Murder at the Cottage | Sky

odyssey06

thecretinhop wrote: »

how has the guards not been checked on this. is it the case of yeah sorry bout that like wtf?

GSOC are a joke. No disrespect to the individuals there but they are toothless.

The DPP knew this was a frame up job.

MoonUnit75

SoulWriter wrote: »

An FOI Request is not the same as a GSOC investigation though

Irrelevant but highly sensitive information could be removed for the same reasons given in my last post. If there was evidence of Garda corruption it is highly unlikely it would go into the evidence book in writing in the first place.

Caquas

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The gardai can’t force a witness (or suspect) to answer a question about their personal life, especially if it is not related to an actual offender or crime. A judge could press a witness to answer a question or they would find themselves in contempt, so a spell in a cell or provide an answer. What do you want them to do, torture her?

Of course, the Gardai can’t force answers from witnesses but why didn’t they even identify the man and put him in the witness box? Contempt of court or perjury are legal solutions but his real punishment would be to live amongst us as the man who refused to identify this brutal murderer.

Something was very wrong with the investigation and this Netflix series is not exposing the truth.

Mackwiss

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

This is it. And because of this the main suspect can never be tried properly. Had the Gards taken a “by the book” approach Bailey may well have been convicted on witness statements and circumstantial evidence alone.

Instead, the gardaí acted like a bad guy in an 80s teen movie. Going out of their way to make things more complicated and, eventually, doing enough damage that no jury could convict Bailey due to, at best, incompetence or, at worst, corruption.

yes! this is it and I'm 100% is potion 1.

odyssey06

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Irrelevant but highly sensitive information could be removed for the same reasons given in my last post. If there was evidence of Garda corruption it is highly unlikely it would go into the evidence book in writing in the first place.

They lost the gate... the wine bottle... just like these pages were lost.

Deliberate miscarriage of justice going on.

MoonUnit75

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Irrelevant but highly sensitive information could be removed for the same reasons given in my last post. If there was evidence of Garda corruption it is highly unlikely it would go into the evidence book in writing in the first place.

it could be removed from an FOI, it shouldn't be removed from a Garda notebook.I'm sure it was evidence of garda corruption or some facts that did not suit the garda story that was in the pages removed

highly unlikely it would go into the evidence book in writing in the first place

probably before the cops knew they were being investigated.The pages were cut out, like with a scissors

Mackwiss

isha wrote: »

I still have not decided on who I think is guilty (although Bailey is an obnoxious man) but it did occur to me that getting a full length heavy woolen coat for a 6 foot man into an ordinary plastic/tin bucket to soak it in water would be some squeeze.

Let's put the jacket to rest shall we? In a very simple way. He was using that same jacket on Christmas day Swim.

Explain to me how do you take that jacket soak it in water Christmas eve and you're using it the next day completely dry on the Christmas Swim? How do you dry it so quickly in the middle of winter in Ireland?

From JS documentary, we know they took the jacket from him and we never saw him with such jacket again.

MoonUnit75

namloc1980 wrote: »

Bailey never said he heard it from Lyons. He said he got a phone call from Eddie Cassidy in the Cork Examiner that there had been a murder in Toormore, Dunmanus and the victim was a French lady. The incident was first broadcast on Cork local radio at 2pm news bulletin and even they knew that the victim was a French woman at that point. Bailey didn't arrive at the scene until around 2.30pm.

I mean, him being the local journalist and being at the scene of the biggest story in the area in 100 years is hardly incriminating. It's even less incriminating in that he arrived after a journalist in Cork knew about it and phoned Bailey to get over there, and after it had been broadcast on the news on local radio at 2pm. Bailey said that Eddie Cassidy told him where it had happened and it was a French lady. Didn't need to be a genius to work out who it might be especially as Bailey said he knew of Sophie and that she lived in Toormore next door to Alfie's house (which be knew exactly where that was as he'd been there before). Eddie Cassidy corroborates Baileys version.

I never said he might have heard it from Alfie, another poster suggested Alfie might have rang him to tell him.

Bailey said he first arrived on the scene at 2.20 or 2.30, but told one of the news desks and a press photographer he had photos from 10.30-11.00 and another witness says he saw Jules Thomas driving on the road away from Sophie’s house around 11 that morning. The stall owner said Jules told him about the murder that Ian was investigating at around 11.30 as far as I remember, and two witnesses said Ian rang them before 12 to say he wasn’t able to keep his appointments to meet them that afternoon.

Mackwiss

Mackwiss wrote: »

Let's put the jacket to rest shall we? In a very simple way. He was using that same jacket on Christmas day Swim.

Explain to me how do you take that jacket soak it in water Christmas eve and you're using it the next day completely dry on the Christmas Swim? How do you dry it so quickly in the middle of winter in Ireland?

From JS documentary, we know they took the jacket from him and we never saw him with such jacket again.

Sorry I thought it was a big woolen long coat. To be honest I am a fairly mediocre amateur detective

namloc1980

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I never said he might have heard it from Alfie, another poster suggested Alfie might have rang him to tell him.

