Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Mackinac

FrankN1 wrote: »

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

It was referenced in an article in The Observer, and did not say which neighbour Sophie had disagreed with over the gate. There were two houses behind Sophie’s.

For a while she even feuded with her nearest neighbour over a shared gate that she felt should stay closed. The Observer, 12th March, 2000.

Wompa1

Mackinac wrote: »

It was referenced in an article in The Observer, and did not say which neighbour Sophie had disagreed with over the gate. There were two houses behind Sophie’s.

For a while she even feuded with her nearest neighbour over a shared gate that she felt should stay closed. The Observer, 12th March, 2000.

That's right. One of them mentioned The Richardsons, I think it was.

The documentary was beautifully shot but left out so much.

EmmetSpiceland

Wompa1 wrote: »

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?

She phoned to say she saw ‘a man by the bridge’. She believed this man to be 5’8 and the same guy she saw following Sophie around.

It was the Gards who got at her to say it was Bailey she saw.

There was a rumour that the guy she was with that night was a Garda, himself. A guy with a terrible reputation for violence and bad temper. Was any of this ever confirmed? And as the guy is deceased why is his name never mentioned?

A lot of things were dismissed during the investigation as untrue. They said there wasn’t 2 wine glasses by the sink but then they show up in a photograph, they say Bailey burned his coat but then there’s a file stating it was sent for analysis.

They also make out it was a crime of passion and that Bailey had a history of violence against women. But did he ever brutally attack any women he didn’t know? Would someone he’s either never met, or was possibly introduced to once, in still enough hatred and anger in to murder her so brutally?

It’s a very troubling case, and whatever about Marie Farrell, the investigation was a disgrace and the fault of the perpetrator getting away with it falls solely on the gardaí.

monkeybutter

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

She phoned to say she saw ‘a man by the bridge’. She believed this man to be 5’8 and the same guy she saw following Sophie around.

It was the Gards who got at her to say it was Bailey she saw.

There was a rumour that the guy she was with that night was a Garda, himself. A guy with a terrible reputation for violence and bad temper. Was any of this ever confirmed? And as the guy is deceased why is his name never mentioned?

A lot of things were dismissed during the investigation as untrue. They said there wasn’t 2 wine glasses by the sink but then they show up in a photograph, they say Bailey burned his coat but then there’s a file stating it was sent for analysis.

They also make out it was a crime of passion and that Bailey had a history of violence against women. But did he ever brutally attack any women he didn’t know? Would someone he’s either never met, or was possibly introduced to once, in still enough hatred and anger in to murder her so brutally?

It’s a very troubling case, and whatever about Marie Farrell, the investigation was a disgrace and the fault of the perpetrator getting away with it falls solely on the gardaí.

Even with the best police work, you wont always catch someone


A one off, possibly no obvious link to the victim killing is going to be hard to solve


Even if someone left DNA evidence without a link its useless

jimwallace197

monkeybutter wrote: »

Even with the best police work, you wont always catch someone


A one off, possibly no obvious link to the victim killing is going to be hard to solve


Even if someone left DNA evidence without a link its useless

I dont agree, if it was in fact a senior gard that didnt commit the crime & there was no coverup. In a small locality like that, hiding a crime of that nature, I dont think so.

First step should have been to move the body like they were told to do to Cork hospital instead of leaving it out all night removing any chance the time of death would be found or other vital pieces of information about the killing. If they had known that they could have questioned, looked for an alibi fromanyone in the locality that would have had the strength to kill her in the manner that they did. Couldnt be too many males in that bracket there. This would have ruled out or in alot of potential suspects locally.

Then they could have kept hold of the gate to see if fingerprints, blood, dna could be analysed for any of the potential suspects & see if a match could be made.

If they didnt have any success with that, then they could have explored the husband/hitman theory more and would have had reasonable cause to do so. Car rental companies, flights, hotels, b&b's, anyone check in there that hadnt been around before.

