Murder at the Cottage | Sky

The_Honeybadger

Finished this last night, very well put together I thought. Based on what was in the documentary I don’t think we can come to any conclusion as to whether IB did it or not. The Gardai do not come out of it looking well to put it kindly, leaving aside their stunning incompetence their main witness is not trustworthy. While I do think she saw somebody on the bridge the vagueness around who her companion was was a major loose end. Surely he was followed up with to corroborate?

I don’t understand those saying that he should have travelled to France to clear his name. The French trial was a witch-hunt, nothing more.

I’ll probably read in to it a bit more and might listen to the podcast but this documentary was well worth a watch

ShamNNspace

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.

Whether anyone gives a toss or has sympathy for him is neither here nor there, IB would have no business presenting himself to the french justice system leaving his fate in the hands of the judiciary there, given the flimsy "evidence" connecting him to this heinous crime and how that show trial was conducted... Today its IB tomorrow it could be me, you or any other citizen of the Republic

nc6000

It's very cheeky of the French really to expect him to travel there for a trial in a French court. I can't think of an example of that happening before. Extradition back to a country where a crime was committed yes but never for a crime committed in a different country.

It's a slippery slope.

CoBo55

monkeybutter wrote: »

his name has been cleared in ireland


why do it again


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

Well, not really, the guards made a complete hash of the investigation from the very start, it was so bad he couldn't even be changed never mind getting to court to clear his name(or not).

monkeybutter

CoBo55 wrote: »

Well, not really, the guards made a complete hash of the investigation from the very start, it was so bad he couldn't even be changed never mind getting to court to clear his name(or not).

dpp chose not to proceed due to lack of any evidence

thats a better result than going to court and winning

i mean even the manufactured evidence didnt stick

that is name cleared

CoBo55

monkeybutter wrote: »

dpp chose not to proceed due to lack of any evidence

thats a better result than going to court and winning

i mean even the manufactured evidence didnt stick

that is name cleared

Did you listen to the West Cork podcast? You might view Bailey differently after that.

nc6000

CoBo55 wrote: »

Did you listen to the West Cork podcast? You might view Bailey differently after that.

Podcasts don't decide if there's enough evidence to press charges.

yourdeadwright

CoBo55 wrote: »

Did you listen to the West Cork podcast? You might view Bailey differently after that.

He didn't say anything about his view of Bailey ,
He said there is no evidence so he doesn't need to clear his name for murder,

Everyone knows Bailey is an out there character

monkeybutter

CoBo55 wrote: »

Did you listen to the West Cork podcast? You might view Bailey differently after that.

I did, these things are entertainment pieces, like a radio show or a tv one


They just regurgitate the story, but can't really add anything, unlike say an episode of murder she wrote, its not their job


Whether you judge a person after a few mins of audio or not, I wouldn't



I mean this would place a heavy toll on even the toughest person


Just the 4 years up to the dropping the case was unreal pressure for him, imagine what it was like



He was guilty in the court of popular opinion because that was what was fed to people at the time by the police etc, everyone in cork was talking about it


its like the mccans, there are still people out there willing to believe they did something cause they thought they looked a bit off in an interview

Yurt2

nc6000 wrote: »

It's very cheeky of the French really to expect him to travel there for a trial in a French court. I can't think of an example of that happening before. Extradition back to a country where a crime was committed yes but never for a crime committed in a different country.

It's a slippery slope.

It's pretty ironic given that France throws regular strops at the US for their extraterritorial application of laws and France almost never extradites its own citizens, even for the most serious offences committed elsewhere.

MoonUnit75

nc6000 wrote: »

It's very cheeky of the French really to expect him to travel there for a trial in a French court. I can't think of an example of that happening before. Extradition back to a country where a crime was committed yes but never for a crime committed in a different country.

It's a slippery slope.

Since 2019, Ireland granted itself the power to prosecute Irish people for several types of crimes committed abroad, The Criminal Law Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. It’s quite not as wide ranging as the French laws but it’s the same principle.

MoonUnit75

monkeybutter wrote: »

dpp chose not to proceed due to lack of any evidence

thats a better result than going to court and winning

i mean even the manufactured evidence didnt stick

that is name cleared

Ask the Gardai if he is no longer a person of interest in an unsolved murder, then we will know if his name is cleared. The DPP doesn’t decide innocence or guilt.

MoonUnit75

CoBo55 wrote: »

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.

He would get a full retrial in front of a jury if he ever goes to France or is extradited.

MoonUnit75

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.

MF now says she was lying on behalf of the gardai when she said IB was harassing and threatening her, yet she got her solicitor to write to IB to try and end the harassment at the time. There was no need for her to do that, the gardai already had her statements and then her testimony at the defamation case.

