Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Yurt2

Padre_Pio wrote: »

It doesn't matter a jot what people say or think.
The DPP never ever brought a case against him.
It never even went to trial.
They have nothing only circumstances, and he said, she said nonsense.

The Gardai well and truly f*cked this up and Bailey lives with it.

We live in a civil society. This sort of parochial witch hunting belongs in the last century.

Ultimately this is it. Bailey, to put it plainly will not be winning any personality contests and his violence towards Thomas will be to his eternal shame.

With that said, there's simply nothing to tie him to this murder that would move the DPP, and that's because they know a jury simply cannot convict with what's on offer and a judge may well just direct a not guilty verdict if the DPP were feeling daring. I'll be straight up - I wouldn't be willing to convict with what we know. There's so much layered f*ckery with this case, that there's more than reasonable doubt at play here; there's lots of it.

Bailey's sins, whatever they may be, are between him and God.

Ultimate Gowlbag

Woody79 wrote: »

So hospitalising a woman months before isnt strong evidence given he was sophies neighbour?

It's only evidence that he is a pr1ck with plenty like him around the country and as for being a neighbour,you are definitely using that word loosely

Padre_Pio

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The french found him guilty.

He hospitalised his partner months earlier and passed off as a fair fight between two adults.

I think hes guilty as do alot of other people in ireland.

Why would you tell a 14 year old lad in a car i smashed a womans skull in with a block.

All evidence pointing to him.

I dont really care that he has never been convicted. Hes paying the price now anyhow. Karma.

The French verdict is irrelevant. Their justice system is incompatible with ours and the guilty verdict was nonsense. Hence why the high court refuses to extradite Bailey.

Beating his partner is not evidence of murder.

Who knows why he said that, or what state of mind he was in, or even if it's true.

All evidence points to him because the Gardai had no other suspects. Doesn't mean he's guilty and as I said before, it doesn't matter what people think. Whether you like it or not, Bailey is innocent until an Irish court proves him guilty.

ShamNNspace

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you think the country is full of men that hospitilise women needing stitches in their mouth and pass it off as it takes two to tango in IBs words.

Not sure of what circles you mix in to say country is full of these. Prisons are full of these types definitely

Boards is not an irish court of law but i agree with the french on the law of probability he is guilty.

I also think he is a scumbag with no redeeming features. Most abusive men who beat the **** out of women to the point of hospitilisation or death have many other personality problems. Ian Bailey is one of lifes losers and takes that out on women.

There you go, putting words on the page that I didn't write and missing the point by a country mile,and heading off on a tangent to boot, you see it matters not one jot what either of us thinks of IBs character, fact of the matter is there is nothing that would stand up in a court of law in Ireland that would convict this man of this murder, im not saying he is innocent or guilty but I won't be joining in any lynchmob and yes the country is full of those types unfortunately most of them are this side of the prison walls

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

Ultimately this is it. Bailey, to put it plainly will not be winning any personality contests and his violence towards Thomas will be to his eternal shame.


With that said, there's simply nothing to tie him to this murder that would move the DPP, and that's because they know a jury simply cannot convict with what's on offer. I'll be straight up - I wouldn't be willing to convict with what we know. There's so much layered f*ckery with this case, that there's more than reasonable doubt at play here; there's lots of it.


Bailey's sins, whatever they may be, are between him and God.

In irish criminal law maybe your correct.

If irish population where merely truth seekers (irish civil case) then he is guilty given the various court cases in ireland and france. I disagree, his sins are between him and god. If people think he is guilty thats their choice. OJ Simpson was found not guilty in court of law. Doesnt mean the truth was found in that case. Civil case later found him guilty and eventually ****ty things happened to him (karma). Ian Baileys case is similar. He may not be found guilty in irish court of law but karma will see to him in the end. He is homeless. Cant leave ireland. Dispised by many. The truth comes out eventually. The hack of him arguing it was a fair fight between him and Jules that left her with black eye and stitches in her mouth. Him of six feet three inches.OJ Simpson used to beat the **** out of his wife too before he killed her. Maybe we are too tolerant in ireland tbh.

namloc1980

Woody79 wrote: »

So hospitalising a woman months before isnt strong evidence given he was sophies neighbour?

A violent man towards woman.

No of course it isn't.

ShamNNspace

ShamNNspace wrote: »

There you go, putting words on the page that I didn't write and missing the point by a country mile,and heading off on a tangent to boot, you see it matters not one jot what either of us thinks of IBs character, fact of the matter is there is nothing that would stand up in a court of law in Ireland that would convict this man of this murder, im not saying he is innocent or guilty but I won't be joining in any lynchmob and yes the country is full of those types unfortunately most of them are this side of the prison walls

Just not painting it black and white like youd like. Guilty or innocent in irish court of law. Hes guilty. Hes a scumbag. Hes probably suffered more over the years not being found guilty. endless pergutory. I am happy for him. Karma is great.

