Murder at the Cottage | Sky

chooseusername

Biker79 wrote: »

Also more euphemistically known as " going along to get along "

Having the pint was better than the transfer.
Shur you wouldn't know where you'd end up.

AudreyHepburn

I have always believed that Ian Bailey is guilty as charged but if by some remote chance he’s innocent he has don’t absolutely nothing to help his case. He’s a thoroughly unlikeable character. And we know him to be a violent man with a quick temper and a total narcissist.

I just find hard to believe an innocent man would act the way he did.

And yes I know the Gardai made a serious mess of the case but that does not make Bailey innocent.

CoBo55

JimmyVik wrote: »

Well as a professional hitman I can tell you its not the done think.
You go and you set up the murder the way you want it to look.
You go to your cleanup location and clean up. You never approach the body or the scene of the crime a second time.
More interactions, more evidence left.
I learned this on day one of hitman college.
Then on my work experience I lost marks for moving a body after the job was done.
Only for that i would have got a first.

Villanelle....

Xander10

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I have always believed that Ian Bailey is guilty as charged but if by some remote chance he’s innocent he has don’t absolutely nothing to help his case. He’s a thoroughly unlikeable character. And we know him to be a violent man with a quick temper.

And yes I know the Gardai made a serious mess of the case but that does not make Bailey innocent.

because you find him unlikeable does not amount to evidence that he carried out a murder.

AudreyHepburn

Xander10 wrote: »

because you find him unlikeable does not amount to evidence that he carried out a murder.

I never said it did to be fair.

The combination of evidence (albeit circumstantial), witness statements and his behaviour after the fact are what make me believe him to be guilty.

What I said was that if he is innocent his behaviour and actions after Sophie’s death have not in any way, shape or form helped him.

oceanman

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I have always believed that Ian Bailey is guilty as charged but if by some remote chance he’s innocent he has don’t absolutely nothing to help his case. He’s a thoroughly unlikeable character. And we know him to be a violent man with a quick temper and a total narcissist.

I just find hard to believe an innocent man would act the way he did.

And yes I know the Gardai made a serious mess of the case but that does not make Bailey innocent.

why do you use the the word "remote" ?

AudreyHepburn

oceanman wrote: »

why do you use the the word "remote" ?

Because as I said my belief is and always has been that he is guilty and I would honestly be shocked to find that he is not.

oceanman

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Because as I said my belief is and always has been that he is guilty and I would honestly be shocked to find that he is not.

fair enough, i would be shocked if he was guilty at this stage after everything i have seen and read but each to their own opinion i guess.

jimwallace197

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Because as I said my belief is and always has been that he is guilty and I would honestly be shocked to find that he is not.

Thank god your not on any jury or god forbid the accused if you are? Guilty of murder because you dont like him & think hes a bad man.

No hard evidence. Plenty of evidence of a garda cover up and set up. No motive, no witnesses, but yes hes guilty because you dont like him.

odyssey06

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I never said it did to be fair.
The combination of evidence (albeit circumstantial), witness statements and his behaviour after the fact are what make me believe him to be guilty.
What I said was that if he is innocent his behaviour and actions after Sophie’s death have not in any way, shape or form helped him.

What witness statements?
There are none re: Bailey and the scene of the crime, or with the victim.

We have some dodgy statements from a discredited fantasist putting Bailey in a doubtful location.

AudreyHepburn

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Thank god your not on any jury or god forbid the accused if you are? Guilty of murder because you dont like him & think hes a bad man.

No hard evidence. Plenty of evidence of a garda cover up and set up. No motive, no witnesses, but yes hes guilty because you dont like him.

How many times do I have to say that the fact that I don’t like him has nothing to do with it.

I believe he’s guilty because his behaviour after the murder in conjunction with witness statements and evidence (again circumstantial).

A messed up investigation does not make a person innocent and you and others really need to stop acting like it does.

AudreyHepburn

odyssey06 wrote: »

What witness statements?
There are none re: Bailey and the scene of the crime, or with the victim.

We have some dodgy statements from a discredited fantasist putting Bailey in a doubtful location.

I personally believe Marie Farrell was being truthful in the beginning and was intimidated into changing her story.

Yurt2

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Because as I said my belief is and always has been that he is guilty and I would honestly be shocked to find that he is not.

Belief is a strange thing, particularly one where it's grounded in almost nothing at all - the power of suggestion and pooled innuendos from powerful forces such as the media and policing that are far beyond your control.

One of the Western world's greatest achievements is the trial in front of a jury of peers, mediated by the separation of powers and an even-handed judicial system with a tradition of guarding natural God-given rights.

These traditions and processes protect you from rumor mongers and the malicious who could otherwise with little consequence accuse you of a malfeasance and have your liberty taken away or worse.

It persists over time despite its fragility and the will of the incompetent, malevolent, or stupid to undermine it.

