Murder at the Cottage | Sky

MoonUnit75

Rmgblue wrote: »

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?

To get a temp reading from a body, check rigor mortis, blood pooling etc. involves disturbing it, this was well before the leading detectives arrived on the scene. There would be a greater chance of contaminating the scene and disturbing some evidence if the local GP was allowed to take a temperature reading and to manhandle the body.

SeaFields

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 ??

From another site....

"Sophie: A Murder in West Cork will launch on Netflix on Wednesday 30th June."

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

He had his own press agency in the UK. I'm sure he knew how to hustle and get information and had contacts and sources. The Dublin journalists when they arrived were amazed at all the detail he had

The_Honeybadger

Mackwiss wrote: »

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.

He knew about the wine glasses on the counter, that she was not sexually assaulted etc. That’s not stuff you hear here and there. He was the self appointed expert on the case and the Gardai were taken aback at the details he had, leading them to question him about his whereabouts that night.

Sorry but I don’t buy that he was just repeating hearsay.

Rmgblue

retro:electro wrote: »

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

It's queried in the DPP Directions. They are of the opinion that the Super spilled and he outright denied it.

Rmgblue

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

To get a temp reading from a body, check rigor mortis, blood pooling etc. involves disturbing it, this was well before the leading detectives arrived on the scene. There would be a greater chance of contaminating the scene and disturbing some evidence if the local GP was allowed to take a temperature reading and to manhandle the body.

I wonder would they do it differently today knowing what an absolute **** show it turned out to be

The_Honeybadger

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

He knew about the wine glasses on the counter, that she was not sexually assaulted etc. That’s not stuff you hear here and there. He was the self appointed expert on the case and the Gardai were taken aback at the details he had, leading them to question him about his whereabouts that night.

Sorry but I don’t buy that he was just repeating hearsay.

he could have had a garda contact.The garda would not admit it and i doubt Bailey would tell. Maybe he had a garda scanner

MoonUnit75

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

There’s some major discrepancies in how he knew about the murder and when.

Their official story is they heard via a phone call from EC at 1.50 pm but he maintains he never said she was French during that call. Then they went straight to the scene because IB knew a french woman lived beside Alfie. Despite IB having done work for Shirley Foster and guessing her neighbour was murdered, he drove straight past her when he met her on a narrow road and kept going to the scene. He did not stop her to ask he what she might know about the murder, gardai also felt this was highly unusual for the first reporter on the scene.

They said they never left the house that morning after IB made breakfast and only heard when the call came in at 1.50pm.

However, the owner of a vegetable stall said Jules told him about the murder at around 11.30 on the morning the body was discovered. Jules said she hadn’t left the house and that he must have been confused, she said it was the following morning she told him. The stall owner completely rejected that, the next day was Xmas Eve and the news would have been on every local and national bulletin by then. He said this was the first he ever heard about the murder. There’s also a discrepancy where IB would have been using the car the next morning in any case.

Bill Fuller said he saw Jules Thomas driving down the side road that leads from the turn off for Sophie’s house to the main road at around 11am on the same morning. He said she went over a bump and put her hand down as if to stop something on the passenger seat rolling off. Jules denied this, although her youngest daughter made a statement to say both Jules and IB had left that morning for about 2 hours. As far as we know, her daughter refused to retrac that statement. Under questioning, the gardai put it to Jules Thomas that her daughter claimed Jules did come back with vegetables as well.

From the defamation case, IB allegedly told the Irish Independent news desk that afternoon that he had photos of the victim when alive and photos of the crime scene from around 11am. The paper sent a photographer to collect the photos.
IB also allegedly told a journalist from the Guardian that he had known Sophie and was best placed to provide information on the crime.
AFAIK, in his articles he was the first to report that she had stumbled or tripped as she was chased and that she had not been sexually assaulted.

Nick Foster asked IB how he knew various things about the murder in some articles and IB said these sections were written by a French journalist. Nick managed to speak to her and she said she did not provide those details in the jointly authored articles.

