Murder at the Cottage | Sky

ShamNNspace

Treppen wrote: »

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

Plank of wood, some baling twine and any gap can be closed

Treppen

Yurt! wrote: »

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...

:pac:
The more I hear about Schull , the more I think everyone was bat5hit crazy there too.

I remember visiting an old hippy friend near Roberts Cove in Cork and the oddest people used to show up at their house when the pubs finally closed... Like toffs from yachts, people on the run, quiet serial killer looking types who said nothing, ex British army PTSD types, Jack Sparrow types, poets, artists, musicians, gamblers... and that was on the few occasions I'd visit.

Mackwiss

Treppen wrote: »

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

Pretty sure the whole deal happened by the gate, if there was anything happening by the house there would be footprints and other marks. All the evidence seems to point out Sophie went down to the gate and that's where all of it happened. Killer then goes up the hill to close the door? Or check if it's closed?

Yurt2

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.

I'm more convinced than ever that Bailey ended up a folk villian via the combination of inexperienced and incompetent policing under pressure after a high profile victim, a red top frenzy, a community closing ranks and giving in to paranoia.

He's an ideal avatar for the perfect perpetrator when a moral panic is underway. A brooding malevolent mysterious outside force - that came to the community to disrupt and sully the arcadia where everything was in harmony.

It's a lot easier to adopt the above than entertain the idea that there's a possibility the murderer may come from within; maybe you shook hands with him (or her) at mass; maybe they're the coach in the local GAA team or national school teacher or they babysat your kids.

Murderers aren't these cartoonish creatures that come from afar, more often than not they're regular smiling, outwardly well adjusted people that snap and do something horrible.

That's painful to admit, and when it's too painful, a fall guy like Bailey who is a weird, flawed character from without is all too easy to throw under the bus when there's no better answers.

Just because there's no better answers, doesn't make it right to pin a murder on someone and undermine the natural justice that holds or society together.

monkeybutter

Treppen wrote: »

:pac:
The more I hear about Schull , the more I think everyone was bat5hit crazy there too.

I remember visiting an old hippy friend near Roberts Cove in Cork and the oddest people used to show up at their house when the pubs finally closed... Like toffs from yachts, people on the run, quiet serial killer looking types who said nothing, ex British army PTSD types, Jack Sparrow types, poets, artists, musicians, gamblers... and that was on the few occasions I'd visit.

I believe that might be the most accurate description of cork I have ever heard


basically 1969 never ended down there but turned into a nightmare instead

Mackinac

BarneyJ wrote: »

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.

Watched episode 2 of the Netflix series this morning and the actress who portrayed Sophie said that whilst they were filming at Three Castle Head Ian Bailey had appeared. He told her he had walked there with Sophie before she died. The reconstruction was filmed in January, 1997.

Mackwiss

Mackwiss wrote: »

Pretty sure the whole deal happened by the gate, if there was anything happening by the house there would be footprints and other marks. All the evidence seems to point out Sophie went down to the gate and that's where all of it happened. Killer then goes up the hill to close the door? Or check if it's closed?

where are the killer's footprints? I think the blood on the door was sophie trying to get back in

Wompa1

Biker79 wrote: »

The most obvious example of that in the Netflix edition was that chap who took a lift from Bailey, who heard him 'confess'. He later turned up to court in dreadlocks and an ill fitting suit, looking a bit out of it. Hardly a credible witness. What is likely to have happened? He took a lift from Bailey, they chatted away, Bailey spoke bitterly about the case and becoming a suspect, he made a sarcastic remark about committing the crime which was taken out of context/ misunderstood because the young chap himself had been smoking weed before getting into the car. He then told his mates, word got around, and suddenly everyone who experienced Baileys offhand remarks/ dark humor was re-imagining it as an admission of guilt.

Was he a stoner with dreadlocks when he got the lift? Because he apparently told his mother the next day and they immediately went to the Gardai when he told her.

monkeybutter

Yurt! wrote: »

I'm more convinced than ever that Bailey ended up a folk villian via the combination of inexperienced and incompetent policing under pressure after a high profile victim, a red top frenzy, a community closing ranks and giving in to paranoia.

He's an ideal avatar for the perfect perpetrator when a moral panic is underway. A brooding malevolent mysterious outside force - that came to the community to disrupt and sully the arcadia where everything was in harmony.