The French reasoned that her first, unprompted and anonymous statement on him being at the bridge was likely to be far more reliable than any statement since, as it was before what Sophie’s family’s solicitor described as witness tampering.

odyssey06

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Since 2019, Ireland granted itself the power to prosecute Irish people for several types of crimes committed abroad, The Criminal Law Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. It’s quite not as wide ranging as the French laws but it’s the same principle.

It only applies to Irish citizens not the citizenship of the victim.
Nor does it appear to be intended for use of to extradite anyone here.
It is very different situation to extraditing someone to a country they may never have set foot in.

yourdeadwright

People are taking the mick here

There's not a single person here who would jet off to a country they have never set foot in before, who have already had a court date without you and found you guilty of murdering one of there citizens who husband is also very well connected to people in power in said country just to clear your name with them

You'd have to be off your absolute rocker to do that

Gussie Scrotch

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Ask the Gardai if he is no longer a person of interest in an unsolved murder, then we will know if his name is cleared. The DPP doesn’t decide innocence or guilt.

And neither do the Gardai.

diceyreilly

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Ask the Gardai if he is no longer a person of interest in an unsolved murder, then we will know if his name is cleared. The DPP doesn’t decide innocence or guilt.

Do Gardai give out this information to randomers

jimwallace197

Listening to the podcast thoroughly, you would have a high level of respect for James Hamilton who was the dpp at the time. He stood up to the gards and the French farce that was ongoing aswell.

He comes across very well. Articulate & reasonable in his points.

I seriously doubt our current DPP, Claire Loftus would be so brave.

yourdeadwright

yourdeadwright wrote: »

People are taking the mick here

There's not a single person here who would jet off to a country they have never set foot in before, who have already had a court date without you and found you guilty of murdering one of there citizens who husband is also very well connected to people in power in said country just to clear your name with them

You'd have to be off your absolute rocker to do that

I think that's the key point that some are missing. Daniel Tuscon de Plantier was a very powerful man in France, a close friend of Chirac and the countries number one film producer. A lot went on in that man's orbit. Hopefully the Netflix documentary will shed some light on Sophie. How she came to his attention and why and how they separated.
The French legal team seem very happy to look at the weird guy in Cork instead of checking out the tangled knot of their elite lifestyles.
I would be interested to see how the French media view this case.

Gussie Scrotch

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Listening to the podcast thoroughly, you would have a high level of respect for James Hamilton who was the dpp at the time. He stood up to the gards and the French farce that was ongoing aswell.

He comes across very well. Articulate & reasonable in his points.

I seriously doubt our current DPP, Claire Loftus would be so brave.

Yes, calm, factual logical and cohesive.

There are quite a lot of stupid Gardai out there, very few stupid Lawyers.

And I say with respect to those many professional, capable and honest gardai who make up the bulk of the force. As is so often the case, the few rotten apples.......

MoonUnit75

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

And neither do the Gardai.

I’ve not seen a statement from the Gardai to say he has been ruled out of the investigation or is no longer a suspect. Until they do, or the case is resolved in some other way, you can’t say he was ‘cleared’ by the DPP.

diceyreilly wrote: »

Do Gardai give out this information to randomers

Yes, the gardai do sometimes say if they have ruled someone out of their investigation or such and such a person is not a suspect/person of interest.

https://amp.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/jun/18/sophie-a-murder-in-west-cork-netflix-true-crime-documentary

This is a article in the Guardian about the Netflix doc. A quote from a producer of the programme who is also Sophie's cousin, about the objectives he set for the narrative: "The third was to treat the story with dignity and humanity – to talk about emotions rather than evidence.”

Says it all really.

Weddings ahoy

After watching the sky series, reading Nick foster's book and re listening to the podcast, I'm still none the wiser, IB is guilty of inserting himself front and center in this case from the beginning and almost at times detracting from the fact a young mother was brutally murdered, which leads me to wholly dislike his character never mind the beatings he gave JT , an absolute animal how he treated her at times...he comes across to me as egocentric and someone who clearly has no issue beating women, but guilty of murder ??? The fact there was no physical evidence at the scene, the missing gate, the witness tampering with MF all leaves a bad taste, however the scratches on IB the lack of Alibi, the numerous references (jokes )that he went there and bashed her head in, the fact he is adamant he never met her when AL said he was 90% sure he had introduced them, the fact Sophie was exactly the type of person IB would gravitate to being a documentary film maker and poet,
Will we ever know why she put her boots on that night and left her house ?? I really hope all the recent coverage on this case jogs someone's memory they can place someone a stranger, a local, a car , a conversation anything, because watching her poor family especially her dad was heartbreaking ...

odyssey06

Has anyone more information on this blood evidence...

