Murder at the Cottage | Sky

awec

khalessi wrote: »

No matter how naieve/new the garda is to the job, is that not a odd thing to do at a crime scene?

fryup wrote: »

did she offer to do the hoovering and ironing too??

if that's true - its unforgiveable

Were the first Guards on scene trained on what to do in this sort of situation? I bet they weren't. What you had was normal, beat Guards, used to dealing with petty crime or community stuff, arriving at a crime scene where a woman's body is in a pretty terrible state. In the absence of any training, they likely had pretty normal human reactions and were affected by what they saw.

For me, the criticism here needs to be aimed at those who should have known better.

- Was basic training lacking for Gardai on what to do in such a situation?
- Were the local Guards instructed to preserve the crime scene when they radioed this in? If not, why not?
- When were detectives brought in?
- Why did the pathologist take over a full day to get there?
- The detectives who took over the investigation made a total balls up, was this ever investigated?

Gussie Scrotch

Hangdogroad wrote: »

I very much doubt that actually happened.

Me too, but if it did...why?

It is certainly not standard procedure to tidy up a crime scene......in fact rule number 1 is "don't touch anything"

if, and I know its if, the glasses were washed, who gave the instruction and why?

whippet

awec wrote: »

Were the first Guards on scene trained on what to do in this sort of situation? I bet they weren't. What you had was normal, beat Guards, used to dealing with petty crime or community stuff, arriving at a crime scene where a woman's body is in a pretty terrible state. In the absence of any training, they likely had pretty normal human reactions and were affected by what they saw.

For me, the criticism here needs to be aimed at those who should have known better.

- Was basic training lacking for Gardai on what to do in such a situation?
- Were the local Guards instructed to preserve the crime scene when they radioed this in? If not, why not?
- When were detectives brought in?
- Why did the pathologist take over a full day to get there?
- The detectives who took over the investigation made a total balls up, was this ever investigated?

If you listen to the podcast you will get the answers to all these questions - and from the horse’s mouth in most cases

Table Top Joe

Hangdogroad wrote: »

I very much doubt that actually happened.

I had the same reaction on first hearing that story many years ago. Having kept up with the case over the years though I don't actually have any trouble believing it anymore. The Garda's handling of the case was the most incompetent of any case I've ever come across, just incredible.

I don't believe there was any sinister motive behind washing the glasses either btw, just someone tidying up while waiting around bored for God knows who to show up and get on with the job.

discostu1

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

Me too, but if it did...why?

It is certainly not standard procedure to tidy up a crime scene......in fact rule number 1 is "don't touch anything"

if, and I know its if, the glasses were washed, who gave the instruction and why?

I have spent over half my life in a different part of West Cork , the widespread story which could be a complete fabrication/lie /folk tale was the young female Garda was at the house a call came in saying a member of the family was coming down to the house. The Ban Garda was either told or took it on herself (The versions differ) to do a bit of a tidy so the scene wouldn't be so distressing.It could be complete bull that was the widespread story.
One thing struck me about the Podcast and I have listed to it at least twice.I think I am correct in saying None of Jules' children feature directly on it which I found strange

Mackwiss

awec wrote: »

Were the first Guards on scene trained on what to do in this sort of situation? I bet they weren't. What you had was normal, beat Guards, used to dealing with petty crime or community stuff, arriving at a crime scene where a woman's body is in a pretty terrible state. In the absence of any training, they likely had pretty normal human reactions and were affected by what they saw.

For me, the criticism here needs to be aimed at those who should have known better.

- Was basic training lacking for Gardai on what to do in such a situation?
- Were the local Guards instructed to preserve the crime scene when they radioed this in? If not, why not?
- When were detectives brought in?
- Why did the pathologist take over a full day to get there?
- The detectives who took over the investigation made a total balls up, was this ever investigated?

On the last question the case from IB and Jules n the mid 2010s was into this. fourth episode of Sheridan's documentary explains how all the evidence was considered prescribed... another ridiculous development of this case.

Gussie Scrotch

Table Top Joe wrote: »

I had the same reaction on first hearing that story many years ago. Having kept up with the case over the years though I don't actually have any trouble believing it anymore. The Garda's handling of the case was the most incompetent of any case I've ever come across, just incredible.

