Murder at the Cottage | Sky

qwerty13

I find it incredibly hard to believe that someone as attention seeking, arrogant, narcissistic and regularly drunk as IB is would have kept a lid on things for so many years.

I also didn’t feel that JT was acting when she discussed him. The rawness of her being “regularly pissed off with him”, and her exasperation with the investigation rang true to me.

Well - the above, plus zero evidence, despite the Gardai’s ‘best efforts’.

SalthillHead

Her statement to the Guards said she saw “dark clothes” in the tub. Arianna told me that at some point when she was in the cottage, she wanted to wash or dry her hair, and she went into the bathroom, and she saw clothes – or something, at any rate – soaking there. She did not get close enough to the bathtub to say what kind of clothes they were, to know what the material was or – now, in 2019 – confidently recall the colour.

Foster, Nick. Murder At Roaringwater (p. 280). Mirror Books. Kindle Edition.

In the netflix doc, it made out she was certain she saw a black coat soaking in a bucket.

EmmetSpiceland

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

I only heard eyelets from a shoe and bed springs from an old mattress we’re found.

I think it was the detective said "buttons, coat buttons" and why was the coat being washed the Italian girl saw suspicious if he burned the coat?. he can't have had two coats on if he killed sophie. And the gardai took another coat. Three coats?

bb12

tibruit wrote: »

It`s a poor opening line in reality though. I would suggest that if you lived in a rural area where someone local was brutally murdered by an unknown assailant, you would have a distinct memory of where you were and what you were doing at the time for years afterwards, never mind a couple of weeks.

yep this exactly. when rachel o'reilly was murdered in my area, i remember everything about that morning, cars that were on the road, the weather etc etc. when you hear about a local murder that day, you remember back to that morning and details stick in your head for years and years.

tibruit

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Nope. That's a fallacy.
They say people remember where they were when they heard that JFK had been shot on November 22, 1963, or John Lennon on December 8, 1980.

Its one thing to remember when you heard it, but another to remember what you were doing the exact time of, or the days before it.

Also, it's been shown that every time your remember an event your memories change. There's just no reliable witnesses anymore.

Ask me what I was doing at this time two weeks ago and I could make suggestions based on habit, but I wouldn`t have distinct memories. However, ask me about this day two weeks ago when Sophie up the road was murdered and there was an unknown killer in our midst and I would be able to recall most of that day and I would also have been mulling over the events of the previous days wondering if I`d noticed anything suspicious. Sarah Koenig posed the wrong question.

Mackwiss

SalthillHead wrote: »

Her statement to the Guards said she saw “dark clothes” in the tub. Arianna told me that at some point when she was in the cottage, she wanted to wash or dry her hair, and she went into the bathroom, and she saw clothes – or something, at any rate – soaking there. She did not get close enough to the bathtub to say what kind of clothes they were, to know what the material was or – now, in 2019 – confidently recall the colour.

Foster, Nick. Murder At Roaringwater (p. 280). Mirror Books. Kindle Edition.

In the netflix doc, it made out she was certain she saw a black coat soaking in a bucket.

so in other words, more intrigue, more hollywoodesque statements focusing on IB all at the same time forgetting there's a woman dead and the culprit still not really found...

Yurt2

Mackwiss wrote: »

so in other words, more intrigue, more hollywoodesque statements focusing on IB all at the same time forgetting there's a woman dead and the culprit still not really found...

Basically Ian Bailey cast as a pantomime Scooby Doo villian by bumbling provincial guards.

He's the perfect person for the role given his past domestic abuse with Thomas and his out there personality.

But justice isn't an episode of Scooby Doo is it?

MacDanger

bb12 wrote: »

yep this exactly. when rachel o'reilly was murdered in my area, i remember everything about that morning, cars that were on the road, the weather etc etc. when you hear about a local murder that day, you remember back to that morning and details stick in your head for years and years.

tibruit wrote: »

Ask me what I was doing at this time two weeks ago and I could make suggestions based on habit, but I wouldn`t have distinct memories. However, ask me about this day two weeks ago when Sophie up the road was murdered and there was an unknown killer in our midst and I would be able to recall most of that day and I would also have been mulling over the events of the previous days wondering if I`d noticed anything suspicious. Sarah Koenig posed the wrong question.