Mackwiss

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

He knew about the wine glasses on the counter, that she was not sexually assaulted etc. That’s not stuff you hear here and there. He was the self appointed expert on the case and the Gardai were taken aback at the details he had, leading them to question him about his whereabouts that night.

Sorry but I don’t buy that he was just repeating hearsay.

Glasses: Some Gardai could've said that, can even imagine a guy saying "well there where two wine glasses on the sink" and even photos of the glasses? Who took those photos?

No sexual assault: She had her head smashed, yet fully clothed. Logic assumption.

Go look into murders where sexual assault happened, victims are never left clothed.

MoonUnit75

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

There’s some major discrepancies in how he knew about the murder and when.

Their official story is they heard via a phone call from EC at 1.50 pm but he maintains he never said she was French during that call. Then they went straight to the scene because IB knew a french woman lived beside Alfie. Despite IB having done work for Shirley Foster and guessing her neighbour was murdered, he drove straight past her when he met her on a narrow road and kept going to the scene. He did not stop her to ask he what she might know about the murder, gardai also felt this was highly unusual for the first reporter on the scene.

They said they never left the house that morning after IB made breakfast and only heard when the call came in at 1.50pm.

However, the owner of a vegetable stall said Jules told him about the murder at around 11.30 on the morning the body was discovered. Jules said she hadn’t left the house and that he must have been confused, she said it was the following morning she told him. The stall owner completely rejected that, the next day was Xmas Eve and the news would have been on every local and national bulletin by then. He said this was the first he ever heard about the murder. There’s also a discrepancy where IB would have been using the car the next morning in any case.

Bill Fuller said he saw Jules Thomas driving down the side road that leads from the turn off for Sophie’s house to the main road at around 11am on the same morning. He said she went over a bump and put her hand down as if to stop something on the passenger seat rolling off. Jules denied this, although her youngest daughter made a statement to say both Jules and IB had left that morning for about 2 hours. As far as we know, her daughter refused to retrac that statement. Under questioning, the gardai put it to Jules Thomas that her daughter claimed Jules did come back with vegetables as well.

From the defamation case, IB allegedly told the Irish Independent news desk that afternoon that he had photos of the victim when alive and photos of the crime scene from around 11am. The paper sent a photographer to collect the photos.
IB also allegedly told a journalist from the Guardian that he had known Sophie and was best placed to provide information on the crime.
AFAIK, in his articles he was the first to report that she had stumbled or tripped as she was chased and that she had not been sexually assaulted.

Nick Foster asked IB how he knew various things about the murder in some articles and IB said these sections were written by a French journalist. Nick managed to speak to her and she said she did not provide those details in the jointly authored articles.

Cassidy also denied phoning people when phone records show he did. Cassidy is pretty discredited in the DPP report
Typical Bailey bluster, he was the best was best placed to provide information .What else would he say?.It was a big break for him and he wasn't shy about pushing himself

Mackwiss

Mackwiss wrote: »

Glasses: Some Gardai could've said that, can even imagine a guy saying "well there where two wine glasses on the sink" and even photos of the glasses? Who took those photos?

No sexual assault: She had her head smashed, yet fully clothed. Logic assumption.

Go look into murders where sexual assault happened, victims are never left clothed.

he could made some educated guesses. Most crimes, the early reports are often innacurate. The photos could have been taken later

The_Honeybadger

Mackwiss wrote: »

Glasses: Some Gardai could've said that, can even imagine a guy saying "well there where two wine glasses on the sink" and even photos of the glasses? Who took those photos?

No sexual assault: She had her head smashed, yet fully clothed. Logic assumption.

Go look into murders where sexual assault happened, victims are never left clothed.

Fair enough, but by all accounts he knew enough to come to the attention of the Gardai, and as others have pointed out his story around the day after the murder is full of holes, never mind the fact that he denied leaving the house that night until he was caught out. The documentary seemed to suggest that he had no relationship with the Gardai in terms of information about the case but it’s impossible to know of course.

