her family by changing her story as she claimed Bailey was instructing her to do,[/quote]

I’m not sure about that even as she has made everything up barring maybe having affairs…..the worst thing is she inserted herself into the investigation, the Fiona calls, and the Garda must have thought lovely a witness to our prime suspect! Little did they know early on they were backing a nutty horse that ended up costing them a lot more than they would have imagined, they knew he did it and she was another notch to use.

I do concede they were using all they could to benefit, basically framing the right man!

Bailey did it, MF is nuts, cops screwed up, although I don’t think that Dwyer detective is as much a fool as people make out. Seemed sharp enough and more experience than all us armchair detectives.

Funny how people seem to knock him for coming across smug or arrogant, imagine the irony in this, when at the same time putting a halo on Bailey the most smug, arrogant bloke you could come across in ten lifetimes

FileNotFound

Good show.

It shows Bailey is a fruit and could potentially have been involved.

But there was no real evidence ( at least kone that doesn't have big questions over it) to convict.

French Court case seemed rather a Farce to be fair.

I'd say Netflix have it nicely twisted to say he is a million percent guilty, must give that show a watch.

Good show by sky to be fair.

dublin49

FileNotFound wrote: »

Good show.

It shows Bailey is a fruit and could potentially have been involved.
But there was no real evidence ( at least kone that doesn't have big questions over it) to convict.
French Court case seemed rather a Farce to be fair.
I'd say Netflix have it nicely twisted to say he is a million percent guilty, must ive that show a watch.
Good show by sky to be fair.

Netflik far superior IMO.sheridans more of a mood ,atmospheric piece .Netflik covers all the witnesses and most of the questions I had and is much better for actual detail and I heard several things I didnt know and also some details I had read about that are much more compelling and stark from the witnesses mouths.

FileNotFound

dublin49 wrote: »

Netflik far superior IMO.sheridans more of a mood ,atmospheric piece .Netflik covers all the witnesses and most of the questions I had and is much better for actual detail and I heard several things I didnt know and also some details I had read about that are much more compelling and stark from the witnesses mouths.

But did they focus on tainting of the witness statements?

Then no evidence of the man at the scene?

Sure will give it a watch. Suppose it can't be as bad as some of the other sorry excuses for impartial views they give.

dublin49

FileNotFound wrote: »

But did they focus on tainting of the witness statements?

Then no evidence of the man at the scene?

Sure will give it a watch. Suppose it can't be as bad as some of the other sorry excuses for impartial views they give.

Do, ,it acts as a good counter weight to the pro Bailey Sheridan one.

FileNotFound

dublin49 wrote: »

Do, ,it acts as a good counter weight to the pro Bailey Sheridan one.

Knowing of the case before watching the sky one I think they painted him in a pretty poor light that made him look potentially the guilty party.

Evidence or proof is needed for conviction and to be guilty.

The gardai were not capable of finding that.

Will give it a watch though cheers.

JP Liz V1

dublin49 wrote: »

I personally completely ignore her chatter, whether it helps or hinders Bailey.

I havent paid much attention to her but she did seem geniunely frightened by Bailey in the clip in the 3rd Sophie programme to the point she was pleading for the guards to do something about the constant intimidation by Bailey and could she have taken matters into her own hands to end Baileys harassment of her and her family by changing her story as she claimed Bailey was instructing her to do

Marie or Jules?

bb12

wasn't one theory a garda did it? he drove a blue fiesta like the one seen driving away from the area that night...think he's deceased now from what i remember reading. he was notorious in the area at the time and known to be violent at times...maybe sophie met him when she was ringing the station making all the complaints about the drug use...he popped out to the house to discuss, they met, had a short fling or mayve he kept making unwanted advances and then later down the line things went really bad between them. maybe his dna was on the gate...maybe his car reg was in the notes ripped from the evidence book. who knows.

