Murder at the Cottage | Sky

nc6000

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

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?

They have to find the gate first.

Zeek12

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

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?

Nothing could be found on the gate when initially inspected.

And then the gate vanished....

MoonUnit75

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.

The actual timeline had nothing to do with the civil case. Marie said in a couple of interviews before ‘changing sides’ that she had been threatened with defamation proceedings if she continued to give interviews about the case which mentioned Bailey.

Some time later, she was stopped by the gardai for driving without insurance. It seems there were previous incidents like this which didn’t result in prosecution. This incident may have been different in some way, she admitted in her testimony that she wrote to IB’s solicitor that same day to say she would withdraw her statements if she got a guarantee that she would not be sued for defamation in the future.

As far as I know, IB started his proceedings after MF began saying the gardai coerced her to make statements about him. A named witness testified at the civil case that followed that she met MF who said she was in line to get a cut from IB’s winnings, which could have been millions. MF denied ever saying this.

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.

He gave a false alibi though and denied starting a bonfire in the days after the murder, despite two independent witnesses stating they saw smoke from an open fire on the property over the Christmas period. Another witness said JT told him about the murder at his vegetable stall around 11.30 am, when she said she was at home and didn’t know about the murder, another witness said he saw her driving to the same village around that time and her daughter seems to have said she remembers JT coming home with vegetables.

Weddings ahoy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

According to the Dpp report, after the so called confession that night where IB said" I did it, I did it"
The Shelley's were that upset and concerned that they went to the pub with Ian and Jules again next day... pretty much says it all !

EdHoven

tibruit wrote: »

The first thing Alfie did when they spotted the body was to go an knock on Sophies door. If he was the killer he wouldn`t have done that.

The podcast says "he thought" Sophie was there for the weekend. What sort of relationship was that, that the only 3 people for a square mile hadn't living a 100 metres apart hadn't communicated in 3 days?
He had to know well Sophie was there and more than likely the body was Sophie. If that did happen (him trying to warn her) it makes it sound like he was living in Chicago and finding corpses was a daily occurrence.
The 2001 DPP report says Alfie Lyons discovered the body. Perhaps that was a mistake but it seems an odd mistake in a very detailed report.

Table Top Joe

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

According to the French court case he is 6'4, and that was in his mid 50s (roughly) when he may have lost some height, he is obviously taller again in shoes...

Im 5'11, about 6ft in my fancy shoes, the man towered over me, he's not just tall like some lanky teenager, he's a very well built man, a rugby player type build. The reason so many people in the various documentaries, podcasts and in this very thread comment on his size is because he's a huge guy, its not rocket science.

Caquas

isha wrote: »

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

Here’s the DPP’s analysis. Big red flags about this story but Netflix ignored them. This would not stand up in court as a confession.

Statements of Richie and Rose Shelley, taken on 2 and 5 July 1999 respectively were submitted by the Gardaí.
Richie Shelley states that on New Years Eve 1998 he was drinking in Hackett’s bar with his wife. They were joined by Ian Bailey and Jules Thomas. At the end of the night, they went to the house of Jules Thomas and continued drinking there. The murder was discussed and Richie Shelley states that “the whole time Jules Thomas was supporting
Bailey and saying he was innocent”. Richie Shelley then states that Jules Thomas went to bed and he and his wife were given sleeping bags by Bailey. However, he got the impression that Bailey was not comfortable having them in the house and he decided to phone his father to collect them. Richie Shelley slipped into Bailey’s room apparently
looking for the phone. It should be remembered that at this time many people in the local community were convinced that Bailey had murdered Sophie Toscan Du Plantier and the community had been exhorted to obtain incriminating evidence in the matter. Bailey got out of bed and showed Richie Shelley where the phone was located. After
making the call, Richie Shelley alleges that Ian Bailey came into the kitchen and cried “I did it”, repeating this about four or five times. In response, each time Bailey allegedly said “I did it”, Richie Shelley allegedly asked “you did what”? Bailey did not answer.
However, when Richie Shelley allegedly persisted with the question, Bailey allegedly said “I went too far, I went too far”. Richie Shelley asked Bailey what he meant by saying he had gone too far, but Bailey did not answer him. Rose Shelley states that she overhead the “conversation between Ian and Richie about the murder, which frightened her to such an extent that she left the house immediately”. However, she also states “on New Years Night the exact words that Ian said to Richie I cannot be specific but what he did say I realised he was telling Richie that he did the murder”. An objective assessment of the alleged conversation between Richie Shelley and Ian Bailey does not demonstrate that the conversation was about the murder. Indeed, it is alleged that Richie Shelley had to persistently ask Bailey what he was talking about but he elicited no satisfactory response to the question. It is, however, matter of indisputable fact that Bailey has on other occasions consistently and publicly proclaimed his innocence.
The next morning, all four people met up in the pub again, and Richie Shelley is alleged to have said to Bailey “up to last night I thought you were innocent but now I think you are guilty”.
From the report of Inspector Horgan dated 27 July 1999 it appears that Richie and Rose Shelley have indicated that they did not come forward with the above information previously because they did not want an involvement in the case. This diminishes the credibility of their recollection still further. In fact Richie Shelley in his statement dated
19 June 2001 states that he did not come forward with the information until he was approached by the Gardaí. If the alleged conversation took place he did not attach sufficient weight to it to even bother reporting it.
Richie and Rose Shelley were collected from outside the Thomas house by John Shelley but neither Richie nor Rose bothered to tell John Shelley about the alleged admission.
On an overall basis the Shelley evidence is dangerously unreliable.

