Murder at the Cottage | Sky

MTU

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118431524#Comment_118431524

You have been watching too much Vera love.

PolicemanFox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432082#Comment_118432082

Please stick around too Glossybox, we all want the same thing here, justice for Sophie.

By the way Tibruit I don't doubt your sincerity for a moment. I can tell you are internally convinced that Bailey did it, but I don't think you can see that there is so much doubt and contradiction associated with every aspect of the allegation against him.

And reasonable doubt means presumption of innocence.

PolicemanFox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432069#Comment_118432069

Also Tibruit, please, this "lonely furrow" thing is daft. Whatever about the "conviction" in Paris, Bailey has been publicly damned over the Netflix megaphone which means the whole world is convinced he's guilty based on a massively biased docu series full of misrepresentations and omissions. There are very few of us in the little furrow arguing for reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence.

PolicemanFox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432175#Comment_118432175

Resorting to accusations of sockpuppetry again shows you can't handle honest debate and sound logic.

What would someone who is in video contact with bailey and part of his team spouting his propagands here know about honesty or debate.

Accusations of harass ment when the truth is told of scoob connection to bailey show debate is the last thing you want

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432366#Comment_118432366

PolicemanFox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432422#Comment_118432422

Again with ad hominem, allow me to point out that it doesn't matter if Bailey himself was on the boards, the logic stands on it's own merit

Anyway it's a lie, I have never spoken to Bailey. I saw him twice over the Summer while driving. He was hanging outside cafes in Schull and Glengarriff.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432442#Comment_118432442

It shows dishonesty on scooby part having different accounts while not declaring she is connected to bailey and has video chat with him

It is Bailey's propaganda scoob is posting not debate

Your logic is just your opinion

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432442#Comment_118432442

Quite right.

Notwithstanding the interminable rabbit holes that posters go down, whether the house is easy to locate, whether Christmas trees scratch skin, who's using more than one account, whether MF can judge the difference between 6'4" and 5'8", etc, etc. The key facts remain.

Bailey has no clear connection to the crime or the victim and no motive. Until that changes, the rest is academic. Sometimes entertaining to debate, but academic.

As you say, the logic stands on its own merit.

PolicemanFox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432487#Comment_118432487

No it's not. You just can't defeat it, so you resort to ad hominem attacks.

It makes no difference if he or she talks to Bailey every day or not at all. Bailey doesn't engage in propaganda anyway, from what I can see he just calls people names on if he engages at all on social media.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432083#Comment_118432083

This doesn`t substantiate anything you have been saying. You must first show that there is enough profile evident to identify anybody beyond the fact that they are male before you can conclusively say that it is not Bailey's DNA.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432442#Comment_118432442

Surely it's the whole point of an anonymous forum?

Nobody is under any obligation to disclose who they are, who they know or anything else. Nobody in the forum has the "right" to know anything about a poster, nor is anyone being deceitful if they choose not to disclose it.

This isn't Facebook. Or real face to face relationships even. Some people need a reality check.

At least I know I'm not you and you know you're not me, I've no idea why it's deemed more important than actually discussing the case to some posters, but maybe that's the point.

PolicemanFox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432550#Comment_118432550

Do you not think Bailey's DNA profile is on file? What was the point of DNA testing if it wasn't?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432538#Comment_118432538

ad hominem attacks

as you do, as scoobs proxy saying i'm harrassing when i pointes out scoobys relationship to bailey. when sccob is challenged on her posts she says harrassment as you do on her part. interesting choice of words.

when scooblogic does not work she shout harrasment

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432442#Comment_118432442

it was reference to scoob who told me in pm she was connected to bailey including video chats

DontHitTheDitch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118429683#Comment_118429683

The statement was read to the court in France, he recalled seeing one scratch and could not remember which hand it was on.

PolicemanFox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432620#Comment_118432620

Nope. It was "scratch marks" in statement 190B. The DPP a is far more reliable source than Barry Roche.

PolicemanFox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432618#Comment_118432618

Entirely irrelevant to the argument. The logic stands on its own no matter where it came from.

DontHitTheDitch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432651#Comment_118432651

The 'DPP' is not the 'DPP', it was Robert Sheehan. He also seems to have been wrong about the 'studio' being on the same site as Jule's house and was incorrect in claiming Jule's statements would be inadmissible. The DPP 'report' is unreliable.

DontHitTheDitch

"But the court heard on Wednesday that musician Richard Tisdall saw a scratch on one of Mr Bailey’s hands, but he couldn’t remember which. Gardai Kevin Kelleher and Bart O’Leary’s witness statements mentioning the cuts were read out in court earlier this week."

Ian Bailey displays traits of 'borderline' personality, a court in Paris has been told - Independent.ie

Not Barry Roche.

DontHitTheDitch

French court judgement:

Despite the fact that the accused did not contest/challenge the existence of these body lesions, invariably attributing them to him chopping down a Christmas tree on 22nd December1996 then to the killing of turkeys, evidence of such facts being partially contained in statements made by witness Liam O’DRISCOLL who saw the accused on 22nd December1996 pulling a Christmas tree though without having witnessed Ian BAILEY chopping it down beforehand, and concomitant statements made by Jules THOMAS and Saffron THOMAS, it appears that subsequent verifications made relative to the chopping of the Christmas tree, combined with the account of the many witnesses who spent the evening in the pub with Ian BAILEY on the evening of December 22nd 1996, namely Bernard KELLY, Christy LYNCH, David GALVIN, Venita ROHE GALVIN, John Mac GOWAN, Sinead KELLY, contradict the existence of the aforementioned marks on the date of the evening of 22nd December1996. Indeed, and in the context of a gathering in a pub equipped with reasonable lighting – such lighting having been checked by the investigators as to being perfectly acceptable – the aforementioned witnesses having spoken to Ian BAILEY, and the barman having served him or taken his payment, having played music that evening with him, confirm that Ian BAILEY was in close proximity with each of them playing the “bodhran”, his sleeves folded up, no trace of scratches whatsoever being visible on his arms, hands and face if he had had any; if only one witness (TISDALL) remembered in a second police interview having seen a scratch on one hand, it was clear that it was not regarded as being significant and not comparable to the observations made by the numerous witnesses from 23rd December 1996 which concerned Ian BAILEY’s forearms and the back of his hands.