I don't believe there was any sinister motive behind washing the glasses either btw, just someone tidying up while waiting around bored for God knows who to show up and get on with the job.

No, not for me.

I can accept that the washing of the glasses didn't happen.

But if it did, there was a reason. No Garda, not even a rookie straight out of Templemore, would start washing up at a murder scene unless he was instructed to do so. And if he/she was instructed to, then it was by a senior Garda, who would only do so for a reason.

Mackwiss

discostu1 wrote: »

I have spent over half my life in a different part of West Cork , the widespread story which could be a complete fabrication/lie /folk tale was the young female Garda was at the house a call came in saying a member of the family was coming down to the house. The Ban Garda was either told or took it on herself (The versions differ) to do a bit of a tidy so the scene wouldn't be so distressing.It could be complete bull that was the widespread story.
One thing struck me about the Podcast and I have listed to it at least twice.I think I am correct in saying None of Jules' children feature directly on it which I found strange

they don't, they do on the recent documentary.

Quite curious to see the Netflix one because it won't have IB on it and see what the narrative will be about.

I understand the pain the family of Sophie has gone through, I fully understand that, but we need to have a clear conscience on how bad the evidence is against a suspect. What's the point in putting someone behind bars if the evidence is unclear about it? This is why we don't have mobs doing justice and we have a justice system. But not even in that was that accurate both in Ireland and France.

Yes, IB is weird and loads and loads of stuff on his character are questionable but quite honestly if it was me being accused of something like that I would probably do the same thing he did in all the naivety. Yes the jokes where inappropriate, yes him being excited to have something to report was inappropriate, but journalists do this on a daily basis.

And let's face the reality here, we know the Gardai in Ireland does not have a good track record specially at that time even. If anyone would be accused by them unfairly would you trust them to do their jobs?

So IB did the best he could, mount a media circus around him about his innocence and point of view. With the amount of interviews he has given, anyone hiding something would've cracked something... there's plenty of cases like this because a lot of actual killers do this and they are caught because of how they react in front of the media.

The guy went on to take the newspapers that wrote against him, when he should have gone after the Gardai, that was his first mistake.

The guy went on to get a law degree and write a thesis on the Gardai.

IB looks to me today as a broken, broke man. He needs to continue with this to have something in his pocket and keep going because his journalism is gone and any prospects of any kind of work or a normal life are all gone.

Obviously he understands being convicted in that kind of trial is just another blow to seeing justice done.

And yes, a woman was brutally killed, yes it's really sad, but if I myself was accused of it and obviously me knowing I didn't even get close to her house that night, I would want to clear my name and think of my self-preservation first.

So obviously he will talk more about that than anything else...

JimmyVik

Mackwiss wrote: »

they don't, they do on the recent documentary.

Quite curious to see the Netflix one because it won't have IB on it and see what the narrative will be about.

I understand the pain the family of Sophie has gone through, I fully understand that, but we need to have a clear conscience on how bad the evidence is against a suspect. What's the point in putting someone behind bars if the evidence is unclear about it? This is why we don't have mobs doing justice and we have a justice system. But not even in that was that accurate both in Ireland and France.

Yes, IB is weird and loads and loads of stuff on his character are questionable but quite honestly if it was me being accused of something like that I would probably do the same thing he did in all the naivety. Yes the jokes where inappropriate, yes him being excited to have something to report was inappropriate, but journalists do this on a daily basis.

And let's face the reality here, we know the Gardai in Ireland does not have a good track record specially at that time even. If anyone would be accused by them unfairly would you trust them to do their jobs?

So IB did the best he could, mount a media circus around him about his innocence and point of view. With the amount of interviews he has given, anyone hiding something would've cracked something... there's plenty of cases like this because a lot of actual killers do this and they are caught because of how they react in front of the media.

The guy went on to take the newspapers that wrote against him, when he should have gone after the Gardai, that was his first mistake.

The guy went on to get a law degree and write a thesis on the Gardai.

IB looks to me today as a broken, broke man. He needs to continue with this to have something in his pocket and keep going because his journalism is gone and any prospects of any kind of work or a normal life are all gone.

Obviously he understands being convicted in that kind of trial is just another blow to seeing justice done.