So many different things they could have done but instead they zeroed in on Bailey and destroyed his life without any concrete proof.

jimwallace197

jimwallace197 wrote: »

I dont agree, if it was in fact a senior gard that didnt commit the crime & there was no coverup. In a small locality like that, hiding a crime of that nature, I dont think so.

First step should have been to move the body like they were told to Cork hospital instead of leaving it out all night removing any chance the time of death would be found or other vital pieces of information about the killing. If they had known that they could have questioned anyone in the locality that would have the strength to kill her in the manner that they did. Couldnt be too many males in that bracket there.

Secondly, they could have

they could have questioned anyone in the locality that would have the strength to kill her in the manner that they did anyway. the person would not have to answer any questions though

monkeybutter

jimwallace197 wrote: »

I dont agree, if it was in fact a senior gard that didnt commit the crime & there was no coverup. In a small locality like that, hiding a crime of that nature, I dont think so.

First step should have been to move the body like they were told to Cork hospital instead of leaving it out all night removing any chance the time of death would be found or other vital pieces of information about the killing. If they had known that they could have questioned anyone in the locality that would have the strength to kill her in the manner that they did. Couldnt be too many males in that bracket there.

Secondly, they could have

who knows what difference the delay in getting he pathologist made in reality to other evidence



There was talk previously that the cold ambient temp would have made that hard to determine time of death and realistically they arent going to turn up within an hour




what are the chances the temp was below zero on the night or the second night, you are kept in cold storage anyway


if it was some big coverup then that is entirely different


and unbelievable, lets be honest

I'm sure they questioned all of the the 50 leads they had

chooseusername

If the Gardai were covering up for one of their own,
they'd hardly pick Bailey as their patsy.

MacDanger

Just finished the West Cork podcast, well worth listening to.

I had always assumed Bailey was guilty (sure why else would the guards be after him) but there's literally zero evidence linking him to the murder, none whatsoever!!

Bailey is an absolute w*nker (as is Marie Farrell and the lead Garda) and it's hard to have sympathy but there's no way he could be convicted of this (the French trial was a complete sham imo)

odyssey06

chooseusername wrote: »

If the Gardai were covering up for one of their own,
they'd hardly pick Bailey as their patsy.

Why not?
Who would they pick though?

Massive Bereavement

A theory I've not heard mentioned before is regarding her being spooked at that lake the day before and calling in on a family she knew from France that lived in the area. Think Jim referred to them as the Ungerers. Well they would be one of the very few in the area that knew her and knew she was back visiting at that time.

What if the man of the house decided to call in on her the next day to make sure she was alright. He would have known she was spooked, would have known she lived alone in a remote area and it being the depths of winter where it is dark and dreary for most of the time it would make sense for him to call in on her to see if she was ok. Would also make sense that she would go down to the gate upon seeing him as she knew him. But what if he made a pass at her and she threatened to tell his wife.

I firmly believe she was down at the gate because she knew her killer. The gate was also used by two other houses so in all likelihood any car at the gate would not be for her and would not have prompted her to lace her boots up and head down there. Especially seeing as at least one of her neighbors lived there permanently and given the fact she had only arrived there a day or two before why would any car at the gate be for her. So a car coming to the gate would have not called for her to leave the house. But seeing someone she knew down at the gate might have. She was either going down there to assist them through the gate or she was down there to confront them as she did not want them to come up to and into the house.

Mackwiss

Massive Bereavement wrote: »

A theory I've not heard mentioned before is regarding her being spooked at that lake the day before and calling in on a family she knew from France that lived in the area. Think Jim referred to them as the Ungerers. Well they would be one of the very few in the area that knew her and knew she was back visiting at that time.

What if the man of the house decided to call in on her the next day to make sure she was alright. He would have known she was spooked, would have known she lived alone in a remote area and it being the depths of winter where it is dark and dreary for most of the time it would make sense for him to call in on her to see if she was ok. Would also make sense that she would go down to the gate upon seeing him as she knew him. But what if he made a pass at her and she threatened to tell his wife.

I firmly believe she was down at the gate because she knew her killer. The gate was also used by two other houses so in all likelihood any car at the gate would not be for her and would not have prompted her to lace her boots up and head down there. Especially seeing as at least one of her neighbors lived there permanently and given the fact she had only arrived there a day or two before why would any car at the gate be for her. So a car coming to the gate would have not called for her to leave the house. But seeing someone she knew down at the gate might have. She was either going down there to assist them through the gate or she was down there to confront them as she did not want them to come up to and into the house.

Agree with this 100% I would add the food in her stomach indicates it happened early in the morning and would connect with the blue fiesta leaving the scene...

There's also the French person that appeared in Galway looking for a place to stay stating he left in a rush from his West Cork B&B I think the next day?

Still think, if it was a local he wouldn't go through Schull and probably head north towards Durrus to avoid suspicion then go through Ballydehob and back into Schull if he's from that town.

If it was the French man that turned up in Galway if he was following a map, most likely he'd take the road into Bantry, Glengarriff, Killarney and keep going north from there. A road map from back then for sure would show this route.

The_Honeybadger

Does the podcast or any of the books explain how IB had detailed information about the murder in the aftermath? Wasn’t that why they fixed on him in the first place, he was writing about things that he shouldn’t have known. I don’t recall the documentary explaining it.

JP Liz V1

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

Does the podcast or any of the books explain how IB had detailed information about the murder in the aftermath? Wasn’t that why they fixed on him in the first place, he was writing about things that he shouldn’t have known. I don’t recall the documentary explaining it.

Was some Gardai his sources?

The_Honeybadger

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Was some Gardai his sources?

Not sure, if he had named his sources and it checked out then surely he’d have been eliminated as a suspect at that stage?

retro:electro

Didn’t he say he got the info from French journalists

JP Liz V1

retro:electro wrote: »

Didn’t he say he got the info from French journalists

How were they getting the info?

retro:electro

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

How were they getting the info?

I don’t know he never explained that part. I’d also like to know

JP Liz V1

retro:electro wrote: »

I don’t know he never explained that part. I’d also like to know

Me too, so much detail missing

What was the explanation/ theory about the blood on the door?

Mackinac

Deleted User wrote: »

What was the explanation/ theory about the blood on the door?

It was a very tiny amount and located by the handle I think, suggesting it may have gotten there as if the door was being opened.

gmisk

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

Does the podcast or any of the books explain how IB had detailed information about the murder in the aftermath? Wasn’t that why they fixed on him in the first place, he was writing about things that he shouldn’t have known. I don’t recall the documentary explaining it.

I thought in the doc he said he got info from an unnamed gardai?

The_Honeybadger

gmisk wrote: »

I thought in the doc he said he got info from an unnamed gardai?

It said that is what was assumed. The Gardai were clearly wondering how he know so much and that’s why they went to question him initially. The documentary never confirmed how he was actually getting his information unless I missed something. If it was from a Garda then that would have cleared IB of any further interest as a suspect I would have thought?

I know journalists don’t like giving up sources but if you are in an interview room being accused of murder it’s a different story.

Weddings ahoy

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

It said that is what was assumed. The Gardai were clearly wondering how he know so much and that’s why they went to question him initially. The documentary never confirmed how he was actually getting his information unless I missed something. If it was from a Garda then that would have cleared IB of any further interest as a suspect I would have thought?

I know journalists don’t like giving up sources but if you are in an interview room being accused of murder it’s a different story.

I'm very doubtful about IB explanation and timings on when he found out about murder, he says he 1st heard it from EC approx 1.20 pm and than waited for news on radio at 2pm before driving in direction of toormore, but during the podcast he said he initially was going to drive to post office in Schull as thats where he felt he could find out more info, than S foster says she met IB driving up the road to her house and she signalled for him to stop, so why didn't he go directly to post office, to gather more info??? why head straight to the scene ??? Did the news report at 2pm give anymore info other than 'the body of a woman was found near Schull '
Did they report at that time say it was a French woman or foreign woman ???