Grounds to be inserted in the criminal judgement rendered.pdf (assoph.org)

PolicemanFox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432681#Comment_118432681

It is not unreliable. People have looked very hard for errors in this document. The only thing they came up with is has been able to find is that the Studio is not "adjacent" to the Prairie. You can be sure Robert Sheehan took great care to dot the i's and cross the t's. He was arguing with the Gardai who also had the files.

Sheehan was an officer in the office of the DPP and wrote with the authority of the office and the approval of Eamonn Barnes, who incidently is on record saying the investigation was "thoroughly flawed and prejudiced"

DontHitTheDitch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432747#Comment_118432747

The 'report' was sent back to the gardai unsigned. A former DPP defending the DPP's office decisions is hardly evidence of anything. If this case comes to a resolution here in Ireland, the reasoning and decision making of the DPP in this case should be thoroughly examined.

You have to admit, getting the location of the studio house wrong is a massive error to make in a murder case. The DPP used this error to argue that his previous alibi that he had not left the house was not false as the studio is on the same property. It is in fact down the road.

PolicemanFox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432715#Comment_118432715

I don't think it was presented. Not all the statements were read at trial, most were given to the judges to read in translation. In fact this may be the source of Barry Roche's error. Please get me the French version of the judgement.

Needless to say since the DNA evidence was never mentioned the judgement is worthless.

DontHitTheDitch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432815#Comment_118432815

Several reporters have reported it being read at trial and it is included in the judgement itself, the DPP was wrong yet again.

OwlsZat

The DPP doesn't decide on anyone's guilt. It just decides if the is evidence is sufficient to bring a charge. The evidence wasn't deemed anywhere close and worse showed that there was serious levels of negligence / malpractice in the investigation.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432538#Comment_118432538

Yes it does she comes here pretending to be an poster not admitting to being bailey advocate. If her video chats to bailey do not matter why did she hide them? you do not get to say what i can defeat. and since i have reported your ad hominem attacks on me i will be ignoring your further input.

maybe i could make a new account to be a proxy as she did

chicorytip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118430358#Comment_118430358

That mark has been made by something which is clearly neither Saliva nor Semen. It is a substance that has permeated the material - leather, I presume - of the boot. Saliva or Semen would not do this. Blood might. It could be a faded blood stain.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432577#Comment_118432577

Bailey`s DNA is on file. Once more the question that requires an answer is this....Is the male DNA found on Sophie`s boot of high enough quality for it to be associated with any male? There may not be enough profile there to link it to any individual including Bailey. The article that you linked doesn`t deal with this issue and neither does the West Cork Podcast. Thanks SoulWriter for linking that by the way.

You have presumed that the French have compared the profile found on the boot to Bailey`s and discovered it is not his. But the reality is that they may not have compared it because they don`t have enough profile to make a comparison. This is all a big bottle of smoke anyway. This is what WCP say about it....

"This was just a single sample from among many and there are plenty of reasons it may have no evidential value in Sophie`s case. It might have already been on the boot prior to the attack or it might be the result of contamination after the fact."

Easy to see why you didn`t want to link me to WCP.

flopisit

Does anyone have the Philip Boucher-Hayes interview with Ian Bailey from RTE Radio in 2016?

I was looking for information on Bailey's alleged premonition when he stopped on Hunt's Hill on the night of the murder and came across this reporting in The Examiner 8 Aug 2016:

"Speaking to Philip Boucher Hayes on RTE radio Mr Bailey said he intends to ask the Irish authorities to charge him for the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier, so he may have a fair trial... Mr Boucher Hayes went through the arrest warrant that was previously issued to Mr Bailey who then explained each piece of evidence against him including, he claims, several pieces of fiction. For example, the report states that he stopped outside Sophie du Plantier's house late on the night of the murder and said he had a premonition that something bad would happen in that house.

Mr Bailey said this was a fabrication of the truth, he said he had stopped outside the house, but did not know it was her house and could not even see the house in the dark."

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118432747#Comment_118432747

That was an unbelievable mistake for the DPP to make and I remember it being the first thing that jumped off the page when I read that report. And if he is capable of that big an error, then he is certainly capable of paraphrasing the Tisdal statement incorrectly. The impression given was that the studio was on Jule`s doorstep when the reality is that you wouldn`t be popping out to the studio in midwinter in your jimjams and slippers now would you?

I know people are complaining about scratches and rabbit holes but as far as I`m aware Tisdal is the only witness outside of the Thomas household that noticed a scratch or scratches on Bailey`s hand or hands before the murder. If he said scratches, he corroborates what Jules and the daughters said. But if he says he saw a single scratch on one hand, then that is a different thing entirely. First of all he was paying attention to Bailey`s hands and secondly he is giving a very different description from before the murder to what was clearly evident to numerous witnesses in the days after it.