Murder at the Cottage | Sky

awec

The Marie Farrell angle in all of it just blows my mind.

I do not understand how she has not been prosecuted for perversion of justice or whatever it is. She should have been compelled to name her acquaintance on that night. And she should have, at some stage, been questioned as to why she changed her story completely.

Sardonicat

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

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.

Do you think she was actually with someone? I think she made the whole thing up.

monkeybutter

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.

That is exactly what they do

They are the first rung on the ladder of justice


You are innocent until proven guilty in ireland

monkeybutter

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

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.

Why would they be more reliable than her first contradictory statement, if there's any truth that is is it

monkeybutter

awec wrote: »

The Marie Farrell angle in all of it just blows my mind.

I do not understand how she has not been prosecuted for perversion of justice or whatever it is. She should have been compelled to name her acquaintance on that night. And she should have, at some stage, been questioned as to why she changed her story completely.

Questioned by whom? The same people prompting her to lie

JP Liz V1

50 suspects but Gardai only concentrated on fitting up IB

Darc19

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

50 suspects but Gardai only concentrated on fitting up IB

Gardai are well able to steer things in a particular direction. And if it doesn't work, they'll find a way.

It's called Garda corruption and still goes on in many areas where a Garda makes an irrational assumption of someone's guilt and then makes the evidence fit.

The state pays out millions every year for such cases and the gardai involved rarely get punished

awec

monkeybutter wrote: »

Questioned by whom? The same people prompting her to lie

By the Guards obviously.

Fr Tod Umptious

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.

The only one saying Farrell had a companion was Farrell.
Farrell is not a credible witness.
The Gardai did not push to find out who it was because they knew it was bull.

Equally the only one that says the Gardai pushed Farrell to claim it was Bailey she saw at the bridge was again Farrell.

Bailey is a great fit for the murder.
Violent, big and strong, went around claiming he was involved, weird sexual fantasies, etc.

But the Gardai had no real evidence, so they used the likes of Farrell and Martin Graham to try and get some of what he was yapping about around town on the record.

I don't think there was any organized Garda corruption, incompetence and being in over their heads yes, but a wholesale cover up to protect the alleged person in the car with Farrell or even to protect the murder as some posters are suggesting, no.

freshpopcorn

AC12 with Steve/Kate/Ted is badly needed in West Cork!

JP Liz V1

Darc19 wrote: »

Gardai are well able to steer things in a particular direction. And if it doesn't work, they'll find a way.
It's called Garda corruption and still goes on in many areas where a Garda makes an irrational assumption of someone's guilt and then makes the evidence fit.
The state pays out millions every year for such cases and the gardai involved rarely get punished

How did IB lose his case against the Gardai and state and now is has to pay all the cost, did the court change statute of limitations?

Loafing Oaf

freshpopcorn wrote: »

AC12 with Steve/Kate/Ted is badly needed in West Cork!

Local gardai definitely need someone to throw the book at them – followed by the bookshelf.

chicorytip

I think Bailey did it. Jules Thomas knows he did it and provided a false alibi for him. I think the Gardai ought to question Jules again. After twenty five years not a scintilla of evidence has been unearthed to link anybody other than Bailey to the killing. That says a lot. Pierre Du Plantier and the Bounioul family, who know most about the investigation, are convinced of his guilt. Bailey now has the haunted looking appearance of a man who has been living a lie for too long. I believe the truth will out eventually.

nc6000

chicorytip wrote: »

I think Bailey did it. Jules Thomas knows he did it and provided a false alibi for him. I think the Gardai ought to question Jules again. After twenty five years not a scintilla of evidence has been unearthed to link anybody other than Bailey to the killing. That says a lot. Pierre Du Plantier and the Bounioul family, who know most about the investigation, are convinced of his guilt. Bailey now has the haunted looking appearance of a man who has been living a lie for too long. I believe the truth will out eventually.

But by his own admission he doesn't have an alibi and the Gardai aren't even sure when she was killed.

TomOnBoard

odyssey06 wrote: »

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.

The French formally enshrined the "Passive Personality Principle" in the adoption of their Penal Code in Article 113-7 as part of a massive re-working of French Criminal law over the past 30 years or so.

The principle is based on the belief that any person or organisation who commits a serious crime against any French national, in any place whether inside or outside France, will be subject to French law if certain criteria are met.

It is a very aggressive principal that ensures that French nationals can obtain 'justice' even where a foreign jurisdiction fails to investigate and/or bring perpetrators of crimes against French people to justice in those jurisdictions.

The fact that the DPP declined to prosecute IB, arguably for sound reasons to do with a lack of evidence, alleged tampering, alleged investigatory failings, etc. left Sophie's family with little choice but to use Article 113-7 to get their 'justice' in the only place that was left to them.

On IB's part, there are no conceivably sound reasons for him to subject himself to such an extra-territorial process, but that does not negate the French authorities' rights and efforts to get him there. As it now stands, IB has been found guilty of Sophie's murder, sentenced to 25 year in absentia. It is unlikely he will ever be extradited there, but if he ever sets foot outside of the Irish State, he will be subject to an International Arrest Warrant.

This is how this will continue to play out.. Unless, someone decides to kidnap him and bring him over to France, a tactic that has been used in the past, in the Bamberski- Krombach case.

TomOnBoard

freshpopcorn wrote: »

AC12 with Steve/Kate/Ted is badly needed in West Cork!

I think "H" has an alibi for the days around when the murder took place...

FAILSAFE 00

That state pathologist at the time...

What an absolute ****

When he was finally told he had to get his ass down to Cork you can tell he is reluctantly boarding the plane, moving as slow as possible.

Must have ruined his Christmas plans.

TomOnBoard

chicorytip wrote: »

I think Bailey did it. Jules Thomas knows he did it and provided a false alibi for him. I think the Gardai ought to question Jules again. After twenty five years not a scintilla of evidence has been unearthed to link anybody other than Bailey to the killing. That says a lot. Pierre Du Plantier and the Bounioul family, who know most about the investigation, are convinced of his guilt. Bailey now has the haunted looking appearance of a man who has been living a lie for too long. I believe the truth will out eventually.

This may be completely incorrect. So much evidence was 'lost' in the early days of the investigation; so many early suspects' files went missing and/or were not pursued due to a pell-mell attempt to put IB in the dock, that any amount of exculpatory evidence may have been destroyed or simply not followed up. So, nothing to link anyone else has been made public certainly; but that does not mean it did/does not exist!

chooseusername

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

That state pathologist at the time...

What an absolute ****

When he was finally told he had to get his ass down to Cork you can tell he is reluctantly boarding the plane, moving as slow as possible.

Must have ruined his Christmas plans.

This article will show the attitude to the pathology dept. at the time;

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20251448.html

When he was informed of the murder he explained he would not be able to attend until next day
and gave instructions to the gardai to remove the body to Cork hospital and preserve the scene.
They refused to remove the body (for which they should be held to account for not deferring to the State pathologist)
and as for preserving the scene and the evidence ....

odyssey06

chicorytip wrote: »

I think Bailey did it. Jules Thomas knows he did it and provided a false alibi for him. I think the Gardai ought to question Jules again. After twenty five years not a scintilla of evidence has been unearthed to link anybody other than Bailey to the killing. That says a lot. Pierre Du Plantier and the Bounioul family, who know most about the investigation, are convinced of his guilt. Bailey now has the haunted looking appearance of a man who has been living a lie for too long. I believe the truth will out eventually.

Not a scintilla of evidence has been unearthed putting Bailey at the crime scene, which surely says a lot more.

The opposite in fact:
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-plea...r-new-24154045

fryup

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

That state pathologist at the time...

What an absolute ****

well he was the only one for the entire country which in itself was a joke

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

When he was finally told he had to get his ass down to Cork you can tell he is reluctantly boarding the plane, moving as slow as possible.

that was archive footage, might not have been related to the Sophie case

reece289

nc6000 wrote: »

But by his own admission he doesn't have an alibi and the Gardai aren't even sure when she was killed.

He lied about the night, only admitting he left the bed after Jules had told the Gardai he had. She later retracted the statement, yet IB had already corroborated it.