And yes, a woman was brutally killed, yes it's really sad, but if I myself was accused of it and obviously me knowing I didn't even get close to her house that night, I would want to clear my name and think of my self-preservation first.

So obviously he will talk more about that than anything else...

And whats even more annoying is that in the quest to only find evidence to suit one man, the whole circus has not even attempted to solve the crime properly.

Icantthinkof1

It makes no sense that someone would come over to fix their heating at the height of winter. Why would someone travel over to stay in their holiday home for 2 days with no heating? Surely a person would wait until Easter/ summertime to get the heating fixed? Was anyone ever contacted to look/ fix her heating over the 2 days she was there?

Also what I took away from this documentary is that Jules deserves a sainthood for putting up with Bailey as long as she did. You could see on the documentary she was so over his sh!t.

robwen

The Netflix documentary I'd guess is just going to take the angle that Bailey did it based on the French conviction they have history of entertaining but not exactly balanced documentaries

Table Top Joe

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

No, not for me.

I can accept that the washing of the glasses didn't happen.

But if it did, there was a reason. No Garda, not even a rookie straight out of Templemore, would start washing up at a murder scene unless he was instructed to do so. And if he/she was instructed to, then it was by a senior Garda, who would only do so for a reason.

I'll concede it sounds too ludicrous a story to be believed, but..look at how the experienced Garda's (and pretty much everyone else up to the bloody coroner!) behaved, they didn't even think to photograph the scratched hands of a man a few days after a woman was beaten to death, I really don't find the glass washing story to be so implausible in light of everything else that went on

(I have zero time for any argument about his hands not being photographed btw, I was around in 96, you could get a disposable camera in the local chemist ffs, if you were a Garda you would surely have the cop on to get one no matter what).

monkeybutter

Icantthinkof1 wrote: »

It makes no sense that someone would come over to fix their heating at the height of winter. Why would someone travel over to stay in their holiday home for 2 days with no heating? Surely a person would wait until Easter/ summertime to get the heating fixed? Was anyone ever contacted to look/ fix her heating over the 2 days she was there?

Also what I took away from this documentary is that Jules deserves a sainthood for putting up with Bailey as long as she did. You could see on the documentary she was so over his sh!t.

maybe it was the PLUMBER


In fairness to Bailey, he has been put through hell


its a nightmare, its that nightmare she has to put up with, who knows how it would have gone in normal circumstances


people calling you a weirdo when they don't know you from adam, assuming you did it with no reason, its amazing the character and will he has shown

MoonUnit75

Table Top Joe wrote: »

I'll concede it sounds too ludicrous a story to be believed, but..look at how the experienced Garda's (and pretty much everyone else up to the bloody coroner!) behaved, they didn't even think to photograph the scratched hands of a man a few days after a woman was beaten to death, I really don't find the glass washing story to be so implausible in light of everything else that went on

(I have zero time for any argument about his hands not being photographed btw, I was around in 96, you could get a disposable camera in the local chemist ffs, if you were a Garda you would surely have the cop on to get one no matter what).

It's bull, part of the mythology around this case. They sent bags of briars from the garden for DNA testing in the UK. There's no credible source for this rubbish.

His hands were noticed by two gardai when he was paying for something at a shop and they were in the line behind him. They were also noted by gardai a few days later when they called to his house as part of the door to door enquiries on people's movements. If they were arresting him and interrogating him in the station I can imagine them photographing his hands but not while being visited neither as a witness or a suspect.

Gussie Scrotch

Table Top Joe wrote: »

I'll concede it sounds too ludicrous a story to be believed, but..look at how the experienced Garda's (and pretty much everyone else up to the bloody coroner!) behaved, they didn't even think to photograph the scratched hands of a man a few days after a woman was beaten to death, I really don't find the glass washing story to be so implausible in light of everything else that went on

(I have zero time for any argument about his hands not being photographed btw, I was around in 96, you could get a disposable camera in the local chemist ffs, if you were a Garda you would surely have the cop on to get one no matter what).

OK I see your point. That, essentially, the Garda were a bunch of incompetent fools and this particular incident is merely representative of that, inherent incompetence.

I take a slightly different, perhaps cynical view.

1) They left the body for two days exposed to the weather ...evidence lost/destroyed.

