Murder at the Cottage | Sky

odyssey06

Furze99 wrote: »

Apart from the small issue of confessions that he done it. Agree though that he's a complete attention seeker, a tosser who should have been sent off to France to go before their investigations and case. Any completely innocent person would be happy enough to do and bury the rumouring once and for all. No time at all for him.

Any 'completely' innocent person would be mad to go before the French judicial system for a crime that didn't even take place in French jurisdiction. They don't seem too concerned about such matters as due process, presumption of innocence, or even you know this isn't their ****** colony.

ShamNNspace

Furze99 wrote: »

Apart from the small issue of confessions that he done it. Agree though that he's a complete attention seeker, a tosser who should have been sent off to France to go before their investigations and case. Any completely innocent person would be happy enough to do and bury the rumouring once and for all. No time at all for him.

The country is full of "tossers" as you say, and completely innocent one's of any wrongdoing at that, its not a crime to be a tosser, as for the "confessions" they should be taken in the context of the conversation that was taking place ... Hardly enough evidence to send a man to what amounts to a kangaroo court in France, one would need to be gone in the head to offer themselves up to such a "justice" system

Yurt2

The entire sad saga has via atrocious policing descended into a Scooby Doo-like whodunnit with Ian Bailey boxed into the role as the spooky guy and people tugging at his face for three decades hoping the mask will come off.

Loafing Oaf

ShamNNspace wrote: »

The country is full of "tossers" as you say, and completely innocent one's of any wrongdoing at that, its not a crime to be a tosser,

Unless you're doing it in a school playground...

Caquas

Mackwiss wrote: »

This is interesting. Sadly this was only taken 10 years after the fact but it connects with MF initial testimony:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/missing-link-man-in-sophie-case-offers-new-help-26461911.html

The Gardai said they checked this out fully and the Frenchman had a watertight alibi - he was at a public event in Paris around the time of the murder.

I hope these two documentaries might prompt someone to come forward with fresh evidence but we are sure to get a lot of re-hashed tales which will further muddy the waters.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sophies-friend-was-twice-cleared-by-gardai-26462893.html

Loafing Oaf

Yurt! wrote: »

The entire sad saga has via atrocious policing descended into a Scooby Doo-like whodunnit with Ian Bailey boxed into the role as the spooky guy and people tugging at his face for three decades hoping the mask will come off.

In fairness, Marie Farrell does have a look of Velma about her...

Yurt2

Caquas wrote: »

The Gardai said they checked this out fully and the Frenchman had a watertight alibi - he was at a public event in Paris around the time of the murder.

I hope these two documentaries might prompt someone to come forward with fresh evidence but we are sure to get a lot of re-hashed tales which will further muddy the waters.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sophies-friend-was-twice-cleared-by-gardai-26462893.html

Different Frenchman I believe. They questioned her ex-lover who was in Nice at the time.

Yurt2

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

In fairness, Marie Farrell does have a look of Velma about her...

I'll never be able to unsee that.

Tandey

This may have already been discussed but is it 100% that the fella MF was out with that night wasn’t Bailey?

Biker79

Furze99 wrote: »

Apart from the small issue of confessions that he done it. Agree though that he's a complete attention seeker, a tosser who should have been sent off to France to go before their investigations and case. Any completely innocent person would be happy enough to do and bury the rumouring once and for all. No time at all for him.

They weren't confessions. It was black humour wilfully misinterpreted as a confession.

The attitude to Bailey among some here has all the credibility of a medieval ' hands of a thief, must be a thief '.

jojofizzio

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

In fairness, Marie Farrell does have a look of Velma about her...

:D:D

Yurt2

Tandey wrote: »

This may have already been discussed but is it 100% that the fella MF was out with that night wasn’t Bailey?

Don't believe there was ever any suggestion that MF was with Bailey that night or any other. It's been said by her it was a former boyfriend.

Schull and environs being a small community, you'd say the likelihood of her recognizing Bailey to see at least would be pretty high. So that she didn't identify the mysterious beret guy watching Sophie (and the height discrepancies) as Bailey would lend credence to the fact it wasn't him on the bridge that night.

robwen

MoonUnit75

Yurt! wrote: »

This post is kind of illustrative of how justice, the pursuit of justice and investigative procedure can be corrupted by amateur psychologists and curtain twitching impulses.

