Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Yurt2

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.

Higher standards of admissibility in a criminal trial, and given that there was drink on board and Bailey's psychological state has been driven round the twist since the murder, a skilled Senior Council would make it very difficult for the state to get that in front of a jury in a criminal trial. The DPP would've jumped all over that if they thought they could, and AGS would have certainly added it to the file for the attention of prosecutors.

MoonUnit75

Yurt! wrote: »

Higher standards of admissibility in a criminal trial, and given that there was drink on board and Bailey's psychological state has been driven round the twist since the murder, a skilled Senior Council would make it very difficult for the state to get that in front of a jury in a criminal trial. The DPP would've jumped all over that if they thought they could, and AGS would have certainly added it to the file for the attention of prosecutors.

Let’s stick with boards.ie standards of admissibility, though I doubt the entire batch of admissions, 11 I think, would be thrown out and each factor into the admissibility of this one.

That said, it demonstrates the ‘black humour’ excuse is only limited to a small number of supposed confessions. If you are the main suspect in the public eye then joking you are guilty is like joking with airport security that you packed your own socks, shaving kit and grenades. You might do it once, if you are a total idiot, but never again.

Mackwiss

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Let’s stick with boards.ie standards of admissibility...

Again... that hardly helps anything in this case besides being pure and simple mob mentality acting as judge jury and executioner.

That is nice and all, but is the only scenario your posts would be taken into account.

If the man is still free in Ireland and not extradited to France even, shows that the DPP knows very well that there isn't one single real evidence against him. Besides all these allegations that he confessed.

But hey, if you think the DPP is that bad, the Gardai made such a fantastic job and IB the devil incarnate, gather a few friends, go down to West Cork for a few days of holidays, find him and arrest him in a little popular justice prison run by you and your friends.

Because that always worked and that's not the reason why a legal system not based in such notions was created...

monkeybutter

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

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.

what date and time did all this happen again?

Wompa1

I have 2 episodes left to go. I hope they cover why Marie lied about seeing someone at the bridge when she called in the first time. I understand the narrative that she claims she was coerced by the Gardai to say it was him but if she didn't see anyone at the bridge why would she have called it in?....they didn't put her up to calling in did they?..I assume not, otherwise why the whole thing about not wanting to identify herself due to probably cheating on her husband.

Anyway, like I said I haven't watched the last 2 episodes. Hope it gets cleared up.

monkeybutter

Wompa1 wrote: »

I have 2 episodes left to go. I hope they cover why Marie lied about seeing someone at the bridge when she called in the first time. I understand the narrative that she claims she was coerced by the Gardai to say it was him but if she didn't see anyone at the bridge why would she have called it in?....they didn't put her up to calling in did they?..I assume not, otherwise why the whole thing about not wanting to identify herself due to probably cheating on her husband.

Anyway, like I said I haven't watched the last 2 episodes. Hope it gets cleared up.

I believe she saw someone at the bridge, the same 5f 8 person she saw outside her shop and police pushed her into saying it was IB



Now as I said before, what happens when a witness makes a statement on one thing and it they changes would they need to suppress the statement or is it all recorded

fryup

I wouldn't totally discount what MF said either, maybe she did see someone stalking Sophie and someone at the bridge....yes she did change her statements later but but only after the AGS browbeat her into it so as make it look like it was IB she saw, which she ultimately refused to do

Gamb!t

Mackinac wrote: »

She had her blue nightgown on over the top of her night clothes. She may have gotten up out of bed upon hearing something outside and went out to see what was up. A small hatchet was missing from the house she may have taken it with her. The fact that her boots were on and laced up made me think she went outside willingly rather than being chased from inside the house.
She told her housekeeper she thought someone had been in her house while she was away and using the bath. Maybe that person/persons came to use the house that night thinking it was unoccupied.

yes I think so too but I would definitely have thrown on a jacket if I wanted to go outside alone or with someone in a cold winter night that time of year unless I planned on just standing by the door for a couple of minutes.

Gamb!t

Massive Bereavement wrote: »

I've listened to the podcast and only one episode in on the sky docu so far but my belief is that it was someone other than Bailey.

What I find interesting is she seemed desperate for someone to travel to Ireland with her. The invitation stretched beyond immediate family to friends and cousins. Doesn't sound like the actions of someone who was travelling to Ireland to meet up with a romantic interest.