Yurt2

Woody79 wrote: »

In irish criminal law maybe your correct.

If irish population where merely truth seekers (irish civil case) then he is guilty given the various court cases in ireland and france. I disagree, his sins are between him and god. If people think he is guilty thats their choice. OJ Simpson was found not guilty in court of law. Doesnt mean the truth was found in that case. Civil case later found him guilty and eventually ****ty things happened to him (karma). Ian Baileys case is similar. He may not be found guilty in irish court of law but karma will see to him in the end. He is homeless. Cant leave ireland. Dispised by many. The truth comes out eventually. The hack of him arguing it was a fair fight between him and Jules that left her with black eye and stitches in her mouth. Him of six feet three inches.OJ Simpson used to beat the **** out of his wife too before he killed her. Maybe we are too tolerant in ireland tbh.

Nobody here is defending domestic violence. I'm sure if you went down to West Cork you could dig up more than a few spousal abusers in and around Schull in the mid 90s. Can we throw them into the frenzy as well?

Would you be willing to entertain the possibility that you're basing your strongly held conviction on some dumbo local cops who were sent in the wrong direction by a crackpot ice cream shop owner, who doesn't know (or isn't willing to say) who was in the car with her that night and cant discern between a 5ft8 man and a 6ft3 man? Because there's more than a reasonable possibility that's what happened.

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

No of course it isn't.

please say your not a gardai for the sake of this country.

Ultimate Gowlbag

Woody79 wrote: »

please say your not a gardai for the sake of this country.

Funny because you could be one from Cork at the time

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

Nobody here is defending domestic violence. I'm sure if you went down to West Cork you could dig up more than a few spousal abusers in and around Schull in the mid 90s. Can we throw them into the frenzy as well?

Would you be willing to entertain the possibility that you're basing your strongly held conviction on some dumbo local cops who were sent in the wrong direction by a crackpot ice cream shop owner, who doesn't know (or isn't willing to say) who was in the car with her that night and cant discern between a 5ft8 man and a 6ft3 man? Because there's more than a reasonable possibility that's what happened.

I think the gardai were inadequate. They were not used to this type of crime.

If anything the gardais ineptitude makes me think he is more guilty not less. Thats how he got off in court of law. IB is a piece of **** who got lucky with a poor police force and able to coercively control his partner. He probably is thanking the police every night in his prayers at how ****ty they were. A very arrogant man who was a failed journalist, writer, poet, husband alchoholic and who beats the **** out of women to deal with said failings. A real stand up guy.

Yurt2

Woody79 wrote: »

I think the gardai were inadequate. They were not used to this type of crime.

If anything the gardais ineptitude makes me think he is more guilty not less. Thats how he got off in court of law. IB is a piece of **** who got lucky with a poor police force and able to coercively control his partner. He probably is thanking the police every night in his prayers at how ****ty they were. A very arrogant man who was a failed journalist, writer, poet, husband alchoholic and who beats the **** out of women to deal with said failings.

The bolded, while quite possibly true, and your welcome to your convictions, does not render Ian Bailey or anyone else guilty of murder unless there is compelling evidence to A: get the DPP to assent to charges and B: convince a jury of his peers of that guilt.

If we're to conduct murder investigations on the above sentiments, we could probably rustle up a dozen or so cock-eyed misfits from West Cork- random peeping Toms; spousal abusers; smack heads; alchos with a temper; the plain weird - build a case around them, pick one and horse him into gaol for all time. We'd never need to hear of this case again because as far as rough justice goes, it will have been done.

The procedures and rites of justice are there to protect us all.

I get the feeling this is going to go a bit circular as your riposte will likely be how much of a scumbag Bailey is - and again that's a value judgement you can reasonably make, but it still falls short of credibly saying he committed this murder. The evidence simply isn't there.

Watched the new Netflix series, the Sheridan series is far superior and much more diverse in characters and scope. The Netflix series relies on mainly 4 or 5 contributors, a couple of journos, a couple of Schull residents, one of whom keeps his arms tightly crossed through the whole thing, and the mum of someone who Bailey allegedly confessed to.
Very dissapointing. Bailey looks better in this documentary than he does in Sheridans film.
Bottom line is, Sheridan is a very good film maker. Netflix documentary is painting by numbers. Bailey is most likely innocent of this crime.

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

The bolded, while quite possibly true, and your welcome to your convictions, does not render Ian Bailey or anyone else guilty of murder unless there is compelling evidence to A: get the DPP to assent to charges and B: convince a jury of his peers of that guilt.


If we're to conduct murder investigations on the above sentiments, we could probably rustle up a dozen or so cock-eyed misfits from West Cork and build a case around them.


