Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Murder at the Cottage | Sky
Options
Comments
-
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
Joe O'Reilly had no forensic evidence against him either and he was convicted in Ireland. There is plenty of other types of evidence. O'Reilly was convicted purely because phone masts showed he travelled home when he said he didn't, so he lost his alibi. Bailey lost his alibi a long time ago when both he and wife admitted he got up in the middle of the night and wasn't seen back home until 9am.
Before forensic science was developed, witnesses were relied upon. In this case you have dozens of witnesses willing to testify that:
Bailey knew Sophie (from her previous trips to Ireland) - he says he never talked to her
He had no scratches or mark on his forehead the day before the crime, they were there after - he says he got it a few days earlier from christmas trees or turkeys, even his own wife contradicted that in her statements.
The confessions
That he knew about the murder of a French woman many hours before he claims he did.
That's a lot of people who would have to lie and be mistaken. But we've become so dependant on forensic evidence that somehow witnesses aren't considered enough anymore.
The idea that he was targeted because he's non-local doesn't make sense either. Some of these witnesses are fellow British, the Italian woman, Sophie's French friends and relatives.
There's enough there for a trial. It's possible that a criminal trial would have put it beyond reasonable doubt. Maybe, maybe not.0 -
crooked cockney villain wrote: »I'm two episodes in about a case I remember happening but never really followed.
Compulsive viewing. I have little doubt that the Netflix one is probably a pale shadow of it. TV productions are always simply better.
Only thing- if I weren't Irish I'd struggle with the odd bit. The opener where the statement she says she would ring the guards- if I were foreign I'd be assuming the area or house had a private security guard presence.
The term blow in wasn't explained very well for foreign folk either I thought.
All up though, addictive viewing.
I've just read somewhere that the bed was unmade. It's possible she didn't make her bed every morning on waking but it's certainly implied she got out of bed to answer the door.
The gate was open also when her body was found.
Did she habitually close the gate at night?
Did they test the pipes in Ian Bailey house for DNA after he was arrested? It's never mentioned.
Is it confirmed that no lights were on in the house when her body was found?
Good point about sound travels far on clear, rural nights but if the neighbors had been, drinking then nothing would wake them.
I agree about Dermot Dwyer coming across badly. I find his accent very strange and I'm from Kerry. Is it Kerry mixed with west Cork?
I think forensics did a poor job.
No DNA evidence, no footprints, lost evidence, no time of death etc. It left the Gardai very little to go on.
Dr John Harbison had been out of the office and they couldn't contact him apparently but surely he'd have a beeper if not a mobile phone.
The first 24 hours are most important0 -
A Primal Nut wrote: »
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).
Not true imo, O'Reilly left his phone turned on and in essence it acted like a gps tracking his every movement.0 -
For some reason I think Ian Bailey is innocent and the Gardai wasted a tremendous amount of time, energy and resources on him.
They probably detested him due to his unlikable personality and wanted to nail him.
The assumption that a local did it cos her house is so far out of the way might be a false assumption.
She may have had a relationship with someone (romantic or otherwise) not local who knew where she lived and they confronted her on the night in question.
Was her last movement that she ran through the field to the right and was snagged on the barbed wire climbing over the wall to get out the gate?
I've seen no mention of footprints in the field.0 -
Actually reading over the evidence of the Joe O'Reilly case, the parallels with him and Bailey's behaviour are amazing, as far as saying things about the case that weren't publically known. Bailey is just lucky that mobile phones were not invented yet.O’Reilly told a woman on the day of Rachel’s murder that no sexual assault had taken place on his wife’s body, even though the post mortem did not take place until the following day. Gardaí maintain that only her killer could have been certain of such a fact.
O’Reilly told Jackie Connolly, a close friend of Rachel’s, that he was afraid of being framed for the murder as there were “a few hours” when he didn’t have an alibi.