The_Honeybadger

Weddings ahoy wrote: »

I'm very doubtful about IB explanation and timings on when he found out about murder, he says he 1st heard it from EC approx 1.20 pm and than waited for news on radio at 2pm before driving in direction of toormore, but during the podcast he said he initially was going to drive to post office in Schull as thats where he felt he could find out more info, than S foster says she met IB driving up the road to her house and she signalled for him to stop, so why didn't he go directly to post office, to gather more info??? why head straight to the scene ??? Did the news report at 2pm give anymore info other than 'the body of a woman was found near Schull '
Did they report at that time say it was a French woman or foreign woman ???

Yeah I haven’t looked in to the case much, only saw the documentary, and I felt there was a lot of loose ends and key things similar to this that were almost glossed over.

There is no doubt the Gardai botched things start to finish, but I do think they must have had good reason to suspect IB and that is why they tried so hard to build a case around him.

Without looking in to it more it’s hard to form any sort of reasonable theory. The case is really fascinating.

Can anybody recommend the best book on it?

Weddings ahoy

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

Yeah I haven’t looked in to the case much, only saw the documentary, and I felt there was a lot of loose ends and key things similar to this that were almost glossed over.

There is no doubt the Gardai botched things start to finish, but I do think they must have had good reason to suspect IB and that is why they tried so hard to build a case around him.

Without looking in to it more it’s hard to form any sort of reasonable theory. The case is really fascinating.

Can anybody recommend the best book on it?

I just finished Nick foster's book Murder at Roaring Water, and thoroughly enjoyed it, haven't read any other's, but if you can I would advise listening to west cork podcast, it's on of the better ones IMO im re listening to it at the moment, gearing up for the Netflix doc release tomorrow i think ??

The_Honeybadger

Weddings ahoy wrote: »

I just finished Nick foster's book Murder at Roaring Water, and thoroughly enjoyed it, haven't read any other's, but if you can I would advise listening to west cork podcast, it's on of the better ones IMO im re listening to it at the moment, gearing up for the Netflix doc release tomorrow i think ??

Didn’t realise the Netflix one was due so soon. Nice

I’ll look in to the podcast as well

Mackwiss

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

Does the podcast or any of the books explain how IB had detailed information about the murder in the aftermath? Wasn’t that why they fixed on him in the first place, he was writing about things that he shouldn’t have known. I don’t recall the documentary explaining it.

He was an experienced tabloid journalist, half of the stuff was made up just like in all tabloid newspapers. The other half he probably got from hearing it here and there.

Is it ethical to exploit the death of someone else? It isn't. But hardly any tabloid is and they sell and make millions every year. He probably was paid by the article and the more he wrote, the more he'd get paid.

Weddings ahoy

Weddings ahoy wrote: »

I'm very doubtful about IB explanation and timings on when he found out about murder, he says he 1st heard it from EC approx 1.20 pm and than waited for news on radio at 2pm before driving in direction of toormore, but during the podcast he said he initially was going to drive to post office in Schull as thats where he felt he could find out more info, than S foster says she met IB driving up the road to her house and she signalled for him to stop, so why didn't he go directly to post office, to gather more info??? why head straight to the scene ??? Did the news report at 2pm give anymore info other than 'the body of a woman was found near Schull '
Did they report at that time say it was a French woman or foreign woman ???

I think he was a 1990's pushy tabloid journalist. Get in first, see what's happened, photograph the body, sell your story.
There was also a question earlier about Jules saying there was a murder long before the info was made public. Well it is a small town, if someone said a woman was found dead they most likely also added that her head was smashed beyond recognition. Shirley found a body and was in shock.
It's very common for false, or true, rumours to spread very early and quickly when a dramatic event occurs.

Rmgblue

Apologies if this had already been addressed. I watch the Sky series first. Now I'm 3 episodes deep in the west Cork podcast and wondering why - when a Doctor attended the scene along side or sometime close to the same time as the priest did he not pronounce her death and then offer up a possible time of death?