The procedures and rites of justice are there to protect us all.



I get the feeling this is going to go a bit circular as your riposte will likely be how much of a scumbag Bailey is - and again that's a value judgement you can reasonably make, but it still falls short of credibly saying he committed this murder. The evidence simply isn't there.

Yet the french criminal legal system is based on our civil laws (law of probability). They found him guilty. He also lost all those civil cases in ireland. Because when reasonable people in ireland or france way up the evidence they find he is more likely to be guilty than innocent. I have looked at the evidence and also believe the same. On the law of probability given the evidence in front of us he is guilty.

I suppose all those cases in ireland and france the people were flawed in their thinking by your understanding.

Courts of civil law in ireland and courts of criminal law in france have found him guilty.

Yurt2

Woody79 wrote: »

Yet the french criminal legal system is based on our civil laws (law of probability). They found him guilty. He also lost all those civil cases in ireland. Because when reasonable people in ireland or france way up the evidence they find he is more likely to be guilty than innocent. I have looked at the evidence and also believe the same. On the law of probability given the evidence in front of us he is guilty.

I suppose all those cases in ireland and france the people were flawed in their thinking by your understanding.

Courts of civil law in ireland and courts of criminal law in france have found him guilty.

False.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Watched the new Netflix series, the Sheridan series is far superior and much more diverse in characters and scope. The Netflix series relies on mainly 4 or 5 contributors, a couple of journos, a couple of Schull residents, one of whom keeps his arms tightly crossed through the whole thing, and the mum of someone who Bailey allegedly confessed to.
Very dissapointing. Bailey looks better in this documentary than he does in Sheridans film.
Bottom line is, Sheridan is a very good film maker. Netflix documentary is painting by numbers. Bailey is most likely innocent of this crime.

Why do you think he is innocent?

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

False.

True

Yurt2

Woody79 wrote: »

True

Please stop. They absolutely did not.

qwerty13

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So hospitalising a woman months before isnt strong evidence given he was sophies neighbour?

A violent man towards woman.

Of course it isn’t evidence. It may point to a probability that it is more likely to be him than the local parish priest - but it couldn’t even loosely be described as evidence. That’s where investigation comes in: examining the likelihood of who the culprits are, investigating the facts, and then bringing proof to the DPP.

Saying ‘but he’s a bollix’ 20 times over doesn’t mean that he did it. It seems that the local Gardai adopted this approach though. Thankfully the DPP didn’t. We also still have a presumption of innocence in this country.

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

Please stop. They absolutely did not.

What would happen if he set foot in france if he is innocent in french court of law. Are you Ian Bailey by any chance?

qwerty13

qwerty13 wrote: »

Of course it isn’t evidence. It may point to a probability that it is more likely to be him than the local parish priest - but it couldn’t even loosely be described as evidence. That’s where investigation comes in: examining the likelihood of who the culprits are, investigating the facts, and then bringing proof to the DPP.

Saying ‘but he’s a bollix’ 20 times over doesn’t mean that he did it. It seems that the local Gardai adopted this approach though. Thankfully the DPP didn’t. We also still have a presumption of innocence in this country.

I hope someone abducts him and sets him free in central paris. people of schull would be delighted.

Yurt2

Woody79 wrote: »

What would happen if he set foot in france if he is innocent in french court of law. Are you Ian Bailey by any chance?

Yes it is I, Ian Bailey. Very good. Is this the Pink Panther I am communicating with?


Just to give you a hint what would happen if he ventured into France on a wine and cheese run: he'd be subject to an immediate retrial - not gaol.

qwerty13

qwerty13 wrote: »

Of course it isn’t evidence. It may point to a probability that it is more likely to be him than the local parish priest - but it couldn’t even loosely be described as evidence. That’s where investigation comes in: examining the likelihood of who the culprits are, investigating the facts, and then bringing proof to the DPP.

Saying ‘but he’s a bollix’ 20 times over doesn’t mean that he did it. It seems that the local Gardai adopted this approach though. Thankfully the DPP didn’t. We also still have a presumption of innocence in this country.

The lad is guilty. He hospitilises women when full of drink and your thankful dpp never brought it to court. Dont worry gardai are all òver him these days. The scumbag was done for drink driving recently. THANKFULLY DPP got that one over the line.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why do you think he is innocent?

I posted my reasoning for that a long way back. Am not dragging it up at 3am just because you are too lazy to read the thread. Goodnight Woody.

Yurt2

Woody79 wrote: »

The lad is guilty. He hospitilises women when full of drink and your thankful dpp never brought it to court. Dont worry gardai are all òver him these days. The scumbag was done for drink driving recently. THANKFULLY DPP got that one over the line.