Another witness, Fiona Slevin, claimed O’Reilly questioned why garda were searching fields for the murder weapon when it was in the water on the day of Rachel’s funeral.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20037948.html
There are many more witness statements of a similar nature implicating Bailey. But the DPP regarded them all as unreliable. But in O'Reilly's case they were accepted.
It's interesting that the French believe that Bailey has the Irish justice system by the balls (as stated by her aunt). I don't see how he would but some stuff about the case is odd.0 -
Advertisement
-
I really want to watch Murder at the Cottage now that I have seen 2 Netflix episodes. It is absorbing.
The garda comes across as arrogant. I can hardly believe the amount of errors.
Bailey is a very unpleasant man and his false tones of voice make me think he is a liar.
I do not have a steady idea yet on who did it.
The big burning behind the house seems to be very suspicious. So does driving to the scene before word was out.
The light not on in her house has people estimating death at 8 ish or so. But she might not have been lured to the gate. She might have been up early, had a bit of breakfast and then put on her boots to check out the dawn. She might have turned off the house light so she could experience the natural dawn or even pre dawn light. Maybe even she wanted to walk the lane in the dark. Maybe she walked down the familiar lane to the gate just to have the sensation of the cold still early dawn or even moonlit walk in a remote place she loved. I think she was the kind of person who would have liked that kind of thing. Maybe someone happened to be there at the end of her peaceful stroll who had an interest in her.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »I really want to watch Murder at the Cottage now that I have seen 2 Netflix episodes. It is absorbing.
The garda comes across as arrogant. I can hardly believe the amount of errors.
Bailey is a very unpleasant man and his false tones of voice make me think he is a liar.
I do not have a steady idea yet on who did it.
The big burning behind the house seems to be very suspicious. So does driving to the scene before word was out.
The light not on in her house has people estimating death at 8 ish or so. But she might not have been lured to the gate. She might have been up early, had a bit of breakfast and then put on her boots to check out the dawn. She might have turned off the house light so she could experience the natural dawn or even pre dawn light. Maybe even she wanted to walk the lane in the dark. Maybe she walked down the familiar lane to the gate just to have the sensation of the cold still early dawn or even moonlit walk in a remote place she loved. I think she was the kind of person who would have liked that kind of thing. Maybe someone happened to be there at the end of her peaceful stroll who had an interest in her.
Jules has said he didn't have the mark on his forehead before the day of the murder. What does she say about the arm scratches?0 -
To me it's strange there was no dna got off the final murder weapon, the heavy concrete block. Surely if the killer violently lifted a 25kg rough surfaced block like that as many times as is suggested some skin cells would have been grated off onto the block. Unless the murderer was wearing gloves in which case there wouldn't be scratches on his hands, wouldn't be blood left on briars or any fingerprints left on the gate etc.
If the killer was wearing gloves then it leans more to a premeditated killing by whoever I would believe, and away from IB.
I wonder if that block is still in a garda evidence store somewhere for a more advanced examination? If not skin cells then maybe there's fibres from gloves.Or has the 17 inch block gone the way of the gate, the bottle of wine, the missing files, the torn out notebook pages etc.0 -
I really want to watch Murder at the Cottage now that I have seen 2 Netflix episodes. It is absorbing.
The garda comes across as arrogant. I can hardly believe the amount of errors.
Bailey is a very unpleasant man and his false tones of voice make me think he is a liar.
I do not have a steady idea yet on who did it.
The big burning behind the house seems to be very suspicious. So does driving to the scene before word was out.
The light not on in her house has people estimating death at 8 ish or so. But she might not have been lured to the gate. She might have been up early, had a bit of breakfast and then put on her boots to check out the dawn. She might have turned off the house light so she could experience the natural dawn or even pre dawn light. Maybe even she wanted to walk the lane in the dark. Maybe she walked down the familiar lane to the gate just to have the sensation of the cold still early dawn or even moonlit walk in a remote place she loved. I think she was the kind of person who would have liked that kind of thing. Maybe someone happened to be there at the end of her peaceful stroll who had an interest in her.
