Murder at the Cottage | Sky

tibruit

Death In December by Michael Sheridan. Alfie`s wife first saw the body and returned to her house and told Alfie. He walked down the driveway and as far as I can remember he approached close enough to confirm it was a body and then he walked back up the driveway and knocked on Sophie`s door. If he was certain it was Sophie, if he was the killer, then he wouldn`t have done that.

monkeybutter

tibruit wrote: »

Death In December by Michael Sheridan. Alfie`s wife first saw the body and returned to her house and told Alfie. He walked down the driveway and as far as I can remember he approached close enough to confirm it was a body and then he walked back up the driveway and knocked on Sophie`s door. If he was certain it was Sophie, if he was the killer, then he wouldn`t have done that.

why?

Deeec

tibruit wrote: »

Death In December by Michael Sheridan. Alfie`s wife first saw the body and returned to her house and told Alfie. He walked down the driveway and as far as I can remember he approached close enough to confirm it was a body and then he walked back up the driveway and knocked on Sophie`s door. If he was certain it was Sophie, if he was the killer, then he wouldn`t have done that.

Ive never seen or heard this before but I havent read Michael Sheridans book.
Alfie could also have done this to make it look it like he didnt know who the body was. It could be a clever move.

It probably means nothing.

tibruit

Deeec wrote: »

Ive never seen or heard this before but I havent read Michael Sheridans book.
Alfie could also have done this to make it look it like he didnt know who the body was. It could be a clever move.

It probably means nothing.

He was thinking outside the box then for an old pothead.

threeball

chooseusername wrote: »

Attack was in Stroud, Bailey lived about 10 miles away in Gloucester.

"Misogynistic attack" was the phrase used by, I think the coroner .
A man or woman who hates women implying the victim is female.

Was Bailey a suspect in this case? Bit of a stretch to implicate him if he wasn't.

He's a bollox there's no doubt but now he's being implicated in two murders with very little evidence (only circumstantial) in one and none in the other.

monkeybutter

tibruit wrote: »

He was thinking outside the box then for an old pothead.

is murder not enough outside the box?

tibruit

monkeybutter wrote: »

is murder not enough outside the box?

The murderer was an out of control madman.

monkeybutter

tibruit wrote: »

The murderer was an out of control madman.

i seriously doubt that


in control for sure

JP Liz V1

tibruit wrote: »

Death In December by Michael Sheridan. Alfie`s wife first saw the body and returned to her house and told Alfie. He walked down the driveway and as far as I can remember he approached close enough to confirm it was a body and then he walked back up the driveway and knocked on Sophie`s door. If he was certain it was Sophie, if he was the killer, then he wouldn`t have done that.

Why not ring 999 asap

tibruit

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Why not ring 999 asap

He may have told his wife to ring 999. Alfie was not the killer. If he was, he would have known it was Sophie and he would have also known she was alone and therefore he would not have gone knocking on her door.

monkeybutter

tibruit wrote: »

He may have told his wife to ring 999. Alfie was not the killer. If he was, he would have known it was Sophie and he would have also known she was alone and therefore he would not have gone knocking on her door.

dont bother going up to the house dear, i know its here as i bashed her head in last night.... i mean

threeball

tibruit wrote: »

He may have told his wife to ring 999. Alfie was not the killer. If he was, he would have known it was Sophie and he would have also known she was alone and therefore he would not have gone knocking on her door.

If you wanted to make it look like you didn't know who the body was then thats a very simple way. As well as having the added benefit of putting your fingerprints on her door which would explain any left previously.

tibruit

threeball wrote: »

If you wanted to make it look like you didn't know who the body was then thats a very simple way. As well as having the added benefit of putting your fingerprints on her door which would explain any left previously.

And yet his fingerprints were not on the door.

threeball

tibruit wrote: »

And yet his fingerprints were not on the door.

So he didn't go to the door and instead lied about it. If I saw a person dead on the ground at the end of our drive and wanted to check if it was my neighbour, I think I'd knock, then try the handle and give the door a shove. I wouldn't just tap my knuckle on the surface politely 3 times and assume she wasn't home.

JP Liz V1

The French courts did not want MF to testify but used her original statement about IB which she said was lies

forestgirl

I wonder is the reason MF changing her statement about it not being IB because she's afraid he will be extradited to France and serve 25yrs knowing well he didn't commit murder, just a thought.
I have seen and spoke to him and to say the man she saw was about 5'8 is ridiculous because even if you couldn't gauge someone's height you would say he's the tallest man you have ever seen.
IB has a huge presence altogether.

odyssey06

threeball wrote: »

So he didn't go to the door and instead lied about it. If I saw a person dead on the ground at the end of our drive and wanted to check if it was my neighbour, I think I'd knock, then try the handle and give the door a shove. I wouldn't just tap my knuckle on the surface politely 3 times and assume she wasn't home.

I don't get the point of just knocking rather than shouting Sophie are you alright whilst also loudly shouting "the Guards\police are on their way!".

But he may not have been thinking straight... if he walked into the house and murderer(s) were still in there what was he going to do?

monkeybutter

forestgirl wrote: »

I wonder is the reason MF changing her statement about it not being IB because she's afraid he will be extradited to France and serve 25yrs knowing well he didn't commit murder, just a thought.
I have seen and spoke to him and to say the man she saw was about 5'8 is ridiculous because even if you couldn't gauge someone's height you would say he's the tallest man you have ever seen.
IB has a huge presence altogether.

but is he not 6 foot 2/3? is it not ridiculous that people all go on about how tall he is, how people over exagerate

JP Liz V1

I'm curious is MF still with her husband and was her companion ever named identified, I remembering hearing talk of swinger parties in West Cork

forestgirl

monkeybutter wrote: »

but is he not 6 foot 2/3? is it not ridiculous that people all go on about how tall he is, how people over exagerate

I'm very surprised when I read he's 6'3 I would have said way taller than that

FileNotFound

MF changed her statement long before the French planned to try him.

It was after she was dragged through the civil stuff which the Gardai said would never happen to her.

She openly states she did not see him and the Gardai coerced her into the story (telling her husband she was with another man if she didn't) - end of her as a witness in anything, then the gardai called her untrustworthy anyway when Bailey tried for a civil suit against them. Sweet Irony.

There really is no proof IB was anywhere near the house - only things we know is he had scratches on arms and got out of bed and his house that night.

Says a lot about the french justice system that they took a statement known to be tainted and also the mother of the young lad testified on his behalf - never heard such odd stuff in my life.

Ash.J.Williams

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Why not ring 999 asap

Only landlines I guess

monkeybutter

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Only landlines I guess

they mean on his own landline or say even the one in the house

What about the tearful confession to Richie and Rosie Shelley in 1998 after a drinking session. Has that been dealt with?

Nicbuc

Ive been following this whole thread, I’ve also watched the sky doc & the Netflix doc, also listened to the west cork podcast. Earlier I listened to a podcast Crime World, Nicola Tallant interviewing Donal McIntyre, some new nuggets of info on it.

threeball

FileNotFound wrote: »

MF changed her statement long before the French planned to try him.

It was after she was dragged through the civil stuff which the Gardai said would never happen to her.

She openly states she did not see him and the Gardai coerced her into the story (telling her husband she was with another man if she didn't) - end of her as a witness in anything, then the gardai called her untrustworthy anyway when Bailey tried for a civil suit against them. Sweet Irony.

There really is no proof IB was anywhere near the house - only things we know is he had scratches on arms and got out of bed and his house that night.

Says a lot about the french justice system that they took a statement known to be tainted and also the mother of the young lad testified on his behalf - never heard such odd stuff in my life.

Wouldn't fancy being accused of a crime in France. Seems an absolute shambles of a justice system. No checks or balances. Just verdicts based on conjecture and feelings.

Yurt2

threeball wrote: »

Wouldn't fancy being accused of a crime in France. Seems an absolute shambles of a justice system. No checks or balances. Just verdicts based on conjecture and feelings.

The key difference between France and here is that with a murder in France, an investigation would be directed by a prosecutor appointed to the case - a magistrate with quasi judicial powers. The quality and probitive vale of evidence & statements, direction and quality control of the investigation is presided over by him/her. By the time the case reaches a court (if it's not dropped), the likelihood is that the evidence has been interrogated sufficiently to ensure a conviction. It's not a bad system from point A. to point B.

The system in Ireland is that AGS direct the investigation, and the DPP act as gatekeepers to a trial based on the quality of evidence collected.

The problem with the Bailey trial was that (apart from being conducted in absentia with no defence), the French court treated the Garda file as if the same quality control was conducted on it as would be the case in France with an investigation done by a quasi-judicial magistrate. They put lipstick on a pig basically.

Gussie Scrotch

Yurt! wrote: »

The key difference between France and here is that with a murder in France, an investigation would be directed by a prosecutor appointed to the case - a magistrate with quasi judicial powers. The quality and probitive vale of evidence & statements, direction and quality control of the investigation is presided over by him/her. By the time the case reaches a court (if it's not dropped), the likelihood is that the evidence has been interrogated sufficiently to ensure a conviction. It's not a bad system from point A. to point B.

The system in Ireland is that AGS direct the investigation, and the DPP act as gatekeepers to a trial based on the quality of evidence collected.

The problem with the Bailey trial was that (apart from being conducted in absentia with no defence), the French court treated the Garda file as if the same quality control was conducted on it as would be the case in France with an investigation done by a quasi-judicial magistrate. They put lipstick on a pig basically.

Thanks for this explanation Yurt, I was confused as to what, exactly, the differences were.

You have de-confused me!

Zeek12

FileNotFound wrote: »

MF changed her statement long before the French planned to try him.

It was after she was dragged through the civil stuff which the Gardai said would never happen to her.

She openly states she did not see him and the Gardai coerced her into the story (telling her husband she was with another man if she didn't) - end of her as a witness in anything, then the gardai called her untrustworthy anyway when Bailey tried for a civil suit against them. Sweet Irony.

There really is no proof IB was anywhere near the house - only things we know is he had scratches on arms and got out of bed and his house that night.

Says a lot about the french justice system that they took a statement known to be tainted and also the mother of the young lad testified on his behalf - never heard such odd stuff in my life.

Having watched all 5 episodes of the Sky programme, I'm none the wiser.

On the scratches, can we even say with any certainty that he had some? That were actually consistent with heavy briar scratches?

The artists rendition was fairly laughable - without photo or video evidence of this, they're really just suggesting stuff.

I'm not sure I buy the story that zero fingerprint or DNA evidence could be found at or near the scene.
Granted forensic procedures were not what they are now but it's hard to avoid the impression the investigation could have been handled more thoroughly and professionally.

Tragic story. Her parents both quite old and frail now. I don't think the case in France has done them (or Sophie's son) much good or given them closure.

And it's not a safe conviction anyway.

As much as you're left with the feeling that Mr. Baily is an egotistic individual with violent traits and an alcohol dependency - that of itself is not evidence, and there'll never be nearly enough proof to convict.

EmmetSpiceland

Zeek12 wrote: »

On the scratches, can we even say with any certainty that he had some? That were actually consistent with heavy briar scratches?

Isn’t the idea that the murderer was wearing gloves? I know they couldn’t get prints from the block but did they find any on the gate?

If Bailey did it, and was wearing his big coat, would he have any scratches at all? Maybe some around the wrist? Or if he was scratched the gloves wouldn’t they have found fibres on the briars?