Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Gussie Scrotch

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

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.

Well, yes, but she there was no evidence of sexual assault or recent sexual activity according to the PM report.

If is a small word.....you can construct any scenario, however unlikely using the word if.

But there is no evidence.

monkeybutter

retro:electro wrote: »

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

it may not have been solved either way


the police are implicated in this and they have no interest in raking it over


has anyone ever been chased on perjury in ireland, doubtful

JP Liz V1

So her son came over, went to mass and asked for witnesses to come to France to help convict IB? Did he speak to Maria and her "companion"?

Loafing Oaf

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

Well, yes, but she there was no evidence of sexual assault or recent sexual activity according to the PM report.

If is a small word.....you can construct any scenario, however unlikely using the word if.

But there is no evidence.

Well something totally out of the ordinary clearly happened here.

Compared to some of the scenarios that have been floated in this thread, like the angry tradesman, the proposition that Ian Bailey committed the murder in a rage following a thwarted sexual advance doesn't rank very high on the implausibility scale IMO...

Gussie Scrotch

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well something totally out of the ordinary clearly happened here.

Compared to some of the scenarios that have been floated in this thread, like the angry tradesman, the proposition that Ian Bailey committed the murder in a rage following a thwarted sexual advance doesn't rank very high on the implausibility scale IMO...

Well, that's you're opinion and it is a possibility, for sure.

And it is plausible.

But there is no evidence to support the theory.

It is also possible that the husband arranged it. He had motive ( he was conducting an affair and his lover had his baby within a short time) He certainly had the means to arrange it ( very wealthy and well connected) He knew she would be there alone. He had already gone through an expensive divorce and may have wanted to avoid the cost of another. So the three key factors were present - motive, means and opportunity -I would say that that scenario is equally, if not more, plausible, but again, there is no evidence to support it.

monkeybutter

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well something totally out of the ordinary clearly happened here.

Compared to some of the scenarios that have been floated in this thread, like the angry tradesman, the proposition that Ian Bailey committed the murder in a rage following a thwarted sexual advance doesn't rank very high on the implausibility scale IMO...

No one is putting forward the plumber as an actually credible scenario



Assuming that someone came to the house to fix the heating this scenario is actually more likely given then had actually met her and had been at the house at least once

TomOnBoard

TomOnBoard wrote: »

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.

He got 15 years, appealed but it was upheld by ECHR. Abductor got one year suspended sentence:eek:

FAILSAFE 00

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.

I don't think the shot of him getting on a plane is his going to cork. It is just an archive shot of him

TomOnBoard

retro:electro wrote: »

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

You'd have head the balls like MF on the outskirts of most parochial murders in the 90's- rubberneckers, busybodies, loons and narcissists etc. Good investigators should be able to weed them out in a heartbeat.Bad investigators simply use them as 'useful idiots'. MF was used as a 'useful idiot'. Her testimony, evidence etc should have been weeded out weeks into the enquiry if it was bad. The fact that it wasn't, and she was manipulated to beat the band is inexcusable, and is entirely down to investigation shennanigans!

Wompa1

nc6000 wrote: »

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.

I don't recall them saying that he wanted the body moved though but that was the 1st episode and I watched it 3 days ago so maybe I'm not remembering it correctly.

monkeybutter

Wompa1 wrote: »

I don't recall them saying that he wanted the body moved though but that was the 1st episode and I watched it 3 days ago so maybe I'm not remembering it correctly.

there's more info out there than one TV doc


he wanted it moved

Wompa1

Wompa1 wrote: »

I don't recall them saying that he wanted the body moved though but that was the 1st episode and I watched it 3 days ago so maybe I'm not remembering it correctly.

The Dublin detectives wanted to move the body. One of them,Eugene Gilligan, Forensic Crime Scene Detective, says he rang the local officer and was told "he wanted Dr Harbison down there and that what was happening" 32 mins 40 secs part one

Loafing Oaf

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

Well, that's you're opinion and it is a possibility, for sure.

And it is plausible.

But there is no evidence to support the theory.

It is also possible that the husband arranged it. He had motive ( he was conducting an affair and his lover had his baby within a short time) He certainly had the means to arrange it ( very wealthy and well connected) He knew she would be there alone. He had already gone through an expensive divorce and may have wanted to avoid the cost of another. So the three key factors were present - motive, means and opportunity -I would say that that scenario is equally, if not more, plausible, but again, there is no evidence to support it.

And the modus operandi doesn't tally at all with a hired killer. So if the 'real story' were ever to come out here, some aspects are going to seem implausible and counterintuitive.

Gussie Scrotch

monkeybutter wrote: »

there's more info out there than one TV doc


he wanted it moved

Yes, it was a big bone of contention at the time. I was custom and practise, apparently, for Local Garda to defer to the more senior State Pathologist but refused to do so on this occasion.

Mackinac

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.

In all the stuff I’ve read over the years there seems to be very little detail regarding what the neighbours may have heard etc. Maybe they chose not to give any interviews and stayed away from the press, it has struck me too. I read that Sophie had a difficult relationship with one of her neighbours over the shared gate and it being left open, it is ironic that poor woman died by it.

Table Top Joe

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

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.

If Ian Bailey, the ginormous English fella was with the petite French woman even once, for a split second they would have been seen by someone, it would have been the talk of the town prior to the murder. There is no way on earth I believe he could have kept any relationship with her or anyone else secret. The man likes to talk and he's about 7ft tall(slight exaggeration), he was probably the last person in West Cork who could pull off an affair....