You might be able to recall most of that day but would you be able to do so accurately? You'd believe you would but that doesn't make it true..

As an example, the evidence from Eddie Cassidy (in a number of statements, the earliest taken in Feb '97) about the late morning/early afternoon of the murder, who he called and when he called them has been objectively shown to be false (by phone records)

retro:electro

Neither documentaries are a patch on West Cork, imo. Both are too biased and leave out a lot of the dimensions and facets involved in such a complex case. The podcast managed to present the information from a neutral perspective and didn’t really need to poke and prod or provoke too much. A far superior representation of all of the facts. Sheridan especially was too involved in his production.

namloc1980

Woody79 wrote: »

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

You can't convict someone of murder with no other evidence just on the basis that they domestically abused another woman. Does this actually have to be spelled out here?

I really REALLY hope you have no decision making powers in the justice system.

tibruit

MacDanger wrote: »

You might be able to recall most of that day but would you be able to do so accurately? You'd believe you would but that doesn't make it true..

As an example, the evidence from Eddie Cassidy (in a number of statements, the earliest taken in Feb '97) about the late morning/early afternoon of the murder, who he called and when he called them has been objectively shown to be false (by phone records)

There will always be errors in witness recall. But I`m taking issue with the Koenig question specifically. It is phrased to cast doubt on witness testimony. Whether this is subtle intention or just careless journalism, I don`t know because I haven`t listened to the podcast.

chooseusername

map.jpg

Yurt! wrote: »

Somebody on the thread had it about an hour each way on foot.

Mackwiss wrote: »

Posted a good few posts ago... it's about an hours walk between both houses through hills and country lanes, not passing through the bridge. Passing by the bridge is around 90 minutes walk.

odyssey06 wrote: »

I wonder is that walking in daylight or walking by moonlight at night on unlit roads...

Or if walking drunk the difference is staggering.

It's 2.5 miles walking (50 mins no shortcuts) or driving (4-5 mins).
2 miles as the crow flies.

map.jpg

namloc1980

chicorytip wrote: »

When I speculate about things turning nasty in the house I am thinking about the behaviour or attitude of the individual she may have been in company with, a male. It could have been an unwanted sexual advance or comments which made her fearful enough to attempt to flee the situation. If that is what happened it does not necessarily follow that there would have been signs of disturbance in the kitchen which would likely have been the case had there been a prolonged physical struggle inside between victim and assailant. I still think the most credible theory is that she was attempting to flee, was caught and then bludgeoned to death at that spot inside the front gate.

Why wouldn't she have run to the neighbours next door instead?

Treppen

Padre_Pio wrote: »

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.

Along with the missing gate and other evidence I believe there were files on 5 other suspects which went missing. Open to correction here.

retro:electro

namloc1980 wrote: »

Why wouldn't she have run to the neighbours next door instead?

You’re applying rational thought to a woman who was likely in fear for her life. She likely just ran and didn’t think too much about where she was going

Treppen

namloc1980 wrote: »

Why wouldn't she have run to the neighbours next door instead?

Who knows, if someone got her out in front of the house and stood on the neighbors drive the only way she could escape quickly was down the road.
Or there was also the suggestion that someone lured her out e.g. if the killer knew her, or maybe my career is broken down can you help?
Who knows

el Fenomeno

chooseusername wrote: »

map.jpg




Or if walking drunk the difference is staggering.

It's 2.5 miles walking (50 mins no shortcuts) or driving (4-5 mins).
2 miles as the crow flies.

map.jpg

Important to note, though, that this route would not take you by the bridge where MF claims she saw Bailey (or whoever she's claiming it is now).

He would have to have taken the red route in the attached to cross the bridge (blue X) which is actually a 90 minute walk.

am_zarathustra

tibruit wrote: »

It`s a poor opening line in reality though. I would suggest that if you lived in a rural area where someone local was brutally murdered by an unknown assailant, you would have a distinct memory of where you were and what you were doing at the time for years afterwards, never mind a couple of weeks.

tibruit wrote: »

There will always be errors in witness recall. But I`m taking issue with the Koenig question specifically. It is phrased to cast doubt on witness testimony. Whether this is subtle intention or just careless journalism, I don`t know because I haven`t listened to the podcast.