The lack of a light on in the house is key. The fruit and nuts found in her stomach ay the PM and the uncovered loaf of bread on the table all support the probability of it being morning when Sophie went down to the gate. Sunrise in west Cork at that time of year is at about 08.45.
If the attack happened at that time, the Kealfadda bridge sighting is not relevant to the case and, critically, it rules out Bailey as he brought coffee to Jules at 9am.
Such a pity the SP was delayed in the way he was.....the time of death is critical in this investigation.0 -
Or a woman might be wearing gloves on a cold winter night.padraig1963 wrote: »To me it's strange there was no dna got off the final murder weapon, the heavy concrete block. Surely if the killer violently lifted a 25kg rough surfaced block like that as many times as is suggested some skin cells would have been grated off onto the block. Unless the murderer was wearing gloves in which case there wouldn't be scratches on his hands, wouldn't be blood left on briars or any fingerprints left on the gate etc.
If the killer was wearing gloves then it leans more to a premeditated killing by whoever I would believe, and away from IB.
I wonder if that block is still in a garda evidence store somewhere for a more advanced examination? If not skin cells then maybe there's fibres from gloves.Or has the 17 inch block gone the way of the gate, the bottle of wine, the missing files, the torn out notebook pages etc.0 -
Advertisement
-
bewareofthedog wrote: »Not true imo, O'Reilly left his phone turned on and in essence it acted like a gps tracking his every movement.
There was also a proveable relationship connection between them and various internet chats between them . Her written notes and conversations about intimacies.
It wasn't quite just the phone but the phone put him at the locations where the murder was more proveable0 -
-
The fact that the poetry book on the table was left open on the poem 'A Dream of Death' is quite bizarre.
Probably mentioned here before but Yeats wrote this poem at the time the woman he loved, Maud Gonne, was traveling to France. Yeats believed she would die on this trip.
Pick any Yeats poem... They would all have meanings if you want.0 -
A Primal Nut wrote: »Joe O'Reilly had no forensic evidence against him either and he was convicted in Ireland. There is plenty of other types of evidence. O'Reilly was convicted purely because phone masts showed he travelled home when he said he didn't, so he lost his alibi. Bailey lost his alibi a long time ago when both he and wife admitted he got up in the middle of the night and wasn't seen back home until 9am.
O'Reilly had a strong motive also. Bailey had none.Before forensic science was developed, witnesses were relied upon.
And caused numerous miscarriages of justice when people were exonerated on forensic evidence.The confessions
Which were not confessions.That he knew about the murder of a French woman many hours before he claims he did.
Untrue.There's enough there for a trial. It's possible that a criminal trial would have put it beyond reasonable doubt. Maybe, maybe not.
There is nothing there for a trial and our DPP said so.
The French trial was a a miscarriage of justice, for the reasons explained below.
You cite his scratches, well how could he have scratches and there be no forensic evidence?
Bailey provides hair, DNA, blood and fingerprint samples to AGS to try to clear his name.
In the words of a prominent legal expert:
Despite the bloodied and frenzied nature of the violent attack in a briar-strewn area that left about 50 wounds and briar scratches on the victim’s body “no forensic evidence” was found linking Bailey to the crime scene.
“Had Bailey been the killer, it is inconceivable that he would not have left traces of blood, skin, clothing, fibres or hair at the scene,” said Mr Walsh.
“The problem in the Bailey case is that the police file was compiled under the loosely regulated Irish investigation and then transplanted unfiltered into the French prosecution and trial process,” said Mr Walsh.
“Most unusually, the DPP at the time subsequently described the Garda investigation as ‘thoroughly flawed and prejudiced’ against Bailey,” said Mr Walsh.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30929485.html
I'm not even saying Bailey is not guilty. I am saying he is innocent.
No motive, no forensics, no eye witnesses putting him at the scene of a crime.