[Deleted User]

This case was a massive cock up by the guards.
It was so bad it makes you question was it deliberate.

How does a full size blood spattered gate dissappear?

chooseusername

threeball wrote: »

Who leaves home at 3am, travel 4km to kill someone he had very little knowledge of and no issue with and then travel back to make tea for the missus. Thats serial killer stuff. Someone who gets off on killing. There would have been others.

Maybe there were others ;

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/unsolved-crime-murder-carmel-gamble-68566

A violent misogynistic attack at a holiday home 7 years before Sophie was bludgeoned to death.
I'd assume the Gardai would have liaised with the Uk police when checking up on his past life in Uk when he became their prime only suspect.
Including passing his DNA to them .

MastiffMrs

Having listened to the podcast and watched the sky programme and the Netflix programme, it's still quite difficult to understand what actually happened.
IB is not a likeable character but not convinced he's guilty of the murder either. His relationship with Jules seemed crazy to me, how she put up with the violence for so many years. The fact that she lied about him being violent to her (years ago when speaking on a radio programme) makes me question her honesty around his behaviour after the murder.

His attitude about his abuse is so blasé too. "it takes 2 to tango" but it is to his "eternal shame". Pulling hair out, pulling her lip away from her mouth, big black eyes. Losing control was normal for him. Why would he use black humour with so many locals, it's a serious crime, why "pretend" that he did it for laughs? Not exactly socially aware.

The lack of dna evidence at the scene is very unusual. I know a horse theory was mentioned. The blood on the nearby rocks appeared to be the murder weapons. Was it ever confirmed by blood spatter patterns that those rocks were actually used and the blood didn't just land on them? Strange that 2 were used (if a frenzy attack, why go reach for a second weapon?)

I don't trust MF and her many different stories. If she was so afraid of naming the man she was driving with, why mention him at all? Strange that only she saw a man watching Sophie in a village which seemed to be busy before xmas. MF admitted the Gardaí helped her out with numerous things after she gave statements. That stinks. Now, because Jim Sheridan has pointed out another man, MF is now saying yes it's this guy. She has no credibility.

I really feel sorry for Sophies family especially her son. They've watched the investigation from afar for so long and really it's nowhere closer to being properly resolved. I'd like to think that if it happened now, it would have a better chance forensically, but I'm not so sure. Rural Irish Gardaí are probably not much better trained than in 1996, not sure if I would trust them to process the scene properly. I don't think that enough time was given in any of the documentaries to the other men who were potential suspects, admitted to doing something terrible and committed suicide. The media say that IB likes the attention, yet they don't divert it elsewhere.

sekiro

chooseusername wrote: »

Maybe there were others ;

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/unsolved-crime-murder-carmel-gamble-68566

A violent misogynistic attack at a holiday home 18 months or 2 years before Bailey left the area to go to remote West Cork.
A further 5 years till Sophie was bludgeoned to death.
I'd assume the Gardai would have liaised with the Uk police when checking up on his past life in Uk when he became their prime only suspect.
Including passing his DNA to them .

When you say he was "in the area" can you be a bit more specific?

Also by "misogynistic attack" do you mean that a woman was the victim or that the attack was done by someone who hates women in general? Seems like a strange way to describe it if she was the only victim but not so much if there were a number of similar killings in the area.

sekiro

MastiffMrs wrote: »

Having listened to the podcast and watched the sky programme and the Netflix programme, it's still quite difficult to understand what actually happened.
IB is not a likeable character but not convinced he's guilty of the murder either. His relationship with Jules seemed crazy to me, how she put up with the violence for so many years. The fact that she lied about him being violent to her (years ago when speaking on a radio programme) makes me question her honesty around his behaviour after the murder.

His attitude about his abuse is so blasé too. "it takes 2 to tango" but it is to his "eternal shame". Pulling hair out, pulling her lip away from her mouth, big black eyes. Losing control was normal for him. Why would he use black humour with so many locals, it's a serious crime, why "pretend" that he did it for laughs? Not exactly socially aware.

