Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Loafing Oaf

listermint wrote: »

Other than the two french friends of Sophie whom say they had phone conversations describing a poet. Years after the fact when all of the evidence at hand is known. Has anyone in the locality actually made any connections to the pair. From what we've seen so far no. None. And he does appear to be the type to have been ever present if he saw her in a pub and was interested or anywhere for that matter.


Surely without that connection the whole thing falls at the first hurdle. To killing was brutal and personal and rage. There's a strong connection having come out in the nature of her demise.

If it's proven that he did in fact know her and met her multiple times then that nearly guarantees the guilt with the rest of the more tenuous stuff included.

If Bailey is guilty I think it must be assumed that he had established some connection with Sophie prior to the murder but somehow managed to keep it completely secret from the rest of the community. On the surface highly unlikely but something very much out of the ordinary happened here.

chicorytip

MacDanger wrote: »

That's disputed, the most you could say for sure is that he knew of her



Fair enough although he has a credible explanation for what he was doing i.e. story deadline



He's a scumbag but that doesn't make him a murderer



Not a crime



No evidence of this



There's already a credible explanation for the scratches



Not even sure why you've included this point



Absolutely no evidence of this



He's also denied it an endless amount of time. He's explained the "admissions" as black humour and while it's not something most people would do, I think it's credible for a narcissist like him

He writes bloody awful poetry and ought to be convicted for it. Seriously, both the leading Garda investigator and the other senior detective interviewed in the Netflix documentary came across as entirely credible and were clearly convinced of Bailey's guilt although neither stated so explicitly on camera. To arrest somebody on suspicion of murder is not a decision based on spurious theorising. Elements of the investigation were cack-handed and ameteurish but this talk of Garda corruption and framing of an innocent suspect is complete nonsense.

TalleyRand83

Yurt! wrote: »

A few posts ago you were saying cobbled together circumstantial evidence (much of which has been nuked by the DPP) made him 'a slam dunk'.

In legal terms, and logical terms, you're putting lipstick on a pig and trying to pass it off as a catwalk model. You're a fanny hair away from engaging in parlour games.

What evidence did I mention was “nuked” by DPP?
Would you ever consider the bandon tapes, bad Garda practice etc influenced the DPP who were already relying on circumstantial evidence?

And a separate point, do you concede (it’s a fact!) that Ian Bailey was ultra violent and aggressive towards women, or at least Jules Thomas?

TalleyRand83

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

Yeah I know that, thanks for pointing it out. Since we are being very legal and technical, answer me this:

Do you think the DPP has ever rejected proceeding in a prosecution because they don’t feel they have enough, legally, to convict someone even though they “know” the person did it? Answer that honestly please in a normal human way, not a technical or legal way.

Well yes, but not in this case.
Dispute the evidence. It's a free talking forum. Tell us where they went wrong.
Bring details, not feelings.

TalleyRand83

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well yes, but not in this case.
Dispute the evidence. It's a free talking forum. Tell us where they went wrong.
Bring details, not feelings.

So yes you do agree dpp would drop a case even though they’d be near certain the person did it? No more questions your honour

See post above about Bandon tapes, cops errors and hamming it by using sh1t witnesses to lay it on like Marie Farrell.

I’ve looked at case inside out for years, he did it…..I’m neither a judge nor jury so it matters not, but he did it

Loafing Oaf

MacDanger wrote: »

There's already a credible explanation for the scratches

Is there really though? I mean if you're already convinced of his innocence you'll buy his explanation for that but it sounds dodgy to me...

riclad

It seems the Gardaí messed up the investigation so badly maybe cos at that time there were very few cases of murder in rural areas
There's basically no forensic evidence
So we will never find out who committed the crime
Having a crime happening at christmas did not make it easy to proceed in a normal way
If it happened now there, d likely be more DNA evidence collected and it would be investigated in a more professional manner
Just because the Bailey acted in a strange way at the time of the investigation does not mean he was guilty of a crime
He was always abit eccentric
How many poets , journalists are there in Cork?

Yurt2

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

So yes you do agree dpp would drop a case even though they’d be near certain the person did it? No more questions your honour

See post above about Bandon tapes, cops errors and hamming it by using sh1t witnesses to lay it on like Marie Farrell.

I’ve looked at case inside out for years, he did it…..I’m neither a judge nor jury so it matters not, but he did it

The DPP are maximalists in legal terms. If they think they'll get the hop of a ball in front of a jury with evidence which is convincing but not complete, they'll run with it. Particularly for a crime like murder if they'd be 'near certain' of the perp as you'd put it.

The DPP excoriated the book of evidence. It tells its own story.

