Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Why hasn’t anybody here suggested Bill Hogan? They were friends, and he’s very anti Ian Bailey

Why not....?

Does that make you a murderer??

Actually... you're right. He lit a fire and bought some bleach..

Should be hung - No doubt about it!

Too me, them two points seal the deal. He did it!

Thanks for bringing this thread to a successful conclusion. At least now we know it was definitely Bailey.

Jesus Christ spare me these people...

It seems strange that the gate was never deemed to be of any value. Even if it is the case that only Sophies blood was found on it, at the very least there would be a number of fingerprints on there. Her own obviously but also her neighbours would be on there too and others aswell potentially. The like of Leo who would be attending to the horses and visiting Alfie. Most fingerprints would be around the catch to open the gate so could it be determined who's fingerprints were on top, as in who touched the gate most recently? Might not point to the murderer, as they may never have had to touch it, but at the very least it would be a line of enquiry.

Ok. The Fire story. Along with the scratches. These are things that Jules Thomas said didn't happen. Is she an accessory to Murder?

I've been trying to find a screenshot but can't find one from the Netflix series where they showed the remains of the fire. I agree that it looks very odd, the fire was right outside the door. Crazy having a fire so close to the house especially if it was to burn something big like a mattress. At the very least it looks a bit crap having a big burnt patch right outside the door.

Maybe to prevent it being seen? It looks like there's another house directly behind the 'studio' house, maybe another one north of it too?

Maybe not to destroy the grass. Also that is probobly not the first bonfire ever had at the property so perhaps that's just where the bonfire takes place. So the bonfire prior to that one may have been in the exact same spot but prior to any murder.

You have excluded one possibility here. She just thinks he didn`t do it and she is prepared to fib a bit to help what is in her mind an innocent man. He probably never confessed to her that he did it. He certainly wouldn`t have returned to a house full of people covered in blood stained clothes when he could have went to the studio down the road to clean up. She hasn`t a clue what he was up to during the 8 or 9 hours he was out of bed and had no reason not to believe he was writing his article. She believes him. Plenty here seem to too.

There is no doubt there were scratches on his hands and a scratch on his forehead. The question is when, how and why there might be confusion? Any time the family ask about the scratches he tells them the xmas tree, the turkeys etc. So for a few weeks nobody thinks anything about that until the Gardaí come knocking and get specific....."Ah yes....but when did ye all first notice the scratches? Was it before or after the night of the 22nd?" Jules acknowledges that she didn`t notice the scratch on his head until after the murder. She just accepts that it was there and she didn`t see it because his hair was covering it.

It is possible that Jules didn`t have clear memory of the timing of events on the 23rd and 24th and allowed herself to be led by Bailey on it. In the days after the murder he had to build a timeframe as best he could around when he first heard about the murder from Cassidy. This included putting Jules in Goleen on the 24th rather than the 23rd. But James Camier, the vegetable seller in Goleen has been specific in both his statement and also under cross examination by Bailey`s counsel. Jules Thomas was the first person to tell him about the murder on the morning of the 23rd before 11-30. From 2pm on the 23rd the murder was national news.

It is virtually impossible that James Camier has his dates mixed up and didn`t hear about the murder for another 24 hours. The same would apply to Bill Fuller.

I wasn`t replying to your last post.

No bother

Makes complete sense. I'd say if he was sill in bed with Jules at 2.30 am and that can be said reliably by the daughter, it's extremely difficult for Bailey to actually complete the murder in time, and not making use of a car. The main reason, why I think that Bailey is innocent is that no traces of him have been found at the murder scene, no fingerprints, no DNA, no hair, no fiber from his clothes, he also wasn't seen by anybody there. To date we also have no real credible motive for Bailey for the murder.

However regarding time frame it would still have been possible:

If the daughter was then asleep by 3.00 am, Bailey would sneak out of the house, to make it to Sophie at 4.00 am at the earliest. Would Sophie even have opened him the door at this time of the hour, not recognizing his voice? Suppose the bashing of Sophie's head was 10 to 15 minutes after meeting Bailey at the door. Bailey would then hiked home, blood all over himself, have returned home by 5.00 am at the earliest, most likely 6.00 am, shower at the studio, put on new clothes, clean up the mess, and be done by around 7.00 am in the morning. ( It would still have been dark at this time of the year...) Friends showing up at Jules house not before 9am, I would guess?

As pointed out by others above, there are conflicting accounts all over this case. That doesn't mean they are deliberately lying or covering up for someone. According to some there's a long list of witnesses in this case and most, if not all of them, were coerced or wanted to ingratiate themselves with the gardai for selfish reasons. It seems incredible that they would maintain this knowing someone could spend years in prison, right up until GSOC interviewed them again between 2102 and 2107/2018. It's not for me to say who is lying, that's for a jury or a judge. I know during the libel trial, the judge felt the witnesses for the newspapers, whom the DPP wrote off, were more convincing under cross examination and the judge accepted they were telling the truth.

The problem is that Ian Bailey's limited "freedom" hangs by the thin thread that Ireland won't extradite him on a European arrest warrant. This is regardless of the question whether the trial in France was fair or not. Bailey can in my understanding only roam around Ireland freely and quite possibly can't even return to his native UK, as the UK authorities would quite possibly have to extradite him to France as well?

The main question which will be on Bailey's constant mind, is how long can the Republic of Ireland stay steadfast on this, plus I am sure that there will be general international pressures for Ireland to change this attitude, regardless of the Sophie Toscan du Plantier murder case or not.

And now, 25 years on, any kind of a fair re-trial with evidence and witnesses seems impossible. To date there is also nothing, not a single piece of evidence, that ties Bailey to the murder scene. And then there is the legal cost as well, plus Bailey seems to have unpaid legal bills from previous trials in Ireland as well?

Where did Jules' daughter come home from in the early hours of the 23rd? Would she have passed Ian if he was making his way towards Sophie's house? Is this the same daughter that contradicts Jules' statement that she didn't leave the house on the morning of the 23rd? If so she would likely say if she had seen somebody on the road as she was coming home.

With regard to the fire: If Bailey is the culprit, then like others have said he likely went back to the studio after the murder. Maybe he climbed into bed there, still in his clothes. Hence the need to burn the mattress and bed clothes. Bleach to clean up the room once the bed etc. was destroyed?

Just a theory to counter the arguments I've seen that say the stuff that is known to have been burned is not relevant to the murder.

Like I've said before I'm on the fence as to whether he did it or not.