2) They lost a bloodstained, five bar gate....evidence lost/destroyed.

3) They (if they did) washed two wineglasses....evidence lost/destroyed.

4) The hair Sophie had grasped in her hands was lost........

5) The investigation was directed/targetted on one individual.

6) At least three people were incentivised/encouraged to make false allegations against this suspect.

There is a pattern here that , to me, supports the "conspiracy rather than cock-up" scenario.

The washing of the glasses, if indeed it did happen, is so utterly, utterly in breach of standard scene of crime procedure and, frankly, common sense, that it beggars belief.

For me, the Garda were either over anxious to get a result, or they were being misdirected from a senior level in an effort to prevent the killer being identified.

The DPP, to their credit, recognised the glaring weaknesses in the case and refused to put it to the courts.

Gussie Scrotch

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

OK I see your point. That, essentially, the Garda were a bunch of incompetent fools and this particular incident is merely representative of that, inherent incompetence.

I take a slightly different, perhaps cynical view.

1) They left the body for two days exposed to the weather ...evidence lost/destroyed.

2) They lost a bloodstained, five bar gate....evidence lost/destroyed.

3) They (if they did) washed two wineglasses....evidence lost/destroyed.

4) The hair Sophie had grasped in her hands was lost........

5) The investigation was directed/targetted on one individual.

6) At least three people were incentivised/encouraged to make false allegations against this suspect.

There is a pattern here that , to me, supports the "conspiracy rather than cock-up" scenario.

The washing of the glasses, if indeed it did happen, is so utterly, utterly in breach of standard scene of crime procedure and, frankly, common sense, that it beggars belief.

For me, the Garda were either over anxious to get a result, or they were being misdirected from a senior level in an effort to prevent the killer being identified.

The DPP, to their credit, recognised the glaring weaknesses in the case and refused to put it to the courts.

I don't think the hair was lost at least not before they determined it was sophies.The DPP report says


"Following his original arrest in 1997, Bailey was interviewed by Pat Kenny on the radioand he indicated that at the request of the Gardaí he had voluntarily provided a sampleof his hair because it had been stated that some hair had been found in the hand of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier. It would appear, however, that the hair found at the scene is consistent with hair originating from the deceased."

Mackwiss

SoulWriter wrote: »

I don't think the hair was lost at least not before they determined it was sophies.The DPP report says


"Following his original arrest in 1997, Bailey was interviewed by Pat Kenny on the radioand he indicated that at the request of the Gardaí he had voluntarily provided a sampleof his hair because it had been stated that some hair had been found in the hand of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier. It would appear, however, that the hair found at the scene is consistent with hair originating from the deceased."

I don't buy this information to be honest... a person being attacked gets her own hair on her hands?

Would really like to see that analysis...

robwen

robwen wrote: »

The Netflix documentary I'd guess is just going to take the angle that Bailey did it based on the French conviction they have history of entertaining but not exactly balanced documentaries

It seems so judging by the early reviews.
Even if you think he did it just allow yourself to imagine for a minute that he didn't. That he has been falsely accused of murder for all these years and is now an alcoholic pensioner without a home. No matter how much of a gob****e he is and was that is unfair.
And when this Netflix documentary airs it will bring a lot of attention, mostly negative, to the point where I would not be surprised if his personal safety is in danger, especially as he turns up with his stall to the same spot every week.

Icantthinkof1

Mackwiss wrote: »

I don't buy this information to be honest... a person being attacked gets her own hair on her hands?

Would really like to see that analysis...

Natural reaction for a person once they receive a blow to the head is to put their hands there it’s quite possible she was holding her own hair in her own hand(s)

Mackwiss

Icantthinkof1 wrote: »

Natural reaction for a person once they receive a blow to the head is to put their hands there it’s quite possible she was holding her own hair in her own hand(s)

From what seemed on the documentary, the hair was in her clenched fist seemed to me, someone struggling and taking a good bit of hair from the killer

Mackwiss

Mackwiss wrote: »

I don't buy this information to be honest... a person being attacked gets her own hair on her hands?

Would really like to see that analysis...

it's in the DPP report but this seems to contradict it https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Hairs+found+in+Sophie%27s+dead+hand+may+bring+killer+to+justice%3B...-a0180984908

Deeec

monkeybutter wrote: »

Was she not pregnant according to her husband?

The husband allegedly told a french reporter that Sophie had told him the weekend she was in Cork that she was in the early stages of pregnancy. Im pretty sure this would have been picked up during the autopsy though and would have been made public.

It could be convenient for the husband to say this to demonstate how much ' in love' they were. At the time of Sophies murder he was already having an affair with the lady he got pregnant 6 months after Sophies death . He could have wanted to avoid an expensive divorce!

Her husbands phone call at 10.30 could have told her to expect a surpise visitor at X time and to be at the gate to let them in. Her life in France sounded complicated and should have warranted extensive investigation. The answer to who murdered Sophie could very well be related to her life in France. She had alot more going on in France than she did in Ireland.
By all accounts she didnt mix with locals in Cork at all - She seemed to keep to herself. I would find it hard to believe it was a local. If the murder was preplanned her remote house in Cork was the perfect place to carry it out rather than France.

nc6000

nc6000 wrote: »

I watched the first few episodes last night, one thing I've noticed which I don't recall seeing mentioned here was something odd in the interview with Sophie's parents.

When news made it to them on the 23rd that a French woman was found dead in Ireland they tried ringing Sophie. When they couldn't get through to her they rang her husband Daniel. It was about 10PM.

The subtitles say he said he spoke to her about an hour ago. That can't be correct as her body had been found about 12 hours earlier.

Thought that really strange when watching. Was surprised it wasn’t mentioned again.

monkeybutter

Deeec wrote: »

The husband allegedly told a french reporter that Sophie had told him the weekend she was in Cork that she was in the early stages of pregnancy. Im pretty sure this would have been picked up during the autopsy though and would have been made public.

It could be convenient for the husband to say this to demonstate how much ' in love' they were. At the time of Sophies murder he was already having an affair with the lady he got pregnant 6 months after Sophies death . He could have wanted to avoid an expensive divorce!

Her husbands phone call at 10.30 could have told her to expect a surpise visitor at X time and to be at the gate to let them in. Her life in France sounded complicated and should have warranted extensive investigation. The answer to who murdered Sophie could very well be related to her life in France. She had alot more going on in France than she did in Ireland.
By all accounts she didnt mix with locals in Cork at all - She seemed to keep to herself. I would find it hard to believe it was a local. If the murder was preplanned her remote house in Cork was the perfect place to carry it out rather than France.

i dont think they check for this unless the cause of death was related


He would hardly then come out with a lie like that after years knowing it could be easily dis-proven in a report

Taeholic

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Thought that really strange when watching. Was surprised it wasn’t mentioned again.

And it said her husbands son called Sophie's parents to confirm it was Sophie. Not him. Unless it was Sophie's son they meant but surely he wouldn't have a 14 year old call his grandparents to say his mother had been murdered.

I thought it was all very odd and that her husband didn't travel over.

monkeybutter

Deleted User wrote: »

Thought that really strange when watching. Was surprised it wasn’t mentioned again.

just a mess up on the translation for sure

Deeec

monkeybutter wrote: »

i dont think they check for this unless the cause of death was related


He would hardly then come out with a lie like that after years knowing it could be easily dis-proven in a report

I would of thought it would be standard practice when doing an autopsy to check for pregnancy in a woman of child bearing age. Pregnancy could be a motive to kill in murder investigations. Maybe Im wrong though. You would imagine he would have mentioned this to the gardai at the time.

nc6000

monkeybutter wrote: »

just a mess up on the translation for sure

Maybe it was a translation or subtitle error but I'm surprised it wasn't picked up and corrected.

It's very odd that her son rang her parents with the bad news and also very odd the husband didn't travel to Cork with them.

monkeybutter

Deeec wrote: »

I would of thought it would be standard practice when doing an autopsy to check for pregnancy in a woman of child bearing age. Pregnancy could be a motive to kill in murder investigations. Maybe Im wrong though. You would imagine he would have mentioned this to the gardai at the time.

i couldnt find anything on it anyway to say if that was the case

fryup

people here mention Sophie's neighbours alfie lyons and his partner but what about the other house? isn't there a second house up that laneway?

The Ungerer's i think their name is...we're they ever questioned?