Murder at the Cottage | Sky

This is also part of the reason, why my gut feeling says that the murder was planned, not unplanned. It's also my gut feeling that the murderer knew that Sophie was in the way or some kind of threat for whatever reason and "had to be dealt with" meaning eliminated.

However I am aware that opinions differ on that one, even on the definition of planned vs unplanned.

Only the biased, corrupt or gullible could believe such garbage and in some cases obviously fabricated lies.

Is Leo Bolger one of the Irish witnesses whose evidence you are standing over?

Or the French woman who remembered 'Bailey' 10 years after his arrest? You are standing over that?

As I said, laughable.

Half of me is convinced it was a spur of the moment attack. I believe it started and ended outside. This points so some sort of altercation that went from zero to a hundred in a split second.

The assailant in a fit of rage, grabbed the nearest thing available to him, in this case a cavity block. Then, driven by temper, proceeded to smash Sophie's brains in.

I don't think a sexual rejection was the motive, more like some quarrel over the gate / laneway.

The other half of my brain is disputing this theory....

If it really was a spur on the moment act of madness, thirty seconds of mindless violence, a sudden unexpected act of rage...

How come was there not one shred of evidence left at the crime scene... Not one iota of anything to link the slaying to the murderer..?

Even the best planned murders leave something at the scene.. But nothing .. diddley squat!

I know it was 1996, but we've been killing and murdering for hundreds of years, most perps are caught without the dna technology that came later.. But this dude left nothing ...

(Unless certain evidence was removed from the crime scene that would implicate somebody that the Gards didn't want implicating)

I believe that in early morning twilight about 8 am, she saw some activity and went to confront somebody. It could very probably be a spur of the moment thing with the assailant wearing gloves because of the cold. Either grabs a poker from Sophie's hand or has something else like a nail bar to hand, that after one or two blows there is no turning back. Finishing off with the block is making sure. There is no reason there should be much by way of evidence left by the killer at the scene.

It has been established that there was something happening around the main entrance gate and the gap into her field where someone may have been making a claim to some right of way. It wouldn't be the first time people have come to blows over this very thing. How much did the investigators dig into the background of what was happening at this precise location in the days and weeks prior to the murder? It seems like such an obvious flashpoint but the investigators set their sights on Bailey with undue haste. He would have found out what was going on and had to be stopped.

No other suspects?

What does that mean? I don't even know. Do we just convict people even if they are innocent, when we don't have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt - cos no other suspects could be found?

What about the crimes with no suspects? What do we do then?

Anyone with a passing knowledge of other cold cases solved decades later, or miscarriages of justice, could never come out with such dangerous nonsense. It's a charter for more miscarriages of justice.

The evidence of the French witnesses, Leo Bolger and to a lesser extent Alfie Lyons is ridiculous, it deserves to be ridiculed.

Do you believe the evidence of Leo Bolger?

Do you believe he, as a bystander, actually remembered in such detail Alfie very briefly introducing Sophie to Ian during gardening work?

I don't think I would remember such an event, I don't think most people would.

Can you explain why he, running a sophisticated drugs operation, received a suspended sentence?

Because he is one of the witnesses you are relying on when with your vague references to Irish witnesses...

And I think if Sophie had mentioned knowing Ian Bailey to someone in France, that when Bailey was arrested for her murder, that would have triggered the recollection. Someone remembering years later? Simply not credible and believing such nonsense is - again - a charter for miscarriages of justice.

And that's what we see here with Ian Bailey, a potential miscarriage of justice which our DPP has - three times - seen right through. We should be thankful we have honest brokers in such positions given the known corruption in AGS and the kangeroo court in France which is a stain on France's justice system.

I don't think she would have had a clear, unobstructed view of the entrance gate from any vantage point in her house and certainly not in darkness. It's far more likely she was chased down the lane from the house by her murderer or else was alerted to his presence at the gate by the sound or lights of a car or by the sound of his voice calling her. A dispute over a right of way ? Only the Lyons could possibly have been involved in that kind of dispute with Sophie and neither of them were physically capable of perpetrating such a violent assault. So,that leaves a drug angle. I don't think drugs were being landed in the locality. It's many miles from the sea and where would they be stored? Maybe Sophie was a drug user and had a dispute with her (local) dealer and he killed her. There was no evidence or parephanalia associated with drug use found in the house. All roads still lead back to the prime suspect.

I agree, I think this all has to do with land/property. From the aerial shots of the crime scene it is clear there is fencing being done in that field also, with posts laying in the grass. I've never heard it mentioned that Sophie had commissioned this work nor have I ever heard who was doing it. It beggars belief if this line of inquiry was never followed up.

"No other suspects? What does that even mean? I don`t even know"

Sure you do. Evidence is what it takes, plain and simple. We have had a myriad of names proposed here as suspects. But when you get down to the nitty gritty with them there is no evidence that goes beyond what we should imagine exists or what someone heard in the pub. There are no other realistic suspects.

There is no reason not to believe Bolger. It`s not rocket science as to why he received his suspended sentence. He was a potential future murder trial witness and they wanted to keep him sweet. Anything else you have in mind belongs over in the conspiracy theory forum. I would remember making that introduction too by the way, sorry if it means you have a bit of brain fog.