Padre_Pio

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

So yes you do agree dpp would drop a case even though they’d be near certain the person did it? No more questions your honour

What does it matter?
If the DPP and the Gardai were certain he did it, then they'd do their jobs and bring a case.

But they didn't so ho hum. Bailey is innocent. He's as innocent as you are for Sophies murder.
Whether you like it or not, that's the reality. I hope the killer is found one day and maybe it's Bailey, but I won't hold my breath

TalleyRand83

riclad wrote: »

It seems the Gardaí messed up the investigation so badly maybe cos at that time there were very few cases of murder in rural areas
There's basically no forensic evidence
So we will never find out who committed the crime
Having a crime happening at christmas did not make it easy to proceed in a normal way
If it happened now there, d likely be more DNA evidence collected and it would be investigated in a more professional manner
Just because the Bailey acted in a strange way at the time of the investigation does not mean he was guilty of a crime
He was always abit eccentric
How many poets , journalists are there in Cork?

It’s a bit more than him being a bit eccentric! Jeez

If Garda drove around Schull and randomly pulled in the local weirdo I’d be up in arms, they happened to pull the man with all circumstantial evidence mentioned above as well as him being the only person who multiple times said he killed her (the only man in Ireland to do so) ….not exactly Gerry Conlon, maybe Jules might shed some light one day

TalleyRand83

Yurt! wrote: »

The DPP are maximalists in legal terms. If they think they'll get the hop of a ball in front of a jury with evidence which is convincing but not complete, they'll run with it. Particularly for a crime like murder if they'd be 'near certain' of the perp as you'd put it.

The DPP excoriated the book of evidence. It tells its own story.

You missed my woman beating question there, answer it if you want

TalleyRand83

Padre_Pio wrote: »

What does it matter?
If the DPP and the Gardai were certain he did it, then they'd do their jobs and bring a case.

But they didn't so ho hum. Bailey is innocent. He's as innocent as you are for Sophies murder.
Whether you like it or not, that's the reality. I hope the killer is found one day and maybe it's Bailey, but I won't hold my breath

The lead Garda quite clearly believes he did it, so kinda scuttles part of your argument

bb12

chooseusername wrote: »

Someone earlier mentioned a possible disagreement over land.
I had a look on landdirect.ie and if Im reading it right it appears there are a total of nine parcels of land in the folio totalling about 16 acres ,
so small parcels averaging less than 2 acres.
J.S would probably have explored this angle bearing in mind his "Field"
But people have been killed in this country for a couple of acres or less.

Attachment not found.

there was a couple who were interested in buying the land off sophie, circa 13 acres. the woman kept her horses there and wanted to start a trekking business. they were brought in for questioning but nothing came of it.

riclad

This case is getting attention on American websites since the documentary is up on netflix
I think it's simple there is no forensic evidence there to convict anyone in this case no DNA evidence
There were no witness, s to the crime
It's simply not possible to bring the case to court
It would simply be a waste of time to have a full court case
This is not like the golden state killer
They had ample DNA evidence collected from various crime scenes from 30 years ago
They tracked down the killer thru using the latest DNA
testing technology

Padre_Pio

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

The lead Garda quite clearly believes he did it, so kinda scuttles part of your argument

No it doesn't. The lead Garda could believe in little green men, but its meaningless if he cant prove it.

As I said,right now, Bailey is as innocent as you or I.

TalleyRand83

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

So yes you do agree dpp would drop a case even though they’d be near certain the person did it? No more questions your honour

See post above about Bandon tapes, cops errors and hamming it by using sh1t witnesses to lay it on like Marie Farrell.

I’ve looked at case inside out for years, he did it…..I’m neither a judge nor jury so it matters not, but he did it

So where is your evidence or even conjecture in this case besides ".. he looks really guilty"?
You have none. Because there is none.
Therefore in this case the DPP is correct.
Your argument is because they can be wrong sometimes they are always wrong.
Makes no sense at all I'm afraid.

TalleyRand83

Padre_Pio wrote: »

No it doesn't. The lead Garda could believe in little green men, but its meaningless if he cant prove it.

As I said,right now, Bailey is as innocent as you or I.

Not in France he’s not!!

TalleyRand83

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So where is your evidence or even conjecture in this case besides ".. he looks really guilty"?
You have none. Because there is none.
Therefore in this case the DPP is correct.
Your argument is because they can be wrong sometimes they are always wrong.
Makes no sense at all I'm afraid.

Okay, poor saint ian, none of the heaps of circumstantial evidences means squat…….I’m quietly confident the truth will come out someday, hopefully for the victims family it does.

Ultimate Gowlbag

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

Not in France he’s not!!

The trial in France was laughable

TalleyRand83

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

Okay, poor saint ian, none of the heaps of circumstantial evidences means squat…….I’m quietly confident the truth will come out someday, hopefully for the victims family it does.

I hope so too.
So ok, list off the circumstantial evidence.

TalleyRand83

Ultimate Gowlbag wrote: »

The trial in France was laughable

Out of curiosity, Would you have liked him to have gotten a custodial sentence for the battering of jules even?

Like I initially said, bizarre the Bailey defenders, truly fascinating, Im sure it was a French hitman who carried a cavity block as his weapon of choice. Certainly not the only clear suspect in the case

Ultimate Gowlbag

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

Would you have liked him to have gotten a custodial sentence for the battering of jules even?

Can we please stop with this absolute w@nk ....nobody will disagree he is a monumental cnut for that,give him jail for it even...but that doesnt make him a killer!

retro:electro

The superintendent comes across terribly in the Netflix doc. Sitting there laughing and ridiculing everyone completely blind to his own ineptitude and how he made a balls of the whole thing from start to finish.

Padre_Pio

TalleyRand83 wrote: »

Not in France he’s not!!

Again, doesn't matter.
He's innocent in Ireland. Now he just can't take any holidays.

bb12

it really was quite an audacious murder. it seems she was killed in the morning time, probably just before dawn around 8.30...but the killer knew there was a house close by...and by all accounts it had been a very still quiet night...anyone living rural will know how far sound will travel on nights like these...surely there must have been some screams...how on earth did the neighbours not hear anything and why did the killer not take that into consideration. maybe that;s why she was lured down the drive, but even still,it was a bold move on behalf of the murderer. very high risk of being caught

as for the neighbours; if there are only 2 houses sitting on the side of a mountain with nothing else about, you're absolutely going to be very conscious of any cars or people about. i read or saw somewhere where they said they often wouldn't even know if sophie had arrived to the house or not. i find that incredibly hard to believe. if nothing they would easily hear her car coming up the drive if she was coming from the airport for a weekend.

kyote00

The ‘Cork Columbo’

Several things were badly handled by the Gardai..
- the fire pit search was very adhoc
- how the **** can a gate taken evidence go missing
- no photos taken of the scratches ( surely there was one camera in Cork….)


The Netflix series has very annoying bs about ‘white Lady’ and local superstitions

It was 1996 ffs, not the 1800s

retro:electro wrote: »

The superintendent comes across terribly in the Netflix doc. Sitting there laughing and ridiculing everyone completely blind to his own ineptitude and how he made a balls of the whole thing from start to finish.

Mebuntu

I've watched both series now and I will never be convinced that there is any evidence that a proper judicial system could convict on. The French "trial" was a complete farce and is an indictment of the French justice system.

The suggestion of a French hitman was dismissed basically because "a hitman would have done a more professional job" so it "had to be someone local".
My argument against that assessment is that if the murder did look like a professional job it would (could) point more easily to a sinister French involvement so the hitman would be under instructions to make it look like it was the work of a crazy local.

A Primal Nut

Marcusm wrote: »

The Reed woman (mother of Malachi, the 14 y/io to whom Bailey "confessed") plays a more significant part than I would have thought. I am shocked that her hearsay concerning what her son said to her was ever admitted as evidence. She, probably rightly, detests Bailey and I suspect this informs her activity.

Malachi himself testified at the libel trial and presumably would have testified if there was a criminal trial. Witness statements that a suspect confessed are admissable as evidence.

The most important exception to the hearsay rule is admission or confession evidence. Generally, it is assumed that someone would not make a statement against their own interests, so the statement must be true. This means that you can give evidence that the accused said to you on the day the victim died, "I did it. I killed him". Normally, this would be hearsay evidence as it is an out-of-court statement and it has been introduced to prove that the accused killed the deceased. However, because confessions are an exception to the hearsay rule, that evidence can be admitted in court.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/evidence/hearsay_evidence.html

riclad

The French verdict of guilty makes no sense,
There's basically close to zero forensic evidence,
the Gardaí investigation was mediocre and disorganised
Yes bailey acted in a strange and eccentric manner
but that's not enough to get a conviction in court
If the crime had happened in dublin it would likely have been investigated in a more professional manner
And it seems the Gardaí presumed Bailey was guilty and did not try to look for any other possible leads

A Primal Nut

There is an insane amount of witness statements that contradict Bailey on key points. The latest doc was the first I heard of the Italian woman who visited the house the day after. It's one after the other.

It's strange the DPP didn't go forward with the prosecution. There is much more evidence than other high profile murder cases that got a guilty verdict (Joe O'Reilly comes to mind).

If Bailey is guilty than he is both the most careless and luckiest murder suspect of all time. If he is innocent then he only has himself to blame for all the stupid **** he has done and said over the years.