That wasn't a trial on indictment it was a summary offence, the DPP had nothing to do with it.

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

The bolded, while quite possibly true, and your welcome to your convictions, does not render Ian Bailey or anyone else guilty of murder unless there is compelling evidence to A: get the DPP to assent to charges and B: convince a jury of his peers of that guilt.

If we're to conduct murder investigations on the above sentiments, we could probably rustle up a dozen or so cock-eyed misfits from West Cork- random peeping Toms; spousal abusers; smack heads; alchos with a temper; the plain weird - build a case around them, pick one and horse him into gaol for all time. We'd never need to hear of this case again because as far as rough justice goes, it will have been done.

The procedures and rites of justice are there to protect us all.

I get the feeling this is going to go a bit circular as your riposte will likely be how much of a scumbag Bailey is - and again that's a value judgement you can reasonably make, but it still falls short of credibly saying he committed this murder. The evidence simply isn't there.

But whats your gut telling you?

boards.ie is not the irish criminal justice system.

in your humble opinion is he likely guilty or innocent of the crime?

thats what people want to know. we all know he is not likely to face an irish criminal court.

Jack1985

Having just finished the Netflix documentary, which I found much more informative than the JS documentary, it cleared up one major thing for me. I always struggled with the rear blood-stained door; I had the impression this was caused by Sophie leaving but was always stumped by the fact not a trace of blood spatter was inside the house.

The Netflix documentary now finally cleared this up, the Gardai noticed the keys inside the main front door, clearly inferring Sophie had opened it and the most plausible explanation is that the door closed behind her. She had put her boots on, someone had drawn her out. Sophie now had no way back into her property, the main front door was a deadbolt locking mechanism, I would presume the rear door was locked, she was a lady from Paris after all very different to what most of us done then in Cork with open doors. IMO, Sophie fled from her attacker initially heading for the rear door before realising it was locked, then fleeing down the field toward the gate before meeting her brutal attacker once more.

There are just far too many inconsistencies on his side, knowing details of the crime that took place before the post mortem results were even released etc. a really strange man, who IMO was infatuated with Sophie and brutally murdered her. The late evening finish at 12:30am that night, noting to Jules that the Alfie's lights were on, knowing Sophie was home and remarking ''Something bad will happen tonight.''

What he has over Jules Thomas is clearly powerful. He got lucky that night with serious Garda incompetence in the hours after her body’s discovery.

Ultimate Gowlbag

Jack1985 wrote: »

What he has over Jules Thomas is clearly powerful. .

She has kicked him out so clearly not

Jack1985

Jack1985 wrote: »

Having just finished the Netflix documentary, which I found much more informative than the JS documentary, it cleared up one major thing for me. I always struggled with the rear blood-stained door; I had the impression this was caused by Sophie leaving but was always stumped by the fact not a trace of blood spatter was inside the house.

The Netflix documentary now finally cleared this up, the Gardai noticed the keys inside the main front door, clearly inferring Sophie had opened it and the most plausible explanation is that the door closed behind her. She had put her boots on, someone had drawn her out. Sophie now had no way back into her property, the main front door was a deadbolt locking mechanism, I would presume the rear door was locked, she was a lady from Paris after all very different to what most of us done then in Cork with open doors. IMO, Sophie fled from her attacker initially heading for the rear door before realising it was locked, then fleeing down the field toward the gate before meeting her brutal attacker once more.

There are just far too many inconsistencies on his side, knowing details of the crime that took place before the post mortem results were even released etc. a really strange man, who IMO was infatuated with Sophie and brutally murdered her. The late evening finish at 12:30am that night, noting to Jules that the Alfie's lights were on, knowing Sophie was home and remarking ''Something bad will happen tonight.''

What he has over Jules Thomas is clearly powerful. He got lucky that night with serious Garda incompetence in the hours after her body’s discovery.

On the basis of probability its him for sure.

If that crime happened today they would get him because:

crimes of murder are now more frequent.
gardai etc. are alot better.
technology dna much better.

Coercive control with regards to jules.

Manys a woman have stuck by bad men.

Jack1985

Ultimate Gowlbag wrote: »

She has kicked him out so clearly not

He battered that woman senseless on many occasions, that is incredibly not only physically but mentally damaging. He can't even be man enough to admit it, ''it takes two to tango.''

Bailey really is a disgusting pr**k.

Woody79 wrote: »

On the basis of probability its him for sure.

If that crime happened today they would get him because:

crimes of murder are now more frequent.
gardai etc. are alot better.
technology dna much better.

Coercive control with regards to jules.

Manys a woman have stuck by bad men.

I still am in awe at the DPP remark ''this is not unusual'' to Ian savagely beating his wife, 6 months prior to Sophie's death. That coupled with other statements made by members of the public.