The DPP, apart from showing some basic lack of understanding of localized minutiae, went through the various "he said she said" scenarios and came up with some reasons why a future defense counsel might undermine a number of witnesses. Some of this however is nothing more than believing Bailey to be truthful. This ignores the fact that Bailey lied on the initial questionnaire and lied early on under interrogation. You can treat every statement as a microcosm and try to find fault with it as you have just tried to do with Bolger, but there comes a tipping point when the burden of witness testimony should be considered as a whole. This became apparent at the libel trial when 20 witnesses contradicted various aspects of Bailey`s evidence. They were all subject to cross examination by Bailey`s team and none of them were undermined.

There are no other suspects .. does that mean you pin it on a whoever else you can find?

What about crimes were there are no suspects? How did they do it leaving nothing linking them to the crime? And why couldnt that be whats happened here?

Read up on some solved cold cases or miscarriages of justice? Because your ignorance is dangerous if you are ever on a jury.

Theres no reason not to believe a guy facing a long prison sentence... who now has a motive to lie?

A suspended sentence for a large scale drugs operation?

This is one of your witnesses?

This is part of your tipping point of evidence?

Garbage tainted evidence is still garbage evidence no matter how much of it you sling. And thats all there is. Garbage evidence from people with a reason to lie, dodgy memories which resurface years later and a community whipped up into a frenzy by AGS that they had a dangerous killer in their midst who would strike again and needed to be put away. A result was needed.

Its the recipe for miscarriages of justice seen so many times.

Yeah there is no reason to your argument, just gullible delusions and illogical thinking.

Its a charter for miscarriages of justice.

"Theres no reason not to believe a guy facing a long prison sentence....who now has a motive to lie?"

You might have a point.....except he made the statement over a decade before he was arrested.

I think most of us agree, that the cast in this bizarre murder case are unique at best, or total bonkers at worst...

So, taking a step away from the community of West Cork, and focusing solely on the actual case investigation, what set of events elevated Ian Bailey to become the prime suspect for the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier?

This is not a Bailey haters vs Bailey supporters question - I respect all views, and encourage debate.

For me, it appears the scratches on his hands, the getting out of bed during the night of the murder, his barbed sarcasm (especially at a time of an horrific murder), his contradictory statements, and finally, his well documented issues with domestic violence, seem to have nailed his colours to the mast.

Of course, I have contemplated each and every one of these factors, and bunched together, they certainly make Bailey a person of interest.

But...

The scratches on his hands could be conceived as damning evidence? But would the murderer have walked around the harbour with his hands exposed for all to see...? The one physical red flag that was guaranteed to cock an eyebrow of two was not covered and hidden?? That makes no sense at all to me. He attended a large gathering were the locals were throwing themselves into the sea, it was obvious he would be seen by many people, and didn't cover his hands up??

Getting up during the night...? Not a crime, and apparently he often did it.

His comments about having a good day until he went over and smashed her brains in, was a crass comment. He has a sense of black humor, or sarcasm if it was correctly labelled. Again, not politically correct, but not a crime either.

His contradictory statements can be off loaded by confusion? He was drinking heavily, I doubt he could recall every waking hour with absolute accuracy. Pick any day from a fortnight ago, and I would struggle myself.

The domestic violence - Yep it occurred. Regretfully it happens all to often across Ireland, usually by a bullying spouse, usually full of liquor.. It very, very rarely leads to murder.

If Bailey knew Sophie, he would have been shouting it from the rooftops.. A celeb in the movie business, rubbing shoulders with the red carpet brigade... He'd have thrived on it.. But not once did he ever mention her name to anybody...

I just can't see why the Gards made Bailey their prime suspect in this case, and basically gave up on anybody else being in the frame for the murder?

I may well be missing something, help me out here.

A French magazine has quoted Nick Forster as saying that he now believed that there is new evidence available to the Garda that wasn't there a few months ago. Also that the case is close to being solved.

Must be something in it or is he spoofing?

....he now believes..... Believing it, doesn't prove it in a court of law.

And if the Guards had new evidence we will hear it from them, we don't need Nick Forster and we don't care what he believes or doesn't believe.

Chooseusername: If your theory is correct, we are no better than the Taliban.

I was talking to a Guard very recently, and the conversation turned to a ninety something year old pensioner that he had arrested for being drunk and disorderly.. I was shocked, and stated couldn't he have used his discretion and got the old boy home to sleep it off instead??

His answer was blunt and too the point.. 'We have to be seen to be impartial to all age groups, colour and religion' Although a bit harsh on the old boy, his directive serves the force well.

In this day and age, nearly everybody is walking around with a camera in their pockets (phones). Never has police corruption been so difficult to engage in.. A far cry from 1996 I agree.

But would an entire murder investigation be rattled so much by one pompous individual ?? Did they really care about nothing else but nailing this guy? Had they no professionalism? Were they not duty bound to follow each and every lead?

You may be right?? They did supply money and drugs to secure information to make a conviction. And some of the more seedier characters got off some fairly serious charges for giving evidence against Bailey..