Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Options
1222223225227228350

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,391 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    Your posting and theory is only as good or bad as all the other theories. None of us were actually there and the "it could have been" is actually a very wide variety of options. Evidence to link the murderer to the weapon or crime scene was never found, and we are barely speculating on the motive. In the end, we've got absolutely nothing at all, only indications but no proof. I would however agree with most user's previous posts that Alfie and Shirley would have been at least equally suspect as Ian and Jules and would have to have had stronger background investigation. One would also have to question whether Shirley really found the body where it was or if it was moved, and if so by whom ( her husband? ) and why? The blood on the door and the blood on the gates certainly bring up a lot of questions, if the body was between the two places.

    And suspecting somebody doesn't automatically make them murderer. Suspecting also can mean to investigate and to exclude somebody, to narrow the field of possibilities. And yes, there would have been every reason to also suspect Alfie and Shirley. Regardless of closed windows that night, wind, or deep sleep, it's hard to imagine they didn't hear anything if a woman was fighting for her life and screaming on top of her lungs, and regarding sleep, even that is often hard to prove as well, some people are light sleepers some not.

    I honestly couldn't see a PI killing Sophie and also don't think that the PI theory is very realistic. The PI would have been hired by Daniel, to investigate, and nothing more, he would have been paid more than well by Daniel for "pictures in back and white or colour". Maybe it was really an argument and a brawl getting out of hand, as Sophie discovered the PI? Yes it could have been, but can we prove it? Certainly not. Yes, Daniel and Sophie were considering a divorce, Daniel knew that his wife was having affair after affair, so why send a PI after her to confirm what he already knew. ( Sophie most likely knew the same about her husband ) The whole PI theory is a bit far fetched in my opinion, but I also wouldn't rule it out, same as all the other theories we have.

    The Sheridan documentary mentioned "forensics investigating the scene". I would be inclined to think that forensics were from further afield from the next bigger Garda station, thus they would not have been a corrupt local Gard. Thus it is really possible that there was absolutely no evidence found, and not a case of deliberately not looking.....



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    To state that the severity of the violence indicates a personal interest is simply wrong and is disproven both by e.g. road rage incidents and serial killer de-personalisation attempts.

    It is supported by some profilers who say over a certain number of blows or stabs wounds is personal. you could say it is guesswork but so is road rage serial killer depersonalisation



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,159 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    It was asked if it was an axe or a poker that went missing. Could it be a combination as below?





  • Registered Users Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭chicorytip


    I think a forensics team from Dublin travelled down to carry out tests. This was mentioned in the Netflix documentary. The lead detective in the unit was interviewed about this and also spoke about the examination he carried out on the scene of the fire lit, allegedly by Bailey, at the rear of Thomas' studio on either the 24th or 26th of December. It was suspected he may have been destroying evidence linking him to the crime, namely the black coat and other items of clothing. No admisssable evidence was discovered, only some buttons.



  • Registered Users Posts: 662 ✭✭✭mamboozle


    "Sophie was disturbed, that is clear."

    You have no evidence for this but it's just one more thing you say like it was fact.

    'Evidence' isn't required for Guards to seek search warrants. Alfie's admission of having been at the backdoor of Sophie's house could be construed as an attempt to cover for himself allowing a Guard to believe a crime may have been committed and so having grounds to seek a search warrant.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 29,418 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Or it means you've read something by one of those profilers and taken away the idea that to make something look like a crime of passion, inflict many wounds- This is actually a plot point in a TV series I watched recently and am sure has popped up in books and media since profiling became a thing.

    General query - We don't know how many wounds were actually inflicted by the attacker? There were 40-50 wounds identified on the body but it's not clear how many came from briars, barbed wire, or a single blow could have caused multiple wounds.

    There were items missing from the cottage - a poker and an axe? So either Sophie brought them out with her to confront someone and was dispossessed of them and then assaulted with them, OR the assailant was in the cottage and picked them up to use - somehow leaving no trace in the cottage (or outside). The former seems more likely to me.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,248 ✭✭✭nc6000


    I find the buttons claim to be a bit odd as it means they must have been metal. What sort of overcoat has metal buttons?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,775 ✭✭✭lintdrummer


    Not unheard of, I've had one with brass like buttons myself at some stage.




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Yes i did read that. And you have read something about road rage drivers/ serial killers.

    It was they who said over certain amount meant it was personal.I don't say i believe it. just it is theory like your idea. One is as possible as the other

    To state that the severity of the violence indicates a personal interest is simply wrong and is disproven both by e.g. road rage incidents and serial killer de-personalisation attempts

    No more simply wrong that what i read is simply right



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


     I would be inclined to think that forensics were from further afield from the next bigger Garda station

    They were from the Garda Technical Bureau in Dublin including Detective Gilligan, who went through the remains of the fire, and Dr James Donovan , the man Martin Cahill targeted with a car bomb

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,695 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    "It is surprising that Shirley has hardly ever received any attention at all really as a witness.. I assume the Guards interviewed her at length about Sophie and yet I don't know of any quotes or information that has come from Shirley. "


    Shirley was a just retired teacher from East London,

    she came to live out her retirement in West Cork with Alfie.