Gussie Scrotch

reece289 wrote: »

He lied about the night, only admitting he left the bed after Jules had told the Gardai he had. She later retracted the statement, yet IB had already corroborated it.

By any standard, the amount of evidence, forensic, circumstantial, eyewitness, does not support a case against IB. This is clearly explained in the DPP report.

He's a thoroughly unpleasant, arrogant attention seeker and not unworthy of anything other than basic human respect.

But there is nothing of substance linking him to this crime.

There was nothing to link him to the victim.

There was no motive for him to have done this.

There was no forensic evidence to implicate him.

Despite the Gardai pulling out all the stops to get him charged with it, the DPP forensically dismantled the case as presented. And they were absolutely correct in so doing.

Its still possible that he did it...yes....but it is far more likely that he didn't.

Sardonicat

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I think "H" has an alibi for the days around when the murder took place...

He was driving round with Marie Farrell.

Wompa1

Finished the show last night and coming back to this thread. Can someone tell me what I'm not understanding on this:

Marie Farrell phoned into the hotline anonymously and says she saw a man by the bridge who she believes to be Ian Bailey. In the French trial, they said that was what she said in her 1st statement to Gardai. But she came to the Gardai...they didn't go to her and plant her into the trial.

She had made the statement that she saw a man follow her when she left the shop too before making any call. Is it possible she didn't see anything and injected herself into the story?

Wompa1

chooseusername wrote: »

This article will show the attitude to the pathology dept. at the time;

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20251448.html

When he was informed of the murder he explained he would not be able to attend until next day
and gave instructions to the gardai to remove the body to Cork hospital and preserve the scene.
They refused to remove the body (for which they should be held to account for not deferring to the State pathologist)
and as for preserving the scene and the evidence ....

There were a lot of loose threads in the documentary. There was no mention of that instruction in the documentary. They said she had her own hair in her hands and the mark on the door was from her. They explained the neighbor found her but not anything about the movements of the neighbor...what time did they go to bed, when was the last time they left the house. That and the lads who said they heard noises could give somewhat of a timeline. Bailey was wearing black coats in every court appearance....did he own more than one feckin' black coat at the time? The Garda who said they found the tongues off shoes and furniture in the remains of the fire. Where are those now?...there was a claim he was washing his boots at the bridge..the block wouldn't be capable of taking on a fingerprint. Is that true?...was that contested at all? Was it Garda incompetence or did the killer really get that lucky?

It was beautifully shot but there was so many questions left unasked and unanswered.

nc6000

Wompa1 wrote: »

There were a lot of loose threads in the documentary. There was no mention of that instruction in the documentary. They said she had her own hair in her hands and the mark on the door was from her. They explained the neighbor found her but not anything about the movements of the neighbor...what time did they go to bed, when was the last time they left the house. That and the lads who said they heard noises could give somewhat of a timeline. Bailey was wearing black coats in every court appearance....did he own more than one feckin' black coat at the time? The Garda who said they found the tongues off shoes and furniture in the remains of the fire. Where are those now?...there was a claim he was washing his boots at the bridge..the block wouldn't be capable of taking on a fingerprint. Is that true?...was that contested at all? Was it Garda incompetence or did the killer really get that lucky?

It was beautifully shot but there was so many questions left unasked and unanswered.

I'm sure it was mentioned that a senior Garda wanted the scene preserved until Prof Harbison got there. The 23rd was his birthday and he appears to have been out for lunch so couldn't be contacted and didn't arrive at the scene until the 24th.

retro:electro

I don’t understand how Marie Farrell has never been either prosecuted or sued for the amount of drivel she has produced. She is a major factor in why this case remains unsolved 25 years on. Complete idiot of a woman

dmn22

Marie Farrell reminds me of the person in a zombie movie who doesn't tell anyone that she was bitten and it leads to the downfall of everything.

Loafing Oaf

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

But there is nothing of substance linking him to this crime.

There was nothing to link him to the victim.

There was no motive for him to have done this.

Common sense assumption would be there was some sort of personal/sexual motive at play here, whether or not Bailey was the perpetrator.

If he was and had established some sort of connection with Sophie prior to the murder but somehow managed to keep it completely secret, then there isn't going to be a trail of evidence regarding motive.