You may not think so, but it protects you just as it protects Bailey, who is man no right-thinking person swearing an oath in front of God (or whatever one believes in) can say with any degree of certainty killed Du Plantier.

MoonUnit75

oceanman wrote: »

fair enough, i would be shocked if he was guilty at this stage after everything i have seen and read but each to their own opinion i guess.

Why would he give one alibi during an interview, but then a completely different one with lots of detail as soon as he found out his partner had pulled his original alibi out from under him? He said he was in bed with his partner all night, but when she was arrested she said he actually got up and when he came in the next morning with coffee he had a cut on his forehead that hadn't been there the night before.

Why did he tell, allegedly and according to testimony under oath, the news desk at the Irish Independent that day that he had photographs of her (alive) and photos of the crime scene taken between 10-11am, when he later said the first he heard about it was around 1.50pm and had no idea who the victim was? The news desk did in fact send a photographer to collect the negatives from Bailey so the story does seem to check out.

Why did his partner's daughter say they both left the house for around two hours the morning the body was discovered but they both said they were at home all morning? I believe the daughter has refused to retract that statement. A vegetable stall owner said he heard about the murder from Bailey's partner around 11.30am that morning, and in one of her statements she acknowledges her daughter said she came home with vegetables.

odyssey06

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I personally believe Marie Farrell was being truthful in the beginning and was intimidated into changing her story.

I find her statements to be unbelievable on multiple levels.

AudreyHepburn

Yurt! wrote: »

Belief is a strange thing, particularly one where it's grounded in almost nothing at all - the power of suggestion and pooled innuendos from powerful forces such as the media and policing that are far beyond your control.

One of the Western world's greatest achievements is the trial in front of a jury of peers, mediated by the separation of powers and an even-handed judicial system with a tradition of guarding natural God-given rights.

These traditions and processes protect you from rumor mongers and the malicious who could otherwise with little consequence accuse you of a malfeasance and have your liberty taken away or worse.

It persists over time despite its fragility and the will of the incompetent, malevolent, or stupid to undermine it.

You may not think so, but it protects you just as it protects Bailey, who is man no right-thinking person swearing an oath in front of God (or whatever one believes in) can say with any degree of certainty killed Du Plantier.

There’s no need to talk down to me thanks.

I never said I know with certainty Bailey killed Sophie. I said I strongly believe that he did.

I don’t think we’ll ever know for sure thanks to the Garda handling of the case.

oceanman

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I personally believe Marie Farrell was being truthful in the beginning and was intimidated into changing her story.

intimidated by who?

AudreyHepburn

oceanman wrote: »

intimidated by who?

Bailey himself - I believe that was the suggestion at the time and it’s something I do agree with.

I’m sorry if you disagree with me but I’m not going to change my views on it.

Bannasidhe

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Was it possible he was still selling some at that time? Might a potential customer have been looking for his elusive house.
I think it was mentioned earlier in the thread that Sophie was concerned about drug dealing in the nearby area.

No possibility whatsoever.
A neighbouring farmers goats had broken in and ate the lot while Alfie was away.

As for Alfie selling drugs- what evidence do you have he did that?
He was an old hippy who grew for private consumption. Not to make a living.

West Cork was riddled with drugs as far back as the 80s.

Yurt2

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There’s no need to talk down to me thanks.

I never said I know with certainty Bailey killed Sophie. I said I strongly believe that he did.

I don’t think we’ll ever know for sure thanks to the Garda handling of the case.

I'm not talking down to you. But there may come a day where someone accuses you or someone you love of something punishable by gaol that you or they didn't do.

You or your loved one may be subject to sh*tty police, red top hype and even boards threads poring over how you speak, your weird inflections and minutiae of your past that you may not be proud of. Someone just like you may post that they believe you did it and you'll have to walk among your peers and community with your name blackened.

If that day comes, you'll be praying the investigating officer has a brain in his skull, that the media don't peck apart your past and cast you as a monster in the eyes of everyone save those who know you closest - you'll hope the prosecutor reviewing the file isn't hungover and misses exonerating context and detail. Above all, you'll be praying that system will do its job as it's supposed to do.

It's worth thinking about when we say what we believe.

The only thing I'm comfortable saying about Bailey is that he is an eccentric man with substance abuse problems and a history of domestic violence. I have nothing else credible to say about him, and certainly not that he's a murderer, because to do so would be to pour the bucket of cack-handed bungled innuendos given to us by the media and crap police and pour it on the canvass of his character.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No possibility whatsoever.
A neighbouring farmers goats had broken in and ate the lot while Alfie was away.

As for Alfie selling drugs- what evidence do you have he did that?
He was an old hippy who grew for private consumption. Not to make a living.

West Cork was riddled with drugs as far back as the 80s.