So why then did she want the company so badly? I'd be interested to know who she was seen with on previous trips to West Cork. Did she have a prior romantic interest that turned sour and she wanted to return to the cottage for a couple of days but didn't necessarily want to encounter that person again alone hence the open invitation to travel with her.

Given what looks to me to be a garda cover up disguised as incompetence, here is what I think happened:

Marie Farrell was telling the truth insofar as she was out that night with a lover. If she really was at home in bed then the husband would able to confirm that. If she really was with friends they could confirm. It would have been doubtful she was driving around alone for the hell of it so it could very well be the case she was having an affair and the love interest was with her in the car. I believe the lover may have been that high ranking garda that has been alluded to. While they were out driving the guard see's a light on in sophies house from afar. The house was on a hill after all and Bailey and Jules could see it from some lookout point they stopped at so despite it's remoteness it was visible from multiple vantage points. So the cop saw a light was on indicating to him there was someone there, and quite possibly she was back from France. We already know she contacted the guards voicing her concerns about drug dealing. So perhaps she was making a nuisance of herself from their perspective on that end and it was ruffling their feathers a bit too much. Or perhaps the guard in question went up to the house previously when she made a complaint about the drug dealing and upon meeting her developed an infatuation or else tried it on and was rebuffed and that rebuttal was left stew and grew legs until she returned. So if Farrell ever said who was in the car she would also have to say, if she was being entirely truthful, that the cop commented on the light being on in sophies house. Perhaps negative comments were spouted by the cop upon seeing the light on even.

Then possibly the cop travelled to the house early the next morning. The gate was closed/locked. The house looks down onto where the gate is so I think she was having breakfast, sees the guard get out of the car at the gate, recognizes him and puts her boots on and ventures down to the gate. If this was during the night all she would see is headlights shining right at her and wouldn't be able to identify the car and hence probably wouldn't venture out. From what I can tell it's a shared gate aswell so any car coming to the gate, day or night, could be a visitor for her neighbor anyway. Given that they live there permanently the likelihood of them having guests would be high and wouldn't elicit the reaction of her venturing out of the house to the gate. Virtually all cars arriving to that gate wouldn't be for her anyway. So it's who she see's at the gate that's key.

It all gets out of hand from there. Perhaps she tells him in no uncertain terms that she has no interest in him and she will report him if he doesn't clear off, or tells him that unless something is done about the drug dealing complaints she would go above him. Such a statement wouldn't faze the guard if it was off anyone else but he would have known that she would have been part of high society in France and in fact her threats to report him may have carried weight. She may even have reminded him of that herself. So the guard loses it at that point and afterwards walks up to the cottage to check she was alone. Upon entering the house he sees the axe inside the door and takes that around the house with him to kill anyone else there with her. He then leaves the house with the axe and the axe is never found.

Farrell over the coming days in then forced to give her statement that she saw the man with the long black coat in order to place someone, anyone in that area to deflect. She would have seen what happened to sophie and what the man is capable of so that would be incentive enough to keep her mouth shut. Maybe the lies and story changes that came after was an insurance plan to make her sound non-credible in the event she ever really did tell the truth.

The cover up then begins - local cops refusing to move the body to the morgue in Cork at the pathologist/forensic teams request, something they say they have never encountered before as all local guards defer to them once they arrive. They were adamant that the pathologist had to come to the scene even though they were told that it would be useless for him to do so as too much time would have passed by then. So forensic data is lost as a result. The gate going missing is an interesting one. Could it be the mans fingerprints are all over it from when he was trying to open it at the same time sophie was lacing up her boots to go down to him? At that very moment in time when he was trying to open the gate he may not have intended to murder and therefore was not being careful with prints etc.

I don't think it was someone coming back to use her house and got spooked like had been mentioned before as on approach to her house the car was visible in the drive, so they would have known someone was there. This can be seen in photos of the crimescene. I also don't think she was fleeing the house from someone as she had time to put boots on and there isn't any evidence of anyone else having been there. I've seen mentioned why didn't she run to the neighbors but I think it started as a conversation down at the gate that escalated. She didn't get a chance to run anywhere except try to escape over some brambles when she realized the full extent of what was happening to her. I think she went down there willingly and was never a foot or two away from the murderer.