Gussie Scrotch

Mackinac wrote: »

In all the stuff I’ve read over the years there seems to be very little detail regarding what the neighbours may have heard etc. Maybe they chose not to give any interviews and stayed away from the press, it has struck me too. I read that Sophie had a difficult relationship with one of her neighbours over the shared gate and it being left open, it is ironic that poor woman died by it.

That's an interesting point.

How about this: There was an ongoing tension between Sophie and Alfie Lyons regarding the gate ( apparently she felt is should be kept shut, but he disagreed.

Sophie shuts the gate the night before and Alfie, leaving the next morning fids the gate shut ( maybe even locked in some way) and creates a bit of a scene about it. Sophie puts her boots on and goes down to the gate to Alfie, where an argument ensues and Alfie loses his temper and whacks her. the fight escalates to the point where Alfie loses it completely........

Table Top Joe

Wompa1 wrote: »

Is it possible she didn't see anything and injected herself into the story?

I think she may have seen something.....God knows what though, her credibility is long gone so even if she ever did come forward with genuine info at this stage who the hell could believe her?

Im calling it now, she will release more info from her deathbed..

Bannasidhe

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

That's an interesting point.

How about this: There was an ongoing tension between Sophie and Alfie Lyons regarding the gate ( apparently she felt is should be kept shut, but he disagreed.

Sophie shuts the gate the night before and Alfie, leaving the next morning fids the gate shut ( maybe even locked in some way) and creates a bit of a scene about it. Sophie puts her boots on and goes down to the gate to Alfie, where an argument ensues and Alfie loses his temper and whacks her. the fight escalates to the point where Alfie loses it completely........

Except that Alfie Lyons ran out of breath trying to knead dough as far back as 1995 so could no longer do the occasional shift at Arbutus Breads - but you think he could lift a concrete block in the air several times?

You also think he would leave a battered body there for his partner Shirley to find?
The same Shirley he had been counting the days until she retired and moved permanently to West Cork.

Gussie Scrotch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Except that Alfie Lyons ran out of breath trying to knead dough as far back as 1995 so could no longer do the occasional shift at Arbutus Breads - but you think he could lift a concrete block in the air several times?

You also think he would leave a battered body there for his partner Shirley to find?
The same Shirley he had been counting the days until she retired and moved permanently to West Cork.

OK but compare the "plausibility factors" :

He was definitely in the vicinity. (next door)

He obviously knew her

He had an ongoing issue with her regarding the gate. ( where the attack took place)


So he had means, plausible motive, and opportunity.


I would hazard that he was as likely a suspect, based on these factors, as IB.

marklazarcovic

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

And the modus operandi doesn't tally at all with a hired killer. So if the 'real story' were ever to come out here, some aspects are going to seem implausible and counterintuitive.

that may very well have been the intention though. to not look like a hired hit.

FrankN1

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

OK but compare the "plausibility factors" :

He was definitely in the vicinity. (next door)

He obviously knew her

He had an ongoing issue with her regarding the gate. ( where the attack took place)


So he had means, plausible motive, and opportunity.


I would hazard that he was as likely a suspect, based on these factors, as IB.

What was the gate issue & did he have an alibi?

Creamy Goodness

FrankN1 wrote: »

What was the gate issue & did he have an alibi?

AFAIK the issue with the gate was that it was being left opened either by Sophie or the house keeper or anyone else who would go to her house to look after it whilst she wasn't there.

Gussie Scrotch

Creamy Goodness wrote: »

AFAIK the issue with the gate was that it was being left opened either by Sophie or the house keeper or anyone else who would go to her house to look after it whilst she wasn't there.

My understanding of it was that Sophie felt it should be kept closed for added security whilst Alfie couldn't be bothered as he regarded it as an unnecessary hassle to have to keep opening and closing it every time he came or went.

Creamy Goodness

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

My understanding of it was that Sophie felt it should be kept closed for added security whilst Alfie couldn't be bothered as he regarded it as an unnecessary hassle to have to keep opening and closing it every time he came or went.

Ah my apologies I got it the wrong way round.

Gussie Scrotch

Creamy Goodness wrote: »

Ah my apologies I got it the wrong way round.

No apology necessary....you might be right.....that's just how I remember it .

Loafing Oaf

marklazarcovic wrote: »

that may very well have been the intention though. to not look like a hired hit.

So the killer uses whatever random bit of masonry was to hand rather than bringing his own weapon, goes way beyond the level of force required to 'do the job' and makes no effort whatsoever to conceal the body. Overegging things a tad, no?

Gussie Scrotch

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

So the killer uses whatever random bit of masonry was to hand rather than bringing his own weapon, goes way beyond the level of force required to 'do the job' and makes no effort whatsoever to conceal the body. Overegging things a tad, no?

Perhaps, but if he had shot her from a distance say, or garotted her maybe, that would have advertised an organised hit, prompting a whole different type of inquiry and probably bringing the husband into the picture. Maybe the intention was to ensure that it didn't look like a hit?

monkeybutter

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

So the killer uses whatever random bit of masonry was to hand rather than bringing his own weapon, goes way beyond the level of force required to 'do the job' and makes no effort whatsoever to conceal the body. Overegging things a tad, no?

you kill her with a weapon you remove the weapon you finish the job with the block


I mean whoever actually did it hardly attacked with the 17 inch block weighing probably 25kg in the first place


I mean how many times did they reckon it was used? how would they know

Gussie Scrotch

monkeybutter wrote: »

you kill her with a weapon you remove the weapon you finish the job with the block


I mean whoever actually did it hardly attacked with the 17 inch block weighing probably 25kg in the first place


I mean how many times did they reckon it was used? how would they know

The PM report mentioned two blows with a blunt object, before the assault with the block. The housekeeper claimed a small hatchet was missing from its usual place behind the door.