That's funny about the goats. I wasn't implying that he was a drug lord, just that if someone is growing a crop of weed, especially if it's good quality stuff, (I believe you mentioned a plant gifted him by Robert Michum?) then there will always be people looking to buy some of it.
As everyone knows, the drug scene is a very unstable and dangerous business, even at the most innocent level, if the wrong person is crossed or even feels that they are crossed there can be very serious consequences.

Yurt2

I suppose an interesting question to ask would be, with the 'evidence' we have, imagining you are the DPP, would anyone here honestly in good conscience be happy to endorse murder charges against Bailey and have him go to trial, and hand on heart think you'll get a dozen jurors to convict him?

I'm a hard no.

And I'd be interested if anyone who says yes, how they'd negotiate that in their mind beyond something as woolly as 'belief'.

AudreyHepburn

Yurt! wrote: »

I suppose an interesting question to ask would be, with the 'evidence' we have, imagining you are the DPP, would anyone here honestly in good conscience be happy to endorse murder charges against Bailey and have him go to trial, and hand on heart think you'll get a dozen jurors to convict him?

I'm a hard no.

And I'd be interested if anyone who says yes, how they'd negotiate that in their mind beyond something as woolly as 'belief'.

I’d be a no too. As much as I firmly believe he’s guilty I can accept that there is not enough hard evidence to safely convict him.

And to be fair I never said otherwise.

MoonUnit75

Yurt! wrote: »

I suppose an interesting question to ask would be, with the 'evidence' we have, imagining you are the DPP, would anyone here honestly in good conscience be happy to endorse murder charges against Bailey and have him go to trial, and hand on heart think you'll get a dozen jurors to convict him?

I'm a hard no.

And I'd be interested if anyone who says yes, how they'd negotiate that in their mind beyond something as woolly as 'belief'.

I doubt there would be a conviction in this case, but I do feel Irish society in general would have benefitted from the various witness statements given to the gardai being fleshed out and cross-examined in court.

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

I suppose an interesting question to ask would be, with the 'evidence' we have, imagining you are the DPP, would anyone here honestly in good conscience be happy to endorse murder charges against Bailey and have him go to trial, and hand on heart think you'll get a dozen jurors to convict him?

I'm a hard no.

And I'd be interested if anyone who says yes, how they'd negotiate that in their mind beyond something as woolly as 'belief'.

Except in France where the Judge can say to the jury '.. You must convict if the evidence has proved the prosecution's case beyond any reasonable doubt, or if you don't like the cut of the defendant's jib, that's a definite guilty too...'

retro:electro

Yurt! wrote: »

I suppose an interesting question to ask would be, with the 'evidence' we have, imagining you are the DPP, would anyone here honestly in good conscience be happy to endorse murder charges against Bailey and have him go to trial, and hand on heart think you'll get a dozen jurors to convict him?

I'm a hard no.

And I'd be interested if anyone who says yes, how they'd negotiate that in their mind beyond something as woolly as 'belief'.

Well obviously not. There’s not even enough evidence to prosecute him here let alone convict him. As much as I don’t believe he did it I also understand those who believe that the man who confessed twice to killing her may actually have had something to do with it.
None of us can confidently say either way. Just that there isn’t enough to prosecute in this country, but not for the want of trying.

fryup

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I personally believe Marie Farrell was being truthful in the beginning and was intimidated into changing her story.

oceanman wrote: »

intimidated by who?

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Bailey himself - I believe that was the suggestion at the time and it’s something I do agree with.

but she said it was the guards that browbeat her into changing her story

Yurt2

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I doubt there would be a conviction in this case, but I do feel Irish society in general would have benefitted from the various witness statements given to the gardai being fleshed out and cross-examined in court.

That's the Guards job and it wasn't for the want of trying they were capturing these statements from all and sundry about Bailey, and with your DPP hat on, if you're not given statements that are compelling it's a gross abuse of process to send an individual to trial if your professional opinion there is no prospect of conviction. Never mind the ancillary effect of endorsing incompetent police work that shut out other lines of inquiry that took the Du Plantier / Bouniol family further away from finding justice.


To take it back to 'belief' for a moment, we're here because of the original investigating officers' 'belief', and it is increasingly apparent that their belief was based on almost nothing at all. They are the point of entry and gatekeepers to the truth in this case - between incompetence, arrogant conviction in their 'belief' and at points malevolence, they've led the justice system, the family of the victim, Bailey and everyone observing the case in a merry farcical dance.

Yurt2

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

A messed up investigation does not make a person innocent and you and others really need to stop acting like it does.

Where were you on the night of the 23rd of December 1996? I have it that a local spotted you in the vicinity of the cottage wearing a long black coat. She's even willing to give a statement to the Guards to that effect and I've tipped off the Cork Examiner to your presence near the scene. I'd advise you to check tomorrow's edition.

You see how this works?

*I'm not seriously accusing you of anything btw, merely illustrating how one's 'innocence' can be stripped away when we play fast and loose with these things.

EmmetSpiceland

Thought superintendent Dwyer came off pretty badly from the show.