Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117823999#Comment_117823999

Once again MoonUnit, in your anxious rush to challenge every suggestion which dares to deviate in the slightest from your view, you miss the salient point.

Sure, all the suggested scenarios have flaws. As does yours. My post did not attempt to promote any theory, but to point out that all are plausible to some extent and none can be described as wacky, laughable or implausible.(your words) And that is the key message.

All the theories I have seen expounded here have some merit. Some more so than others but none implausible ( well, perhaps the horses) Yet your responses fail to acknowledge this and come across as somewhat arrogant and dismissive in tone. This has the effect of antagonising posters who take a more objective view and, in time erodes your credibility as a poster.

In the absence of actual evidence to the contrary, just about every suggestion is worthy of consideration. Not just those which fit your narrative.

MoonUnit75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117824761#Comment_117824761

The French investigation had no motive to 'stitch up' or frame Ian Bailey. They were given the entire garda file and were able to carry out their own investigations on the ground in West Cork, interview witnesses, read the Irish media, look up Gemma O'Doherty. The 'motive' given that the gardai just didn't like IB or disliked arrogant englishmen or pressured witnesses to make statements just doesn't work when the French had every single option and lead open to them. They came to the same conclusion as the gardai. All they wanted was to identify and prosecute the killer of one of their citizens. They have been investigating this for over a decade. They had the same list of potential suspects discussed here. They have eliminated everyone except IB.

Sophie's birth family are not wealthy, influential people, her apparently powerful husband was five years dead before the French investigation began. Every argument made here that the gardai were just prejudiced or blinkered does not work for the French investigation. Why did they come to the same conclusions as the gardai?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117824757#Comment_117824757

The scenario you paint re Bailey as the killer is just as rare, if not more rare, than people hiring a hitman.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117824803#Comment_117824803

They are working from the evidence the Gardai 'collected' and then tampered with. That our DPP rejected three times as the basis for a prosecution but ended up being used in a different judicial system in a miscarriage of justice.

Bailey is a convenient suspect for the police here and there.

What actual investigations did the French do to get to the truth, here and in France?

So its obvious why they have the same blinkered view.

Its absurd to suggest they had every option open to them. What powers did they have in Schull?

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117824803#Comment_117824803

Calm down, Moonie.

The French court accepted evidence which had been totally, utterly and very correctly rejected by the DPP.

Indeed, not only rejected but contemptuously dismissed. Binned is not too strong a term for it. They also cast serious aspersions on the conduct of the investigation and the integrity of the gardai involved.

"The former Director of Public Prosecutions Eamonn Barnes said that the evidence ‘came nowhere near’ warranting a charge against Mr Bailey and that the case was ‘thoroughly flawed and prejudiced’ in relation to the former journalist.

Mr Barnes said that the garda investigation culminated in ‘a grossly improper attempt to achieve or even force a prosecutorial decision which accorded with that prejudice’."

And, once again, i feel it is worth drawing your attention to the facts: Bailey had no motive. Bailey cannot be placed at the crime scene. Bailey did not even know the victim.

There is no real evidence, whatsoever, linking him to this crime.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117824757#Comment_117824757

It's extremely rare. So what? This isn't exactly an everyday murder. Wealthy and powerful men will always hire someone to do their dirty work, and this man had influence and connections in a wide area of society.

The very term 'hitman' conjures up absurd images for some people. A sophisticated French assassin, that's fantasy land. Ireland had plenty of killers in that time, why bring apples to an orchard? I would prefer to use the term contract killer. And usually there are several go betweens so the killer doesn't even know who is paying for the attack. They are generally savage thugs who kill people and are good at it.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117824757#Comment_117824757

It is not that rare.

Check the net...plenty of examples.

flanna01

It's not about the Ian Bailey popularity contest..

Granted, he does bring a lot of the negative press on himself, and that's before we start getting into the JT history.

But put all that aside for a moment..

What's important here is the hounding of an innocent man for the last 25yrs. Not to mention the negligence of failing to capture the murderer.

As correctly stated by the previous poster, Bailey craves attention, is opinionated, suffers from chronic self importance, and has already been convicted of murder by one kangaroo court, and is currently treated like a murderer in his adoptive country.

Why shouldn't he feel aggrieved? Why shouldn't he hit back? At what point would we individually break? How much can a person take?

He is entitled to his innocence until proven guilty by a court of law. The same entitlement that is bestowed on us all in the free world.

We all use social media, it keeps us connected and up to speed in our daily lives. It's a privilege we take for granted, like having a job, having security, having the freedom to take a stroll down the road without being harassed.

Any social media Bailey has used has been bombarded by messages of hate. Some of the most vilest comments can be found on his web pages. Bailey cannot get employment due to being classed as a cold blooded murderer, he does not have the same sense of security as say you and I, always being on the lookout for the next yob to come and have a go off him... The mundane task of taking a walk in peace is not a given in Baileys world, its quite the opposite in fact.

Bailey is asked to leave eating establishments, heckled in the streets, condemned by the public, vilified by the media, all on a daily basis..

We overlook one thing.. This man was not convicted for the murder of Sophie. He wasn't even tried for the murder. There is not one scrap of evidence that puts him at the murder scene, nor one jot of evidence that he even knew Sophie.

We call ourselves a western civilisation that promotes law and order. Every man is a free man unless proven otherwise.

That's unless you are Ian Bailey of course..

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117824888#Comment_117824888

Without doubt, Ian Bailey is a big mouthed, attention seeking, wife beating, pathetic excuse for a man. He should have been prosecuted and jailed for what he did to Jules. With maybe time added on for his awful poetry.

But that does not make him guilty of this crime.

drumm23

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117822949#Comment_117822949

Moonie already said IB might have waded into the sea (in late December ... you'd freeze your nuts off in July - never mind December) - to clean off the blood (the same blood that hasn't dripped anywhere along the kilometre or more walk from the house to the sea) ... it's pea brain stuff I'm afraid and it's purely imagined just to fit with the Marie Farrell "sighting" that night (with her sitting beside a man that doesn't exist) ... as I already said to Moonie, it's much more likely that IB did this and that MF didn't see him that night than that she did --- and coming up with deranged explanations just to fit in with her own crackpot statements is totally unrequired to put weight on IB's guilt.

MoonUnit75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117824860#Comment_117824860

Mr Barnes said that the garda investigation culminated in ‘a grossly improper attempt to achieve or even force a prosecutorial decision which accorded with that prejudice’

This was examined in detail during the High Court proceedings. The claim was a member of the gardai tried to use the state solicitors college connection with the minister for justice to put pressure on the DPP. In the stand, this claim utterly fell apart. The person who made this claim gave different names and different accounts of how this was relayed back to the DPP. They never made a memo or lodged a complaint about this alleged illegal act at the time. When they did write up a memo on it in 2011 the memo said the gardai approached him to put pressure on the DPP to prosecute IB in 1991 or 1992. The murder took place in 1996.

drumm23

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117823317#Comment_117823317

The manner in which you discount Alfie runs quite contrary to your views on Bailey.

how the F do you quote selectively? it's driving me nuts!

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117824981#Comment_117824981

I think Mr Barnes' comments covered a much broader spectrum than that.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117823932#Comment_117823932

He obviouly didn't need any more time to escape so why complicate it by leaving forensic in house. a pro or hire would never do that

someone psted this link i cannot find it now. Who is the "The Suspect that the Gardai "didn't know existed" [who] lived a very short distance from the bridge at Kealfadda"

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/66736?search_text=sophie+toscan+du+plantier

jimwallace197

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117825035#Comment_117825035

This reminds me of the Adrian Donohoe case, one of the main points of the prosecutions argument to convict Aaron Brady in this matter was that he & his group were very forensically aware. And he was convicted predominantly off circumstantial evidence.

My point is that, if the killer was concerned about forensics, he would surely have killed her in another manner, shot to the head, rather than bashing her brains out with a rock initially and then a block to finish the job. Very messy way to kill someone and it would leave a big chance of forensics being left behind.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117825035#Comment_117825035

Yes, I see your point.

Still struggle with this particular scenario though.

what would I do if I was a wealthy man, living in France, with a wife that I wanted to get rid of, didn't want to divorce because of the costs, had a young lover on the go....decided to have her bumped off?.

Well, Ireland would be a better place to do it than France. so I'd probably take the opportunity to have it done when she was there.

A man in my position would have many contacts from many walks of life so, it wouldn't be impossible for me to source a man for the job. Maybe even a personal friend who owed me a big favour. But I would need to be well removed from any actual link to the crime.

It would have to look nothing like an organised assassination. Otherwise I would be immediately on the radar.

I would be in a position to advise on the optimum opportunity, as I can telephone her and establish when she is alone.

I would need to come up with a plan that would persuade her to open the door/leave the house.

I would need to be visible, publicly if possible, at the time of the crime to set my alibi.

I would need to be able to fund this without it being obvious.

He could do it...he could have done it but there is really no evidence to support the theory. The only real entity that points in his direction is motive. Circumstantially, the fact that he refused to come to Ireland at the time is curious but not incriminating.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117825093#Comment_117825093

Well yes, but a shot to the head would bring the possibility of a planned hit to the table and anything like that would put Daniel du Plantier firmly under the spotlight.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117825101#Comment_117825101

I agree with all you say except I don't see a need to go into the house and hide the body

MoonUnit75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117825135#Comment_117825135

Why not bundle her into a car for her never to be seen again? That leaves all options open and very little to go on. Chasing her with a rock seems like the most risky and likely to be detected method to go with. It seems clear to me this was not premeditated.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117825149#Comment_117825149

Yes OK....my thinking was that it would buy the killer time by delaying the discovery. I have since learned that Sophie actually had an appointment with her housekeeper that morning so it wouldn't have been delayed by much. Of course the theoretical killer may or may not have known that.

What is odd, to me, is how such a frenzied, bloody attack did not result in any significant DNA being found.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117825093#Comment_117825093

But it didn't leave any forensics behind. No matter who did it, just her DNA and an unknown male on her shoe. If a hire wanted to make it look like a passion lost - the - head crime they would be prepared for all that may have even set out the rock first. No suspect being found with blood on them doesn't mean someone did not have blood on them

jimwallace197

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117825135#Comment_117825135

Yes, but put yourself into the thoughts of a hitman, the vast majority of them kill with a gun from a distance for a very good reason. I don't believe a gun for hire would put himself in such a vulnerable position as to kill a woman so it looks like a crime of passion irrespective of how much he was being paid, its just too risky. There's too much of a chance for them to be caught forensically or through a witness, for example if Sophie had ran to Alfie Lyons house instead of the gate or they had heard her scream. I don't ever remember hearing about a hitman killing someone in this way in recent times.

A hitman would have been aware of the proximity of sophie's house to her neighbors, they would have been aware of the risks of killing someone in the manner Sophie was killed in because one scratch from sophie or one pull of the hitmans hair or anything and he/she knew they'd be screwed.

I never bought the hitman theory.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117825135#Comment_117825135

Yes, also there was an occupied house very close by. The killer would have no info who lived there. In any case a gunshot would be totally unnecessary, this was a small woman all alone.

How was he so sure she was alone? Remember Daniel had a phone conversation with her before her murder.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117825162#Comment_117825162

Yes, fair point.

There would be significant advantages to a plan like that. The only drawback, in my view, is that a considerable amount of time would have to elapse before she would be declared dead, thus delaying any insurance payout.

But it would certainly be a cleaner, safer way to do it.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117825191#Comment_117825191

All makes sense, yes. Its a long shot and the more you think about it, the longer it seems to get.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117825162#Comment_117825162

Bundled into a car, and I assume you mean killed immediately? So forensics all over the car, car needs to be burned out, body needs to be buried, the sea has a habit of giving things back. Why go to all that trouble, especially if you already have experience and knowledge that the Gaurds are next to useless in such matters.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117825198#Comment_117825198

Yes, also there was an occupied house very close by. The killer would have no info who lived there

A hire, if it was one, would know all abou her neighbours. a pro would not leave anything to chance and would not use a gun if giving the impression of a crime of passion. If a pro did it and was to make it look like someone who lost it all that would be planned to make it look unplanned

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117825226#Comment_117825226

The forensics in the car would be an issue. all right

But they could have thrown her over a cliff, or something similar, made it look like an accident. Guards would put it down to misadventure...low risk of discovery?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117825236#Comment_117825236

Contract killers aren't 'Pro'.

They aren't academics.

They are savage thugs who kill for money. That's what they do and that's what they are good at. It's not Hollywood.