ingalway

Weddings ahoy wrote: »

According to the Dpp report, after the so called confession that night where IB said" I did it, I did it"
The Shelley's were that upset and concerned that they went to the pub with Ian and Jules again next day... pretty much says it all !

Where did you hear that they went out with them the next day? Something I have missed but definitely paints a different picture if it did happen.

odyssey06

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

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?

The scratches wee supposed to be up to his forearm which if wearing the big coat and layers undeneath you think would protect him... or leave fabric behind on the briars.
Yet Im not aware of anything recovered.

Caquas

Caquas wrote: »

Here’s the DPP’s analysis. Big red flags about this story but Netflix ignored them. This would not stand up in court as a confession.

Thanks.

MoonUnit75

Weddings ahoy wrote: »

According to the Dpp report, after the so called confession that night where IB said" I did it, I did it"
The Shelley's were that upset and concerned that they went to the pub with Ian and Jules again next day... pretty much says it all !

I don’t think it says the meeting in the pub was definitely pre-arranged though? Richard Shelley said they were in the pub the next day and he said to Ian that he had doubted that he was the killer before the previous night but now he thought he had done it, or something to that effect.

dublin49

its amazing every witness statement ,thats anti Bailey is seemingly easily dismissed as unreliable,hearsay,too long has passed,vested interest ,etc etc etc,does the sheer quantity of witnesses that need to be dismissed/under mined not give Bailey supporters pause for thought.Even statements attributed to Jules Thomas that are adverse to Baileys account are dismissed .Lots of witnesses appear to be genuine,why are they all intent on stitching up this innocent man.Must something in the water down there

FileNotFound

Zeek12 wrote: »

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.

Agree entirely its a case of he could well have but the evidence is not there to prove it. I do find the block on any french being interviewed odd and it begs a few questions (questions is all really). H

I thought it was a well presented show to be fair.

MoonUnit75

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I don’t think it says the meeting in the pub was definitely pre-arranged though? Richard Shelley said they were in the pub the next day and he said to Ian that he had doubted that he was the killer before the previous night but now he thought he had done it, or something to that effect.

Yes, that is what I take from it. There seems to have been quite the drinking culture - and people just are thrown together in pubs. It was morning drinking, 2nd of January.
I saw Rosie Shelley died a few years ago.

It is possible the testimony is unreliable. But something spooked Rosie at least enough that she wanted out of the house in the early hours. And they phoned the dad to come collect them. They would have been young enough, early 20s. You can end up in weird places and situations at that age.

The reason why 'I did it, I did it, I went too far' was inferred by the Shelleys to relate to murder was Bailey had taken out boxes of press cuttings etc and obsessively spoken about the murder for 2 hours before bed. So the finding that 'I did it' could not be presumed to relate to murder is a bit flimsy.

monkeybutter

Table Top Joe wrote: »

According to the French court case he is 6'4, and that was in his mid 50s (roughly) when he may have lost some height, he is obviously taller again in shoes...

Im 5'11, about 6ft in my fancy shoes, the man towered over me, he's not just tall like some lanky teenager, he's a very well built man, a rugby player type build. The reason so many people in the various documentaries, podcasts and in this very thread comment on his size is because he's a huge guy, its not rocket science.

He was 6foot 2 back according to the mirror you can see pictures of him

He's hardly huge now is he

I'd say you only think you are 5 ft 11, more likely 5foot 8 if he was towering over you, now do you own a black jacket and a beret

odyssey06

dublin49 wrote: »

its amazing every witness statement ,thats anti Bailey is seemingly easily dismissed as unreliable,hearsay,too long has passed,vested interest ,etc etc etc,does the sheer quantity of witnesses that need to be dismissed/under mined not give Bailey supporters pause for thought.Even statements attributed to Jules Thomas that are adverse to Baileys account are dismissed .Lots of witnesses appear to be genuine,why are they all intent on stitching up this innocent man.Must something in the water down there

Well apart from Marie Farrell you can be genuine and wrong... misremember, remember things in wrong order or not exactly as it occurred.

People notice stuff after a murder they didnt notice before.

People can be steered by the person asking questions into recalling things in a certain way.
Its not as if they were direct witnesses to the act.
They are being asked to remember things that was said to them in passing or they noticed while doing something else.

The longer since the incidence occurred the less reliable recollections are.

So you have poor quality evidence.

Galwayguy35

Sky must have paid him, he never opened his gob when asked questions by the media down through the years and you couldn't shut the fooker up in this bladdering about hens and roosters and other random stuff.

He was lapping up all the attention he was getting.

FileNotFound

One thing not mentioned in any of these docs which i find odd are the other participants.

IB partner had a family from a lot of wealth in England - it is possible she was able to sway persons involved financially but this is never considered when people changes their stories part way through.

Also Sophie had very bad relationships with both husbands - why she was hiding in Ireland at xmas time (leaky pipe or rads are a great story alright) - the husband never even came to get her body - can't buy the too broken when he and her had a broken relationship. Both ex husbands were men with powerful connections in France (Jacque Shiraq the french president being but one of them) and the gardai were not allowed to question any of these people for unexplained reasons.

A person could make a million conspiracies about this case and find enough conjecture to make them as plausible as IB doing it.


But at the end of the day the evidence just is not there do say anything solidly.

FileNotFound

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Sky must have paid him, he never opened his gob when asked questions by the media down through the years and you couldn't shut the fooker up in this bladdering about hens and roosters and other random stuff.

He was lapping up all the attention he was getting.

They paid for the rights to sell alright - at the time of show he was living in a caravan I think after the missus dumped him.

He is a degenerate - money for drink was enough.


Mind you his missus's family are loaded in the UK - so if she was supporting him at the time money would not have been an issue. He has a massive ego, that may have been enough

monkeybutter

FileNotFound wrote: »

One thing not mentioned in any of these docs which i find odd are the other participants.

IB partner had a family from a lot of wealth in England - it is possible she was able to sway persons involved financially but this is never considered when people changes their stories part way through.

Also Sophie had very bad relationships with both husbands - why she was hiding in Ireland at xmas time (leaky pipe or rads are a great story alright) - the husband never even came to get her body - can't buy the too broken when he and her had a broken relationship. Both ex husbands were men with powerful connections in France (Jacque Shiraq the french president being but one of them) and the gardai were not allowed to question any of these people for unexplained reasons.

A person could make a million conspiracies about this case and find enough conjecture to make them as plausible as IB doing it.


But at the end of the day the evidence just is not there do say anything solidly.

Why would she kick him out with nothing, then come to his rescue?

What would they question the husband's about exactly? People were checked for alibis and some people were spoken to in France

bb12

Nicbuc wrote: »

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.

started listening to the crime world podcast but they've got their facts wrong...they say sophie was coming to that cottage for years before she got married...but her husband bought it for her...then they say she flew into dublin airport and drove to schull from dublin...she arrived into cork airport...cant really trust any other details they come out with if they get these basic ones wrong

Pirate Master

Weddings ahoy wrote: »

According to the Dpp report, after the so called confession that night where IB said" I did it, I did it"
The Shelley's were that upset and concerned that they went to the pub with Ian and Jules again next day... pretty much says it all !

Also, Bailey said that he was repeating what the Guards had been hammering into him during his arrest, that he had done it, he had done it.



And with the Shelleys not coming forward with this information until much later, it's easy to think that they misremebered him actually confessing and him simply repeating what the Guards had told him.

monkeybutter

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Sky must have paid him, he never opened his gob when asked questions by the media down through the years and you couldn't shut the fooker up in this bladdering about hens and roosters and other random stuff.

He was lapping up all the attention he was getting.

That is just totally untrue

I mean he has done interviews, been on the radio, been in podcasts etc

FileNotFound

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The actual timeline had nothing to do with the civil case. Marie said in a couple of interviews before ‘changing sides’ that she had been threatened with defamation proceedings if she continued to give interviews about the case which mentioned Bailey.

At the time of her statements that Gardai literally promised not to tell her husband she was with another man in the car if she played along an then recorded the event as another man not being there.

By all accounts the other man was there, if this is true its literally a criminal offence by the Gardai, who in fairness during Baileys civil case called her an unreliable person who's word could not be trusted.

Table Top Joe

monkeybutter wrote: »

He was 6foot 2 back according to the mirror you can see pictures of him

He's hardly huge now is he

I'd say you only think you are 5 ft 11, more likely 5foot 8 if he was towering over you, now do you own a black jacket and a beret

Yes, let’s take The Mirrors word over a court….I’ve been measured in 3 different gyms over the years, was given 5’11 twice, 6 ft once….and I’ve stood next to him, you clearly haven’t

I don’t know why you have such a hard time believing he’s a big guy despite all the evidence, you would rather believe Marie Farell that he could be genuinely mistaken for a 5’8 man, a woman who has absolutely no credibility left whatsoever

Remember as well that while the current generation is quite tall, 6’2 men (if you want to give him that) were few and far between in 1996

FileNotFound

monkeybutter wrote: »

Why would she kick him out with nothing, then come to his rescue?

What would they question the husband's about exactly? People were checked for alibis and some people were spoken to in France

At the time nobody in France was spoken to according to the Gardai, upon arrival in France for interviews the Gardai were brought back to the airport and informed they could not interview french citizens.

Thats what the gardai said in the sky doc.

Don't understand the first question - she had not kicked IB out of the house that happened years later and after the french ruling. I was merely saying if witnesses were changing stories and people were dubious - there was a source of great welath that could be used for influence.

Yurt2

monkeybutter wrote: »

He was 6foot 2 back according to the mirror you can see pictures of him

He's hardly huge now is he

I'd say you only think you are 5 ft 11, more likely 5foot 8 if he was towering over you, now do you own a black jacket and a beret

I heard Ian Bailey is 6 ft 7 in his socks, and he's got a retractable claw 'specially for murdering, and he's got these mad eyes that can hypnotize people to do his bidding - like the divil himself. He can turn himself into pure energy and transmit himself along electricity lines and then he re-manifests as a murderer to do his murderizing, and then can get back to his house in time for the Champions League kick-off so he has an alibi. He keeps a load of black coats in a secret cave in Pirates Cove, and goes there during the full moon accompanied by a load of lesbians to wash his coats in the nip.

FileNotFound

Yurt! wrote: »

I heard Ian Bailey is 6 ft 7 in his socks, and he's got a retractable claw 'specially for murdering, and he's got these mad eyes that can hypnotize people to do his bidding - like the divil himself. He can turn himself into pure energy and transmit himself along electricity lines and then he re-manifests as a murderer to do his murderizing, and then can get back to his house in time for the Champions League kick-off so he has an alibi. He keeps a load of black coats in a secret cave in Pirates Cove, and goes there during the full moon accompanied by a load of lesbians to wash his coats in the nip.

Despite being drunk and drug addled he moves like a snake in the grass and has no DNA.

monkeybutter

Table Top Joe wrote: »

Yes, let’s take The Mirrors word over a court….I’ve been measured in 3 different gyms over the years, was given 5’11 twice, 6 ft once….and I’ve stood next to him, you clearly haven’t

I don’t know why you have such a hard time believing he’s a big guy despite all the evidence, you would rather believe Marie Farell that he could be genuinely mistaken for a 5’8 man, a woman who has absolutely no credibility left whatsoever

Remember as well that while the current generation is quite tall, 6’2 men (if you want to give him that) were few and far between in 1996

Im not saying he is the person Mf saw, that's obviously not true, do you think the French court measured him yeah?

I'm just looking at what height was reported in the papers

He is not huge by an stretch

People over play it and anyone can see him in bantry or schull markets so don't think you are unique

I'm the same height as him, never get described as some man Mountain

monkeybutter

FileNotFound wrote: »

At the time nobody in France was spoken to according to the Gardai, upon arrival in France for interviews the Gardai were brought back to the airport and informed they could not interview french citizens.

Thats what the gardai said in the sky doc.

Don't understand the first question - she had not kicked IB out of the house that happened years later and after the french ruling. I was merely saying if witnesses were changing stories and people were dubious - there was a source of great welath that could be used for influence.

Was it not his previous wife was wealthy?

I thought that that's what you meant? Slightly broken sentencing at the point you said it

I dont think JT or Bailey's family are particularly wealthy, enough to be paying people off