All wild speculation on my part of course but this is such a strange case who knows.

Good post, I always thought it was a Guard also the way the evidence was mishandled and covered up. Im not sure if MF was having an affair with the Guard but I think the scenario highlighted is what might have happened or similar.

Gamb!t

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

Maybe Richard was after a few drinks too?

Gamb!t

Gamb!t wrote: »

Maybe Richard was after a few drinks too?

Yes they were all drinking. They had been at the pub and continued drinking at Jules' house


The DPP report says

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

.

Furze99

Yurt! wrote: »

I'd doubt that very much.

odyssey06 wrote: »

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.

France is a civilised country, a fellow member of the EU. It's not exactly some tin pot state or banana republic. We should have no reason to question the impartiality and quality of their justice system any more than our own. If a citizen is happy to be tried here, then then should likewise in France. End of story.

monkeybutter

Furze99 wrote: »

France is a civilised country, a fellow member of the EU. It's not exactly some tin pot state or banana republic. We should have no reason to question the impartiality and quality of their justice system any more than our own. If a citizen is happy to be tried here, then then should likewise in France. End of story.

This case is reason enough to question it 100%

listermint

Furze99 wrote: »

France is a civilised country, a fellow member of the EU. It's not exactly some tin pot state or banana republic. We should have no reason to question the impartiality and quality of their justice system any more than our own. If a citizen is happy to be tried here, then then should likewise in France. End of story.

In fairness that's rubbish no right thinking person would ever willingly leave their home state to get tried elsewhere.

Utter nonsense on a basic human level home is where you feel safe

Mackwiss

Furze99 wrote: »

France is a civilised country, a fellow member of the EU. It's not exactly some tin pot state or banana republic. We should have no reason to question the impartiality and quality of their justice system any more than our own. If a citizen is happy to be tried here, then then should likewise in France. End of story.

this is why I would've encourage IB to go and present his side of the story. I do think the French trial expected him to go and provide the evidence himself from his side countering what the accusation had against him...

This would then focus on the Gardai handling of the case.
I wouldn't be surprised though IB did not go just not to incur in even more expense after two failed civil cases...

Mackwiss

Mackwiss wrote: »

this is why I would've encourage IB to go and present his side of the story. I do think the French trial expected him to go and provide the evidence himself from his side countering what the accusation had against him...

This would then focus on the Gardai handling of the case.
I wouldn't be surprised though IB did not go just not to incur in even more expense after two failed civil cases...

Considering they have already convicted him with basically no evidence whatsoever if I was him I wouldn't go near their legal system.

Furze99

listermint wrote: »

In fairness that's rubbish no right thinking person would ever willingly leave their home state to get tried elsewhere.

I repeat France is a civilised country that has a long history of justice, longer than ours. We have no cause or reason to assume that a case would not be tried fairly there.

jimwallace197

Furze99 wrote: »

I repeat France is a civilised country that has a long history of justice, longer than ours. We have no cause or reason to assume that a case would not be tried fairly there.

The very fact that they held a show trial while Bailey was in absentia in the first place doesn't say a lot about their legal system.

They had some neck on them even attempting this, the crime was committed here, what would the response have been had an Irish citizen been murdered in their country I wonder. They undermined the office of the DPP & our judicial system thinking they know better & then proceed to convict him based on statements from a corrupt garda & completely unreliable witnesses whom they expected to travel to France to give testimony with 8 days notice. The whole thing was a farce from start to finish.

Bailey would'v be mad to consider going there and now cant even leave the country because of this nonsense.

listermint

Furze99 wrote: »

I repeat France is a civilised country that has a long history of justice, longer than ours. We have no cause or reason to assume that a case would not be tried fairly there.

I'm fully aware of France and how it is as is the UK or the US or Spain for that matter. But you would catch me or I'd say most people getting on a plane from your home for so much as a parking ticket.

You'd want to just enjoy throwing the dice if you'd do that.

CoBo55

Furze99 wrote: »

France is a civilised country, a fellow member of the EU. It's not exactly some tin pot state or banana republic. We should have no reason to question the impartiality and quality of their justice system any more than our own. If a citizen is happy to be tried here, then then should likewise in France. End of story.

There's no comparison between the two legal systems. They convicted a man using files that had been dismissed by our DPP, no actual evidence to speak of, he did right to stay here. Whether we like it or not everyone is entitled to due process. The French had him hung drawn and quartered before the case ever started.

Gussie Scrotch

Furze99 wrote: »

I repeat France is a civilised country that has a long history of justice, longer than ours. We have no cause or reason to assume that a case would not be tried fairly there.

OK, but by that logic, the French should accept Ireland in the same context - a civilised country, fellow member of the EEC etc - and should assume that if the Irish Justice system saw no case to answer they should have no doubts either???

sugarman20

this is why I would've encourage IB to go and present his side of the story.

That's one of the worst things he could do.

discostu1

jimwallace197 wrote: »

The very fact that they held a show trial while Bailey was in absentia in the first place doesn't say a lot about their legal system.

They had some neck on them even attempting this, the crime was committed here, what would the response have been had an Irish citizen been murdered in their country I wonder. They undermined the office of the DPP & our judicial system thinking they know better & then proceed to convict him based on statements from a corrupt garda & completely unreliable witnesses whom they expected to travel to France to give testimony with 8 days notice. The whole thing was a farce from start to finish.

Bailey would'v be mad to consider going there and now cant even leave the country because of this nonsense.

This was is mentioned on the West Cork Podcast it man s worth a read some parallels with IB and how a doctor was "kidnapped " by a grieving father broken but to France to stand trial https://morbidology.com/the-man-who-abducted-his-daughters-killer-andre-bamberski/

Mebuntu

Furze99 wrote: »

I repeat France is a civilised country that has a long history of justice, longer than ours. We have no cause or reason to assume that a case would not be tried fairly there.

Oh yes we have.

A quango of high-up judges convicted a man for a murder in another country with no evidence connecting him to it.
That's all we need to know about the French justice system.

Yurt2

Furze99 wrote: »

France is a civilised country, a fellow member of the EU. It's not exactly some tin pot state or banana republic. We should have no reason to question the impartiality and quality of their justice system any more than our own. If a citizen is happy to be tried here, then then should likewise in France. End of story.

Mother of God. Let's dispense with the legal niceties of extradition shall we? Got a call from a Mr.Orban in Hungary. He wants to see you about legal bother of some sort. We've skipped the whole extradition thing because as you say yourself, EU bretheren and all that, so it's all completely sound and there's no real point about consulting a solicitor. We have you on the first Wizzair flight to Budapest in the morning.

I doubt Bailey is happy to be tried here. Even the DPP is not happy to have him tried here. The Supreme Court told the French to go to stuff themselves on the warrant because there is no reciprocity between France's extraterritorial jurisdiction on French victims of crime.

Are you aware where that extraterritoriality stems from? The French Imperial Age, when Paris wished to exercise swift justice for French citizens in the likes of Indochina and North Africa if the uppity natives stepped out of line. The Supreme Court were entirely right to tell the French to go do one.

Acosta

I didn't realise how archaic the French legal system is compared to elsewhere before this case. Ian Bailey was right to stay put here and there's no way he was ever going to be extradited based on evidence which had already been disregarded by the DPP.

yourdeadwright

Why in gods name would anyone travel to another country to be tried for a crime that happened else where ?

Oh what because a French women died ....oh so there defiantly not going to be looking for any opportunity to convict you then are they ,

The Crime happened here and was investigated by Irish police & there wasn't enough evidence for a trail even begin ,
Do you honestly think France want him to give him a fair trial ?????????????

Remember there is no evidence just hear say rumours from locals , & France a country who speak a different language will understand that better than the Irish system ?

Furze99

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Bailey would'v be mad to consider going there and now cant even leave the country because of this nonsense.

The only person who gives a toss about Bailey is himself. If he wants to clear his name, let him present himself to the French justice system. No sympathy at all for him, none.

monkeybutter

Furze99 wrote: »

The only person who gives a toss about Bailey is himself. If he wants to clear his name, let him present himself to the French justice system. No sympathy at all for him, none.

his name has been cleared in ireland


why do it again


given the low bar the french have set previously on the matter

oceanman

Furze99 wrote: »

The only person who gives a toss about Bailey is himself. If he wants to clear his name, let him present himself to the French justice system. No sympathy at all for him, none.

the crime, whoever did it, happened on irish soil therefore its up to our dpp to decide to sent it to trial or not....they decided not. it has noting to do with the french justice system.