It wasn’t a point of guilt, many people like that are very successful, highly productive and have great charisma. They rely on the naïveté and gullibility of the rest of us to be taken in by the charm offensive.

MoonUnit75

Biker79 wrote: »

They weren't confessions. It was black humour wilfully misinterpreted as a confession.

The attitude to Bailey among some here has all the credibility of a medieval ' hands of a thief, must be a thief '.

Richard Shelley said he talked obsessively about the case when he invited them back to the house, Richards partner got creeped out and when they went to leave Ian got extremely upset, cried and said ‘I did it, I did it, I went too far’. The humour excuse doesn’t apply here. The Shelley testimony was completely independent, they were on holiday I think and didn’t know anyone related to the case.

Mackwiss

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Richard Shelley said he talked obsessively about the case when he invited them back to the house, Richards partner got creeped out and when they went to leave Ian got extremely upset, cried and said ‘I did it, I did it, I went too far’. The humour excuse doesn’t apply here. The Shelley testimony was completely independent, they were on holiday I think and didn’t know anyone related to the case.

You do realize though that even if that is true (and not another paid testimony or whatever) it hardly works as proof of a confession at all? We don't know the context, we don't know the reasons behind this being said, all we know is the word of a couple against an individual.

That is nice to be used in judging people in the media or on the streets. But does not hold up in a real court of law.

MoonUnit75

Mackwiss wrote: »

You do realize though that even if that is true (and not another paid testimony or whatever) it hardly works as proof of a confession at all? We don't know the context, we don't know the reasons behind this being said, all we know is the word of a couple against an individual.

That is nice to be used in judging people in the media or on the streets. But does not hold up in a real court of law.

We do have the context, the statement said Ian took out his box of clippings about the case and talked about it for the rest of the evening. It made them both uncomfortable and they decided not to stay the night. When they said they were leaving, Richards statement says Ian put his arms on or around him and said ‘I did it’. I don’t think he was talking about JFK or Shergar.

It did stand up in the High Court by the way.

MoonUnit75

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

We do have the context, the statement said Ian took out his box of clippings about the case and talked about it for the rest of the evening. It made them both uncomfortable and they decided not to stay the night. When they said they were leaving, Richards statement says Ian put his arms on or around him and said ‘I did it’. I don’t think he was talking about JFK or Shergar.

It did stand up in the High Court by the way.

The DPP report says Bailey was in bed and got up to show the Shellys where the phone was. they had decided to go as they felt bailey didn't want them there even though he gave them sleeping bags. No mention of showing clippings



"Bailey got out of bed and showed Richie Shelley where the phone was located. After making the call, Richie Shelley alleges that Ian Bailey came into the kitchen and cried “I did it”, repeating this about four or five times. In response, each time Bailey allegedly said “I did it”, Richie Shelley allegedly asked “you did what”? Bailey did not answer.

However, when Richie Shelley allegedly persisted with the question, Bailey allegedly said “I went too far, I went too far”. Richie Shelley asked Bailey what he meant bysaying he had gone too far, but Bailey did not answer him."


It was new yars eve i expect Bailey was well drunk

Mackwiss

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

We do have the context, the statement said Ian took out his box of clippings about the case and talked about it for the rest of the evening. It made them both uncomfortable and they decided not to stay the night. When they said they were leaving, Richards statement says Ian put his arms on or around him and said ‘I did it’. I don’t think he was talking about JFK or Shergar.

It did stand up in the High Court by the way.

Exactly, and that is precisely why it was wrong.

Someone's testimony in such circumstance is hearsay. It does not stand on it's own in any court because it has to be backed by other evidence which is non-existent.

We also do not know if the context of the conversation is that one since, it's the word of an individual, or a couple against another.

And actually any information on this statement does not match what you wrote about it. Do you have the court records to back it up?

Because I do recall the same witness stating that Ian burst in the kitchen screaming what you meant and no mention of newspaper clippings or the context you gave it.

Lastly, if you've been accused of something you did not do. IF you are facing jail for it. OF COURSE you will be talking about it constantly and worried about it. Because obviously... you don't want to go to jail for something you didn't do...

So it comes to the point if IB farts against the wind then immediately that's another proof he did it...