It's a great listen actually. And in the context of that story, certainly not careless journalism.

Eye witness testimony is sketchy at best. If you get someone to write down immediately after what happened you get something approaching the truth. Within 48 hours its very open to suggestion. The vast majority of the cases (70%) initially taken by the Innocence project were taken due to the main form of evidence being eye witness, people sure enough of their identification of an individual (sometimes known to them) at a crime scene to testify in a court case where a possible outcome as the death penalty.

I've had people write out what happened in an incident within minutes of it happening, fairly serious incidents at times, and the difference in perception of situations and how those situations arose is startling. I don't trust my own recollections at this point given the variance you see.

namloc1980

retro:electro wrote: »

You’re applying rational thought to a woman who was likely in fear for her life. She likely just ran and didn’t think too much about where she was going

She also had her boots on so I think more likely she went down to the gate to investigate something there (gate was open after being locked / a car pulled up / someone there). Unlikely to stop to put your boots on if you're running for your life.

Treppen

am_zarathustra wrote: »

It's a great listen actually. And in the context of that story, certainly not careless journalism.

Eye witness testimony is sketchy at best. If you get someone to write down immediately after what happened you get something approaching the truth. Within 48 hours its very open to suggestion. The vast majority of the cases (70%) initially taken by the Innocence project were taken due to the main form of evidence being eye witness, people sure enough of their identification of an individual (sometimes known to them) at a crime scene to testify in a court case where a possible outcome as the death penalty.

I've had people write out what happened in an incident within minutes of it happening, fairly serious incidents at times, and the difference in perception of situations and how those situations arose is startling. I don't trust my own recollections at this point given the variance you see.

Sophie's neighbor acknowledged this when he said he had introduced Ian to Sophie. He thought he did but could be wrong.

BarneyJ

The whole thing is very intriguing. I had never delved too deeply into the story until JS's documentary came out. Had heard lots on the news over the years about it but never really took it on board.
It's absolutely tragic for Sophie (first and foremost), and her heartbroken son and parents.

I can't see it ever being solved unless something new comes to light or someone confesses.

Another eerie element is the White Lady story and the premonitions. Sophie appears to have been terrified when we went to the Ungerers' house after having visited Three Castle Head and seeing whatever it was that she saw. Someone said on the Netflix documentary that had she gone to the house of an Irish local they would have been aware of the legend and wouldn't have let her leave again.
According to Jules, IB had a premonition that night that something bad was going to happen.
The DPP's report has a section on the premonitions which contains reports from dog owners about their dogs being unusually disturbed and upset that night.

mioniqa

I would like to know more about the neighbours.

It's known that she had an ongoing feud with them over the shared gate - her wanting it closed, Alfie (and others?) preferring it shut. The fact she was found beside the gate ties in with this in my mind. Also we can assume she knew the person as she had tied boots on and there was no sign of disruption within the house, and no sexual motive evident.

The blood on the door is also a strange one as it indicates the murderer went back up to the house rather than flee immediately. If it was a neighbour, they would have to go up past her house before heading to their own and could easily have shut the door over and in doing so left a trace of blood. I also read somewhere that Alfie told Bailey that were was blood on the door so he definitely knew about it.

Another thing is the changing of the locks, when did that happen? Apparently she arrived at the house once and they found the bath dirty. What kind of dirt? If someone had bathed in my bath when I was out I might not notice and would not necessarily describe it as 'dirty', 'used' maybe. I would put bets on that someone had urinated in the bath.

rdwight

Jim Sheridan was on the radio the other day. He said Marie Farrell said she saw a man with a sallow complexion and a wearing a beret at the bridge that night. He was also carrying a string of onions over his shoulder.

(Okay, I may have misheard that last bit).

Treppen

rdwight wrote: »

Jim Sheridan was on the radio the other day. He said Marie Farrell said she saw a man with a sallow complexion and a wearing a beret at the bridge that night. He was also carrying a string of onions over his shoulder.

