Murder at the Cottage | Sky

No thanks. I have no need for them. Reading responses on this thread supplies enough illusion.

I can back it up, it's hardly my fault you accept the words of a conspiracy theorist but not an official report from GSOC or the decision of a jury in the High Court.

Ian Bailey underwent a series of garda interviews, consultations with his solicitor, prisoner checks and rest/hygiene breaks during his period of detention. He was released from garda custody without charge at 10:44pm and signed the record of his custody

At 12:14am on the 11th February 1997, Ms. Thomas was released from garda custody without charge and it was noted that she had no complaints.

From the material reviewed by GSOC in this investigation, it appears that there was a reasonable belief held by gardaí at that time that Ian Bailey and Jules Thomas were responsible for the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier. The arrests of both were therefore lawful. It appears to GSOC that the Custody Regulations were complied with in full by gardaí at that time in relation to both prisoners with both being offered access to a solicitor during their detention. GSOC is satisfied from its investigations that both were detained lawfully.

Nothing was noted in the documentary review conducted by GSOC that undermined the decision to arrest either Ian Bailey or Jules Thomas in any way and there is no information available to suggest that either constituted an unlawful arrest. It is further noted that the legality of this arrest has never been successfully challenged by either Mr. Bailey or Ms. Thomas at any stage since that date and that no complaint was made by either party to their solicitor at the time of their arrest or detention.

That's what he said in his interview and that's what he said in the West Cork podcast. The two journalists he had arranged the deadline with for the 23rd also agreed they allowed him to extend it to the following day.

So they didn't do a non-custodial interview with her prior to arresting and interrogating her? Who first changed to say that IB woke and left, Julie or Ian? And at what point in the up to 12 hours.

There's accounts of this in both Nick Foster's book and Michael Sheridan's. We know for a fact that Nick Foster says he has the original garda file with over 600 statements.

What seems to have been the sequence is this:

From December to February, the story given by both Ian and Jules is basically the same, they went home after the pub and went to bed where they stayed all night.

IB is questioned at home on 10th of Feb. He is asked about his movements on the night of the murder, he keeps to the 'I was in bed all night with Jules' story. The gardai read him his rights and he is arrested. He asks to speak to Jules before they take him to the station.

During questioning in the station, he maintains the same story. He says he was in bed all night.

Jules is arrested a couple of hours after Ian. Ian isn't told about this.

For several hours, Jules maintained the same story, they were both in bed.

At some point, the gardai tell Jules that a witness saw Ian at the bridge around 3am. Jules claims the gardai told her at some point that he confessed to the murder.

Sometime later, Jules asks for a break and to consult with her solicitor (Michael Sheridan's book, chapter 4).

When the interview is resumed, Jules then allegedly gives a new version of the events of that night. This new version says that they stopped at Hunt's Hill. Ian mentioned there was a light on at Alfie's house and either then, or later at home, says he might go down there. They both went to bed but Ian tossed and turned and eventually got up about an hour later. She went straight back to sleep and only remembers him bringing her coffee around 9am the next morning. He had a cut on his forehead that she seemed sure wasn't there the night before. She asked him about it and he said he got it from a stick.

This new version of events is put to Ian and he allegedly gives a new version of his account. He says he now remembers he got up and wrote a story for the paper during the night. He then went to the studio to type this up, but had no watch and only remembers that it was dark.

After his release, Ian allegedly told Yvonne Ungerer that he was told he was seen at 3am and she said he added that this must have been when he left to type up the story.

Now firstly, how do you know they were asked to read over their statements and how do you know they signed? A suspect in an interrogation can refuse to sign if they feel what they said has been misconstrued or manipulated. It can still be used against you though by the gards.

According to Michael Sheridan, during his GSOC interviews he told them that 'he signed statements during the interviews that did not reflect the events but signed them just to make the whole experience end'.

Both Ian and Jules had a solicitor present and neither complained at the time that they were forced to sign statements or that they refused to sign their statements.

The rules for taking a witness statement from a suspect:

Why don't you just put me on ignore? It seems clear you have extreme difficulty accepting anything I say, even when it's properly sourced, rationalise your way out if it and then, when all else fails, you get abusive. I'd actually be delighted if any conspiracy theorists ask for the thread to be moved to conspiracy theories or start their own thread.

Either way, Jules changing her statement resulted in Ian suddenly changing his statement. If Jules made it up, why would Ian invent a scenario that never happened? That's only going to make things worse when they are now making up two very different versions of events. It's clear the result of Jules changing her statement made Ian reconsider his. Ian has stuck, very loosely, with the new story since.

Both had legal representation and were told they had no obligation to say anything.

You don't accept anything in any of the official reports, court cases or garda statements, that's fine, your choice. Call it all lies if it makes you feel good about it. You do accept Gemma O'Doherty's article however. It's clear we are never going to agree when your standard of what's true is not even on the same planet as mine.

What I don't get about Moonunit is that he's adamant that Bailey did it: OK. But is equally adamant that the Gardai ran a good investigation! Bailey is no Moriarty - if he did do it, then the primary reason he was not convicted is because of the Keystone Cops. How can you defend (for example) not moving the body (as recommended) when that action might have helped to build the case against Bailey? It's mental gymnastics of the highest order.

I doubt anyone thinks the Gardaí ran a proper investigation. There are clearly Garda haters here however, who are unable to look beyond the Garda malpractice and at the real facts of the case.

I thought MoonUnit's whole bag was suspecting he was avoiding arrest.