Murder at the Cottage | Sky

horgan_p

Caroleia wrote: »

This is the crux of the article



She claims to have identified the person in recent months from a photo online, according to informed sources."

Bear in mind this man can shrink and grow at will.

I'm sorry, Marie Farrell is the definition of an unreliable narrator.

One thing that was said in the documentary that I thought was insightful: The idea of Ian Bailey being guilty and the Gardai being corrupt are not reliant on each other.

ShamNNspace

Caroleia wrote: »

This is the crux of the article

"In the latest twist to the extraordinary case, Ms Farrell believes she can now identify the person outside her shop as a man who was known to Ms Toscan du Plantier’s late husband, Daniel.

She claims to have identified the person in recent months from a photo online, according to informed sources."

Was that the man with the beret? I'm surprised she didn't say he was wearing a striped geansai and had a string of onions around his neck

Gussie Scrotch

Deeec wrote: »

I think Marie Farrell was tucked up in bed that night. She was nowhere near Kilfeada bridge. I dont understand how her husband has stayed married to her.

She is either a huge attention seaker or was bribed by the Gardai.

Yep, that's also a strong possibility. But, on balance, I think she was there, returning from a game of "hide the sausage" at Barleycove beach.

Once she had told the Garda this and that she had seen the mystery man at the bridge.....surely, given the gravity of the matter, the next step was to demand the identity of her companion? Followed by that person being asked to verify Mrs Farrell's story? But that didn't happen.....why not...?

CoBo55

False Prophet wrote: »

Just watched sky doc without knowing anything about the case before and based on lack of evidence i dont see IB doing it, in fact that he gave his dna so willing is another reason I dont think its him.

Would have preferred if more time was spent on facts or probabilities. Overview picture of IB House to victim and to the bridge. Some expert to give probability of what happened based on facts or again overview picture of evidence.

A better timeline of IB Events and could he realistically have done it in the time without his girlfriend knowing. Did he often get up in the early morning to go writing or was it a once off.
And surely there has to be other suspects, was heating fixed( more to show that her reason to be in ireland was really that), did she have friends that she would have confined in about affairs, could it have been a kidnapping that went wrong, did she have life insurance, if getting a divorce how much would she have got. Pure speculation on my part but doc should explore those threads and then show evidence against.

Blood on the door is odd to me, if it's a local they know about neighbours. So they kill the girl in a rage , then go back to the house to clean up/hide evidence but leave her body and the murder weapons (unless wearing gloves).
Blood on gate was outside or inside? Was she trying to get in or out. Gate open means a car was there.
Dont know why she would be down at gate anyway without a coat. Either running from danger but again wouldnt running to neighbours be shorter.

Listen to the podcast it's much better.

False Prophet

gmisk wrote: »

Just one point I think the blood on the door was hers?

Yes it was hers but imo has to have been transferred from killer when getting in. I can't see how it can get to the door otherwise

CoBo55

ShamNNspace wrote: »

Was that the man with the beret? I'm surprised she didn't say he was wearing a striped geansai and had a string of onions around his neck

Don't forget the bike:D That Marie Farrell is a loop the loop. Jim Sheridan would be making a huge mistake putting any faith in anything she says.

odyssey06

Deeec wrote: »

The problem is noone believes anything Marie says anymore. She is not a reliable witness.

Except the French! Who might now be hoist on their own petard...

chooseusername

odyssey06 wrote: »

Except the French! Who might now be hoist on their own petard...

The French were handed a load of merde by the gardai in the hope they would
do what the Irish DPP rightly refused to do.

Caroleia

Caroleia wrote: »

This is the crux of the article

"In the latest twist to the extraordinary case, Ms Farrell believes she can now identify the person outside her shop as a man who was known to Ms Toscan du Plantier’s late husband, Daniel.

She claims to have identified the person in recent months from a photo online, according to informed sources."

Well it's definitely worth following it up, should be fairly straightforward to check him out.
In some crime cases those close to it have knowledge that they will never say to the media because of libel, slander, fear. The husbands family are very powerful in France. Maybe this is a way of finally getting a look in that direction.
Or a more far fetched theory, maybe Sheridan is using Farrell in the same way the guards did at the start.

chooseusername

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

Yep, that's also a strong possibility. But, on balance, I think she was there, returning from a game of "hide the sausage" at Barleycove beach.

Once she had told the Garda this and that she had seen the mystery man at the bridge.....surely, given the gravity of the matter, the next step was to demand the identity of her companion? Followed by that person being asked to verify Mrs Farrell's story? But that didn't happen.....why not...?

She refused to give up the name at first to save his good name.
Years later she came up with the name.... some dead guy from Longford.

Gussie Scrotch

chooseusername wrote: »

She refused to give up the name at first to save his good name.
Years later she came up with the name.... some dead guy from Longford.

Don't believe that the Guards would have accepted that refusal on such a serious issue. They would have got it out of her one way or another as, if the companion verified her claim, then it would have been a virtual clincher for them.

Her claim that it was a man "who has since dies" is far too convenient.