(Okay, I may have misheard that last bit).

I'd be interested to hear what Marie's husband has to say.
Has he ever been documented in interviews (not hearsay stuff).

Lately I think she's in the exact same position as IB...

A. She knows 100% that IB did it
or
B. She knows 100% that IB didn't do it.

Gussie Scrotch

mioniqa wrote: »

I would like to know more about the neighbours.

It's known that she had an ongoing feud with them over the shared gate - her wanting it closed, Alfie (and others?) preferring it shut. The fact she was found beside the gate ties in with this in my mind. Also we can assume she knew the person as she had tied boots on and there was no sign of disruption within the house, and no sexual motive evident.

The blood on the door is also a strange one as it indicates the murderer went back up to the house rather than flee immediately. If it was a neighbour, they would have to go up past her house before heading to their own and could easily have shut the door over and in doing so left a trace of blood. I also read somewhere that Alfie told Bailey that were was blood on the door so he definitely knew about it.

Another thing is the changing of the locks, when did that happen? Apparently she arrived at the house once and they found the bath dirty. What kind of dirt? If someone had bathed in my bath when I was out I might not notice and would not necessarily describe it as 'dirty', 'used' maybe. I would put bets on that someone had urinated in the bath.

Yes, this is a theoretical scenario that, for me, ticks most of the boxes.

Alfie knew Sophie, was definitely at the scene (next door),and had an ongoing dispute with the victim. The possible reasons for the attack happening at the gate could also fit . EG Alfie wanting to leave/enter and the gate being closed, Sophie going down to the gate to discuss the issue, a row escalating etc.

On this basis, Alfie is a much more plausible suspect than Ian Baily, who didn't know Sophie (or there is at least, very little reason to believe he did) Wasn't there ( or had no reason to be there) and had no obvious motive.

All speculation, of course, but I would have had a close look at Alfie had I been investigating this.

monkeybutter

The whole case is summed up by Billy Fuller, went looking for this stick he thought Bailey had used as the murder weapon, while out looking for it down by the bridge, he thought he saw Bailey there with the stick and ran from him.


It was a farmer with a plank of wood.


And yet this guy would have swore blind it was Bailey and even now when its known it wasn't Bailey at all, he still thinks it was him.


How could you ever catch the killer when you have idiots like him and Marie Farrell in the picture.

Treppen

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

Yes, this is a theoretical scenario that, for me, ticks most of the boxes.

Alfie knew Sophie, was definitely at the scene (next door),and had an ongoing dispute with the victim. The possible reasons for the attack happening at the gate could also fit . EG Alfie wanting to leave/enter and the gate being closed, Sophie going down to the gate to discuss the issue, a row escalating etc.

On this basis, Alfie is a much more plausible suspect than Ian Baily, who didn't know Sophie (or there is at least, very little reason to believe he did) Wasn't there ( or had no reason to be there) and had no obvious motive.

All speculation, of course, but I would have had a close look at Alfie had I been investigating this.

Did bailey say at about 12pm he looked across and saw a light on in Alfie's house and said to Jules there might be a party on their tonight?

Treppen

monkeybutter wrote: »

The whole case is summed up by Billy Fuller, went looking for this stick he thought Bailey had used as the murder weapon, while out looking for it down by the bridge, he thought he saw Bailey there with the stick and ran from him.


It was a farmer with a plank of wood.


And yet this guy would have swore blind it was Bailey and even now when its known it wasn't Bailey at all, he still thinks it was him.


How could you ever catch the killer when you have idiots like him and Marie Farrell in the picture.

Why would a farmer be carrying a plank of wood around?

Gussie Scrotch

Treppen wrote: »

Did bailey say at about 12pm he looked across and saw a light on in Alfie's house and said to Jules there might be a party on their tonight?

I believe so, yes.

Yurt2

Treppen wrote: »

Why would a farmer be carrying a plank of wood around?

It's part of an ancient West Cork ritual to summon the last wolf to banish the white lady of the lake after a murder.

Or so the legend goes...