It's a lot easier to adopt the above than entertain the idea that there's a possibility the murderer may come from within; maybe you shook hands with him (or her) at mass; maybe they're the coach in the local GAA team or national school teacher or they babysat your kids.

Murderers aren't these cartoonish creatures that come from afar, more often than not they're regular smiling, outwardly well adjusted people that snap and do something horrible.

That's painful to admit, and when it's too painful, a fall guy like Bailey who is a weird, flawed character from without is all too easy to throw under the bus when there's no better answers.

Just because there's no better answers, doesn't make it right to pin a murder on someone and undermine the natural justice that holds or society together.

i truly believe the gardai didn't do that bad a job and were overall pretty professional within the context of the resources available at the time, in terms of the forensics and pathology etc



Yes they fixated on Bailey too much, but would it have solved the crime if they had not? I doubt it


We know they can be a devious bunch at times but sometimes there's no other way to get someone


maybe 1 or 2 bad eggs in there rather than a root n branch issue


The media have a lot to answer for and from personal experience know they will print absolutely any old ****, even if they know its ****e, as long as its juicy, Bailey himself involved in that

Mackinac

Mackinac wrote: »

Watched episode 2 of the Netflix series this morning and the actress who portrayed Sophie said that whilst they were filming at Three Castle Head Ian Bailey had appeared. He told her he had walked there with Sophie before she died. The reconstruction was filmed in January, 1997.

she said she thought he said "actually i met her on this walk recently" part 2 one minute in

namloc1980

SoulWriter wrote: »

where are the killer's footprints? I think the blood on the door was sophie trying to get back in

Get back in and then going back down to the gate? No evidence of that at all.

Mr Sugar

In her original statement MF said she and somebody else saw the man across the street watching Sophie in her shop, was there ever a statement taken from the other person to back that up?

Mackinac

SoulWriter wrote: »

where are the killer's footprints? I think the blood on the door was sophie trying to get back in

Yes the blood on the door is an odd one as are the lack of footprints.

Shirley and Alf Lyons saw the blood on the door that day and noted how neat the bin was beside the door.

There was a book of poetry by Yeats left open in the kitchen of the house. It was open at “A Dream Of Death”. It could be a coincidence but it’s a remarkable one at that.

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

Get back in and then going back down to the gate? No evidence of that at all.

there is no evidence she went down to the gate before the assault either . i meant tried to get back in. The detective feels she was enticed outside the door 19.21 mins in part 1.

she may have been hit and tried to open the door so her blood was on it

Padre_Pio

Mackinac wrote: »

There was a book of poetry by Yeats left open in the kitchen of the house. It was open at “A Dream Of Death”. It could be a coincidence but it’s a remarkable one at that.

There's so many trivial facts like this surrounding the case that I wonder how much is actually true.

Padre_Pio

Padre_Pio wrote: »

There's so many trivial facts like this surrounding the case that I wonder how much is actually true.

the book open at 'Dream of Death' is true

fin12

[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.

What ? I thought the complete opposite , thought the Netflix one was far superior.i am convinced he did it aswell . He got out of bed that night to go to Sophie neighbours house , went up to Sophie’s instead and she rejected him and he went bizerk. Disgusting evil bastard . I walked past him one day and he is huge , he would crush anyone.

Yurt2

SoulWriter wrote: »

the book open at 'Dream of Death' is true

How about Ian Bailey howling at the moon while sitting in a rocking chair surrounded by 10 dancing lesbians?

I like that one...

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/bailey-would-howl-at-the-moon-and-had-sat-in-a-rocking-chair-on-beach-with-10-lesbians-dancing-around-him-30795318.html

Mackinac

Padre_Pio wrote: »

There's so many trivial facts like this surrounding the case that I wonder how much is actually true.

