Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Deeec

I watched the netflix documentary and in my opinion it didnt give all the details of the case. It missed out on how unreliable MF is, the gardai losing evidence. It even gave a different impression of Bailey than the podcast or Jim Sheridan documentary. IB actually seemed quite normal for most of the netflix doc - at the end though the eccentric Bailey came out.

Only bits I got out of it
-the Italian girl - I would be interested in hearing more from this girl on what the atmosphere was like in Jules house in them days over Christmas 1996. What this girl has to say could be very significant. Im not sure though why she has stayed quiet until now.

-The narrative on what was discussed when Inspector Dywer met Bailey first at his house - I thought it interesting that both Dwyer and Bailey gave the same version of what was said - Dwyer said ' He was going to place Bailey at Kilfeada Bridge' - Both Bailey and Dwyer used the same words. This for me shows Dwyer was dodgy - he came accross very badly on the netflix doc.

- There is alot of strange characters ( Blow ins ) living in West Cork as seen in the Netflix doc!

For anyone that has only watched the netflix docuumentary - You need to listen to West Cork Podcast and the Jim Sheridan documentary to get a more complete picture of the bizarre events.

Deeec

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.

Does anyone know where the block originated from. Was there a stack of building blocks at the house or was the block sitting randomly at the gate?

fryup

Icantthinkof1 wrote: »

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 shops

yes i agree,

and then there was the detective who mentioned he had to make emergency phone call from a phone booth but couldn't because it was vandalised, surely he could have made the call in the Barracks??

and as for DNA forensics being in its infancy back then?? bollix! it was around for ten years by that time ..that murder site would have been awash with the killer's DNA, the gate, the breeze block, Sophie's clothing etc............something stinks to high heaven about this

Mackwiss

Deeec wrote: »

Does anyone know where the block originated from. Was there a stack of building blocks at the house or was the block sitting randomly at the gate?

ther where a pile of blocks nearby meaning the killer stopped brutalizing the victim looked at the pile of blocks and made the decision to take one of them and bash the victim.

This for me shows intent on finishing the victim and makes the random act of madness less likely.

Deeec

When Bailey and Jules stopped to look at the moonlight and were looking over at Sophies house Bailey mentioned that there probably was a party in Alfies.

What if there was a party in Alfies that night? Another poster on here mentioned Alfie liked his parties, was a stoner and also grew his own supply of drugs. We know Sophie had complained to Gardai about drugs in the area. What if a person called to Sophies house thinking it was Alfies - Sophie got angry and a fight ensued. This could explain why she didnt run to her neighbours house.

Mackinac

Deeec wrote: »

Does anyone know where the block originated from. Was there a stack of building blocks at the house or was the block sitting randomly at the gate?

No, it was from the little water pump house on the lane near the gate.

listermint

Treppen wrote: »

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.

Indeed. And what of his money problems at the time and did he profit from any insurance policies.

namloc1980

Deeec wrote: »

When Bailey and Jules stopped to look at the moonlight and were looking over at Sophies house Bailey mentioned that there probably was a party in Alfies.

What if there was a party in Alfies that night? Another poster on here mentioned Alfie liked his parties, was a stoner and also grew his own supply of drugs. We know Sophie had complained to Gardai about drugs in the area. What if a person called to Sophies house thinking it was Alfies - Sophie got angry and a fight ensued. This could explain why she didnt run to her neighbours house.

Doesn't explain why she put on her boots and fully laced them up.

chooseusername

Deeec wrote: »

Does anyone know where the block originated from. Was there a stack of building blocks at the house or was the block sitting randomly at the gate?

The block was from the wall of the pumphouse nearby.

fryup wrote: »

yes i agree,

and then there was the detective who mentioned he had to make emergency phone call from a phone booth but couldn't because it was vandalised, surely he could have made the call in the Barracks??

and as for DNA forensics being in its infancy back then?? bollix! it was around for ten years by that time ..that murder site would have been awash with the killer's DNA, the gate, the breeze block, Sophie's clothing etc............something stinks to high heaven about this

The barracks was locked.
DNA then needed a lot more material, it was mentioned a spoonfull of blood would be needed.

leath_dub

fryup wrote: »

yes i agree,

and then there was the detective who mentioned he had to make emergency phone call from a phone booth but couldn't because it was vandalised, surely he could have made the call in the Barracks??

and as for DNA forensics being in its infancy back then?? bollix! it was around for ten years by that time ..that murder site would have been awash with the killer's DNA, the gate, the breeze block, Sophie's clothing etc............something stinks to high heaven about this

When they arrived in Schull the local Garda station was closed

Icantthinkof1

Would the block& slate have been easily visible to the murderer at night time? I know there was a fairly full moon but it had been said how dark it gets

namloc1980

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.

DNA profiling in Ireland was very much in its infancy in 1996. It was covered in one of the documentaries by one of the forensic guys, but at the time they needed at least a few millilitres of blood to get an accurate DNA profile. Obviously today it could be done on a fleck of skin etc.

Mackinac

Deeec wrote: »

When Bailey and Jules stopped to look at the moonlight and were looking over at Sophies house Bailey mentioned that there probably was a party in Alfies.

What if there was a party in Alfies that night? Another poster on here mentioned Alfie liked his parties, was a stoner and also grew his own supply of drugs. We know Sophie had complained to Gardai about drugs in the area. What if a person called to Sophies house thinking it was Alfies - Sophie got angry and a fight ensued. This could explain why she didnt run to her neighbours house.

I think if there was a party that night it would be known. Anyone there would have to have given witness statements etc.
The neighbours spent the evening watching a film.

Deeec

namloc1980 wrote: »

Doesn't explain why she put on her boots and fully laced them up.

Possibly she put on the boots to chase them off her property and make sure they were leaving.

Icantthinkof1

namloc1980 wrote: »

DNA profiling in Ireland was very much in its infancy in 1996. It was covered in one of the documentaries by one of the forensic guys, but at the time they needed at least a few millilitres of blood to get an accurate DNA profile. Obviously today it could be done on a fleck of skin etc.

Am I wrong; but did I read somewhere that a dna sample was tested and showed that it was not a match to IB?

Deeec

Mackinac wrote: »

I think if there was a party that night it would be known. Anyone there would have to have given witness statements etc.
The neighbours spent the evening watching a film.

They may have reason to stay quiet though. It could have been just a few people.

chooseusername

Icantthinkof1 wrote: »

Would the block& slate have been easily visible to the murderer at night time? I know there was a fairly full moon but it had been said how dark it gets

I think it's been established ( on here anyway ) that the attack happened in the morning.
However it would not be bright until 8:45 - 9AM

Mackinac

namloc1980 wrote: »

DNA profiling in Ireland was very much in its infancy in 1996. It was covered in one of the documentaries by one of the forensic guys, but at the time they needed at least a few millilitres of blood to get an accurate DNA profile. Obviously today it could be done on a fleck of skin etc.

If the block is still in evidence it could be tested again though. A 65 years old murder case was recently solved in the US using DNA extracted from a very small amount of semen that had been kept in evidence.

namloc1980

Icantthinkof1 wrote: »

Would the block& slate have been easily visible to the murderer at night time? I know there was a fairly full moon but it had been said how dark it gets

It was a cold but very clear night and the moon was 96% full. You'd be surprised how bright it can get in a very dark location (as this was) with a full moon. There's also the suggestion that it could have happened as late as breakfast time (8.30 or so) at which point the sun would've been coming up.

leath_dub

Ian Bailey is a really strange individual
https://twitter.com/IanKennethBail1/status/1410846930155065347

Gussie Scrotch

leath_dub wrote: »

Ian Bailey is a really strange individual
https://twitter.com/IanKennethBail1/status/1410846930155065347

He really doesn't do himself any favours.

Mackinac

Deeec wrote: »

They may have reason to stay quiet though. It could have been just a few people.

But those people would probably have mentioned to other people where they were heading that night. That would be be a lot of people to keep quiet. You certainly wouldn’t want to be lying about your whereabouts that night. I don’t think there was a party/gathering.

Wildsurfer

Mackinac wrote: »

If the block is still in evidence it could be tested again though. A 65 years old murder case was recently solved in the US using DNA extracted from a very small amount of semen that had been kept in evidence.

They probably used it building the pier for the gate

TomCor1

I watched the Netflix doc last night. 'Demonising propaganda' is putting it lightly.

Dywer saying it was right that the French believed the main evidence of MF's original statement, seeing IB opposite her shop, yet it doesn't mention that her actual original statement was a 5foot 8 sallow skinned, european looking man, wearing a french beret, not IB.
It's a pity DD wasn't questioned on any of these inconsistencies in the Doc, the missing evidence also.
The whole doc compiles of anyone willing to jump on Bailey. Malachi's Mother for example.. he originally laughed Ian's statement off as a joke, and as IB states - when asked how he is by Malachi, he replies that he's not feeling great "after I apparently went up there with a rock and bashed her f***ing brains in".

It may well have been IB, but it may well have been dozens of other people. There's not a shred of evidence against him. Just a snowball of 'he said, she said' built up over the years.
The DPP saw this for what it was.

Mackinac

Icantthinkof1 wrote: »

Am I wrong; but did I read somewhere that a dna sample was tested and showed that it was not a match to IB?

Yes, I read that too.

chooseusername

The Netflix one was a load of bollix ,all White Lady Ghosts, Premonitions, and Palm reading, little or no substance.
The only new thing I got from it was the Italian girl in the Prairie Cottage over Christmas,
and her only contribution was clothes soaking in a bucket that may have been a coat.
They made the interview with the detective look like Pádraig Flynn on the Late Late show, sneering and self important

radiospan

TomCor1 wrote: »

her actual original statement was a 5foot 8 sallow skinned, european looking man, wearing a french beret, not IB.

I hadn't known this before, about the French beret. Is that in the statement?

Anyone know more about the timeline about how the two docs came about? Jim Sheridan was working on his since 2015 if not earlier, he interviewed the family that year. When was it that the family pulled out of the Jim Sheridan doc? Was the Netflix one produced so that the family could tell their side? I wondered if the Netflix one would have happened at all if they were happy with the Jim Sheridan one.

chooseusername

radiospan wrote: »

I hadn't known this before, about the French beret. Is that in the statement?

A bike and a string of onions as well!

Deeec

radiospan wrote: »

I hadn't known this before, about the French beret. Is that in the statement?

Watch the Jim Sheridan sky doc on the case. MF is interviewed recently on this.

Treppen

odyssey06 wrote: »

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.

First thing a killer might have done would be to remove any evidence of blood off the hands or look in a mirror to assess the aftermath.
I think the killer did go into the house to clean up, then turn off the light on the way out. Although it would have been hard to avoid bloodstains when in the house...