Ian Bailey has pleaded for a new gardaí probe into Sophie du Plantier’s murder after it emerged the DNA of a male was found on her body.
A French forensic scientist uncovered the crucial new evidence 10 years ago after Irish detectives invited him to help out in the case in 2011.
"The Gardaí have my DNA, I have nothing to hide, so why wasn’t I eliminated from their enquiries.”

https://www.buzz.ie/news/bailey-pleads-inquiry-after-new-24154045

Gussie Scrotch

Weddings ahoy wrote: »

After watching the sky series, reading Nick foster's book and re listening to the podcast, I'm still none the wiser, IB is guilty of inserting himself front and center in this case from the beginning and almost at times detracting from the fact a young mother was brutally murdered, which leads me to wholly dislike his character never mind the beatings he gave JT , an absolute animal how he treated her at times...he comes across to me as egocentric and someone who clearly has no issue beating women, but guilty of murder ??? The fact there was no physical evidence at the scene, the missing gate, the witness tampering with MF all leaves a bad taste, however the scratches on IB the lack of Alibi, the numerous references (jokes )that he went there and bashed her head in, the fact he is adamant he never met her when AL said he was 90% sure he had introduced them, the fact Sophie was exactly the type of person IB would gravitate to being a documentary film maker and poet,
Will we ever know why she put her boots on that night and left her house ?? I really hope all the recent coverage on this case jogs someone's memory they can place someone a stranger, a local, a car , a conversation anything, because watching her poor family especially her dad was heartbreaking ...

I'd agree with most of this.

the part I find most difficult to accept though, is the loss and destruction of crucial evidence and the Guards seeming reluctance to demand the identity of MF's companion. This companion was critical to the case insofar as he could corroborate or refute MF's claims. Why just accept her refusal to name him? The only reason I can think of was that they were protecting one of their own.

I don't think IB did it. I think he's an obnoxious, self important wife beating loser and probably brought a lot of this on himself.

But I can't see a reason for him to have killed Sophie.

And the actions of the Gardai reek of an attempted stitch-up / cover up.

Weddings ahoy

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

I'd agree with most of this.

the part I find most difficult to accept though, is the loss and destruction of crucial evidence and the Guards seeming reluctance to demand the identity of MF's companion. This companion was critical to the case insofar as he could corroborate or refute MF's claims. Why just accept her refusal to name him? The only reason I can think of was that they were protecting one of their own.

I don't think IB did it. I think he's an obnoxious, self important wife beating loser and probably brought a lot of this on himself.

But I can't see a reason for him to have killed Sophie.

And the actions of the Gardai reek of an attempted stitch-up / cover up.

Yes how does one lose a gate 🀔 most likely the gate was wiped down accidentally before evidence was gathered, or maybe evidence there was too explosive to the garda community so gate is now dumped in some field in west cork, who knows, regarding MF i don't know if i believe her statements at all, I think like IB she wanted to get stuck in to the case prob thrilled at thoughts of being key witness in the 1st Murder case in a long time in sleepy Schull, watching JS doc last week , her body language was all off to me eyes darting etc, was she out with a man maybe , was it a guard maybe , anyone here know did her husband ever corroborate her story that she was out till 2/3 am or was he asleep the whole time in bed??? and if so was Mf actually sleeping on couch or spare room ,Than made whole story up, to me she is such an unreliable in this case can only take what she says with a pinch of salt!

MoonUnit75

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/marie-farrell-denies-saying-she-d-get-a-cut-from-ian-bailey-case-1.2040953

Sweet mother of god. That’s some article about Marie Farrell’s cross examination after she switched to IB’s defence. According to the article she admitted she wrote to IB’s solicitor to say she would withdraw her statements against him the same day she was stopped for having no car insurance. She said she previously had a number of speeding and no insurance offences struck off and her son had been stopped for no insurance several times before he was eventually convicted. Certainly gives more insight into her total u-turn and bizarre allegations against gardai.

MoonUnit75

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

I'd agree with most of this.

the part I find most difficult to accept though, is the loss and destruction of crucial evidence and the Guards seeming reluctance to demand the identity of MF's companion. This companion was critical to the case insofar as he could corroborate or refute MF's claims. Why just accept her refusal to name him? The only reason I can think of was that they were protecting one of their own.

I don't think IB did it. I think he's an obnoxious, self important wife beating loser and probably brought a lot of this on himself.

But I can't see a reason for him to have killed Sophie.

And the actions of the Gardai reek of an attempted stitch-up / cover up.

From what I can make out from the articles and books, she said she would withdraw her statements if they pursued the question of who she was with.

I wonder what colour and make of car she drove at the time?

Gussie Scrotch

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

From what I can make out from the articles and books, she said she would withdraw her statements if they pursued the question of who she was with.

I wonder what colour and make of car she drove at the time?

Don't know.

But as an investigating officer, on the hunt for a murderer, I would have pursued the identity of the driver relentlessly....he's the key to the whole case. If he saw IB and confirmed the MF story, its game on. If he denies it, her testimony is shot through. Why would she want to hide it? The mere fact of her being with another man would be enough to enrage her husband, the identity the individual would be very much a side issue. I believe that the Gardai could have got it out of her if they really wanted to. And I think they probably did.