I know it’s impossible to work out fact from fiction sometimes. The stuff about the dogs around Schull acting weird that night, I’m surprised that actually made it into the DPP report. Then there’s the whole horse scenario…

am_zarathustra

monkeybutter wrote: »

i truly believe the gardai didn't do that bad a job and were overall pretty professional within the context of the resources available at the time, in terms of the forensics and pathology etc



Yes they fixated on Bailey too much, but would it have solved the crime if they had not? I doubt it


We know they can be a devious bunch at times but sometimes there's no other way to get someone


maybe 1 or 2 bad eggs in there rather than a root n branch issue


The media have a lot to answer for and from personal experience know they will print absolutely any old ****, even if they know its ****e, as long as its juicy, Bailey himself involved in that

Ah the guards did a terrible job. Watching the TG4 documentary Maru inar Measc on Phylis Murphy (more than a decade previous) or any of the other 3 cases will shine a light on the standard of murder investigations in the country, this was way off what should and was expected at the time. The level of detail and the forensics kept despite not knowing there would even be the advent of PCR would make you proud of the force. Its astonishing to think that this case was run by the same group.

I know some guards of that generation down that way, they were cowboys sent there or to the north west because they could do less harm. They wouldn't be terribly law abiding themselves and would have a fairly strong sense of being above reproach.

And job books are carefully monitored, they are very often required in court cases and will almost always be looked at. Missing pages and books is again a red flag that this was badly run from the start. Seems like the lads didn't like the boys from Phoenix Park telling them what to do and weren't used to being held to account for their actions.

The super deciding he knew better than the state pathologist or the forensics is a glaring example.

namloc1980

SoulWriter wrote: »

there is no evidence she went down to the gate either. The detective feels she was enticed outside the door . she may have been hit and tried to open the door so her blood was on it

Well she was found at the gate so she certainly was down at the gate.

Honestly the most likely scenario is that she went down to the gate as something down there drew her attention - it's clear from her son etc. she often spent a lot of time staring out the windows towards the Fastnet and the gate area was in this view. The night in question was a clear cold night with a 96% full moon so she would have been able to see the gate area relatively clearly. She had her boots on fully laced up also so again it's unlikely she stopped to fully lace up her boots if she was being chased/attacked up at the house. Of course the investigation never established a time of death outside the 12 hour overnight window.

The unopened bottle of wine found afterwards is a curiosity. The blood by the door also.

MacDanger

Wompa1 wrote: »

Was he a stoner with dreadlocks when he got the lift? Because he apparently told his mother the next day and they immediately went to the Gardai when he told her.

There's a little bit more to the story though when you add some context; taken from the DPP file:

Malachi Reed's statement on 06th Feb

He states that on 4th Feb, IB gave him a lift home and said "I went up there with a rock one night and bashed her f*cking brains in". He said he did it to get a story for the newspapers.

MR says that he got a shock when he heard what Ian had said and he got a cold shiver. This is not consistent with the recollection of his mother Amanda who states that

"I remember Tuesday 4th Feb at 9pm Malachi arrived home. He told me he had got a spin home from IB. Malachi seemed okay and was in good form. On the following day, 5th Feb, Malachi arrived home at about 6pm. I noticed he was agitated and I wondered why. I questioned him and he told me that garda Kelleher had called to school that day and was asking questions about IB and his movements on the previous night. Malachi then said he hadn't told the garda everything and he told me that IB had been drinking on the Tuesday night and that he had said to him that he had smashed her brains in with a rock or a stone. At this stage Malachi was upset and I think that it was only then that the impact of what IB had said to him hit him"

It is abundantly clear that MR was not upset by IB on 4th Feb, however, following his conversation with garda Kelleher he became upset and turned a conversation which had apparently not up until then alarmed him into something sinister

Mackwiss

mentioned this a few pages ago: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/bailey-asked-to-give-evidence-on-his-belief-du-plantier-killed-by-hitman-1.4608754


I'm more sure that the trial in France was not to get Ian Bailey convicted but hoping him and his lawyer would come to France and present evidence so the crime could be actually judged from that information.

Still thinking the French Trial was trying to point the finger at the clumsiness of the Gardai.

Only watched Netfix's documentary Episode 1

ShamNNspace

SoulWriter wrote: »

she said she thought he said "actually i met her on this walk recently" part 2 one minute in

I thought he said "she walked this way recently" I watched it last night and still I've got what he said wrong... it just goes to show memory is a strange thing, what chance to remember correctly after 2 weeks? or 5 years? or 10 or more

Ultimate Gowlbag

fin12 wrote: »

i am convinced he did it aswell . He got out of bed that night to go to Sophie neighbours house , went up to Sophie’s instead and she rejected him and he went bizerk. Disgusting evil bastard . I walked past him one day and he is huge , he would crush anyone.

Sooooo between your day dream and walking by him he is guilty?

