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.

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.

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.

So many suspects, all of which are more interesting than Bailey...

This guy interests me the most...can any one confirm if this is the son of the French-speaking publican who was interviewed in Netflix series,

(Text copied from indimedia)..After Mr Baileys libel case it emerged that a local man had not been interviewed, let alone suspected, was present in the immediate location of the murder on the night i question . A local Garda who was involved in the investigation "from the beginning" admitted he had never even heard of this man. He had visited the home of the mans family but did not know he existed!

This young man, a fluent French speaker who had been educated in private schools in France and Ireland was staying with his family a very short walk from the murder scene on the night of the murder. Why did Gardai not investigate him? Why did his family not mention his presence in the locality that night in December 1996? The man quickly left the area on a date unknown and now resides with his new wife in Britain.

deleted.

Again?

I have similar feelings on this. Getting "Justice for Sophie" mainly means accusing Bailey without any evidence, - it's become the general doctrine.

As said before, Nick Foster just has a personal commercial interest and seems rather desperate. He doesn't know anything, nor does he have "new and compelling evidence" exclusive to him.

It's not impossible to think that the murderer is a suspect we all never heard of and never even considered. Bearing in mind that Sophie was in the habit of sleeping around, it could have been anybody and the motive was only sexual. If this was today, she would have gotten her contacts via Tinder and similar sites, but back then, online dating was limited, so one can't even use these solutions to trace any possible unknown murderers.

What I also don't know is if her circle of friends and sexual partners or possible sexual partners in West Cork is completely known by the Guards?

It has been mentioned Sophie was into S&M practices? What if something had gone wrong, and the bashing in with a cavity block was to cover up the real causes of death? Not certain, but then again, the coroner would have found something?

It's possible that S&M is a fabrication of some users here. I've certainly only read it in this forum that Sophie was apparently into S&M.

I'd say the sheer number or better unknown number of sexual partners Sophie might have had, leaves a lot of possibilities and speculations open......

If one wants to speculate a lot of things could have happened that night.