I don’t recall any explanation in the documentary, that’s all I was initially saying. It was a strange loose end to leave, given that they highlighted the fact that that was how he came on the Garda radar. If he had a reasonable explanation around his sources then I don’t see why he remained a suspect at that stage, given they had no other reason to tie him to the crime.

Weddings ahoy

I feel there are so many loose ends on this case from re listening to podcast and reading this thread,
No motive
No forensics at scene
No clear time of death established
No idea why Sophie went down to the gate
No husband coming to Ireland in immediate aftermath
Evidence missing
Witness tampering
Enough evidence to convict IB in France but not enough in Ireland
And the list could go on...
Can't help but wonder if completely new team took on the case , went right back would it bring anything new to light, or is it always going to be an unsolved crime here in Ireland??

The_Honeybadger

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

Fair enough, but by all accounts he knew enough to come to the attention of the Gardai, and as others have pointed out his story around the day after the murder is full of holes, never mind the fact that he denied leaving the house that night until he was caught out. The documentary seemed to suggest that he had no relationship with the Gardai in terms of information about the case but it’s impossible to know of course.

I don’t recall any explanation in the documentary, that’s all I was initially saying. It was a strange loose end to leave, given that they highlighted the fact that that was how he came on the Garda radar. If he had a reasonable explanation around his sources then I don’t see why he remained a suspect at that stage, given they had no other reason to tie him to the crime.

Maybe he wouldn't give up his source. If his source was a garda they had a symbiotic relationship. Bailey probably figured he would need him again. Maybe he paid the cop. Give up your source and no one will trust you again. Bailey would have known that. There is a strict code on sources for journalists

Weddings ahoy

Weddings ahoy wrote: »

I feel there are so many loose ends on this case from re listening to podcast and reading this thread,
No motive
No forensics at scene
No clear time of death established
No idea why Sophie went down to the gate
No husband coming to Ireland in immediate aftermath
Evidence missing
Witness tampering
Enough evidence to convict IB in France but not enough in Ireland
And the list could go on...
Can't help but wonder if completely new team took on the case , went right back would it bring anything new to light, or is it always going to be an unsolved crime here in Ireland??

very strange to me. i don't buy he was unable to face it

The_Honeybadger

SoulWriter wrote: »

Maybe he wouldn't give up hi source. If his source was a garda they had a symbiotic relationship. Bailey probably figured he would need him again. Maybe he paid the cop. Give up your source and no one will trust you again. Bailey would have known that. There is a strict code on sources for journalists

If there was indeed a Garda source I am sure he would have been reluctant to name them initially for the reasons you mention, but once things got serious for him I think he’d have to give them up surely? If the Garda denies it then it may complicate things but there was no mention of anything like that happening.

Weddings ahoy

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

If there was indeed a Garda source I am sure he would have been reluctant to name them initially for the reasons you mention, but once things got serious for him I think he’d have to give them up surely? If the Garda denies it then it may complicate things but there was no mention of anything like that happening.

Would he need a Garda source as a freelance journo in West Cork where the biggest crime back than might have been a cow wandering into a neighbouring field, or a local growing weed, hadn't he come to Ireland in the early 90's reinventing himself as a poet /author /thespian why would he need a source especially a Garda one, also my impression was he wasn't taken very seriously at the time, bit of an oddball around town, with his long coat and staff reciting poetry on the main street,,

Cona44

He said somewhere that his source was actually French investigators and journalists who were using him for local knowledge

MoonUnit75

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

There’s some major discrepancies in how he knew about the murder and when.

Their official story is they heard via a phone call from EC at 1.50 pm but he maintains he never said she was French during that call. Then they went straight to the scene because IB knew a french woman lived beside Alfie. Despite IB having done work for Shirley Foster and guessing her neighbour was murdered, he drove straight past her when he met her on a narrow road and kept going to the scene. He did not stop her to ask he what she might know about the murder, gardai also felt this was highly unusual for the first reporter on the scene.

They said they never left the house that morning after IB made breakfast and only heard when the call came in at 1.50pm.