Not having an alibi represents insufficient grounds to even on balance of probability put someone as guilty."To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
0 -
Gussie Scrotch wrote: »The lack of a light on in the house is key. The fruit and nuts found in her stomach ay the PM and the uncovered loaf of bread on the table all support the probability of it being morning when Sophie went down to the gate. Sunrise in west Cork at that time of year is at about 08.45.
If the attack happened at that time, the Kealfadda bridge sighting is not relevant to the case and, critically, it rules out Bailey as he brought coffee to Jules at 9am.
Such a pity the SP was delayed in the way he was.....the time of death is critical in this investigation.
Is it possible the killer went into the house to turn off the light after he killed her? So as not to draw attention to the house.
Maybe unlikely as he probably got out of there as quickly as possible.
But maybe he went back up to the house to see he left anything behind.0 -
O'Reilly had a strong motive also. Bailey had none.
And caused numerous miscarriages of justice when people were exonerated on forensic evidence.
Which were not confessions.
Untrue.
There is nothing there for a trial and our DPP said so.
The French trial was a a miscarriage of justice, for the reasons explained below.
You cite his scratches, well how could he have scratches and there be no forensic evidence?
Bailey provides hair, DNA, blood and fingerprint samples to AGS to try to clear his name.
In the words of a prominent legal expert:
Despite the bloodied and frenzied nature of the violent attack in a briar-strewn area that left about 50 wounds and briar scratches on the victim’s body “no forensic evidence” was found linking Bailey to the crime scene.
“Had Bailey been the killer, it is inconceivable that he would not have left traces of blood, skin, clothing, fibres or hair at the scene,” said Mr Walsh.
“The problem in the Bailey case is that the police file was compiled under the loosely regulated Irish investigation and then transplanted unfiltered into the French prosecution and trial process,” said Mr Walsh.
“Most unusually, the DPP at the time subsequently described the Garda investigation as ‘thoroughly flawed and prejudiced’ against Bailey,” said Mr Walsh.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30929485.html
I'm not even saying Bailey is not guilty. I am saying he is innocent.
No motive, no forensics, no eye witnesses putting him at the scene of a crime.
Not having an alibi represents insufficient grounds to even on balance of probability put someone as guilty.
Pretty much agree. To add my tuppenceworth, I've given the time of the death a lot of thought. I think it happened in the morning, in daylight. If it did (and I know if is a big word) then Bailey couldn't have done it.0 -
TalleyRand83 wrote: »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
I think if it "looked like a hit" by an assassin then they wouldn't be much of an assassin.
Any assassination association would immediately point to husband.0 -
Gussie Scrotch wrote: »The lack of a light on in the house is key. The fruit and nuts found in her stomach ay the PM and the uncovered loaf of bread on the table all support the probability of it being morning when Sophie went down to the gate. Sunrise in west Cork at that time of year is at about 08.45.
If the attack happened at that time, the Kealfadda bridge sighting is not relevant to the case and, critically, it rules out Bailey as he brought coffee to Jules at 9am.
Such a pity the SP was delayed in the way he was.....the time of death is critical in this investigation.
Her bed was unmade though. So not conclusive but implies she was in bed.
The post mortem said the fruit and nuts were recently ingested but no definition of "recently".0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »I really want to watch Murder at the Cottage now that I have seen 2 Netflix episodes. It is absorbing.
The garda comes across as arrogant. I can hardly believe the amount of errors.
Bailey is a very unpleasant man and his false tones of voice make me think he is a liar.
I do not have a steady idea yet on who did it.
The big burning behind the house seems to be very suspicious. So does driving to the scene before word was out.
The light not on in her house has people estimating death at 8 ish or so. But she might not have been lured to the gate. She might have been up early, had a bit of breakfast and then put on her boots to check out the dawn. She might have turned off the house light so she could experience the natural dawn or even pre dawn light. Maybe even she wanted to walk the lane in the dark. Maybe she walked down the familiar lane to the gate just to have the sensation of the cold still early dawn or even moonlit walk in a remote place she loved. I think she was the kind of person who would have liked that kind of thing. Maybe someone happened to be there at the end of her peaceful stroll who had an interest in her.
