Murder at the Cottage | Sky

What you're describing sounds plausible. If the murder would have happened in France and French police would have investigated and most likely done a better job than the Guards in Ireland, the outcome of the trial would have been different.

However the courts in France should have dismissed this case, simply as evidence tying the murderer to the crime scene simply wasn't there, irrespective if the victim's citizenship or location/country of the murder. It's that one that gives me frightening thoughts.

Suppose, just for the exercise: In a corrupt 3rd world country, maybe somewhere in Africa, a French citizen gets murdered, local police mess up the whole investigation, miss important evidence, either by incompetence or deliberate design to protect the murderer, then try to point onto some other man, and say that case gets in front of a French court, just because the murder victim was French. Also, assume that the murder victim wasn't a wealthy French family. How would that case go different?

While the Gardai get flax (seemingly rightly so) , why does the most important person for an investigation escape scott free?

Harbison. Wouldn't travel the day of the murder being revealed because he was celebrating his birthday the night before. Murders were rare in Ireland then. A case like this, he should have announced he was on his way straight away and the scene protected. Instead we had a 24 hour delay to want seems to have been a trampled on murder scene with it impossible to then establish the likely time of death.

Just watched a programme about unidentified bodies discovered in Ireland. In the case of an unidentified women, harbison's report is not filed on record and the schull crucially lost by him. WTF!!!

The "amazing thing" is that not only was the investigation grossly incompetent, there was no evidence at all, and apparently that was "enough and beyond reasonable doubt" in France.

It was most likely Sophie's son who kept the momentum alive since the murder happend back in 1996, playing the poor little son, who had to grow up without his loving mother, who busily slept around with various men. He achieved a conviction in France by whatever influence on the judge and a Netflix documentation which seems to be pointing towards Bailey.

What he still doesn't have is evidence to tie the "evil" Bailey to the murder scene. Sophie's son also made no attempt to apply any kind of scientific approach to this? Have the house searched again professionally, for things invisible to the naked eye, something that might have been missed, blood stains, etc... Also he never made any public statement stating the lack of absence of evidence to find the killer. To Sophie's son it was apparently very clear that Bailey was the murderer, he didn't doubt that, even though he had no evidence.

Which other violence did Sophie experience in her extra marital affairs?

I think that Sophie's son is convinced of Bailey's guilt due to the Guards assurances to that effect. It is difficult to see how anyone can form the opinion that Bailey is the killer based on an objective view of the evidence currently in the public domain.

Sophie's ex lover, Bruno Carbonnet, is reported to have attempted to strangle her, until restrained by a member of the public, at a Metro Station in Paris.

Yeah, where is he getting this from??

https://twitter.com/NFoster66/status/1452605548214509576

I think that one is also partly down to the French mentality. I think they have a stronger believe in authorities in France, than there is in Ireland. Also, on the other hand, for example, suppose I would have been called up for jury duty ( don't know if it's a jury trial in this case ) and the case was presented in court, the jury heard, I could never have voted for "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" as no evidence has been heard or seen to point to Bailey being the murderer or having even been near the murder site that night.

All this in mind, I would personally never rule out the classical "avenging lover" kind of motive to Sophie's murder. Whether he did it himself, or had it done, would be a different matter, same as alibies the likes of a signature to a telephone technician. I also find it more than idiotic to attempt to strangle somebody in a public place, such as a metro station in Paris. The location couldn't have been worse, and in the worst case scenario, even back then there may have been CCTV, and then there is also the issue of getting away with it. So Bruno Carbonnet certainly wasn't the wisest in terms of planning a murder, if it had to be in a Paris metro station, if he planned at all. Her husband certainly had more motive, in regards to the life insurance on Sophie, however he probably wouldn't have had an issue that his wife was sleeping with other men, he himself slept around as well. Maybe he bought her the house, to have her away for some time, and have more time for his own philandering.

We do not know how many men she actually slept with, other than her husband. We can only guess, and all that is also only hearsay and rumors going around in the area. The only confirmed lover besides her marriage seems to be Bruno Carbonnet.

Have you got a link for the above quote from your post.

Thanks

Not if the often mentioned Guard from Bantry was the murderer, - he died around 10 years ago. Also this German musician is dead, he killed himself, after apparently having done "something terrible".

The thing is, we don't know and we can interpret as much as we like, if there is no convincing evidence any story is good, anybody could have theoretically done it, even myself...... Where was I 25 years ago? I don't know, other than I wasn't in Ireland at that time.

OK, thanks. I didn't remember exactly.

The French kiss and the invisible man.

I'd say, Nick Foster did it. He qualifies as murderer: He's English and he is a writer. Bailey had the same qualifications.

Nick Foster most likely has a commercial motive. Writing something, selling a book maximising sales figures, insisting that his theory is the only one or correct one..... The thing is, Nick Foster doesn't have anything new that we already know, and he certainly doesn't have any evidence.

What happened with Sophie's family at the trial? Not sure that's been mentioned on here before now.