However, the owner of a vegetable stall said Jules told him about the murder at around 11.30 on the morning the body was discovered. Jules said she hadn’t left the house and that he must have been confused, she said it was the following morning she told him. The stall owner completely rejected that, the next day was Xmas Eve and the news would have been on every local and national bulletin by then. He said this was the first he ever heard about the murder. There’s also a discrepancy where IB would have been using the car the next morning in any case.

Bill Fuller said he saw Jules Thomas driving down the side road that leads from the turn off for Sophie’s house to the main road at around 11am on the same morning. He said she went over a bump and put her hand down as if to stop something on the passenger seat rolling off. Jules denied this, although her youngest daughter made a statement to say both Jules and IB had left that morning for about 2 hours. As far as we know, her daughter refused to retrac that statement. Under questioning, the gardai put it to Jules Thomas that her daughter claimed Jules did come back with vegetables as well.

From the defamation case, IB allegedly told the Irish Independent news desk that afternoon that he had photos of the victim when alive and photos of the crime scene from around 11am. The paper sent a photographer to collect the photos.
IB also allegedly told a journalist from the Guardian that he had known Sophie and was best placed to provide information on the crime.
AFAIK, in his articles he was the first to report that she had stumbled or tripped as she was chased and that she had not been sexually assaulted.

Nick Foster asked IB how he knew various things about the murder in some articles and IB said these sections were written by a French journalist. Nick managed to speak to her and she said she did not provide those details in the jointly authored articles.

A lot of these testimonies were given long after the events. Look around any historical event and you will find people giving alternative and sometimes opposite testimony of what actually happened. Guards and investigators have to trawl through this stuff as a matter of course.
At the end of the day, rational people have to make rational arguments about what probably happened.
From the availabile evidence Bailey must be discounted as a reasonable suspect.

nc6000

Eh, so maybe IB was just guessing or he had a Garda telling him more than he\she should have when IB was writing those first articles. For IB to say there wasn't a sexual assault would have been a 50:50 guess.

nc6000

nc6000 wrote: »

Eh, so maybe IB was just guessing or he had a Garda telling him more than he\she should have when IB was writing those first articles. For IB to say there wasn't a sexual assault would have been a 50:50 guess.

From what they say, he was there very early at the scene. He spoke to the guards. He saw the clothing on the body. He rushed to be the first to get a story into the papers.

notahappycamper

IB was on Newstalk this morning and I missed it. Anyone on here listen to it? I presume nothing new?

Yurt2

notahappycamper wrote: »

IB was on Newstalk this morning and I missed it. Anyone on here listen to it? I presume nothing new?

Haven't heard it, but the Netflix documentary gets released today so he's probably getting out ahead of it. Likely will be viewed much more than the Jim Sheridan documentary given the platform and is apparently less sympathetic to Bailey.

Mantis Toboggan

notahappycamper wrote: »

IB was on Newstalk this morning and I missed it. Anyone on here listen to it? I presume nothing new?

8.45 Newstalk

Mantis Toboggan

How biased is the Netflix doc?

Table Top Joe

It was only actually released within the last hour or so, no one has seen it yet

TomCor1

Pointless 3 minute interview on Newstalk. The presenter just kept saying 'why do you do media work?'.

leath_dub

TomCor1 wrote: »

Pointless 3 minute interview on Newstalk. The presenter just kept saying 'why do you do media work?'.

Mark Cagney asked him why he felt the need to engage in the media circus when he's been exonerated in this country and has nothing to gain by doing so. A fair line of questioning, I'd say.

monkeybutter

leath_dub wrote: »

Mark Cagney asked him why he felt the need to engage in the media circus when he's been exonerated in this country and has nothing to gain by doing so. A fair line of questioning, I'd say.

I'm sure he knows how the media works and if he engages he has some sort of control on the narrative

Wompa1

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.

Might be bad memory on my part but I thought it was that she believed the man across the shop was 5 ft 8, wasn't it? In the documentary they had a recreation with the fella across the shop being 5 ft 8 standing beside someone as tall as Bailey.

Looking forward to watching the Netflix version.