I wonder about the bloodstain on her door. It would indicate at the very least that the handle was opened.
Maybe the killer turned the light off to make it look as if the murder took place in the morning. That would buy them time to get an alibi or avoid people paying attention to the house at night just after the murder (bailey even spotted lights on in Sophie's neighbor's house that night so it was a thing to notice around them parts).0 -
orangerhyme wrote: »Her bed was unmade though. So not conclusive but implies she was in bed.
The post mortem said the fruit and nuts were recently ingested but no definition of "recently".
I don't think the unmade bed means anything at all other than that she had slept in it.
The fruit and nuts would suggest breakfast food.
But most importantly, there were no lights burning. I just can't see her rising from bed during the night, lacing up and tying her boots, unlocking and opening the door and going down to the gate, all in darkness.0 -
Advertisement
-
Gussie Scrotch wrote: »The lack of a light on in the house is key. The fruit and nuts found in her stomach ay the PM and the uncovered loaf of bread on the table all support the probability of it being morning when Sophie went down to the gate. Sunrise in west Cork at that time of year is at about 08.45.
If the attack happened at that time, the Kealfadda bridge sighting is not relevant to the case and, critically, it rules out Bailey as he brought coffee to Jules at 9am.
Such a pity the SP was delayed in the way he was.....the time of death is critical in this investigation.
All likely explanations.
Except...
They don't take into account an artistic personality. She was a film maker, an emotional person, a seeker of sensation. She could have eaten fruit, nuts and bread at any time of the night or early hours of morning. She could have been up reading, then wandering. Christmas time and the Solstice is an evocative, introspective time of the year plus with full moon etc - it could easily have drawn her out into the dark. Taking a walk out into the night for the romance of it, the mystery of it, was not outside the bounds of her personality.
If she had wandered down to the gate to breathe the night air after having had a bit to eat and turned off lights so she could see the night sky, she could have met someone loitering by the gate of her property. It could have been anyone including Bailey.
Not saying any of this is so, but the automatic presumption that it was after 8 or 9 am because the lights were out in the house does not necessarily follow. I don't turn out the lights inside as soon as light outside is sufficient in Winter. Those old houses do not let in all that much light. I do turn out lights inside if I want to walk around and experience the fullness of the darkness or dawn outside.
I am just at the point in the 3rd part in the Netflix series where he had battered Jules so badly 6 months before. The very least that could be said for Bailey is he was an accumulator of the most unfortunate litany of implicating coincidences of any human being ever.0 -
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.
That really isn’t the way a “hit” would be carried out. If one was to order a hit I presume death is the primary goal. Granted the hitman may not use a gun but I do think they would have some sort of plan and it would be slightly cleaner than a cinder block and what has been described as an animal like frenzied attack0 -
I wonder about the bloodstain on her door. It would indicate at the very least that the handle was opened.
Maybe the killer turned the light off to make it look as if the murder took place in the morning. That would buy them time to get an alibi or avoid people paying attention to the house at night just after the murder (bailey even spotted lights on in Sophie's neighbor's house that night so it was a thing to notice around them parts).
How could the killer know that the pathologist wouldn't get there in time to determine the time of death?
If you want to buy time for an alibi, you close up the house and hide the body."To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
0 -
A Primal Nut wrote: »That he knew about the murder of a French woman many hours before he claims he did.
That's not true - it's dealt with in detail in the DPP report, well worth reading0 -
All likely explanations.
Except...
They don't take into account an artistic personality. She was a film maker, an emotional person, a seeker of sensation. She could have eaten fruit, nuts and bread at any time of the night or early hours of morning. She could have been up reading, then wandering. Christmas time and the Solstice is an evocative, introspective time of the year plus with full moon etc - it could easily have drawn her out into the dark. Taking a walk out into the night for the romance of it, the mystery of it, was not outside the bounds of her personality.