My guess ( and that's all it is ) ...her companion that night was a Guard.

Deeec

Sadly so many people related to the case are now dead ( Daniel Tocan Du Plantier, Alfie, Martin Grahm, Rosie Shelley, randy garda, members of the investigation team, John Harbison etc). Secrets could very well be buried now forever. It probably will never be solved ( barring a death bed confession ).

I was only in my teens when Sophie was murdered but the case has always intrigued me. It is made up of so many strange characters with colourful lives. The events that occured and the stories of the people involved reads like a work of fiction - but this all really happened and it is ongoing. There really is so many possibilies of what could have happened on that night/morning that nothing can be discounted. Also so many lives were ruined and tainted by this case in the last 24 years which is tragic.

I honestly believe that if the gardai had done their job properly this case could have been solved. In 100 years time people could still be speculating on who murdered Sophie Toscan Du Plantier.

corcaigh07

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

Actually came across him locally about a week before the Jules breakup was made public. He was sitting on his own and looked absolutely desolate.

The local paper has mentioned he's staying in a B+B at the moment and he's in and out of Jules' house with a final moving out date in July.

MoonUnit75

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

Don't believe that the Guards would have accepted that refusal on such a serious issue. They would have got it out of her one way or another as, if the companion verified her claim, then it would have been a virtual clincher for them.

Her claim that it was a man "who has since dies" is far too convenient.

My guess ( and that's all it is ) ...her companion that night was a Guard.

That no longer makes any sense. She’s already given dodgy statements that one guard practically sexually assaulted her in the toilets of a bar which she said she was cleaning as part of her job. It turned out cleaning toilets were not part of her job and her description of the layout of the toilets was also wrong. She also alleged another Garda was naked waiting for her in a house.

There’s no reason to believe she is protecting any individual garda or afraid of the gardai in general.

chooseusername

Caroleia wrote: »

This is the crux of the article

"In the latest twist to the extraordinary case, Ms Farrell believes she can now identify the person outside her shop as a man who was known to Ms Toscan du Plantier’s late husband, Daniel.

She claims to have identified the person in recent months from a photo online, according to informed sources."

I knew it all along,
'twas Roger Moore.

https://www.granger.com/wmpix/age/rue/0145419-ISABELLE-HUPPERT-AND-DANIEL-TOSCAN-DU-PLANTIER-French-actress-Isabelle-Huppert-with-director-Daniel-Toscan-du-Plantier-and-behind-Roger-Moore-at-YvesMontand-concert-at-Olympia-october-14-1981-Full-credit.jpg

MoonUnit75

Deleted User wrote: »

Well it's definitely worth following it up, should be fairly straightforward to check him out.
In some crime cases those close to it have knowledge that they will never say to the media because of libel, slander, fear. The husbands family are very powerful in France. Maybe this is a way of finally getting a look in that direction.
Or a more far fetched theory, maybe Sheridan is using Farrell in the same way the guards did at the start.

My sense of Farrell is that she is amenable to whoever is paying her the most attention at that particular time.

This ‘new information’ is ridiculous, it struck her he looked familiar 25 years after seeing him for a grand total of 10-15 seconds? She’s already said she gave false testimony at one trial, this will go absolutely nowhere. Shocked at Sheridan taking it seriously. Schull is a tiny place, where did this guy stay? Why did no one else see a guy skulking around in a beret and french accent in the dead of winter? Why wait until the very last night she was staying in Cork and be seen openly in public all over the weekend?

Deeec

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

My sense of Farrell is that she is amenable to whoever is paying her the most attention at that particular time.

This ‘new information’ is ridiculous, it struck her he looked familiar 25 years after seeing him for a grand total of 10-15 seconds? She’s already said she gave false testimony at one trial, this will go absolutely nowhere. Shocked at Sheridan taking it seriously. Schull is a tiny place, where did this guy stay? Why did no one else see a guy skulking around in a beret and french accent in the dead of winter? Why wait until the very last night she was staying in Cork and be seen openly in public all over the weekend?

Agree completely with what you have said here. Also Daniel was pretty distinctive looking - there is no way she is only realising now ( 25 years later ) that it was him. Im guessing Sheridan is happy to use it to publicise his documentary.

Gussie Scrotch

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

That no longer makes any sense. She’s already given dodgy statements that one guard practically sexually assaulted her in the toilets of a bar which she said she was cleaning as part of her job. It turned out cleaning toilets were not part of her job and her description of the layout of the toilets was also wrong. She also alleged another Garda was naked waiting for her in a house.

There’s no reason to believe she is protecting any individual garda or afraid of the gardai in general.

OK, I see your point.

But I think she was more afraid of her husband...hence the hold the guards had over her. But I still can't see why the Guards would just accept her refusal to name her companion when, if he was named and interviewed and confirmed her claim of seeing Bailey at the bridge, would have strengthened their case enormously.

I can, however, see how they would be willing to accept her refusal if the said companion was one of their own and that if they had insisted on his public naming they would be wrecking his marriage. I cannot see any other reason for them to just accept that refusal...it would have been too important too their prospects of convicting IB.