Bailey said he first arrived on the scene at 2.20 or 2.30, but told one of the news desks and a press photographer he had photos from 10.30-11.00 and another witness says he saw Jules Thomas driving on the road away from Sophie’s house around 11 that morning. The stall owner said Jules told him about the murder that Ian was investigating at around 11.30 as far as I remember, and two witnesses said Ian rang them before 12 to say he wasn’t able to keep his appointments to meet them that afternoon.

The DPP report deals with all those and they aren't credible. The Gardaí were at the scene at 10.38 so how could Bailey have been there taking pictures at that time? The first time the Gardaí placed Bailey at the scene is 2.20pm or so. At that stage it was being reported on local radio and numerous local journalists were aware of the story. Also the murder was being discussed locally by early afternoon as news spread.

MoonUnit75

SoulWriter wrote: »

it could be removed from an FOI, it shouldn't be removed from a Garda notebook.I'm sure it was evidence of garda corruption or some facts that did not suit the garda story that was in the pages removed

I’m not saying it should have been removed, I’m saying there are lots of reasons why certain irrelevant but sensitive statements would plausibly be removed even though it is extremely bad practice. Removing the pages is not evidence of a ‘cover-up’, they interviewed over 1,000 people according to one of the documentaries so would have vast amounts of irrelevant statements, some may have been extremely sensitive.

padraig1963

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I still have not decided on who I think is guilty (although Bailey is an obnoxious man) but it did occur to me that getting a full length heavy woolen coat for a 6 foot man into an ordinary plastic/tin bucket to soak it in water would be some squeeze.

I agree. That was an exaggerated observation by that Italian girl long after the fact and distortingly visualized in the Netflix series. Which is it?. Did Bailey burn his coat or squeeze it impossibly into a bucket. Neither because the garda had already taken it into custody, cut it into pieces, found nothing and then "lost" it along with the gate, the wine, pages out of their job books and files on other suspects.
The Netflix "documentary"would have served justice for Sophies poor parents better if they had asked that smug clown of a superintendent Dermot Dwyer not about his comparison to Columbo but what happened to all the missing evidence.

Mackwiss

Mackwiss wrote: »

Let's put the jacket to rest shall we? In a very simple way. He was using that same jacket on Christmas day Swim.

Explain to me how do you take that jacket soak it in water Christmas eve and you're using it the next day completely dry on the Christmas Swim? How do you dry it so quickly in the middle of winter in Ireland?

From JS documentary, we know they took the jacket from him and we never saw him with such jacket again.

Does it say anywhere exactly when the Italian girl saw the jacket? It doesn't in netflix. She does not say when just she was taking a shower

odyssey06

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I’m not saying it should have been removed, I’m saying there are lots of reasons why certain irrelevant but sensitive statements would plausibly be removed even though it is extremely bad practice. Removing the pages is not evidence of a ‘cover-up’, they interviewed over 1,000 people according to one of the documentaries so would have vast amounts of irrelevant statements, some may have been extremely sensitive.

The DPP didnt even get to see these pages and questioned why they were removed.
If it could be done for legit reasons they would have accepted such reasons.

The pressure applied on MF to implicate Bailey.

The lost evidence.

The disregarding of state pathologist instructions.

Lying about Baileys coat.

One mistake isnt a cover up.

This is a pattern.

The pattern of a frame up.

It is a miscarriage of justice.

MoonUnit75

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I’m not saying it should have been removed, I’m saying there are lots of reasons why certain irrelevant but sensitive statements would plausibly be removed even though it is extremely bad practice. Removing the pages is not evidence of a ‘cover-up’, they interviewed over 1,000 people according to one of the documentaries so would have vast amounts of irrelevant statements, some may have been extremely sensitive.

I disagree. there is no reason to remove something that will be only seen within AGS or GSOC. It is evidence of corruption

nterviewed over 1,000 people according to one of the documentaries so would have vast amounts of irrelevant statements, some may have been extremely sensitive.

still only available to AGS or GSOC.

so would have vast amounts of irrelevant statements,

anything could become relevant if new infromation came to be known.

MoonUnit75

namloc1980 wrote: »

The DPP report deals with all those and they aren't credible. The Gardaí were at the scene at 10.38 so how could Bailey have been there taking pictures at that time? The first time the Gardaí placed Bailey at the scene is 2.20pm or so. At that stage it was being reported on local radio and numberous local journalists were aware of the story. Also the murder was being discussed locally by early afternoon as news spread.

The photographer who picked up the photos said they were useless because they were taken through bushes and you could barely seen anything relevant. The photographer asked Bailey at around 2.10 pm what the photos showed, what camera and lens was used etc. and Bailey replied that the photos showed the crime scene and were taken earlier that day by his girlfriend. This conversation happened before Bailey says he went to the scene and certainly before he was seen there.

He had also told Beirne at the Irish Independent news desk at around 1.55pm that he had a photo of the french woman that he had taken himself. He couldn’t wire it but someone could collect it. That was before he could have known it was definitely Sophie. There’s a large population of tourists and ex-pats in West Cork, how could he promise to have a photo of a woman who he wasn’t sure was the victim, and that he had even taken it himself?

MoonUnit75

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The photographer who picked up the photos said they were useless because they were taken through bushes and you could barely seen anything relevant. The photographer asked Bailey at around 2.10 pm what the photos showed, what camera and lens was used etc. and Bailey replied that the photos showed the crime scene and were taken earlier that day by his girlfriend. This conversation happened before Bailey says he went to the scene and certainly before he was seen there.

He had also told Beirne at the Irish Independent news desk at around 1.55pm that he had a photo of the french woman that he had taken himself. He couldn’t wire it but someone could collect it. That was before he could have known it was definitely Sophie. There’s a large population of tourists and ex-pats in West Cork, how could he promise to have a photo of a woman who he wasn’t sure was the victim, and that he had even taken it himself?

Was Jules a photographer, I mean would she have had a professional type camera?.

MoonUnit75

SoulWriter wrote: »

Was Jules a photographer, I mean would she have had a professional type camera?.

Yes, it says in either the podcast or one of the documentaries/books that she was both a painter and photographer at the time.

MoonUnit75

Caquas wrote: »

Of course, the Gardai can’t force answers from witnesses but why didn’t they even identify the man and put him in the witness box? Contempt of court or perjury are legal solutions but his real punishment would be to live amongst us as the man who refused to identify this brutal murderer.

Something was very wrong with the investigation and this Netflix series is not exposing the truth.

How do they identify the man if Marie doesn’t tell them? Put an ad in the paper for him to come forward? Ask the local psychic? Torture Marie?

chooseusername

Mary Farrell!!
I'd say if the gardai said they suspected the drunken horse
Mary would have seen the horse on the road.

Mackwiss

SoulWriter wrote: »

Does it say anywhere exactly when the Italian girl saw the jacket? It doesn't in netflix. She does not say when just she was taking a shower

supposedly Christmas Eve if I'm not mistaken.

EmmetSpiceland

Mackwiss wrote: »

supposedly Christmas Eve if I'm not mistaken.

When was he, alleged, to have burned the coat?

Garlinge

Maybe it was trousers soaking in bucket...

MoonUnit75

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Yes, it says in either the podcast or one of the documentaries/books that she was both a painter and photographer at the time.

Strange then her photos were not usable. Maybe she didn't have a long lens but i would have though she, and certainly IB, would know there would be a cordon so would need a long lens.

chooseusername

SoulWriter wrote: »

Strange then her photos were not usable. Maybe she didn't have a long lens but i would have though she, and certainly IB, would know there would be a cordon so would need a long lens.

He'd know how to skirt around the early cordon as he knew the area from working a Alfies.

Pirate Master

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

two witnesses said Ian rang them before 12 to say he wasn’t able to keep his appointments to meet them that afternoon.

Keep in mind that those two witnesses were questioned five months after the murder. Their recollection of the time might not be accurate.

Caquas

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

How do they identify the man if Marie doesn’t tell them? Put an ad in the paper for him to come forward? Ask the local psychic? Torture Marie?

How about, bear with me here, doing an investigation?

As in, gathering information about MF’s former boyfriends and asking them if they had been in West Cork recently.

I know it’s a lot to ask of the Gardai but I believe there is at least one Garda station in Co.Longford. Or did they have some more important issues to absorb them?

namloc1980

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The photographer who picked up the photos said they were useless because they were taken through bushes and you could barely seen anything relevant. The photographer asked Bailey at around 2.10 pm what the photos showed, what camera and lens was used etc. and Bailey replied that the photos showed the crime scene and were taken earlier that day by his girlfriend. This conversation happened before Bailey says he went to the scene and certainly before he was seen there.

He had also told Beirne at the Irish Independent news desk at around 1.55pm that he had a photo of the french woman that he had taken himself. He couldn’t wire it but someone could collect it. That was before he could have known it was definitely Sophie. There’s a large population of tourists and ex-pats in West Cork, how could he promise to have a photo of a woman who he wasn’t sure was the victim, and that he had even taken it himself?

The DPP disregarded Beirne's statement as it didn't really tally with what anyone else said. His statement was also 5 months after the murder so his ability to recall precise details is questionable.

EDit

Garlinge wrote: »

Maybe it was trousers soaking in bucket...

If we wait long enough, someone will appear with a recollection of seeing a bloodstained rock soaking in the bathtub or something!

Hard to take anything anyone on the documentaries says about that period at face value TBH

namloc1980

EDit wrote: »

If we wait long enough, someone will appear with a recollection of seeing a bloodstained rock soaking in the bathtub or something!

Hard to take anything anyone on the documentaries says about that period at face value TBH

Jules and Bailey said it was his shorts that were in a bucket outside the back of the house because they had blood on them from the turkeys. There's nothing to refute that. The Italian students testimony that it was his black coat (heavy woolen coat) is frankly incredulous.