Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Here's Daniel's statement to French police. He makes no bones about the previous problems in their marriage.

I am the husband of Sophie Bouniol, who died on 23.12.1996, in the Schull area of Ireland.

She was my associate, but from 1988, she left her work and our relationship became more intimate, we began to share a life and some years later, I married her.

Sophie was very dynamic. She was a young impulsive woman, sometimes to the point of being aggressive and would not be in the habit of letting herself be walked on.

In effect she was more than a tough character, with a strict moral code, who feared nothing.

She rather avoided the world of society and gossip and preferred the chic and popular quarters where she felt more at ease. She was passionate about African art and had produced a programme on African bondage, which was transmitted at the beginning of December 1996.

I have to say, that like all couples, disputes arose, because Sophie was not an easy person to live with. In those moments she would not hesitate to leave our home and go to her close confidante, her cousin Alexandra, who lives in Geneva.

She was equally very close to Agnes Thomas, who was indeed a confidante. If our life as a couple was ­sometimes not without hitches, she still decided to have a child and had ceased to use any form of ­contraceptive.

She expressed the desire about four years ago, to purchase a house in Ireland, in a wild and isolated area, in keeping with her character.

I therefore bought, at her request and in her name, for I think 400,000 French Francs (about €61,000), a house situated in the immediate proximity to Fastnet Lighthouse.

Personally, I only went there once, about three or four years ago and I was able to appreciate the beauty of the place.

Sophie has told me how she loved long walks in the Irish countryside, with her books, it was her favourite pastime when she holidayed there.

She used to go there three or four times a year, to holiday for a week with friends, relatives or children.

She was the mother of a boy from a previous marriage, Pierre Baudey, aged about 15 years. During her absences, the house was maintained by a woman from the village who was called Josie.

Because of her professional life, Sophie had only been able to go to her Irish house once, in the spring, much to her regret. She had therefore, decided to holiday there at the end of December, during a slack period in her work.

However, beginning on 25th December, she had to return to France, to accompany me to Dakar, to visit friends.

She left Paris on Wednesday, 20th December, about 9.30am, for Dublin or Cork, I am not exactly sure. I did not accompany her to the airport.

During her holidays in Ireland, she would call me every day and often very late in the evening. She did not detract from that habit and called me every day and even several times a day, without ever, for one moment, intimating any problem.

On Sunday 22nd December, I was in my second home in Ambax, in Haute-Garonne, and between 11.30pm and midnight, French time, I had a call from Sophie.

I was however in a work meeting with my associates in Unifrance and I indicated to Sophie that I would call her, which I did about 12 minutes later.

When I made contact, I immediately noticed in her voice, that she was on the point of falling asleep and that she was in bed.

I think that during the conversation, she told me that.

The conversation lasted a few minutes and dealt with trivialities and on the visit she had made during the day to Mr and Mrs Ungerer, who live a few kilometres from her house.

She got to know Mr Ungerer last April and had been won over by his personality and his talents as a cartoonist. I think that he is the author of cartoons for children, but with a style more suited to adults.

According to what she told me, she had returned home about 9.30pm, I suppose the Ungerers had kept her for dinner. If not, she would have gone to a pub for a sandwich or would have had a piece of cheese and a glass of red wine.

Clearly, she was very happy with this visit and had been very ‘taken’ by Mr Ungerer, to such an extent that they formed a work project together.

I am saying that in a telephone call that I received on the morning, my wife had told me she had finally intended to return to France on 24th December and that she had been able to get a seat on a flight arriving in Toulouse at 8.00pm, though she had initially anticipated returning on 25th December.

There was no particular reason for this change of plan and it was agreed that I would meet her at Toulouse-Blagnac, on the arrival of the Aer Lingus flight.

During the last telephone conversation Sophie did not make any reference to any particular plan.

I felt she was already in her bed and was tired. I say that to my knowledge, she did not take sleeping pills. In her Irish house, Sophie would sleep wearing a night dress, T-shirt, pyjamas or other such. I know that she had communication with the occupants of two other houses.

There was no history with the English people who lived there. In the case of an altercation, Sophie had such a temperament that she could fly into a rage and was not the type to offer no resistance.

Equally, and in the same vein, I’m saying, that because of her character, my wife would not hide from any noise outside, but would rather go out to investigate. I had been able to verify that several times.

She used to frequent the local pub, whose ambience was agreeable to her, as in Paris, where she used to frequent the popular cafés.

I learned on Monday 23 December, from a news bulletin on television, that the body of my wife was found close to the house. A few hours later I was informed by the Irish authorities.

I have absolutely no idea as to the perpetrator of the crime and do not see any possible motive for such an act, other than it being an act of violence.

At no moment did she speak of receiving or inviting anybody after my telephone call.

I do not at the minute wish to say anything more.

I do not have it in mind to return to Ireland. I am ready to receive here in Paris, police officers dealing with the case, if they deem it necessary.

If the idea is it was her husband, and who else would want to hire a hitman, he would go with Hobnail MacFist?

What's the plan Hobnail?

Hobnail go to house, Hobnail shake big gate. Woman get scared. Hobnail see woman. Hobnail kill that woman.

Excellent, I love it! The cheque is in the post.

He hadn't been to the house in years. If I rang my wife and said, look there's a guy coming to look at a pipe/return a book I borrowed from the library/deliver flowers at 1am, would you mind meeting him at the gate? She would think I've lost my marbles. Daniel had no local contacts and Sophie dealt with all matters related to the house directly with Josephine.

The problem with the 'shure I'll have a go at it' hitman theory is that you get as long a sentence for conspiracy to murder as you do for actually going over there and doing it yourself. So you not only have to trust that the person won't take your money and head off to the Bahamas, you have to trust with 100% confidence they won't get caught, leave evidence, be identified, have any financial or communication links to you or tell the police everything if it goes wrong. So no, I think the idea he would go with some unknown ex-paramilitary guy who makes it up as he goes along is extremely, vanishingly remote.

Daniel lived in France, so he would have to contact someone here or someone in France, get the deal organised, get the payment organised and trust every single person in that chain with 100% certainty. It's not plausible. It's B-movie stuff.

There is a guy dropping off a script / gift ... will you bring it back to France with you. Sorry for the late hour but he got lost.

Not saying that is what happened but it shows how little of the possibiiities you have considered in your tunnel vision.

Desperate people dont act with 100 percentage certainty. If they werent desperate they wouldnt get involved in situations like that.

People are convicted for hiring hitmen to dispose of spouses... business partners etc

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_killing

'Sure ask him to leave it at the back door, this is the middle of nowhere'.

But go back to basics, why would they organise it like this in the first place and make it so convoluted? It's not Fort Knox, the windows were old wooden things that look like they were made in the 50s. It would be so much easier to say 'wait until the lights go out, give it an hour or two and then locate the key I left/pick the lock, get it done and get out'. Rather than 'I'll ring her and tell her I ordered a personalised quill pen, but the delivery guy was driving around Cork lost for five hours and won't get there till 1am. She'll see the car coming and go out to meet you, then once she sees you and your vehicle, you grab her'.

You're positing a fairly elaborate plan for a hit that looks like the act of a random lunatic and goes to some lengths to achieve that effect. If it's DTDP who orchestrates the plan, how does he end up hiring some neanderthal to implement it?

On the other hand if it's the hitman himself who has the smarts to come up with this plan, how are some of his actions so hamfisted and pitfall-prone that only a near-miraculous sequence of lucky breaks has enabled him (and his 'employer') to get away with it?

DTDP was very well connected and had the money to pay for it. It's not impossible that he did arrange it or got someone else to arrange it. You are assuming all hitmen are clever and meticulous when they are much more likely to be brainless thugs. Catherine Nevin and Patrick Gillane are 2 people here in Ireland who hired people to kill their spouses. It's does happen.

Because the French trial was based on dodgy Gardai statements and information, don't pretend you wouldn't have done the exact same thing as Ian Bailey if you were in that situation. It would take an incredibly stupid and naive person to attend that trial. People can act hard and say they would go, but when faced with guaranteed freedom or the high risk of 25 years in prison I'm pretty sure what everyone would take.

People can say "he should go and clear his name" but that's absolutely nonsense with little chance of a fair trial.

but yet they didnt want our garda investigating anything about the case in france......do you not find that strange to say the least?

They still took Marie Farrell's original statement as truth, that it was IB she saw on the bridge. Despite her retracting it publicly.

It's all well and good saying they called witnesses to testify, but you perhaps purposefully leave out that they also gave witnesses about a weeks notice before the trial was due to start, leaving little time for people to arrange flights or time off work etc. They sent summons to past addresses and to people who have died. They put basically no serious or respectful effort into the trial. If you think this trial was anything but a show trial to appease Sophie's family then you are deluded.

As spoken by his defence team.

I'm getting to grips with the site changes, haven't worked out quoting yet.

Just two points, Ian Bailey was living in Kilmacthomas until Summer 1991, so it was a bit later when he met and started going out with Jules rather than the 1989 detailed a few pages back.

From the DTDP statement,

"and between 11.30pm and midnight, French time, I had a call from Sophie."

Does that mean Ireland time was 1 hour earlier? So between 10:30 and 11. In which case she was off to bed quite early. So maybe she rose early too.

Also, it pissed off Sophie when the gate was left open, if there was drinks in Alfies after the pub around 1am etc, surely someone left the gate open. If she got up for breakfast and had saw the gate open out the window, maybe she grabbed her boots and jacket and stormed down to close it and bumped into someone leaving the party? If she made her feelings known, maybe someone saw red.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/stinking-lie-had-chilling-effect-on-baileys-life-30729191.html

They rightly concluded? Eh no. Thats not what a fair trial looks like.

They just picked the evidence to support their show trial, Bailey sending a legal team to the trial would look as though he accepted its jurisdiction. It has none. They dont care about that fundamental aspect of due process only an idiot could think the trial itself would be fair and participate in it voluntarily.

MF did not identify Ian Bailey or even describe such a man in her initial anonymous call. And we dont know how she came to identify Bailey... the Guards cant answer it and the pages covering it in the evidence book were deliberately destroyed.

If there are documented reports of witness intimidation where are the charges brought based on this intimidation?

Or do you mean Marie Farrells reports of Garda intimidation?

Or Martin Graham?

Or the atmosphere the Guards stoked up in West Cork that Bailey was a threat to residents and would strike again so come forward with anything that would incriminate him?