If she had wandered down to the gate to breathe the night air after having had a bit to eat and turned off lights so she could see the night sky, she could have met someone loitering by the gate of her property. It could have been anyone including Bailey.
Not saying any of this is so, but the automatic presumption that it was after 8 or 9 am because the lights were out in the house does not necessarily follow. I don't turn out the lights inside as soon as light outside is sufficient in Winter. Those old houses do not let in all that much light. I do turn out lights inside if I want to walk around and experience the fullness of the darkness or dawn outside.
I am just at the point in the 3rd part in the Netflix series where he had battered Jules so badly 6 months before. The very least that could be said for Bailey is he was an accumulator of the most unfortunate litany of implicating coincidences of any human being ever.
Of course what you posit here is possible but I would, respectfully, suggest, unlikely. The scenario you paint has too many layers of improbability to convince me. If she had gone for a late night ramble, alone on a cold, dark night, I would at least expect her to have wrapped up a bit warmer. And the uncovered loaf on the table suggests she was disturbed whilst cutting some bread
Occam's razor has been mentioned frequently in previous posts and for me, applying that principle to the known facts points directly to Sophie's demise happening in the morning. And that may be very very important.0 -
Great thread.
A few thoughts
Ib no motive. The killer in the staircase had two women who fell down stairs. Ib scratches temperament i thought 100pc guilty at first not now. I don't think he was capable both emotionally and after night out. He was a very heavy drinker after a night out getting out of bed is hard.
Husband no clue anything can happen
Detective my money is on this. The guards can be useless but this case pulls the pass entirely. Whatever way it transpired someone senior in garda were involved. The evidence was made 'lost look at donegal and gardai there.
Ib was welcome patsy to take heat off.
Finally, the wine bottle i can only see someone coming with this to cottage, a peace offering a chance to have a glass pop in for chat.
Rebuked rage kill. Throw bottle away after..0 -
plastic glass wrote: »That really isn’t the way a “hit” would be carried out. If one was to order a hit I presume death is the primary goal. Granted the hitman may not use a gun but I do think they would have some sort of plan and it would be slightly cleaner than a cinder block and what has been described as an animal like frenzied attack
after watching two episodes of Netflix... is it really true Carbonets alibi is based on a receipt?
Did anyone dare to investigate him further?
As much as I think MF is involved, if she isn't would be great to show a photo of him young to her and the b&b owner in Galway. IF he's placed in anyway in Ireland at that time even for a brief few hours between the 22nd and 23rd...
The DNA of an unknown male on her body needs to be investigated... can't believe the amount of years this has been left in a report and not verified further or even confirmed if it was or not IBs DNA...0 -
Something that struck me in the Netflix doc was that the assault IB inflicted on Jules approx. 6months before Sophie’s murder resulted in Jule’s lip being torn from her gum requiring stitches
Sophie suffered the same injury, lip torn from her gum.
Although this is probably a normal result from a punch to the face?
I’m not convinced of IB’s guilt though.
As an Irish person I am mortified at the Garda investigation.
The mention in the documentary that cameras were not easy to come by….in 1996?!? Disposable cameras were sold in every single chemist and other shops0 -
Regarding the hitman theory, did that originate from IB or where did he get it from?
I know he referred to it in a conversation with his neighbour in February 1997 after his arrest.0 -
Advertisement
-
Regarding the hitman theory, did that originate from IB or where did he get it from?
I know he referred to it in a conversation with his neighbour in February 1997 after his arrest.
I think the "hitman theory is worthy of consideration"
The husband did have a possible/plausible motive.
The husband was wealthy and well connected enough to be able to arrange it.
The husband refused to come to Ireland.
Again, almost all circumstantial evidence, but interesting at least.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement