Murder at the Cottage | Sky

MoonUnit75

Gamb!t wrote: »

There should be an investigation into the Guards mishandling of this case along with all of the above.

I think GSOC did investigate the case as well as the civil action Bailey took against them for wrongful arrest, which he lost.

irishgeo

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I think GSOC did investigate the case as well as the civil action Bailey took against them for wrongful arrest, which he lost.

The huge amount of evidence missing is shocking. How do you lose a gate?

Pages of evidence books ripped out. Huge cover up done because they know they ****ed up.

monkeybutter

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Maybe it developed that way, but her original disclosures were the most crucial and she gave these anonymously, the gardai only managed to track her down when she made the mistake of ringing from her home phone instead of the payphones she had been using.

Or she was doing it from the start, they weren't going to use an anonymous tip as the cornerstone of a murder case

The may follow a lead based on an a tip but not this

If she rang from a pay phone you knew she they could see her number

You don't then make a mistake like that after

RurtBeynolds

Haven't read the thread, how are people rating this?

Polly701

Sophie and her housekeeper (Josie?) suspected someone may have been using the house when she was away. Was this ever explored?

Perhaps this person turned up and there was an alteration?

I don't believe it was IB. The Guards in this case were really out of their depth.

robwen

The front page of the Irish independent today backs up what's been posted on the Ian Bailey Twitter page, that the Garda Commissioner is considering a request from Bailey for a review of the case file & the main story inside clearly uses info from that Twitter account aswell, the account is followed by many prominent journalists also, it's clearly the man himself tweeting

MoonUnit75

RurtBeynolds wrote: »

Haven't read the thread, how are people rating this?

Just watched the first episode. Nothing I haven't read elsewhere. Seems slightly self-indulgent on Jim Sheridan's part.

mosii

Are there any lie detector tests in this country?Test everyone involved.
:cool:

MoonUnit75

Polly701 wrote: »

Sophie and her housekeeper (Josie?) suspected someone may have been using the house when she was away. Was this ever explored?

Perhaps this person turned up and there was an alteration?

I don't believe it was IB. The Guards in this case were really out of their depth.

You couldn't miss her hire car outside the house, you would have to walk past it. Sophie had nightclothes on and walking boots, laced up. She heard something or someone outside and went out to them it seems, there was no break-in. It seems to me she knew the person outside, she had a phone to call the gardai or the neighbour if she thought someone was breaking in.

The two wine glasses story seems like nonsense, there were two clean glasses on the draining board along with other dishes, but they were already washed. She was on the phone to her husband until 11pm and the glasses were washed and set out to dry when the house was examined, it hardly seems likely that someone arrived late at night and they had a massive row, but she still had time to wash and neatly put away two glasses. It's more likely she used both glasses herself over the couple of nights and just washed both after using the second one.

Polly701

Polly701 wrote: »

Sophie and her housekeeper (Josie?) suspected someone may have been using the house when she was away. Was this ever explored?

Perhaps this person turned up and there was an alteration?

I don't believe it was IB. The Guards in this case were really out of their depth.

Josephine Hellen.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/locks-were-changed-after-intruder-at-du-plantier-house-said-housekeeper-30242061.html

chooseusername

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Maybe it developed that way, but her original disclosures were the most crucial and she gave these anonymously, the gardai only managed to track her down when she made the mistake of ringing from her home phone instead of the payphones she had been using.

Chances are there were a few calls , some would be anonymous, some would
point to Bailey, changing her name and getting called on crimewatch had her hooked. (I can't remember her reason for doing that)
She was now important and got swept up in the media frenzy .
Then the gardai found her and realised she could be manipulated and so it started..

MoonUnit75

chooseusername wrote: »

Chances are there were a few calls , some would be anonymous, some would
point to Bailey, changing her name and getting called on crimewatch had her hooked. (I can't remember her reason for doing that)
She was now important and got swept up in the media frenzy .
Then the gardai found her and realised she could be manipulated and so it started..

She kept saying she wasn't going in to make a statement though. As far as she knew, she gave them all the information anonymously until two gardai knocked on her door unexpectedly and brought her in. She wasn't named for years in the media as far as I remember. I can actually remember hearing on the news a long, long time later that the mystery witness had been identified.

Addle

It must’ve been very unnerving to stay in the house when she knew someone had been using it in her absence.

monkeybutter

https://magill.ie/archive/falsely-fingering-sophies-killer

Interesting timeline on what she actually said and when

Sounds less mental than the coverage after would make it out

odyssey06

monkeybutter wrote: »

https://magill.ie/archive/falsely-fingering-sophies-killer

Interesting timeline on what she actually said and when

Sounds less mental than the coverage after would make it out

Key takeaways...

Two days later, gardaí called on her again, this time with a video tape taken, we understand, on Christmas Day. They asked her to view the tape and see if she recognised the man she had seen on the Saturday afternoon and subsequently. She viewed the tape but recognised nobody. The tape, we understand, prominently featured Ian Bailey at a function a few days previously. The key issue is that Marie Farrell did not identify Ian Bailey as the person she had seen in Schull and later on the road.

monkeybutter

What would the defense get access to say if it had gone to trial?

Could they hide the original statements etc as they would compromise the one identifying him

Mackwiss

monkeybutter wrote: »

https://magill.ie/archive/falsely-fingering-sophies-killer

Interesting timeline on what she actually said and when

Sounds less mental than the coverage after would make it out

Interesting but not surprising the tabloid media made the whole plot of this story themselves. And of course it serves only the Gardai and the killer this was done.

A clear timeline shows a number of things. But make no mistake, IB was also a part of the media frenzy until him, himself became part of the plot of the media frenzy...

Honest to god... could the real killer just grow a pair of balls and confess... could any Gardai involved in the crap grow a pair too and come forward and admit what they did?

Xander10

monkeybutter wrote: »

https://magill.ie/archive/falsely-fingering-sophies-killer

Interesting timeline on what she actually said and when

Sounds less mental than the coverage after would make it out

Key bits:

He said, "I know it was you who saw me at Kealfadda bridge but I did not murder her ....."


"There is just one thing I need you to do for me, if you do this I will never ask you to do anything else. Just go on tape and say the detectives made you make a false statement about me". She replied, according to Marie Farrell's statement, "Ian would you **** off".

monkeybutter

Xander10 wrote: »

Key bits:

He said, "I know it was you who saw me at Kealfadda bridge but I did not murder her ....."


"There is just one thing I need you to do for me, if you do this I will never ask you to do anything else. Just go on tape and say the detectives made you make a false statement about me". She replied, according to Marie Farrell's statement, "Ian would you **** off".

I know presumably recorded on tape right

It doesn't make any sense as her statement would no longer be false

CoBo55

RurtBeynolds wrote: »

Haven't read the thread, how are people rating this?

Quite poor compared to the podcast. Bailey was a lot more coherent in the podcast, a lot more sinister too. If he doesn't get a grip on the alcohol he won't be long for this world.

nc6000

Xander10 wrote: »

Key bits:

He said, "I know it was you who saw me at Kealfadda bridge but I did not murder her ....."

So she did see him out there but also saw some other guy across from her shop when Sophie was in there?

nc6000

nc6000 wrote: »

So she did see him out there but also saw some other guy across from her shop when Sophie was in there?

Is he admitting that "I know it was you who saw me at Kealfadda bridge but I did not murder her"or is it MF spoofing? Is it actually on tape? I have never heard him admit being at Kealfadda bridge before

afkasurfjunkie

I’d still have my doubts that it was IB and the sky doc hasn’t lessened them. I’m thinking JS may not be the best on camera for a documentary however he knows what he is doing behind the camera and I think some parts of it show us some glimpses of the real IB. Especially in the last episode.
For example there’s a clip where the chickens get into his shed while the camera is focused on Jules gardening. IB is shouting for her to come and get them. She literally drops all and rushes to him. I found it quite unsettling. It was like she didn’t want him to get any angrier. He had quite the temper on him. Can you imagine what he was like when he put her in hospital?
Also, I noticed lots of shots where she would be pottering away in what looked like their kitchen. It looked bright, warm and cozy. She looked at ease there. It contrasted well with the garage where IB gave a lot of his interviews and sound bytes and stored his boxes of files. The garage looked messy, cluttered, dark and chaotic. I think it showed the growing discord between them as a couple which came across clearly in other scenes like where they were watching tv together.
Also what was the pliers scene about? That was freaky. The man is unhinged. Were we seeing this dark, twisted side to him that he tries to laugh off as his sense of humour?
JS says at one stage that IB is like an actor paying a part at times. I think he is a guilty man playing the part of an innocent man. It’s clearly taken it’s toll over the years.

monkeybutter

Must be some mistake there as he seemed to be recording it too

monkeybutter

afkasurfjunkie wrote: »

I’d still have my doubts that it was IB and the sky doc hasn’t lessened them. I’m thinking JS may not be the best on camera for a documentary however he knows what he is doing behind the camera and I think some parts of it show us some glimpses of the real IB. Especially in the last episode.
For example there’s a clip where the chickens get into his shed while the camera is focused on Jules gardening. IB is shouting for her to come and get them. She literally drops all and rushes to him. I found it quite unsettling. It was like she didn’t want him to get any angrier. He had quite the temper on him. Can you imagine what he was like when he put her in hospital?
Also, I noticed lots of shots where she would be pottering away in what looked like their kitchen. It looked bright, warm and cozy. She looked at ease there. It contrasted well with the garage where IB gave a lot of his interviews and sound bytes and stored his boxes of files. The garage looked messy, cluttered, dark and chaotic. I think it showed the growing discord between them as a couple which came across clearly in other scenes like where they were watching tv together.
Also what was the pliers scene about? That was freaky. The man is unhinged. Were we seeing this dark, twisted side to him that he tries to laugh off as his sense of humour?
JS says at one stage that IB is like an actor paying a part at times. I think he is a guilty man playing the part of an innocent man. It’s clearly taken it’s toll over the years.

Or an innocent one whose life had been ruined

fryup

i wouldn't be surprised to wake some morning to the news that's he's topped himself, he looks like he's at the end of his tether

fryup

fryup wrote: »

i wouldn't be surprised to wake some morning to the news that's he's topped himself, he looks like he's at the end of his tether

If he hasn't done it the past 20 years no reason he will do it now. Having said that he has lost his home but through the new documentaries has also gained worldwide fame. Men on death row attract a certain type of women so mister Bailey might be allright. Although from the interviews I've heard from him lately he does not seem interested in playing the game any more.
I wish him well, I don't believe he killed that poor woman.

Xander10

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If he hasn't done it the past 20 years no reason he will do it now. Having said that he has lost his home but through the new documentaries has also gained worldwide fame. Men on death row attract a certain type of women so mister Bailey might be allright. Although from the interviews I've heard from him lately he does not seem interested in playing the game any more.
I wish him well, I don't believe he killed that poor woman.

It wasn't his home.

Where does he live now btw?

Yurt2

Xander10 wrote: »

It wasn't his home.

Where does he live now btw?

He would likely be able to assert some some legal rights after cohabiting for so long. Not sure if he wants to play that game with Thomas though and she is likely of limited means herself.

retro:electro

Sorry but Ian going nuts that the guards never wished him a happy birthday is a hoot