I find these posts batsh1t crazy tbh,no proof,no evidence but hang him anyway!!

EmmetSpiceland

SoulWriter wrote: »

where are the killer's footprints? I think the blood on the door was sophie trying to get back in

They found Doc Martin footprints but don’t know if they were confined to the gate area or if they went up to the house.

The mark on the door, for me, would have to have come off a gloved hand. If it had been the victim trying to get back in wouldn’t there have been trails of blood and more than a smudge.

The lack of preservation on the crime scene was criminal. Very poor from the gardaí.

yourdeadwright

Weddings ahoy wrote: »

If MF was in the car that night and the mysterious man was with her, why has her husband never come forward with the name of the man , she has admitted to telling Chris everything eventually so what are we to believe she didn't tell him which ex lover she was with ??? If it were my spouse he wouldn't just let me away with saying i was driving with a man that night you don't know him so don't ask anymore! Therefore if it is true and i highly doubt it is why has no one spoken to her husband, why has no one pressured him into revealing the mystery man, and do her family know, parents siblings, none of mine would let me keep a secret in a huge murder mystery like that, they would disown me .

Obvious answer is if it was a Garda , you threatens to make life hell f they do come forward

odyssey06

monkeybutter wrote: »

i truly believe the gardai didn't do that bad a job and were overall pretty professional within the context of the resources available at the time, in terms of the forensics and pathology etc

When it comes to preserving the scene, I have to disagree.
I don't really buy the lack of training as a catch all answer when it comes to the basic screw-ups that they made. If it wasn't corruption, it was incompetence, lack of basic common sense and then ignoring instructions from the State Pathologist.
It was conducted so poorly almost suspiciously so.

If you'd seen any crime film, TV show, book, read up on a murder court case first thing shouted on discovering the body is ... 'preserve the scene'.
It was 1996 not 1956.

monkeybutter

am_zarathustra wrote: »

Ah the guards did a terrible job. Watching the TG4 documentary Maru inar Measc on Phylis Murphy (more than a decade previous) or any of the other 3 cases will shine a light on the standard of murder investigations in the country, this was way off what should and was expected at the time. The level of detail and the forensics kept despite not knowing there would even be the advent of PCR would make you proud of the force. Its astonishing to think that this case was run by the same group.

I know some guards of that generation down that way, they were cowboys sent there or to the north west because they could do less harm. They wouldn't be terribly law abiding themselves and would have a fairly strong sense of being above reproach.

And job books are carefully monitored, they are very often required in court cases and will almost always be looked at. Missing pages and books is again a red flag that this was badly run from the start. Seems like the lads didn't like the boys from Phoenix Park telling them what to do and weren't used to being held to account for their actions.

The super deciding he knew better than the state pathologist or the forensics is a glaring example.

The people in charge of the forensics and pathology were the same people involved in every case in the country, they sounded perfectly competent and no one is questioning what they did persay



The job books damaged, as I said, its fairly obvious who did that, but why they did it is not as clear, I mean they were recorded without their knowing and not much came to light



what difference did it make in moving the body? I mean I have personally seen bodies at crime scenes ages after



it would have just speed up the autopsy, thats why he asked for it to be moved, no one ever states what difference it made


they werent used to dealing with murders so erred on the side of caution



it was so cold even someone arriving a few hours after the body was found would have been looking at a body at ambient temp given it was likely 4/5 degrees during the day and closer to freezing at the time


You could easily kill someone outside and not leave any traces especially if the person was taken by surprise



then you are left with no evidence in the first place

monkeybutter

odyssey06 wrote: »

When it comes to preserving the scene, I have to disagree.
I don't really buy the lack of training as a catch all answer when it comes to the basic screw-ups that they made. If it wasn't corruption, it was incompetence, lack of basic common sense and then ignoring instructions from the State Pathologist.
It was conducted so poorly almost suspiciously so.

If you'd seen any crime film, TV show, book, read up on a murder court case first thing shouted on discovering the body is ... 'preserve the scene'.
It was 1996 not 1956.

its not entirely clear what they didn't preserve exactly? can you shed light on it


i mean you heard all sorts of rubbish after as to what they did, washing glasses etc, but its all rubbish


Leaving bailey walk all over the place, but did this happen?

do people really believe they kept the coat and gate out the back in schull garda station?