Murder at the Cottage | Sky

With the amount of witness and statement tampering involved in the case you'd have to be incredibly naive to take anything at face value.

1. 12.47 Amongst the recorded calls reviewed by the Commission were three calls from April 1997 that mentioned an assault on a Mr C. The assault was alleged to have been perpetrated by the husband of Mrs A, who was considered by An Garda Síochána to be a significant witness in the investigation of the death of Madame Toscan du Plantier.
2. 12.48 On first analysis, the recorded conversations appeared to disclose evidence that members of An Garda Síochána had put undue pressure on Mr C not to make a formal complaint in relation to the assault. Some of the recorded conversations appeared to suggest that this was done in order to ensure Mrs A’s continued cooperation with An Garda Síochána as a witness in the murder investigation.
3. 12.49 Certain basic background facts are clear:

a. On the night of 13 April 1997, two telephone calls were made to Bantry Garda Station reporting an assault on Mr C. These were carefully recorded in the Occurrence Book. It was noted that Mr C had been “badly assaulted” and that he had been brought to Bantry Hospital by members of An Garda Síochána in the Bantry Station patrol car. These are the only available written records of the matter that were provided to the Commission, although the issue was subsequently investigated by members of An Garda Síochána and figured largely in the telephone conversations with which this section is concerned.

b. Garda Epsilon was on duty in Ballydehob when the patrol car from Bantry passed through the village, en route to the scene of the alleged assault. On his own account, he travelled with them and took responsibility for the investigation of the assault.

1. 12.50 Detective Garda Delta was stationed in Bandon and was involved in the investigation of the Toscan du Plantier murder. He was assigned, in particular, to obtain certain specific information from Mrs A. He had no legitimate function in relation to the investigation of the alleged assault on Mr C. Yet, at his own initiative, he took an active interest in Garda Epsilon’s pursuit of the matter. He initiated all relevant telephone calls of which the Commission is aware.
2. 12.51 Garda Epsilon took no statements from either Mr or Mrs A, from the neighbour who had also reported the assault, or from anyone else. Garda Epsilon took no notes of his investigation and made no report to the member in charge. He, by his own account, made no attempt to visit Mr C or to investigate his injuries, although the report to Bantry Garda Station had stated that Mr C had been badly assaulted and that he had been taken to Bantry Hospital by Garda Epsilon’s colleagues in the Bantry patrol car.
3. 12.52 Garda Epsilon received a telephone call from Mr C the following day, 14 April 1997. Mr C wished to make a statement about the alleged assault. Garda Epsilon said that he would not be available for a few days. Mr C telephoned Garda Epsilon again, who told him that he would not be available until the following Tuesday. From this and remarks made in the course of the telephone conversations, it is clear that Garda Epsilon was unwilling to facilitate Mr C in making a statement.
4. 12.53 Detective Garda Delta telephoned Garda Epsilon on 18 April 1997 to inquire about Mr C’s impending attendance at the Garda station. So far as the Commission is aware, they had not previously discussed Mr C. Yet, from the outset, the two members of An Garda Síochána concur in describing Mr C in derogatory terms.
5.  12.54 Both members of An Garda Síochána agreed, more or less from the beginning, that Mr C was not to be treated as a normal bona fide complainant, even though they both know that it was not contested that Mr A committed the alleged assault on Mr C. The recorded conversation discloses evidence of an intention on the part of Garda Epsilon not merely to discourage Mr C in making a complaint, but “under no circumstances” to facilitate him in that regard. It is also clear from the conversation (and from his evidence to the Commission) that Detective Garda Delta approved of this approach.

It doesn't say Bailey by name, but Mr C is labelled as a suspect in the Sophie case here:

1. 12.45 It is a remarkable feature of this recorded telephone call that, from the outset, Detective Garda Delta repeatedly betrayed unremitting animus against Mr C and used various obscenities in referring to him. He made allegations concerning his character and behaviour. In the view of the Commission, Detective Garda Delta does not appear to have had any, or any sufficient, evidence justifying him in adopting such a uniformly hostile attitude to Mr C. He also disclosed confidential information about Mr C which related to Mr C’s previous status as a suspect in the investigation of the death of Madame Toscan du Plantier.

So either it's another suspect referenced here or Mr C is Ian Bailey

Read them a long time ago.

Who is it then? It's not James McKenna the other man Chris Farrell assaulted, that's specified in the report.

Yes, when you look at it in the context of the case you can come down on it in two ways. I think only one makes sense, in the context of the rest of the case. You could see this as indicating the gardai were trying to prosecute someone they knew to be innocent, which is popular among the conspiracy theorists. Or, you could look at it as frustration at failing to secure a prosecution of someone they fully believed was responsible for the crime.

I don’t expect the gardai to be choir boys having their mammies checking their homework. They do a job that is sometimes dangerous and puts them in potentially compromising situations every once in a while. The way most professions, gangs, cults etc. deal with this is to ensure the people who you work with are more like a blood brother than some prick waiting to write a memo to HR. Pushing these boundaries in private one to one conversations is probably endemic in most professions. It doesn’t mean they will actually become corrupt, though it can. It does mean that having each other’s backs allows the group to function in very difficult situations.

There have been thousands of murders investigated, prosecuted and judged in this country, conspiracy theorists think these are all compromised because they were investigated by the gardai.

I don’t believe a confessed perjurer or a homeless drug addict provide solid evidence of ‘Garda corruption’, witness bribing, leads not followed up in this case, they are not reliable when their ulterior motives are considered. I don’t believe them. I don’t see why anyone else would unless they are willing to accept the lowest quality evidence if it agrees with them.

There's literally tape recordings of the so called "homeless drug addict" being offered bribes in exchange for statements and info. That you think someone is more reliable or should be believed because of their social status or because of the fact they're guards is shameful and disgusting.

The fact is you and your ilk would have dismissed Martin Graham as a crazy drug addict if there wasn't audio evidence to back up everything he claimed. You look down upon and judge a man smoking hash but jump to defend people who were willing to falsify, doctor and dismiss evidence in a murder trial that could have lead to a potentially innocent man spending life in prison. Like a true Tory.

All the people who you defend are perjurers, a lot more so than Marie Farrell. Some Gardai are scum, like all walks of life you get bad apples. Wise up and accept it.

The transcripts are there for all to see in regards to garda corruption, it didn't take a homeless drug addict or a confessed perjurer to expose it. They were stupid enough to do it themselves and confirmed in the Fennelly Commission Report.

Still waiting for who is Mr C?

So you get to review all the evidence and declare that any person that doesnt agree with your view is a threat to democracy ,despicable self righteous people who don't deserve to be heard,this is a discussion thread about the murder,thats it,nothing else .we give our honest opinion ,Bailey if he ever stands trial will be judged by a jury of his peers ,not us,if you feel this thread should be preserved for favourable comment about Bailey maybe start a different thread that details that requirement in the opening post ,and really name calling doesnt really add anything to your side of the debate and with a bit of discipline you can learn to challenge our opinions not our characters or motives,

Who recorded Martin Graham? The gardai. They offered him cigarettes, food, clothes and small amounts of cash for pints. Nothing of any value was put forward by Martin Graham or the gardai following their dealings with him. If they were bribing him for false information why was there none? It is infinitely more plausible that they hoped Graham could provide them with factual intelligence. I would not be shocked to hear Garda informants are sometimes given food, clothes, cigarettes, a few quid. Maybe it’s forbidden or frowned upon, but I can imagine it would happen. I wouldn’t consider them bribes unless both the gardai and the witness knew false information was being provided. Otherwise, it’s difficult to describe it as a bribe?

from my reading of this thread the lack of forensic evidence and motive apply to everbody mentioned more or less.If you dont accept Baileys remarks about her cute ,,, and going up there etc thats fair enough but they are no more tenuous than other suspects mentioned on this thread.So if we work from the premise theres no forensics or no motive for any suspect we need to examine other aspects that may reveal the killer.There is a mountain of questions around Baileys behaviour,alibis ,confessions and violent history that sets him apart from all other potential suspects .He named himself the chief suspect from early in the investigation. To suggest we should leave Bailey out of discussion of who killed Sophie is in my opinion ridiculous.