Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Mackwiss

Update with the thread now...

Still thinking the killing happened at sunrise.

Here's a few questions maybe someone may be able to answer or brainstorm

She stated she was in Ireland to fix the heating on the house. Anyone knows if this actually happened?

If not, could the person arriving in the morning of the 23rd be the person coming to fix it?

Some altercation, she being rude, the guy being odd for whatever reason and we know what happens next.

Any information if she was hit from behind or from the front? Meaning either she had her back to the killer when he first hit her or if the injuries are consistent with a struggle and killer grabs a rock to hit her. Notices the blood. Then notices he has to finish her and leave.

This would mean the blue fiesta would belong to a local repair man maybe? Or... someone coming from further away on the advice of someone else for whatever reason? I live in West Cork and the handyman coming to do some repairs here sometimes comes from Schull, we're north of Dunmanway.

Last question, I know its 1996 but any kind of CCTV present anywhere in West Cork at all? Maybe some fancy new place recently opened in 1996?

MoonUnit75

Yurt! wrote: »

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.

Talk about 'belief' all you want. That's the exact attitude Bailey and his legal team had going into his defamation case, that it was all rumour and gossip and the team would shred them to pieces. It was a spectacular own goal and the exact opposite happened.

milehip

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I have always believed that Ian Bailey is guilty as charged.

Xander10 wrote: »

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

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I never said it did to be fair.
.

Pick a lane Audrey!

fryup

Mackwiss wrote: »

She stated she was in Ireland to fix the heating on the house. Anyone knows if this actually happened?
If not, could the person arriving in the morning of the 23rd be the person coming to fix it?
Some altercation, she being rude, the guy being odd for whatever reason and we know what happens next.

i suggested that in an earlier post myself

i envisage something like this...

Sophie see's car pull up and walks down to the gate...

Sophie: who are you?
Handyman: i've come to fix the heating?
Sophie: but it's too early i was expecting you later!
Handyman: well fek it lady i'm here now!
Sophie: well it's too early come back later! go on go! *and ushers him out
Handyman then loses his head, and strikes out at her...the rest plays out as so..

Mackwiss wrote: »

I live in West Cork and the handyman coming to do some repairs here sometimes comes from Schull, we're north of Dunmanway.

is he an oddball?

AudreyHepburn

milehip wrote: »

Pick a lane Audrey!

What? That makes no sense.

I said I believe he’s guilty. I never said it’s because I don’t like him.

I said it’s due to evidence, witness statements had his behaviour following the murder.

monkeybutter

Yurt! wrote: »

I had it that the allegation all along was that he stumbled there and back pished and committed the murder in between? It just doesn't seem plausible to me given the distance or that no one else would spot him over the some 8km total route, even taking the time of night into account.

There are about 8 to 10 houses in between

It's the 22 Dec, 2am, who would be there to spot someone when you can see a car coming and step into cover


Who the hell would see him


People sober up

Xander10

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

What? That makes no sense.

I said I believe he’s guilty. I never said it’s because I don’t like him.

I said it’s due to evidence, witness statements had his behaviour following the murder.

Give us a summary of his movements on the night of the murder up until the time the body was found?

Fr Tod Umptious

fryup wrote: »

i suggested that in an earlier post myself

i envisage something like this...

Sophie see's car pull up and walks down to the gate...

Sophie: who are you?
Handyman: i've come to fix the heating?
Sophie: but it's too early i was expecting you later!
Handyman: well fek it lady i'm here now!
Sophie: well it's too early come back later! go on go! *and ushers him out
Handyman then loses his head, and strikes out at her...the rest plays out as so..



is he an oddball?

This is worse than the Trevor Deely threads for daft speculation.

monkeybutter

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

What? That makes no sense.

I said I believe he’s guilty. I never said it’s because I don’t like him.

I said it’s due to evidence, witness statements had his behaviour following the murder.

Would you convict of on a jury?

Yurt2

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Talk about 'belief' all you want. That's the exact attitude Bailey and his legal team had going into his defamation case, that it was all rumour and gossip and the team would shred them to pieces. It was a spectacular own goal and the exact opposite happened.

That was a civil libel trial, he won on two counts and the 6 others settled on appeal, worth noting. And this was before Farrell (a key plank of the libel defense) retracted her statement.

Not exactly a shredding and a spectacular own goal as you would describe it.

fryup

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

This is worse than the Trevor Deely threads for daft speculation.

well its not beyond the bounds of possibility now is it

bugsyb4

Just finished watching this there now and haven't read through any of this thread yet.