The lack of dna evidence at the scene is very unusual. I know a horse theory was mentioned. The blood on the nearby rocks appeared to be the murder weapons. Was it ever confirmed by blood spatter patterns that those rocks were actually used and the blood didn't just land on them? Strange that 2 were used (if a frenzy attack, why go reach for a second weapon?)

I don't trust MF and her many different stories. If she was so afraid of naming the man she was driving with, why mention him at all? Strange that only she saw a man watching Sophie in a village which seemed to be busy before xmas. MF admitted the Gardaí helped her out with numerous things after she gave statements. That stinks. Now, because Jim Sheridan has pointed out another man, MF is now saying yes it's this guy. She has no credibility.

I really feel sorry for Sophies family especially her son. They've watched the investigation from afar for so long and really it's nowhere closer to being properly resolved. I'd like to think that if it happened now, it would have a better chance forensically, but I'm not so sure. Rural Irish Gardaí are probably not much better trained than in 1996, not sure if I would trust them to process the scene properly. I don't think that enough time was given in any of the documentaries to the other men who were potential suspects, admitted to doing something terrible and committed suicide. The media say that IB likes the attention, yet they don't divert it elsewhere.

I believe that the concrete block had been part of some other structure/wall or something and was found on top of a blue dressing gown. This would mean it had definitely been moved by someone.

EdHoven

Henry... wrote: »

Has it been proven he wasn't driving

The main "evidence" against him was MF sighting of the man on Kealfada Bridge who was on foot.
If you take IB out of the equation the most obvious culprits are the late husband or the late neighbour. They both had motives.
Then it would be still living acquaintances of Sophie's. I'd like to hear the "fixing the heating" explained. I know her parents said they told her in September but could that be a false memory? Were they there alone in September?
Why didn't the housekeeper just let a plumber in? Sophie didn't need to spend thousands of francs on six business class flight tickets. She went via Dublin and had returns booked for 23 and 24. Just for a "mechanical problem" as Daniel said.
What is Bruno's alibi? He had been sending her cut up bits of his own paintings and a large screw. He tried to strangle her on the Metro. She broke up with him one Christmas at the cottage. First the alibi was he was getting a landline installed in his Paris flat then it is he was attending an art auction in the South of France. You can't have two conflicting alibis.
And then there is whoever was using the bath while the cottage was empty. Friend of Alfie's or a local woman using it for illicit liaisons.
MF said when she heard of a body she thought it was a hit and run. Why? She and her friend were the only ones driving around that night. She didn't mention any other cars. Perhaps Sophie was closing the gate then hit by a car exiting from a tryst, she then crawled about banging her head on random objects. It puzzles me why a killer would lift a 20kg block off her after just dropping it on her.
In a way there are too many suspects. To hone in on one and make the evidence fit him is puerile.
IB is innocent as there is insufficient evidence to prosecute never mind secure a conviction. Even Daniel said it would be terrible if an innocent man was pursued.

sekiro

dublin49 wrote: »

Do, ,it acts as a good counter weight to the pro Bailey Sheridan one.

A big problem here is that some of the objective facts of the case are inherently pro-Bailey.

Not just the lack of forensic evidence but the strange relationship between MF and the Gardaí and the confusion about the jacket that was burned but also recorded as being taken in for evidence.

That's one of the reasons why the case endures and has enough public interests to have podcasts, books and now documentaries made by subscription TV services. You can't look at the facts of the case and not conclude that there was a deliberate attempt to "get" IB whether he actually did it or not. There's a balance between things that point to him doing it and things that point away from him doing it so there is just no way to know the truth.

Presumption of innocence should be the default position though?

chooseusername

sekiro wrote: »

When you say he was "in the area" can you be a bit more specific?

Also by "misogynistic attack" do you mean that a woman was the victim or that the attack was done by someone who hates women in general? Seems like a strange way to describe it if she was the only victim but not so much if there were a number of similar killings in the area.

Attack was in Stroud, Bailey lived about 10 miles away in Gloucester.

"Misogynistic attack" was the phrase used by, I think the coroner .
A man or woman who hates women implying the victim is female.

Mackwiss

dublin49 wrote: »

Netflik far superior IMO.sheridans more of a mood ,atmospheric piece .Netflik covers all the witnesses and most of the questions I had and is much better for actual detail and I heard several things I didnt know and also some details I had read about that are much more compelling and stark from the witnesses mouths.

Netflix one gives an exact image of West Cork and the amount of rumors that go around in a small town... it didn't paint in my view well none of the participants and their rumors.

I do think it actually ended on very impartial note, referred what happened in the French trial and what was used as evidence... and it ended inconclusively painting Bailey as this sad old man in Bantry Market now convicted of a crime in France and if he or did not do it...

it is fantastic at placing the focus on Sophie giving Bailey enough time on screen but not letting him control the whole narrative.

What people need to understand too is... despite whatever character flaws he has if Bailey is innocent, he is a living victim of 25 years of hearsay, public blaming, public shamming and now a murder conviction. And I think the Netflix documentary portrayed that enough in the end...

The documentary also places enough focus on the Gardai mistakes and behavior around the case... and the whole Gardai behavior sounds like a really sad re-enactment of a Father Ted episode.

EdHoven

Ralph Riegel book A Dream of Death has this:

"But when forensic laboratory tests returned, they revealed that all bar one of the blood samples were from the deceased woman. One sample yielded unknown or 'alien' DNA. To this day that sample, which was recovered from the back door of the Toormore property, has never been identified, despite a painstaking cross-examination with all samples submitted locally as part of the investigation."

I'd say that exonerates IB on its own.

Mackwiss

chooseusername wrote: »

Maybe there were others ;

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/unsolved-crime-murder-carmel-gamble-68566

A violent misogynistic attack at a holiday home 18 months or 2 years before Bailey left the area to go to remote West Cork.
A further 5 years till Sophie was bludgeoned to death.
I'd assume the Gardai would have liaised with the Uk police when checking up on his past life in Uk when he became their prime only suspect.
Including passing his DNA to them .

Very good link. That does sound like a "pattern" would it be possible to find other cases like this in the UK before 96? And even in Ireland?

MoonUnit75

MastiffMrs wrote: »

I don't trust MF and her many different stories. If she was so afraid of naming the man she was driving with, why mention him at all? Strange that only she saw a man watching Sophie in a village which seemed to be busy before xmas. MF admitted the Gardaí helped her out with numerous things after she gave statements. That stinks. Now, because Jim Sheridan has pointed out another man, MF is now saying yes it's this guy. She has no credibility.

My understanding of it is that MF gave that reason for not coming forward when she was still anonymous as ‘Fiona’. When the gardai asked why she wouldn’t come down to the station to make a statement she said it was because she was out with another man and didn’t want her husband to find out.

As far as I remember, this was before she or the gardai mentioned Ian Bailey’s name so it doesn’t make sense that she made the story up about seeing someone at the bridge to help ‘frame’ Bailey. Her story was that she later saw Ian Bailey in the local Spar and only then recognised him.

The fact that she came forward herself, said she saw the same man hitchhiking when neither she nor the gardai were aware he had stayed over at a friends house the night before at the time, wanted to tell the gardai anonymously that she saw a then-unknown man walking erratically at the bridge around 3am all made her original statements more credible than the ****show that followed. Why add the detail that she drove past the bridge two other times that night, but didn’t see anyone? Both the libel trial and the French trial accepted her original statements immediately after the murder.

crackcrack30

Am I mistaken or did IB state that princess Diana had a soft spot for him..? Did he ever meet her? (was he in the tunnel or on a moped?)
Or is this more fantasy and his opinion that he was magnetic to ladies including STDP....

