Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Do I detect a note of cynicism there Caquas?😏

Does it not strike you as strange how they took so long to come forward with such information seeing as they remember what he said so clearly despite them all having drink taken. You also have to factor in that they didn't know him so would not be used to his eccentric behaviour which we know he exhibits constantly. And if they saw him in the pub the next day, did they not up and leave the pub considering what they believe he did. Why did they not tell anyone, they could have spared lives if they truely believed he was capable of such attrocities.

Given some of the garda conduct during all this I'd be wondering what leverage they had over them pair at that time. Timing is strange.

He's not uninformed or misinformed. He's lived with this for over 20 years. Everyone who takes MF's 'retraction' as being the correct version ignores the years of lodging complaints of intimidation and a solicitors letter from IB threatening to take legal action against her. The gardai arrested IB in Feb. 1997 and sent a file to the DPP, practically everything in the 'going's on' was after the DPP rejected the initial request to charge him. As Judge Hedigan said, at that point the suspicion was so strong that they would have been negligent in their duty if they had not arrested him.

If they were making it up, why wouldn't IB not just deny it outright? At that point he had been arrested and released, making a statement would make them critical witnesses in a possible murder trial or it could be completely futile. I can somewhat understand them not wanting to get involved if the allegations of intimidation were true, they might fear for their own safety.

Do you think they made it up at the request of the gardai and IB just goes along with it, but changes the meaning and words to some nonsense?

It could have been the case that the guards got wind they were up at the house one night in their company and asked them about it. What was said etc. and from there what he did say got twisted and the story grew legs. Could have been that the guards insisted that he was their man and they just needed a little help. Sounds like something they would be capable of based on other events in this case wouldn't you say? On the flip side if you take the position that what they said is completely true then you have to asses the credibility of the statement based on the fact they only came forward sometime afterwards and socialised with the man the following day.

She would have had no mobile phone so arranging a 'pick up' at 3AM in the arse of West Cork would not really be possible. So she and her "friend" either happened across a man in the dead of night by pure chance; or "they" were directly involved in the crime; or the entire thing is a figment of her wild imagination and she was at home that night reading Walter Mitty.

christ above, glad I skipped it

Trying to watch Sophie's son on the Late Late Show but the RTE player is honestly an absolute disgrace, 4 ads just to get into the clip and then when you try fast forward to the interview it asked to watch another 6 ads.

They can F right off.

" Asked about the “tone” of a recorded phone call between himself and Ms Farrell of April 20th, 1997, which featured a number of swear words, he said he supposed some of the language was “inappropriate”, that was “regrettable” and he was unaware his phone call was being taped. He was annoyed because Ms Farrell had made a statement to Sgt Maurice Walsh after he reported to the murder incident room she would not be making a statement because she had told him she would not.

Mr Fitzgerald also said he never went to the home of an actress, Claire Wilkinson, who had alleged she was put under pressure by gardaí to make a statement adverse to Mr Bailey. He was also not involved in alleged leering at daughters of Jules Thomas, Mr Bailey’s partner.

It was “totally untrue” that he had suggested Ms Farrell should give the name of a dead person as her companion on the night of December 22nd/23rd 1996, he said."

Weird behavior from Fitzgerald. Seems to be going to great lengths.

Why would he be so wound up at Marie Farrell giving a statement to another Garda?

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to watch the interview on the Late Late Show, and I wouldn't avail of the RTE player if you paid me.

But what struck me is this.. Every person is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise in a Court of law. That is one of the basic perks of evolving from the stone age, and living in a democracy.

So, we have the national broadcaster running a segment on a brutal crime, and shining the spot light on one of the Country's residents..??

Now, where I work, you can't mention anything personal about one of your colleges for fear of breaching the data protection act. This was brought home recently when an off the cuff remark resulted in a serious disciplinary action..

So, can anybody explain too me how a person not charged with any offence, in an 'on-going' investigation, has been identified nationally on television???

There was no respect for the presumption of innocence here... Absolute zero protection of a citizens basic rights to privacy... And of course, any future trial could be deemed hampered due to the tarnishing of any potential jurors...

It's beyond belief... Not one scrap of evidence to place Ian Bailey at the crime scene. Not one witness to place him in the vicinity of the crime area (bar the shag happy Mother of five). And to top it off, the prime suspect was the first person to volunteer his own blood and hair samples to the Gards to rule himself out.

And now.. 25yrs after the tragic event. Identify him on National TV. Sweet Suffering Jaysis! It they treated a citizen like that in America, the banks couldn't print money fast enough to keep up with the libel actions...

After 25yrs - Still no evidence.. I say screw a new trial, complete waste of money.

Give the public what they want - Tie Bailey up, dunk him under water for long periods of time. If he lives he's innocent, if he drowns, then we knew he was guilty all along. Welcome to the French justice system 2021.

I've seen posts in this thread from people saying that Bailey was much closer to the crime scene that night, claiming he was at a party and stayed over on a sofa and was heard leaving in the middle of the night etc.

Does anyone know where has this information been found or taken from? Did someone give statements with this info?

I struggle to believe its from anywhere official when so much around the case has revolved around the sighting at Kealfeada Bridge, why would so much importance be placed on that if people have said IB was at a party much closer to the crime scene?

Thanks for this article link.

Minor statement? No - an essential piece of evidence in any prosecution of IB for this murder. Without evidence that Sophie knew IB, I doubt if any judge would even allow this case to go to a jury.

Nor did I suggest the judge in the drugs case was part of a conspiracy. He may not even have known Leo Bolger's connection with the murder investigation but he was told that Leo was "helping the Gardai with another case" and there appears to have been no other mitigating circumstance which might explain the extraordinarily lenient sentence. It is well known that District Justices are very responsive to the views of the local Gardai, not for conspiratorial reasons but simply to assist with law and order in the locality.

It is reasonable to assume that the Gardai did not want a crucial witness in their most important investigation to go to jail as a drug dealer. Imagine the cross-examination: "Mr. Bolger, at the time you say that you introduced my client to Ms. du Plantier, were you in the habit of getting high on your own supply?".

The Gardai's relationship with Marie Farrell, her husband and her son is a catalogue of bad policing practice. She is an inveterate liar but the Gardai assiduously cultivated her because, like Leo Bolger, her evidence was vital - she is the only person who placed IB near the scene of the murder.

Long read but very interesting quotes from the Fennelly Report regarding Gardai and Jules Thomas' statements, I don't understand how some posters here really believe gardai weren't pushing "witnesses" towards incriminating Bailey.

"12.5.6 The first matter of concern was the view taken of a statement made by a Detective Garda Gamma, who was involved in interviewing Ms Jules Thomas during her detention on 10 February 1997. In a handwritten statement dated 11 February 1997, the Detective Garda gave an account of the matters discussed during the interview. He also offered his own view regarding the truthfulness of Ms Thomas’ evidence on that occasion, stating:

“In my opinion she was trying to recollect to the best of her knowledge her movements and those of Ian over that weekend.”

12.5.7 On the morning of 23 June 1997, Detective Sergeant Alpha telephoned another member of the investigation team, Detective Garda Delta. They discussed the general difficulties facing the Detective Sergeant whilst writing the report. Detective Sergeant Alpha then appears to have raised the subject of the statement made by Detective Garda Gamma regarding Ms Thomas in February 1997, as the following extract shows: 

Detective Sergeant Alpha: Okay, yeah. I need to talk to you about, em, your colleague’s statement of evidence. I need him to...but I’ll talk to you first...I just want...

Detective Garda Delta: Yeah.

Detective Sergeant Alpha: I need to talk about it anyway.

Detective Garda Delta: The most honest man.

Detective Sergeant Alpha: Yeah.

Detective Garda Delta: (laughs)

Detective Sergeant Alpha: (laughs) He has comments in it like “I knew she was making every effort to tell me the truth.” Do you follow?

Detective Garda Delta: Yes.

Detective Sergeant Alpha: I don’t need them, for starters.

Detective Garda Delta: (laughs)

Detective Sergeant Alpha: **** it, she wasn’t anyway.

12.5.8 At around 5 pm, in a further telephone conversation between the same officers, Detective Sergeant Alpha stated: 

“Ah **** it, it’s awful. When I see your friend then, like writing them stupid **** statements, like I mean... what man... “I believe” he says “that she was doing her best to recall the night in question and being truthful.”

He continued: 

*“Yes, that statement has to get **** chopped up anyway.”*

12.5.9 Further on in the same conversation, having discussed other, unrelated matters, the following exchange takes place: 

Detective Sergeant Alpha: And you can start building up your co-partner, if you’re able to do that, or maybe I should just do it meself to –

Detective Garda Delta: Well, the thing about it is this ... it will have to be explained to him like, that that is the way – I mean surely he can see it in hindsight now that Jules is very devious.

Detective Sergeant Alpha: That statement is very damaging to have in there – I mean it’s not – it’s not – it doesn’t do himself any good anyway.

Detective Garda Delta: No.

Very interesting reading through the Fennelly Commission Report, I can't link it here as new account. I could be getting it wrong but it seems to imply that Marie Farrell's husband (Mr A) gave Ian Bailey (Mr C) a hiding and bailey was dissuaded from pressing charges by the guards.