Just like last year when he was caught with weed. When so many people are caught with weed. But since it was him. Done! Another irrefutable proof he did it right?

This is not justice, this is just mob mentality and media plots interfering with this again...

And all in all... we forget the women is dead, brutally murdered. And we're worried about IBs reaction, and weed possession.

Mackwiss

SoulWriter wrote: »

The DPP report says Bailey was in bed and got up to show the Shellys where the phone was. they had decided to go as they felt bailey didn't want them there even though he gave them sleeping bags. No mention of showing clippings



"Bailey got out of bed and showed Richie Shelley where the phone was located. After making the call, Richie Shelley alleges that Ian Bailey came into the kitchen and cried “I did it”, repeating this about four or five times. In response, each time Bailey allegedly said “I did it”, Richie Shelley allegedly asked “you did what”? Bailey did not answer.

However, when Richie Shelley allegedly persisted with the question, Bailey allegedly said “I went too far, I went too far”. Richie Shelley asked Bailey what he meant bysaying he had gone too far, but Bailey did not answer him."


It was new yars eve i expect Bailey was well drunk

Thanks for this... yeah.. just like I thought, just mob mentality at play adding little bits here and there to create a plot against someone. In 10 years time they'll add also that the ghost of the victim was present and whispered to Richard's year "he's talking about my murder"...

And again in all of this, we forget, a woman is dead with her head completely bashed brutally murdered. But we're talking about IB and screaming "I did it! I did it! I went too far!!"

And maybe the guy was cooking some rice and let it burn so he left the rice too long in the stove and he felt guilty for it... but no... it's imediately an admission of murder...

Like I said IB farts against the wind and that's another proof he did it. The guy wakes up in the morning and that's it... another proof he did it...

Darc19

Gamb!t wrote: »

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

Do you really think that gardai will be investigated?


There's a cohort of corrupt gardai out there who know that they will not face hearings unless they run the corruption against someone that is squeaky clean.

The investigation in schull was abysmal from start to the current day.

It reeks of incompetence and corruption

Mackwiss

Mackwiss wrote: »

Thanks for this... yeah.. just like I thought, just mob mentality at play adding little bits here and there to create a plot against someone. In 10 years time they'll add also that the ghost of the victim was present and whispered to Richard's year "he's talking about my murder"...

And again in all of this, we forget, a woman is dead with her head completely bashed brutally murdered. But we're talking about IB and screaming "I did it! I did it! I went too far!!"

And maybe the guy was cooking some rice and let it burn so he left the rice too long in the stove and he felt guilty for it... but no... it's imediately an admission of murder...

Like I said IB farts against the wind and that's another proof he did it. The guy wakes up in the morning and that's it... another proof he did it...

Fuller version from DPP file

Statements of Richie and Rose Shelley, taken on 2 and 5 July 1999 respectively were submitted by the Gardaí.
Richie Shelley states that on New Years Eve 1998 he was drinking in Hackett’s bar with his wife. They were joined by Ian Bailey and Jules Thomas. At the end of the night,they went to the house of Jules Thomas and continued drinking there. The murder was discussed and Richie Shelley states that “the whole time Jules Thomas was supporting
Bailey and saying he was innocent”. Richie Shelley then states that Jules Thomas wentto bed and he and his wife were given sleeping bags by Bailey. However, he got the impression that Bailey was not comfortable having them in the house and he decided to phone his father to collect them. Richie Shelley slipped into Bailey’s room apparently
looking for the phone. It should be remembered that at this time many people in thelocal community were convinced that Bailey had murdered Sophie Toscan Du Plantierand the community had been exhorted to obtain incriminating evidence in the matter.
Bailey got out of bed and showed Richie Shelley where the phone was located. Aftermaking the call, Richie Shelley alleges that Ian Bailey came into the kitchen and cried “I did it”, repeating this about four or five times. In response, each time Bailey allegedly said “I did it”, Richie Shelley allegedly asked “you did what”? Bailey did not answer.However, when Richie Shelley allegedly persisted with the question, Bailey allegedly
said “I went too far, I went too far”. Richie Shelley asked Bailey what he meant bysaying he had gone too far, but Bailey did not answer him. Rose Shelley states that she overhead the “conversation between Ian and Richie about the murder, which frightened her to such an extent that she left the house immediately”. However, she also states “on New Years Night the exact words that Ian said to Richie I cannot be specific but what he did say I realised he was telling Richie that he did the murder”. An
objective assessment of the alleged conversation between Richie Shelley and IanBailey does not demonstrate that the conversation was about the murder. Indeed, it is alleged that Richie Shelley had to persistently ask Bailey what he was talking about but he elicited no satisfactory response to the question. It is, however, matter ofindisputable fact that Bailey has on other occasions consistently and publicly proclaimed his innocence.

JP Liz V1

How many long black coats, as one former Detective said evidence it was burnt but Pat Joe Garda had sent for examination, the incompetence of the Gardai in this case is mind boggling, lots should be under investigation, fired

MoonUnit75

Mackwiss wrote: »

Exactly, and that is precisely why it was wrong.

Someone's testimony in such circumstance is hearsay. It does not stand on it's own in any court because it has to be backed by other evidence which is non-existent.

We also do not know if the context of the conversation is that one since, it's the word of an individual, or a couple against another.

And actually any information on this statement does not match what you wrote about it. Do you have the court records to back it up?

Because I do recall the same witness stating that Ian burst in the kitchen screaming what you meant and no mention of newspaper clippings or the context you gave it.

Lastly, if you've been accused of something you did not do. IF you are facing jail for it. OF COURSE you will be talking about it constantly and worried about it. Because obviously... you don't want to go to jail for something you didn't do...

So it comes to the point if IB farts against the wind then immediately that's another proof he did it...

Just like last year when he was caught with weed. When so many people are caught with weed. But since it was him. Done! Another irrefutable proof he did it right?

This is not justice, this is just mob mentality and media plots interfering with this again...

And all in all... we forget the women is dead, brutally murdered. And we're worried about IBs reaction, and weed possession.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/court-told-ian-bailey-said-i-did-it-i-did-it-and-i-went-too-far-1.2129154

Account of Richard Shelley’s testimony under oath at the High Court. Talks about the clippings and the murder being the main topic of conversation.

jimwallace197

Darc19 wrote: »

Do you really think that gardai will be investigated?


There's a cohort of corrupt gardai out there who know that they will not face hearings unless they run the corruption against someone that is squeaky clean.

The investigation in schull was abysmal from start to the current day.

It reeks of incompetence and corruption

They wont be investigated because theres no one at a senior government or civil service level willing to deal with it and take them on. Not surprising considering the amount of cretins we have in Dail Eireann.

However, there is more than one way to skin a cat. If it comes out that it wasnt Bailey for definite, I think there will be serious pressure for an independent investigation into them then. I can see alot more scandals coming out as a result

Thats why these documentaries are a good thing, more publicity, more pressure, maybe someone will crack. Fingers crossed.

The trouble is that Baileys personality is such a closed book. Who can ever know what that man is thinking?
He keeps everything to himself.

Darc19

The supt. comes across as a right eejit.

Seems he's simply ignoring blatant evidence of Garda corruption thinking that if he tells himself enough times that it doesn't exist, that it will disappear.

CoBo55

Deleted User wrote: »

The trouble is that Baileys personality is such a closed book. Who can ever know what that man is thinking?
He keeps everything to himself.

Except his anger, it just keeps leaking out, not helped by his out of control alcohol consumption.

riddles

I don’t know why the guards would be investigated they went to the evidence board rolled the dice eliminated Miss Scarlett, Professor Plum, Mrs Peacock, the Reverend Green, Colonel Mustard and that clearly left IB as the primary suspect!

Darc19 wrote: »

Do you really think that gardai will be investigated?


There's a cohort of corrupt gardai out there who know that they will not face hearings unless they run the corruption against someone that is squeaky clean.

The investigation in schull was abysmal from start to the current day.

It reeks of incompetence and corruption

Caquas

Yurt! wrote: »

Different Frenchman I believe. They questioned her ex-lover who was in Nice at the time.

No, read the link. this is about the same Frenchman identified by the Travel agent in Loughrea

gardai have insisted they thoroughly investigated the movements of the Frenchman identified by Mr Sweeney, both in 1997 and 2002, and concluded he was not in Ireland at the time of the murder.

Checks confirmed the man was actually at a public function exhibition near Paris on the day Sophie was murdered and could not possibly have been the killer, garda sources said.