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

bb12

regarding the 2 wine glasses on the drain counter, my tuppence worth is that they were not washed together at the same time. if you look what is on the draining board, there is also the parts of an espresso maker...now if you were going to wash 2 glasses and also an espresso maker at the same time, i'd suggest you'd start off with the 2 glasses together first and therefore end up placing them side by side on the drainer, before tackling the more messy maker with all the coffee grinds etc...therefore i think the 1st glass had been used and washed at an earlier time

orangerhyme

Donal McIntyre said to Nicola Tallant on her podcast that their own pathologist thinks the cuts on Sophie's face were caused by a knife.

He suggested maybe the killer went back into the house and washed the knife and put it back by the bread as it looks "staged". That also explains the blood on backdoor.

But that suggests the killer was already in the house to grab the knife. I don't buy that, I think everything happened outside. But I do think the killer went back to the house, maybe they just turned the doorknob and that was it. No blood was found inside the house.

He said also the food in her stomach had been consumed within 6 hours. So the fruit and nuts could've been an evening snack or breakfast, impossible to tell.

Curse These Metal Hands

FileNotFound wrote: »

That was odd alright.

I think she's a compulsive liar and fantasist to be honest.

Yurt2

FileNotFound wrote: »

At the time nobody in France was spoken to according to the Gardai, upon arrival in France for interviews the Gardai were brought back to the airport and informed they could not interview french citizens.

The irony being if a French person was implicated and Gardai thought they had the perp, they would have point blank refused to extradite the person to Ireland for trial. Their legal code pretty much bars the extradition of French citizens in all circumstances.

That would have been an interesting legal showdown between justice systems if it transpired to be the case. High profile French victim with a French perpetrator committed abroad with a tug of war between the evidence held by the Gardai and the perp safely ensconced in France.

FileNotFound

monkeybutter wrote: »

Don't forget the worst thing, he's a tan

His true crime.

Nicbuc

bb12 wrote: »

started listening to the crime world podcast but they've got their facts wrong...they say sophie was coming to that cottage for years before she got married...but her husband bought it for her...then they say she flew into dublin airport and drove to schull from dublin...she arrived into cork airport...cant really trust any other details they come out with if they get these basic ones wrong

Ye that’s true actually, I was dubious about it coz it’s Nicola Tallant

thought the part about her stomach contents being digested a couple of hours interesting ðŸ€”

FileNotFound

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

When Jim Sheridan gets MF to stop at the spot where she supposedly saw the man at the bridge, he says this is also near the turn off for Sophie's. She says "I wasn't aware of that." Did she mean at the time or now? Beggars belief that she wouldn't be aware of that at this stage.

That was odd alright.

FileNotFound

monkeybutter wrote: »

Im not saying he is the person Mf saw, that's obviously not true, do you think the French court measured him yeah?

I'm just looking at what height was reported in the papers

He is not huge by an stretch

People over play it and anyone can see him in bantry or schull markets so don't think you are unique

I'm the same height as him, never get described as some man Mountain

But didn't she say he is not the person.

The only reason she said he was, was the gardai said that if she helped they would not tell her husband she was with another man.

They even lied in there record to remove the other man. All inadmissible in any real court.

Does his height actually matter after the above being said.

Curse These Metal Hands

When Jim Sheridan gets MF to stop at the spot where she supposedly saw the man at the bridge, he says this is also near the turn off for Sophie's. She says "I wasn't aware of that." Did she mean at the time or now? Beggars belief that she wouldn't be aware of that at this stage.

monkeybutter

Yurt! wrote: »

I heard Ian Bailey is 6 ft 7 in his socks, and he's got a retractable claw 'specially for murdering, and he's got these mad eyes that can hypnotize people to do his bidding - like the divil himself. He can turn himself into pure energy and transmit himself along electricity lines and then he re-manifests as a murderer to do his murderizing, and then can get back to his house in time for the Champions League kick-off so he has an alibi. He keeps a load of black coats in a secret cave in Pirates Cove, and goes there during the full moon accompanied by a load of lesbians to wash his coats in the nip.

Don't forget the worst thing, he's a tan

monkeybutter

FileNotFound wrote: »

At the time nobody in France was spoken to according to the Gardai, upon arrival in France for interviews the Gardai were brought back to the airport and informed they could not interview french citizens.

