Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Yes.

Alfie said a Frenchwoman who complains about everything was his neighbour but she wasn't there often. Shirley told him to shhh, probably to head off one of Alfie's little rants, while agreeing the French neighbour liked to complain.

That's it.

No one was interested in hearing what the Frenchwoman had to complain about

wow .talk about shooting the messenger,Moonunit is well versed in the minutiae of the case and contributed very positively to the debate on this thread ,

just because like me he/she does not share your opinion on this case shouldn't result in him/her receiving abusive posts.

This is a complete fabrication. No indepedent witnesses corroborated MF's original statements, especially considering the statements didn't even identify the tall Ian Bailey but a short, sallow skinned man. So if they are your most reliable ones, they exonerate Ian Bailey.

We're expected to believe that MF saw Ian Bailey and in describing him, didn't mention he was tall?

And had never seen him about Schull in the year she was living and working on its main street, except for the weekend before the murder?

Simply not credible.

This is a total lie.

Dan Griffin and Ceri Williams saw IB in Schull at the same time Sophie was shopping and during the same period that MF saw the man she described. Ceri Williams' statement is similar to MF's, she had seen Sophie coming out of a shop and IB was across the road at the time.

Witnesses saw IB at a house very close to the spot MF saw the same man hitchiking the next morning. IB had slept on the sofa at the Murphy house and said he had left at some point during the night. One witness said he heard the front door opening shortly before MF saw the man hitchiking.

Neither MF nor the gardai could have known these other statements would be made putting IB in the same areas as MF's sightings. It could have very easily happened that IB was spotted fly fishing outside the custom house in Dublin when she said she saw a man hitchiking outside Schull.

All irrelevant fluff MoonUnit and you know it.

Until a connection between Bailey and Sophie can be established, or some new evidence placing him at the scene is discovered, , or a plausible motive emerges, there is simply no solid evidence to link him to the crime.

Endless burrowing down meaningless rabbit holes will not move the debate forward.

Until one or more of the above changes, the case against Bailey is a non starter.

I was responding to the suggestion that the French should have discarded all of MF's statements, in my opinion they drew the obvious conclusion that two of her sightings were consistent with the known locations of IB according to other witnesses and neither MF or the gardai could have known that or colluded to make up these sightings. That is the same conclusion Judge Moran came to in 2003 after hearing all the witnesses. The fact that MF lodged 17 official complaints of intimidation and sent a solicitors letter to IB, later receiving a letter herself threatening legal action against her for talking to the media about the case puts a far greater question mark over her dramatic u-turn than her original statements.

Hitch hiking? Like with their thumb out facing traffic going in the same direction?

The French should never have proceeded with the trial in the first place.

Nothing MF says can be trusted. Nothing.

There is, therefore, little point in debating the veracity or otherwise of individual statements or claims made by her. Attempting to make subjective judgements on the comparative chances of one being more truthful than another is just semantics. It does not and cannot support the case for or against.

What is far more relevant is the total absence of direct evidence connecting Bailey to the victim, the crime and the crime scene.

The case against him is non existent. Unless and until new, compelling evidence, connecting Bailey to the crime comes to light, the tenuous circumstantial stuff is of academic interest only.

Yes, all very interesting.

Had this murder occurred in France, Daniel would be a very strong suspect.

If I remember correctly, there was an insurance policy on Sophie's life and again if my memory serves me, he was the, or at least a, beneficiary.

As long as you remember this is just your opinion, that's fine. Others may agree or disagree but your opinion holds no more weight than that of the nearest bus driver or dentist.

There are independent witnesses to the intimidation she was under. The Bandon tapes showed she was not under any pressure to provide statements and was in fact well able to tell the gardai to feck off with themselves if she wanted to.

Its more believable than the your theory that a drunk man named IB walked to her house in the dark, chased her from her house accross open countryside, kills her but leaves no evidence whatsover even though hes a drunk fool. Then takes the long way home to stop off to clean himself in freezing cold water. Only witness to this is a mother of 5 who was having an affair with the invisible man. He then goes home and has a jolly old christmas. Now which theory seems more plausible?

Also answer for me why did the French block the Irish police from investigating her French life?

I need no reminding that this is an opinion based discussion. Neither do I need or seek your approval to express mine.

The Bandon tapes showed, very clearly, that there was a "rather personal" relationship between MF and Garda Fitzgerald. I think the report termed it "questionable" A not very subtle nuance.

But, I must patiently re-iterate: There is nothing of substance to link Ian Bailey to this crime. Nothing to link him to the crime scene, no association with Sophie and no motive.

Until that particular brick wall is at least weakened in some way, there is nothing to implicate Bailey. That may be an unpalatable fact for those that hold rigidly to the view that he is guilty, but facts are stubborn things.

I never mentioned a 'hit' on Sophie.... Can you point out were I stated that?

Your theories are falling apart. You are blind to any other scenario outside of Ian Bailey murdering Sophie.

I suggested that the French side of the murder victim wasn't investigated half enough... They have more motive for Sophie to be out of the picture than anybody in Schull:

The Husband: Already has another girl on the go, has financial difficulties, is looking at a massive divorce settlement, knows his not so dear wife has a nice insurance policy on her life..

Ex Boyfriend: A man already noted for violent tendencies, thought nothing of trying to strangle Sophie in the middle of the day among plenty of on looking witnesses.. Ticks all the boxes for a a total whack job to me..

The Girlfriend: So this young one gets a taste of the good life, the camera's, and the media spotlight.. Maybe her fella has explained she could be his next wife with the present one out of the way... What better way to seal the deal than make her pregnant? Maybe she sent a clumsy nephew / cousin over to Ireland to get rid of Sophie..

For sure, the above scenario's are all pie in the sky, but each person listed has a genuine motive to harm / remove Sophie.

Each of the above gains something by her demise, be it financially or mentally.

As far out as it may seem... They all have more motive for harming Sophie that a drunken Poet stumbling around Schull after closing time...

A drunken Poet that didn't leave or take one shred of evidence, to or from the murder scene...

But like you say... It was probably like somebody chasing the cat out of the garden..... I rest my case.

None of that is 'my theory', it was the theory put forward by both the relevant investigative authorities in Ireland and France. I've already said the suggestion that the killer went to the shore at Kealfadda bridge to wash off blood was speculation on my part, the garda case was that, for whatever reason, a man who has not been eliminated from the inquiry was spotted at that location.

There is nothing "wacky" about considering the possibility of Daniel du Plantier's involvement in the crime.

Circa 25 of female murder victims are killed by their spouse or partner. Furthermore, he stood to make considerable financial gain from her death. Add to that his rather odd behaviour after the event and it is not unreasonable to ask the question.

I personally think its a long shot but it is not in any way "wacky" to raise the possibility.