Why just let it drop the way they did? I think that she, ultimately did name the companion to the investigating officers and they covered for him.

Gamb!t

jimwallace197 wrote: »

I wouldn't agree, its already been established she was in dispute with her neighbors over leaving the gate open. This could only be down to security concerns. She would hardly head down there (a woman in a foreign country on her own) and confront some fella(s) in the middle of the night about what he or they were up to.

Also as for Alfie being an actual drug dealer, i dont think thats even been established yet and stoners dont tend to be the type of people going around murdering people. His wife being a retired teacher and then he starts dealing drugs out of his house, i dont know.

Probably not but a person in Uniform (Garda) could possibly persuade he to come out late at night.
What I dont understand is why she put on a pair of boots but no jacket in the dead of winter.

Loafing Oaf

ShamNNspace wrote: »

Was that the man with the beret? I'm surprised she didn't say he was wearing a striped geansai and had a string of onions around his neck

Somebody should say to her what Uncle Gaybo once said to a similar stereotypical 'Frenchman'

chooseusername

chooseusername wrote: »

I knew it all along,
'twas Roger Moore.

https://www.granger.com/wmpix/age/rue/0145419-ISABELLE-HUPPERT-AND-DANIEL-TOSCAN-DU-PLANTIER-French-actress-Isabelle-Huppert-with-director-Daniel-Toscan-du-Plantier-and-behind-Roger-Moore-at-YvesMontand-concert-at-Olympia-october-14-1981-Full-credit.jpg

A very diverse range of expressions in that photo.

Deeec

Deeec wrote: »

Agree completely with what you have said here. Also Daniel was pretty distinctive looking - there is no way she is only realising now ( 25 years later ) that it was him. Im guessing Sheridan is happy to use it to publicise his documentary.

It's not Daniel she is identifying, it's some fella she has seen in a photo with Daniel.
My suspicion is that Jim Sheridan showed her this photo and gave her a nudge to identify him. He knows her story is nonsense but also that the Gaurds will have to look into it. Maybe he knows something about that man he wants to be focused on.

Fr Tod Umptious

Quick question

Why are people discussing Farrell and what she has said, both at the time and in subsequent years ?

nc6000

corcaigh07 wrote: »

Actually came across him locally about a week before the Jules breakup was made public. He was sitting on his own and looked absolutely desolate.

The local paper has mentioned he's staying in a B+B at the moment and he's in and out of Jules' house with a final moving out date in July.

While most of the incompetent Gardai involved in this have probably since retired and are on full pensions.

robwen

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

Don't believe that the Guards would have accepted that refusal on such a serious issue. They would have got it out of her one way or another as, if the companion verified her claim, then it would have been a virtual clincher for them.

Her claim that it was a man "who has since dies" is far too convenient.

My guess ( and that's all it is ) ...her companion that night was a Guard.

Well her story is that the guards coerced her into lying that she saw Bailey so they were keeping her sweet to stick to that story

Sardonicat

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

My sense of Farrell is that she is amenable to whoever is paying her the most attention at that particular time.

This ‘new information’ is ridiculous, it struck her he looked familiar 25 years after seeing him for a grand total of 10-15 seconds? She’s already said she gave false testimony at one trial, this will go absolutely nowhere. Shocked at Sheridan taking it seriously. Schull is a tiny place, where did this guy stay? Why did no one else see a guy skulking around in a beret and french accent in the dead of winter? Why wait until the very last night she was staying in Cork and be seen openly in public all over the weekend?

In a beret? Was he wearing a striped shirt and a string of onions round his neck as well? Smoking a gauloise and smelling strongly of garlic, too, I suppose. That woman is pathetic.

Widdensushi

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Quick question

Why are people discussing Farrell and what she has said, both at the time and in subsequent years ?

She lacks credibility, there is a serious lack of evidence that he did it, take her statement away and what have you?

robwen

Also in the Indo today Bailey wants his interview from the upcoming Netflix documentary removed threatening legal action against them

Gussie Scrotch

robwen wrote: »

Well her story is that the guards coerced her into lying that she saw Bailey so they were keeping her sweet to stick to that story

The Guards were struggling to find evidence on Baily.

Mrs Farrell's "sighting" was the strongest piece they had.

Had her "sighting" been corroborated by another person (the companion") Then their case would be very much strengthened.

Hence my question - why not force her to disclose the name, interview him and confirm her story?

robwen

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

The Guards were struggling to find evidence on Baily.

Mrs Farrell's "sighting" was the strongest piece they had.

Had her "sighting" been corroborated by another person (the companion") Then their case would be very much strengthened.

Hence my question - why not force her to disclose the name, interview him and confirm her story?

Well going by her story she was lying for the guards by identifying Bailey as the man so if they got the companion they'd have to convince him to lie aswell, they weren't forcing her to identify cause they desperately needed her, they supposedly covered up her driving offences, her son caught multiple times driving without insurance & an assault allegation against her husband