My opinion from watching it is that he didn't have anything to do with the murder and at the time was an eccentric who loved the attention and probably thought let them have me as a suspect until they actually arrest the real killer and it will all blow over in a few weeks/months, how wrong he was!!

You could see near the end he was a shell of a man outside the court when he was walking away and didn't want to speak to the press, the whole affair has just taken it's toll on him and you would nearly feel if he did do it eventually he would own up to it. His partner sticking by him so long as well was a positive for me, although very surprised seeing they have since broke up.

Last 2 episodes didn't enjoy as much probably because a lot more court stuff but thought first 3 very good.

Guards and that Marie Farrell one IMO come out of it way worse and I fully endorse the DPP decision to not go after him as the evidence which they botched was not strong enough. Also the French trial using old statements that were since recanted was only going to go one way, hopefully the family feel they got something out of it and they can try somewhat to get on with their lives now.

MoonUnit75

Yurt! wrote: »

That was a civil libel trial, he won on two counts and the 6 others settled on appeal, worth noting. And this was before Farrell (a key plank of the libel defense) retracted her statement.

Not exactly a shredding and a spectacular own goal as you would describe it.

Yes, settled on appeal. There was zero prospect of him paying the paper's fees in any case, with no assets and no steady income. Settlement to make him go away seems a sensible option to me rather than racking up even more legal fees he is never in a million years going to be able to pay.

As far as Farrell goes, it's worth remembering a witness gave testimony under oath that Farrell, whom she had worked for years before, had told her Bailey was in for a windfall if he won his case and she was lined up to get some of it. Of course, I am not saying this is why she went from state witness, which brought her nothing but trouble and infamy, to Bailey's star witness. There's more detail on this in Nick Foster's recent book.

siblers

Wonder how will Ian pay back the 5 million for his failed civil case?

threeball

Just watched the trailer for the netflix documentary coming next Wednesday but it looks scarcely worth watching as even the trailer looks like the entire narrative will be about Bailey and how he's gotten away with murder.

It always amazes me how many families who lose a loved one to murder are happy to see anyone convicted as long as someone is convicted even in the complete absence of any evidence. Convicting the wrong person would haunt me more than the murder itself.

AudreyHepburn

monkeybutter wrote: »

Would you convict of on a jury?

No, it would be too unsafe to convict.

freshpopcorn

After watching this I only trust his cat and the chickens!

Ludikrus

fryup wrote: »

well its not beyond the bounds of possibility now is it

So a plumber is admonished for calling too early and he decides to bash her skull in? T’is a good bit beyond the bounds of possibility actually.

fryup

fryup wrote: »

i suggested that in an earlier post myself

i envisage something like this...

Sophie see's car pull up and walks down to the gate...

Sophie: who are you?
Handyman: i've come to fix the heating?
Sophie: but it's too early i was expecting you later!
Handyman: well fek it lady i'm here now!
Sophie: well it's too early come back later! go on go! *and ushers him out
Handyman then loses his head, and strikes out at her...the rest plays out as so..

Isn't it always the way?

MoonUnit75

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn't it always the way?

Remember the Daniel O'Donnell ad where he offers to take a look at the old ladies' boiler and she kicks him out? Heavily edited. The cameras stopped rolling once a machete and blowtorch were produced.

Loafing Oaf

Ludikrus wrote: »

So a plumber is admonished for calling too early and he decides to bash her skull in? T’is a good bit beyond the bounds of possibility actually.

Even Fred West didn't turn on his clients this way, as far as we know...

Ludikrus

It’s early days but it will be interesting if there’s a shift in public opinion after these documentaries have been digested. I haven’t read every post here but generally speaking, a lot of people seem to be expressing doubt about his guilt now. For a long time almost no one thought he was innocent (or at least not many said so). I was one of them and have always had an interest in the case. Primarily because I thought that Bailey had got away with murder. I’m not so certain anymore. The renewed interest could cause problems for the gardai.

oceanman

Ludikrus wrote: »

It’s early days but it will be interesting if there’s a shift in public opinion after these documentaries have been digested. I haven’t read every post here but generally speaking, a lot of people seem to be expressing doubt about his guilt now. For a long time almost no one thought he was innocent (or at least not many said so). I was one of them and have always had an interest in the case. Primarily because I thought that Bailey had got away with murder. I’m not so certain anymore. The renewed interest could cause problems for the gardai.

hopefully it will.

nc6000

Ludikrus wrote: »

It’s early days but it will be interesting if there’s a shift in public opinion after these documentaries have been digested. I haven’t read every post here but generally speaking, a lot of people seem to be expressing doubt about his guilt now. For a long time almost no one thought he was innocent (or at least not many said so). I was one of them and have always had an interest in the case. Primarily because I thought that Bailey had got away with murder. I’m not so certain anymore. The renewed interest could cause problems for the gardai.

Hopefully it does cause them problems and at the very least they should have to explain how they made such a balls of this investigation.

Joking aside, all possible scenarios for this poor woman's death are still on the table. It wasn't an ordinary set of circumstances so we can't really laugh or dismiss any theory however daft it might sound at first glance. The papers are full of weird crimes and coincidences every day.
If you write off Bailey as a potential killer, as I have after looking at the availabile evidence, the only scenarios left are a bit outlandish.
Affairs, mistaken identity, hit men, angry tradesmen, are all possible.
Nothing is probable here.
That's the problem.

theoneeyedman

I haven't seen this yet, might catch up on it yet, and I don't know who did the deed, but I've been of the opinion for a long time that it isn't Bailey. Personally I'd suspect someone in the Garda, or someone very close to the force, but that's only a guess really - a lot of the incompetence is very convenient.

What I found listening to the West Cork doc a while ago, was the access given by the likes of RTE, via prime time radio shows like Pat Kenny and Sean O'Rourke's shows, to various witnesses to blacken Bailey's name, especially Marie Farrell. These things don't generally happen by accident, access to these shows are generally tightly managed and controlled, so someone with power and or contacts wanted public opinion looking at Bailey and nobody else.

Very sinister imho, and a damning commentary of media in our country.

TomOnBoard

Deleted User wrote: »

Joking aside, all possible scenarios for this poor woman's death are still on the table. It wasn't an ordinary set of circumstances so we can't really laugh or dismiss any theory however daft it might sound at first glance. The papers are full of weird crimes and coincidences every day.
If you write off Bailey as a potential killer, as I have after looking at the availabile evidence, the only scenarios left are a bit outlandish.
Affairs, mistaken identity, hit men, angry tradesmen, are all possible.
Nothing is probable here.
That's the problem.

Aaaand, not a word about the horse who, at one point, allegedly kicked the poor woman to death!!

TomOnBoard

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Aaaand, not a word about the horse who, at one point, allegedly kicked the poor woman to death!!

Not to mention the chickens and the cat

TomOnBoard

fryup wrote: »

i suggested that in an earlier post myself

i envisage something like this...

Sophie see's car pull up and walks down to the gate...

Sophie: who are you?
Handyman: i've come to fix the heating?
Sophie: but it's too early i was expecting you later!
Handyman: well fek it lady i'm here now!
Sophie: well it's too early come back later! go on go! *and ushers him out
Handyman then loses his head, and strikes out at her...the rest plays out as so..

I had the EXACT same situation last week when the Tesco lad turned up to deliver the messages at 10 to 5 which was in the €5 15:00-17:00 slot, and me having paid for the dearer €7 17:00-19:00 slot, and me in me boots and feck all else had to go out and give out the pay to him for arriving early, and he went for me with a huge rock through the gate and luckily I had a side of smoked salmon in the order and was able to beat him off by holding the fish by the tail and smashed his face in with the bony oul chest of the yoke Tesco sent out and he ****ed off licking himself and his wounds (after rubbing on some dill and a pinch of salt) and when he came back (on time) I refused the whole shop coz the feckin salmon was in bits!!!

Ya have to watch out for early delivery/trades men!!

Shelga

threeball wrote: »

Just watched the trailer for the netflix documentary coming next Wednesday but it looks scarcely worth watching as even the trailer looks like the entire narrative will be about Bailey and how he's gotten away with murder.

It always amazes me how many families who lose a loved one to murder are happy to see anyone convicted as long as someone is convicted even in the complete absence of any evidence. Convicting the wrong person would haunt me more than the murder itself.

I wondered this too. When watching Pierre Louis I thought- has he ever, for a moment, allowed himself to sit with the possibility that it wasn’t Ian Bailey who killed his mother? It doesn’t seem like he has, despite extremely flimsy evidence. It’s like they just need something to work towards, something to focus on, rather than the agony of being back to square one with no suspects, no evidence, no leads. I don’t know how any of us would feel until we are in a similar situation (god forbid).