    She most likely did her speaking to the investigators, told the truth and stuck to it, really boring as far as this forum is concerned.

    A Bailey or Farrell she was not.

    What kind of "quotes or information" would you expect from her?



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,418 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    While it might suggest or indicate a personal interest but its not the case that it *must* be personal. That is simply wrong.

    We cant rule it in or rule it out.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users Posts: 662 ✭✭✭mamboozle




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    How do you think Gardai apply for warrants then if they don't need evidence? They need information or fact beyond their own belief that would convince an objective person



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I didn't say is must be personal i said i read it from a profiler that it was personal . you said

    To state that the severity of the violence indicates a personal interest is simply wrong and is disproven both by e.g. road rage incidents and serial killer de-personalisation attempts.

    It is not disproven no more that what i said is proven. you said disproven both by e.g. road rage incidents and serial killer de-personalisation attempts .

    as if it were fact. it is not. It cannot be ruled in or out .Both are just theories



  • Registered Users Posts: 662 ✭✭✭mamboozle


    What's the name of the planet you're living on?

    Jules Thomas was arrested illegally according to the DPP. The Guards said "And?"



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    what i posted is the law from a book written by a barrister. to say they can get warrant without evidence is nonsense. your comment is childish. If that were true the drugs squad could kick your door in anytime with no sworn objective information

    if i am wrong you tell us how the garda get warrants. what is the process? what do they need?



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭chicorytip


    Maybe some types of overcoat do or else they were standard plastic but did not burn or melt fully in the fire. It would not have been an intense high flaming fire, I would say.



  • Registered Users Posts: 662 ✭✭✭mamboozle


    what evidence do the drug squad have to search a premises if the drugs are what they are looking for? eh?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    They need information or fact beyond their own belief that would convince an objective person that there are drugs to be found which is sworn to a judge or PC. Without that they cannot even get into the house. Going to a judge with i think mamboozle has dope in his house won't do.

    I think you should read the law re search warrants.

    you tell us how do the garda get a warrant if i am wrong and post the process



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭Polly701


    I'd like to know if Shirley thought there might be someone using the house when Sophie was away.. And any ideas on who it might be? Had Alfie or Shirley ever noticed lights or any sort of activity at times when Sophie wasn't there?

    Are they usually such sound sleepers? If Bailey committed this murder he would have been loud.. And Sophie must have been screaming.

    I'd like to know more detail about why Alfie had referred to Sophie as being a bit of a pain? Was there really an ongoing disagreement about gate etc. Or is that just a rumour?

    Was Alfies hand bandaged on the morning of the 23rd? And why? Apparently it was a dog bite but they didn't have a dog at the time?

    Did Alfie and Shirley have a view on why Sophie didn't run towards their house? Did they give any insight about the pile of rocks near the bloody gate (that were shown in a photo a few pages back on this thread).

    I'd love to know who Shirley thinks may have committed the murder. Yes, it's speculation but it's with the added insight of someone who knew Sophie and knew the locality.

    Jules told a 'boring truth' too of just going to bed.. Until she was arrested and grilled by Guards in a stressful setting. I have no idea if Alfie or Shirley were in any way involved or if they ever knew more than they let on but they were the closest neighbours and we know very, very little about them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 662 ✭✭✭mamboozle


    now you're getting there. Information? Read back. An admission of having been at the back door of the house of a murder victim, for whatever reason, during what may be the time that murder occurred, allows any Guard to believe a crime may have been committed and so have grounds to seek a search warrant. But in any case in a country where these things have never been questioned, as in arresting Jules Thomas for murder, the legal niceties are rarely an obstruction.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Was Shirley in any of the documentaries i cannot remember



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    you said they do not need evidence to get a warrant, That is nonsense.



  • Registered Users Posts: 662 ✭✭✭mamboozle


    Here's what I said:

    " 'Evidence' isn't required for Guards to seek search warrants ". You understand the single commas?



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,610 ✭✭✭yaboya1




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    What does it tell us about our police system that the law enforcement officers named in this DPP report, documented and recorded, engaging in inappropriate and very likely illegal activity in the course of an investigation, received absolutely no sanction whatsoever? If they are still alive they are enjoying their generous pensions right now.

    Again, these Gaurds are named in this report, yet none were investigated, fired or prosecuted.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    they might have fallen to the ground when the coat burned



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,695 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    "allows any Guard to believe a crime may have been committed and so have grounds to seek a search warrant. "

    Any Guard?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 662 ✭✭✭mamboozle


    I think if you read the DPP's report, there is an acceptance of the truthfulness of statements made by Ian Bailey and Jules Thomas where there would have been no particular reason or benefit for them to lie yet they are contradicted by Alfie and Shirley. This makes me wonder about A&S's motive or whether they were under pressure to say certain things



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement