Murder at the Cottage | Sky

The donkey said to the tiger:

- "The grass is blue".

The tiger replied:

- "No, the grass is green."

The discussion heated up, and the two decided to submit him to arbitration, and for this they went before the lion, the King of the Jungle.

Already before reaching the forest clearing, where the lion was sitting on his throne, the donkey began to shout:

- "His Highness, is it true that the grass is blue?".

The lion replied:

- "True, the grass is blue."

The donkey hurried and continued:

- "The tiger disagrees with me and contradicts and annoys me, please punish him."

The king then declared:

- "The tiger will be punished with 5 years of silence."

The donkey jumped cheerfully and went on his way, content and repeating:

- "The Grass Is Blue"...

The tiger accepted his punishment, but before he asked the lion:

- "Your Majesty, why have you punished me?, after all, the grass is green."

The lion replied:

- "In fact, the grass is green."

The tiger asked:

- "So why are you punishing me?".

The lion replied:

- "That has nothing to do with the question of whether the grass is blue or green. The punishment is because it is not possible for a brave and intelligent creature like you to waste time arguing with a donkey, and on top of that come and bother me with that question."

The worst waste of time is arguing with the fool and fanatic who does not care about truth or reality, but only the victory of his beliefs and illusions. Never waste time on arguments that don't make sense... There are people who, no matter how much evidence and evidence we present to them, are not in the capacity to understand, and others are blinded by ego, hatred and resentment, and all they want is to be right even if they are not.

When ignorance screams, intelligence is silent. Your peace and quiet are worth more.........

When all the drivel has been edited out of 'The Big Interview', we are left with two things that Bailey stated were relevant:

1) The person (Gard?) from Bantry that is now deceased

2) The speeding blue car

I guess we can all agree that nobody has more knowledge of this case than Bailey himself, given that he would have been privy to all the legal documentation during his harassment by the Gard's and subsequent legal cases.

So how did he reach such a conclusion? I would suggest that nobody has researched this case as meticulously as he has (for obvious reasons)?

I was surprised to hear him state that the Gard's had a partial number plate of the alleged vehicle... Is this correct??

I would have loved to have heard his reasoning behind these statements. I understand that he cannot name & shame anybody on television (exception allowed only for the late late show and Visiting state leaders), but he could have quite easily been coaxed to give more details and explanations with regards to his theories..

Instead we were forced to listen to the interviewer asking how man drinks he had.. What his income is.. Why retweet pictures of bimbo's.. Where you living now..

Jesus Christ.. If anybody thinks that was a professional interview, you need your head examining.

Even I could have got more out of him than that. He was there to refute / counter, the recent public statements made against him (Sophie's Son / French PM)

Golden opportunity missed. Oven 98% of what she preened out of Bailey was already in the public domain anyway. Big Interview my arse!

too many to quote (even if I could).. those are just my thoughts/feelings on it - i guess we will never know.... RIP Sophie.. and sincerest condolences to her family and friends..

'' I have no evidence (cos the guards messed all that up) but I think and feel he did it ''

The above is your first sentence after the three nonsensical points that you scribbled down...

Just to be polite before some other poster points out the obvious:

1) When asked if he prays for Sophie - Bailey replies 'I pray for her' *Play the tape back and listen before posting.

2) Gave him the opportunity to talk to the nation..?? Didn't look into the camera like Pierre Louis did..??? Are you for real?? Presidents address the Nation and trained actors look into the camera... What are you trying to insinuate here..?? Do you conclude his guilt by these actions? May I point you towards your first sentence again, please read and digest.

3) He contradicted himself again about knowing Sophie... ? No he didn't! He gave the same response he gave 25yrs ago.....??

Again, may I direct you to the first sentence to scribbled after the three silly points you made.

Go Away!

He may indeed have - the teary gaze into the camera, coupled with sincere tones, has been employed many times by people seeking assistance in solving the very crimes that they themselves committed.

For whatever reason, he didn't go for the cheap shot.

My instinct is that he's innocent, the role seems very comfortable to him.

Add the cases handled by the state claims agency too who also deal in Garda malpractice.

Average is well over 100 per year. And that's just those who decide to fight against the blue glue.

I would say these are the only two takeaways from that interview.

If it was the Guard from Bantry and it was him speeding away in the blue Fiesta, than the whole story would indeed point more towards an involvement with a drug ring and police corruption wanting Sophie dead.

At a stage where we are now, with evidence either lost or not available, time elapsed, memories fading and neighbours or suspects dead, there is so little focus on motive of the murder.

What is mentioned in the Netflix documentary is that Daniel Toscan du Plantier had financial problems, the divorced wife having the right to half of his estate, and there was a life insurance premium to be paid, upon his wife's death. This would unfortunately be a very "classical motive" in any murder case.

Where are you getting the figures though? The State Claims Agency handles a large number of claims relating to road traffic accidents involving gardai on official business, items lost or stolen in garda stations, personal injury etc. How do you come to the 100 malpractice claims per year?

I would never rule out the "French hitman theory".

I would also believe that Daniel Toscan du Plantier had more money to lose in a divorce than the ones involved the "local drug business" theory. And then there was the insurance policy to be paid in the event of her death. Netflix mentions that as well, same as Daniel Toscan du Plantier having to an unspecified extent "financial problems".

The financial motive for murder would in the French hitman theory certainly have been the highest.

I also disagree with both the Netflix as well as the Jim Sheridan documentary that the house of Sophie would be "hard to find for an outsider".

Detailed maps would have been available of the area back then in 1996, plus a hitman would have had very clear instructions on how to find the house as well in order of not to miss and get the job done. The hitman would most certainly even have received a picture of the house.

If the hitman would have travelled from France but changed planes, let's say in Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, etc... this person would most likely have slipped Garda enquiries. Booking flights but specifically changing flights was possible back then.

Brining a weapon in would have been too risky. Thus a murder weapon would have to be found locally. Sure, a hitman could have bought a decent size knife to stab her. Regarding the stone, I'd say the hitman would have to have been to the house at least some time before the murder, to find out whether a "suitable" weapon would be there. The "advantage" of using the stone to bash her head in, would have been that if it came unexpected, she would have lost consciousness and not screamed the place down. If a knife would have been used, the chances of her screaming would have been higher.

The only thing that doesn't fit into the French hitman theory is: It is largely understood that Sophie would have answered the door to somebody she knew, or thought she knew. She could hardly have known the hitman or his voice.

Hypothetically I was thinking if IB did stop at Hunter's Hill and say "Looks like Alfie's having a party" maybe Alfie was having a party.

If Sophie was in fact going to get up early to get to Cork Airport for the Paris flight maybe she didn't want the noise of a party keeping her awake.

So she put her boots on and went up to knock on his door. Somebody at the party (fill in any suspect) argued with her and chased her back to her house.

Instead of going to the door she had come out of (with the keys in it) she went to the other door where the kindling axe was. Violence increased and she was knocked out or killed at that door.

The perp goes back to the party. It is decided to take the body down to the gate to divert suspicion. Instead of going down the lane they pull and drag down the sloping field as a trail of blood down the road would be too obvious.

If Sophie was running how was she face up for the coup de grace? A person running would fall forwards face down.

And the body is left at the side of the lane and the gate open to let the partygoers drive away.

So it could be someone unknown at the party but once involved in a conspiracy Alfie had to throw the suspicion on someone else.

All hypothetical as I said.

yeah - it's his job to come up with "hard evidence" on an alternative suspect 😂

have a word with yourself

Ceri Williams saw Sophie in Schull on the Saturday as well as Maria Farrell. Ceri says she almost bumped into Sophie coming out of Spar and Ian Bailey was across the road at the time. Dan Griffin also made a statement that he saw IB in Schull around that time.

Do you have information that suggests Richie and Rosie Shelley, Helen Callanan, James Camier, Ceri Wiliams, Yvonne Ungerer, the two neighbours who said there was a fire behind the studio on St. Stephen's Day, the shop assistant in the creamery who saw scratches on IB's hands while he was buying bleach on Christmas Eve, Guy Girard in France, the Guardian correspondent (Webster?), Ariana Boarina, Jules' daughter who said they were out that morning etc. etc. were involved in drugs in the local area? Or are you just dismissing them because they are inconvenient for your argument?