Thats what the gardai said in the sky doc.

Don't understand the first question - she had not kicked IB out of the house that happened years later and after the french ruling. I was merely saying if witnesses were changing stories and people were dubious - there was a source of great welath that could be used for influence.

Was it not his previous wife was wealthy?

I thought that that's what you meant? Slightly broken sentencing at the point you said it

I dont think JT or Bailey's family are particularly wealthy, enough to be paying people off

monkeybutter

Table Top Joe wrote: »

Yes, let’s take The Mirrors word over a court….I’ve been measured in 3 different gyms over the years, was given 5’11 twice, 6 ft once….and I’ve stood next to him, you clearly haven’t

I don’t know why you have such a hard time believing he’s a big guy despite all the evidence, you would rather believe Marie Farell that he could be genuinely mistaken for a 5’8 man, a woman who has absolutely no credibility left whatsoever

Remember as well that while the current generation is quite tall, 6’2 men (if you want to give him that) were few and far between in 1996

Im not saying he is the person Mf saw, that's obviously not true, do you think the French court measured him yeah?

I'm just looking at what height was reported in the papers

He is not huge by an stretch

People over play it and anyone can see him in bantry or schull markets so don't think you are unique

I'm the same height as him, never get described as some man Mountain

FileNotFound

Yurt! wrote: »

I heard Ian Bailey is 6 ft 7 in his socks, and he's got a retractable claw 'specially for murdering, and he's got these mad eyes that can hypnotize people to do his bidding - like the divil himself. He can turn himself into pure energy and transmit himself along electricity lines and then he re-manifests as a murderer to do his murderizing, and then can get back to his house in time for the Champions League kick-off so he has an alibi. He keeps a load of black coats in a secret cave in Pirates Cove, and goes there during the full moon accompanied by a load of lesbians to wash his coats in the nip.

Despite being drunk and drug addled he moves like a snake in the grass and has no DNA.

Yurt2

monkeybutter wrote: »

He was 6foot 2 back according to the mirror you can see pictures of him

He's hardly huge now is he

I'd say you only think you are 5 ft 11, more likely 5foot 8 if he was towering over you, now do you own a black jacket and a beret

I heard Ian Bailey is 6 ft 7 in his socks, and he's got a retractable claw 'specially for murdering, and he's got these mad eyes that can hypnotize people to do his bidding - like the divil himself. He can turn himself into pure energy and transmit himself along electricity lines and then he re-manifests as a murderer to do his murderizing, and then can get back to his house in time for the Champions League kick-off so he has an alibi. He keeps a load of black coats in a secret cave in Pirates Cove, and goes there during the full moon accompanied by a load of lesbians to wash his coats in the nip.

FileNotFound

monkeybutter wrote: »

Why would she kick him out with nothing, then come to his rescue?

What would they question the husband's about exactly? People were checked for alibis and some people were spoken to in France

At the time nobody in France was spoken to according to the Gardai, upon arrival in France for interviews the Gardai were brought back to the airport and informed they could not interview french citizens.

Thats what the gardai said in the sky doc.

Don't understand the first question - she had not kicked IB out of the house that happened years later and after the french ruling. I was merely saying if witnesses were changing stories and people were dubious - there was a source of great welath that could be used for influence.

Table Top Joe

monkeybutter wrote: »

He was 6foot 2 back according to the mirror you can see pictures of him

He's hardly huge now is he

I'd say you only think you are 5 ft 11, more likely 5foot 8 if he was towering over you, now do you own a black jacket and a beret

Yes, let’s take The Mirrors word over a court….I’ve been measured in 3 different gyms over the years, was given 5’11 twice, 6 ft once….and I’ve stood next to him, you clearly haven’t

I don’t know why you have such a hard time believing he’s a big guy despite all the evidence, you would rather believe Marie Farell that he could be genuinely mistaken for a 5’8 man, a woman who has absolutely no credibility left whatsoever

Remember as well that while the current generation is quite tall, 6’2 men (if you want to give him that) were few and far between in 1996

FileNotFound

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The actual timeline had nothing to do with the civil case. Marie said in a couple of interviews before ‘changing sides’ that she had been threatened with defamation proceedings if she continued to give interviews about the case which mentioned Bailey.

At the time of her statements that Gardai literally promised not to tell her husband she was with another man in the car if she played along an then recorded the event as another man not being there.

By all accounts the other man was there, if this is true its literally a criminal offence by the Gardai, who in fairness during Baileys civil case called her an unreliable person who's word could not be trusted.

monkeybutter

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Sky must have paid him, he never opened his gob when asked questions by the media down through the years and you couldn't shut the fooker up in this bladdering about hens and roosters and other random stuff.

He was lapping up all the attention he was getting.

That is just totally untrue

I mean he has done interviews, been on the radio, been in podcasts etc

Pirate Master

Weddings ahoy wrote: »

According to the Dpp report, after the so called confession that night where IB said" I did it, I did it"
The Shelley's were that upset and concerned that they went to the pub with Ian and Jules again next day... pretty much says it all !

Also, Bailey said that he was repeating what the Guards had been hammering into him during his arrest, that he had done it, he had done it.

And with the Shelleys not coming forward with this information until much later, it's easy to think that they misremebered him actually confessing and him simply repeating what the Guards had told him.

bb12

Nicbuc wrote: »

Ive been following this whole thread, I’ve also watched the sky doc & the Netflix doc, also listened to the west cork podcast. Earlier I listened to a podcast Crime World, Nicola Tallant interviewing Donal McIntyre, some new nuggets of info on it.

started listening to the crime world podcast but they've got their facts wrong...they say sophie was coming to that cottage for years before she got married...but her husband bought it for her...then they say she flew into dublin airport and drove to schull from dublin...she arrived into cork airport...cant really trust any other details they come out with if they get these basic ones wrong

monkeybutter

FileNotFound wrote: »

One thing not mentioned in any of these docs which i find odd are the other participants.

IB partner had a family from a lot of wealth in England - it is possible she was able to sway persons involved financially but this is never considered when people changes their stories part way through.

Also Sophie had very bad relationships with both husbands - why she was hiding in Ireland at xmas time (leaky pipe or rads are a great story alright) - the husband never even came to get her body - can't buy the too broken when he and her had a broken relationship. Both ex husbands were men with powerful connections in France (Jacque Shiraq the french president being but one of them) and the gardai were not allowed to question any of these people for unexplained reasons.

A person could make a million conspiracies about this case and find enough conjecture to make them as plausible as IB doing it.

But at the end of the day the evidence just is not there do say anything solidly.

Why would she kick him out with nothing, then come to his rescue?

What would they question the husband's about exactly? People were checked for alibis and some people were spoken to in France

FileNotFound

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Sky must have paid him, he never opened his gob when asked questions by the media down through the years and you couldn't shut the fooker up in this bladdering about hens and roosters and other random stuff.

He was lapping up all the attention he was getting.

They paid for the rights to sell alright - at the time of show he was living in a caravan I think after the missus dumped him.

He is a degenerate - money for drink was enough.

Mind you his missus's family are loaded in the UK - so if she was supporting him at the time money would not have been an issue. He has a massive ego, that may have been enough

FileNotFound

One thing not mentioned in any of these docs which i find odd are the other participants.

IB partner had a family from a lot of wealth in England - it is possible she was able to sway persons involved financially but this is never considered when people changes their stories part way through.

Also Sophie had very bad relationships with both husbands - why she was hiding in Ireland at xmas time (leaky pipe or rads are a great story alright) - the husband never even came to get her body - can't buy the too broken when he and her had a broken relationship. Both ex husbands were men with powerful connections in France (Jacque Shiraq the french president being but one of them) and the gardai were not allowed to question any of these people for unexplained reasons.

A person could make a million conspiracies about this case and find enough conjecture to make them as plausible as IB doing it.

But at the end of the day the evidence just is not there do say anything solidly.

Galwayguy35

Sky must have paid him, he never opened his gob when asked questions by the media down through the years and you couldn't shut the fooker up in this bladdering about hens and roosters and other random stuff.

He was lapping up all the attention he was getting.

odyssey06

dublin49 wrote: »

its amazing every witness statement ,thats anti Bailey is seemingly easily dismissed as unreliable,hearsay,too long has passed,vested interest ,etc etc etc,does the sheer quantity of witnesses that need to be dismissed/under mined not give Bailey supporters pause for thought.Even statements attributed to Jules Thomas that are adverse to Baileys account are dismissed .Lots of witnesses appear to be genuine,why are they all intent on stitching up this innocent man.Must something in the water down there

Well apart from Marie Farrell you can be genuine and wrong... misremember, remember things in wrong order or not exactly as it occurred.

People notice stuff after a murder they didnt notice before.

People can be steered by the person asking questions into recalling things in a certain way.
Its not as if they were direct witnesses to the act.
They are being asked to remember things that was said to them in passing or they noticed while doing something else.

The longer since the incidence occurred the less reliable recollections are.

So you have poor quality evidence.

monkeybutter

Table Top Joe wrote: »

According to the French court case he is 6'4, and that was in his mid 50s (roughly) when he may have lost some height, he is obviously taller again in shoes...

Im 5'11, about 6ft in my fancy shoes, the man towered over me, he's not just tall like some lanky teenager, he's a very well built man, a rugby player type build. The reason so many people in the various documentaries, podcasts and in this very thread comment on his size is because he's a huge guy, its not rocket science.

He was 6foot 2 back according to the mirror you can see pictures of him

He's hardly huge now is he

I'd say you only think you are 5 ft 11, more likely 5foot 8 if he was towering over you, now do you own a black jacket and a beret

[Deleted User]

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I don’t think it says the meeting in the pub was definitely pre-arranged though? Richard Shelley said they were in the pub the next day and he said to Ian that he had doubted that he was the killer before the previous night but now he thought he had done it, or something to that effect.

Yes, that is what I take from it. There seems to have been quite the drinking culture - and people just are thrown together in pubs. It was morning drinking, 2nd of January.
I saw Rosie Shelley died a few years ago.

It is possible the testimony is unreliable. But something spooked Rosie at least enough that she wanted out of the house in the early hours. And they phoned the dad to come collect them. They would have been young enough, early 20s. You can end up in weird places and situations at that age.

The reason why 'I did it, I did it, I went too far' was inferred by the Shelleys to relate to murder was Bailey had taken out boxes of press cuttings etc and obsessively spoken about the murder for 2 hours before bed. So the finding that 'I did it' could not be presumed to relate to murder is a bit flimsy.

FileNotFound

Zeek12 wrote: »

Having watched all 5 episodes of the Sky programme, I'm none the wiser.

On the scratches, can we even say with any certainty that he had some? That were actually consistent with heavy briar scratches?

The artists rendition was fairly laughable - without photo or video evidence of this, they're really just suggesting stuff.

I'm not sure I buy the story that zero fingerprint or DNA evidence could be found at or near the scene.
Granted forensic procedures were not what they are now but it's hard to avoid the impression the investigation could have been handled more thoroughly and professionally.

Tragic story. Her parents both quite old and frail now. I don't think the case in France has done them (or Sophie's son) much good or given them closure.

And it's not a safe conviction anyway.

As much as you're left with the feeling that Mr. Baily is an egotistic individual with violent traits and an alcohol dependency - that of itself is not evidence, and there'll never be nearly enough proof to convict.

Agree entirely its a case of he could well have but the evidence is not there to prove it. I do find the block on any french being interviewed odd and it begs a few questions (questions is all really). H

I thought it was a well presented show to be fair.

dublin49

its amazing every witness statement ,thats anti Bailey is seemingly easily dismissed as unreliable,hearsay,too long has passed,vested interest ,etc etc etc,does the sheer quantity of witnesses that need to be dismissed/under mined not give Bailey supporters pause for thought.Even statements attributed to Jules Thomas that are adverse to Baileys account are dismissed .Lots of witnesses appear to be genuine,why are they all intent on stitching up this innocent man.Must something in the water down there

MoonUnit75

Weddings ahoy wrote: »

According to the Dpp report, after the so called confession that night where IB said" I did it, I did it"
The Shelley's were that upset and concerned that they went to the pub with Ian and Jules again next day... pretty much says it all !

I don’t think it says the meeting in the pub was definitely pre-arranged though? Richard Shelley said they were in the pub the next day and he said to Ian that he had doubted that he was the killer before the previous night but now he thought he had done it, or something to that effect.