[Deleted User]

I still honestly do not know who could be proven killer - it could have been that hardly mentioned Karl - but it is an infuriating cases weirdly stocked with incredibly infuriating people.
And I am a believer in councidences as I experience such an odd amount of them that life can seem laughably scripted by a mischievious director, but even so Bailey takes the biscuit. One can leave out completely any input from that village troll, Marie Farrell, and still there is a litany of coincidences. He may be innocent but coincidentally

He lives nearby in a sparsely populated area
He is a violent misogynistic drunk
He has a massive ego and vast over estimation of his sexual charisma
He battered his own partner to a pulp several times including a few months before the murder
His hands and arms and forehead have lots of scratches - has he been so badly scratched any other Christmas season with the turkeys and the trees?
He stopped that night to look out over the remote landscape which held few houses but notably Sophies and apparently remarked upon the house light
He was missing from his bed and house between 3 am and 9 am
He was among the first people on the scene who were not officials
He published lurid stories about Sophie's supposed entangled love life
He floated and published the idea of the husbands hit man

Deeec

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

This is a distinct possibility. The only thing that makes me think otherwise is that she said she was with another man. If she was inventing all the stuff she was telling the Guards, why use that as an excuse for being out and about at that time of night ...why risk damaging her marriage and infuriating her husband? She could have come up with something else....?

She knew saying she was with another man would not damage her marraige because the reality is she never left her house that night and was with her husband. I wonder did the husband ever give a statement?

I think Marie led a very boring normal life and perhaps she liked the attention the murder was bringing to the area. Maybe even it was good for her business.

I find it hard to believe many men would want to have an affair with Marie ( but granted Im not a man and maybe men do find her attractive!). The man in the car, the Garda stripping for her wanting sex and the garda turned on in the restuarant toilets were all fantasy.

EdHoven

Mackwiss wrote: »

Very good link. That does sound like a "pattern" would it be possible to find other cases like this in the UK before 96? And even in Ireland?

Yeah, it's not like a Fred West was in Gloucester.

nc6000

Deeec wrote: »

I find it hard to believe many men would want to have an affair with Marie ( but granted Im not a man and maybe men do find her attractive!). The man in the car, the Garda stripping for her wanting sex and the garda turned on in the restuarant toilets were all fantasy.

What's the restaurant toilets incident?

thomas 123

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I still honestly do not know who could be proven killer - it could have been that hardly mentioned Karl - but it is an infuriating cases weirdly stocked with incredibly infuriating people.
And I am a believer in councidences as I experience such an odd amount of them that life can seem laughably scripted by a mischievious director, but even so Bailey takes the biscuit. One can leave out completely any input from that village troll, Marie Farrell, and still there is a litany of coincidences. He may be innocent but coincidentally

He lives nearby in a sparsely populated area
He is a violent misogynistic drunk
He has a massive ego and vast over estimation of his sexual charisma
He battered his own partner to a pulp several times including a few months before the murder
His hands and arms and forehead have lots of scratches - has he been so badly scratched any other Christmas season with the turkeys and the trees?
He stopped that night to look out over the remote landscape which held few houses but notably Sophies and apparently remarked upon the house light
He was missing from his bed and house between 3 am and 9 am
He was among the first people on the scene who were not officials
He published lurid stories about Sophie's supposed entangled love life
He floated and published the idea of the husbands hit man

Had the cops collected and stored evidence and data correctly he would probably be behind bars or exonerated by now with advances in criminal tech.

The thing is nobody knows who did it and I think the gardai are largely to blame for that. Who loses a farm gate?

Deeec

nc6000 wrote: »

What's the restaurant toilets incident?

MF talks about it in the 'West Cork Podacst'. She said a Garda exposed himself to her while she was working cleaning the toilets. He apparently said the case turned him on.