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
1104105107109110350

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,958 ✭✭✭Deeec


    I dont see why not. She left her house that night for some reason and had time to put her boots on. She didnt leave in a hurry unless she was in the habit of wearing her boots with her nightwear!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,339 ✭✭✭TheW1zard


    Seems odd there was no blood in the car if he did it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,422 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Thoroughly dealt with in the DPP report in sectiom 10 below. Xmas trees dont have thorns, exactly - and Bailey had scratches not thorn cuts. Garda statements describe scratches not cuts. The scratches were noted before the murder by witnesses. People notice things after a murder they didnt notice before like light scratches.

    Bailey made no attempt to hide the scratches and they healed quickly like scratches as noted by witnesses.


    https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/30/

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭MoonUnit75


    You need to revisit the GSOC report. They interviewed at least four people from the DPP's office. They said, categorically, they are aware of no information that would lead them to suspect either arrest was unlawful. The DPP was wrong. They said the questioning of Jules led them (the DPP) to believe she wasn't really arrested for the murder. The DPP doesn't mention, however, that the Gardai also took hair samples from Jules which shows the DPP's argument to be fallacious. The fact that Ian's alibi was in doubt also meant Jules' alibi was also in doubt, they corroborated each other so if one alibi fails, both of them do.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭MoonUnit75


    The DPP incorrectly call the thorns 'razor like' and offer Jules and her daughters as witnesses to the scratches being there before the murder. Jules had already backed up Ian's false alibi as had one of her daughters who told gardai she heard Ian snoring during the night, when it was known he wasn't there. None of these witnesses should have been considered reliable by the DPP.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,076 ✭✭✭Curse These Metal Hands


    The neighbour said she first noticed the gate was open and thought it was strange before seeing the body. In the first episode of Jim Sheridans doc.



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,422 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    They are cited as witnesses in the DPP report along with for example a dermatologist who did not notice anything amiss on Baileys hands 5 days after the murder.

    Absolutely nothing to suggest their testimony is false or coerced on this point. The testimony points to these being scratches which healed quickly.

    Scratches which Bailey could have easily concealed for a few days until healed with long sleeve shirt and fingerless gloves which would not have been remarkable given the time of year.

    He had no reason to as they were scratches not cuts from briars. They cannot be used to place Bailey at the scene and not a single shred of evidence was found at the scene to put Bailey there if he picked up cuts there as the DPP notes.

    Logically therefore we must conclude as per the DPP the scratches were not picked up from briars from the scene.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,339 ✭✭✭TheW1zard


    Seems odd there was no blood in the car if he did it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 310 ✭✭drumm23


    Yes - the answer is surely in figuring out that thought process isn't it ... though if she died in the morning, which is eminently possible, then her attire is easier to understand



  • Registered Users Posts: 89 ✭✭CowgirlBoots


    I don't see why the boots are an issue. Apparently, no shoes/footwear were allowed upstairs so they were removed and left at the bottom of the stairs. It's logical that she came down the stairs after hearing a knock at the door or a noise outside and slipped her feet into the boots at the bottom of the stairs. She wasn't wearing socks - just the boots. If it's December and you have slate floors you probably want to avoid the cold on your feet. I have a pair of slippers/shoes/boots right beside my bed so I can slip my feet into them if I need to get up during the night. I just don't like the feel of the cold on my feet. It's not a lengthy process. You just slip your feet into them and go on your way.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,348 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭MoonUnit75


    Remember that Ian killed turkeys that weekend, any blood traces noticed at home or in the car could be explained to them in that context. Jules did say she saw clothes stained with ‘turkey blood’ which were not found during searches.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,134 ✭✭✭jimwallace197



    Tell that to MoonUnit75, takes sounding like a broken record to a whole new level



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,339 ✭✭✭TheW1zard


    Seems odd there was no blood in the car if he did it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,339 ✭✭✭TheW1zard


    Someone address this please!! Except MoonUnit!



  • Registered Users Posts: 30 Kelvinyook


    I see, that explains why the podcast said she probably put the boots on just to answer the door then.

    How did she get past the person at the door then though? Without disturbing anything there. Or why would she step out at all



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭oceanman


    the sad thing about this case is that it should have been relatively easy to solve. a team of competent murder squad detectives would have been able to wrap this up fairly quickly......instead we got the keystone cops! and now here we are all these years later still going around in circles.



  • Registered Users Posts: 89 ✭✭CowgirlBoots


    No answers. Only speculation. We don't know that there was a knock or a person at the door. She could have been lured outside with just an unusual noise she went to check out.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭Darc19


    Or simply wanted a smoke of a cigarette or a joint and if you don't like to smoke in the house, you do it outside. My wife smokes and will always go outside. And if the wellies are by the door, she'll have them on.


    Nobody knows and we'll probably never know.



  • Registered Users Posts: 591 ✭✭✭Garlinge


    Why just the light dressing gown when she had a decent coat hanging on the back of the door? What was the temperature that night anyway?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,695 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    Good point,

    A light frost on the ground in the morning.

    So it's possible she had her boots on in the house and opened the door to a visitor.

    May also account for the unopened bottle of champagne on the table.

    re the breakfast cereal as her last meal , it's not unusual to have a bowl of cereal at night time.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,958 ✭✭✭Deeec


    From the look of them they were walking/hiking boots so not that easy just to slip your feet into. It wouldnt be usual for anyone to put on shoes just to answer the door - If im in my nightwear answering the door my feet are the last thing Im worrying about. If the floor was cold Im sure she would have slippers, socks or shoes more suitable for indoors rather than walking boots. She was lured out of the house for some reason.

    Who knows

    • she could have heard a disturbance outside - but why go out and investigate
    • she could of went to get something from the car
    • she could have went out to open the gate for a visitor ( Am I the only one here from a family who opened the gates if expecting visitors - this was normal for us to stop people fiddling with awkward gates so they could just drive in - remember this was the days before electric gates). I still think this is a possibility despite everyone disagreeing with me.
    • She went out for fresh air

    We'll just never know.

    Also Ive just had a thought does any of the reports mention where her car keys were? If the killer was on foot surely he would have taken her car to get away from the area fast. Makes me believe the killer had their own transport.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,134 ✭✭✭jimwallace197


    • I dont think she would have left the house if there was a disturbance outside. Alone, foreign woman in an isolated area in the middle of the night.
    • Doubtful that the killer would have been there at the exact time she went to get something from the car
    • A visitor in the middle of the night three days before xmas when all of her friends confirmed already no one wanted to go to cork. I dont see it.
    • Strange time to be getting fresh air.

    It points to a figure of authority in the local area who she likely knew from before. She was known to have been quick to complain about things in the area. Sounds like a senior gard to me and explains the cover up also. Otherwise its hard to explain why she left the house in the middle of the night. Also the boot imprint on her face was consistent with those worn by gards.

    Also, for all MoonUnits talk about GSOC, because the majority of his other points & theories have been discredited. He conveniently forgets to mention GSOC has said it has grave concerns that a large number of original statements and exhibits relating to the murder investigation of Sophie Toscan du Plantier are missing. Not just concerns but grave and this is from an organisation as toothless as it is useless when it comes to investigating the corruption amongst the gards



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,695 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    would you step out and look at the moon over Dunmanus bay on a starry night John,

    or perhaps the sunrise on a clear winter's morning,

    or just breathe in the fresh air?



  • Registered Users Posts: 30 Kelvinyook


    Her son reportedly feels she opened the door to her killer cos she felt safe in west cork. But the housekeeper said she'd warned her about someone breaking in, when no one was there though.



  • Registered Users Posts: 89 ✭✭CowgirlBoots


    There's also the possibility she already had the boots on. Maybe she hadn't gone upstairs to bed yet and was sitting reading in her robe with the boots still on. Just offering another scenario. Without a time of death it's hard to narrow anything down.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    It was never tried in court. GSOC is not court. I've expalined that.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    you think the forensics would not know the difference between turkey blood and human blood in the car?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,339 ✭✭✭TheW1zard


    Seems odd there was no blood in the car if he did it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭MoonUnit75


    The question was asked as to whether Jules or her family would notice traces of blood in the car, he delivered butchered turkeys the day before the murder.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement