Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Yes, I understand some killers or serial killers would take items from their victims. It was the gifting the items to his lover or lovers daughter and them knowing were it came from that I find farfetched.

Don't know when he was born. Bailey tweeted about his history, I believe one of his restaurants was "The Basil Bush" a name that appeals to foxy types like me.

Watch the French doc by the supercool Karl Zero Absolu. It's on Youtube. Sheridan got a lot of his interviews from it for Murder in the Cottage docu series. I don't remember how the dog died but he didn't have it the night of the 22nd.

Don't know if he spoke other languages. Seems unlikely but maybe.

Yeah, I would agree.

If the theory is that Bailey (if he is the killer) took a watch and gave it as a present to Jules or one of the daughters.... I would not be surprised.

If he told them where it came from? I'm with you. I can't see them accepting that.

The only scenario I can imagine is one in which he tells Jules, "This woman came at me with a hatchet, I had to defend myself, I had no choice" then I can possibly see her taking his side. She has, of course, a long history of taking his side and forgiving him his misdeeds when not many other women would... In that case I can see him giving her a watch to hide. (All wild speculation of course.)

Another possible scenario (if he is the killer): Bailey tells her he went out for a walk and came across a watch on the ground which he picked up. Then he saw the corpse. He took the watch because his fingerprints are on it and he is an innocent man who has inadvertently stumbled onto a crime scene. "I need you to hide this watch for me" (Again wild speculation).

Yes, unfortunately so and it's 10 years old and has a lot of errors. Being French it's quite biased against Bailey. But it's the only place I have found with interviews with lots of key people, James Camier, Father Denis Cashman, Leo Bolger, Alfie Lyons, Caroline Manguez, Daniel Toscan du Plantier etc.

Maybe it's a good excuse to brush up school French, no?

https://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/highlights-from-the-pat-kenny-show/could-we-be-approaching-arrests-in-the-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-case

About 3 mins is a bit about the watch, he talks about a person wanting to know when exactly the watch was taken from Sophie's wrist (before or after the murder) and that the person knew the colour of the watch etc. So he's either talking about someone who was in possession of the watch, or Sophies family. I don't see how anyone else could know about the watch.

But it could easily be someone who was given a watch shortly after the murder and only now is starting to wonder where the watch came from...

Or someone who saw the body had a watch on the wrist and then saw crime scene photos in which there was no watch.

I think what's happening with the Nick Foster thing is people who support Bailey are claiming Foster said things he didn't say.

For instance, there was a big deal made out of Foster saying Bailey confessed to a crime of passion. Jim SHeridan even played a tape on the Blindboy podcast triumphantly claiming he had disproved something. Bailey's supporters rejoiced and said Nick FOster lied!!

Then, I read Nick FOster's book and came to the relevant part. Foster interviews Bailey over the phone while a crew films Bailey in Ireland. Foster says he got a call after the interview from one of the crew - Sheridan's crew - who were filming Bailey and the crew member told him Bailey continued talking after the cameras were off and was talking about a crime of passion. Then Foster starts musing about the possibility of the murder being a crime of passion. At no point does he claim in the book that Bailey confessed anything.

That's what I'm saying, it sounds as though he's talking about someone who has been given the watch.

From what he says about the person wanting to know when the watch was taken, I don't think the person he's talking about knew the body had a watch on it and then saw photos without it. It sounds to me that it's either someone who was gifted the watch, or someone from Sophies life (perhaps family) that knew she had that watch. If he's hinting that the garda purposefully didn't solve the crime because of embarrassment that a watch went missing from the body then that's incredibly farfetched.

He talks about sending the person a letter confirming to them that the watch was taken at the time of the murder rather than after sophie's body was discovered. How he knows that I don't know and it would seem like guesswork to me, I'm not sure how he could confirm the watch wasn't on her body at the time Sophie was discovered. If he's working off of crime scene photos, the watch could have easily been taken by someone before the photos were taken, rather than at the time of the murder by her murderer. It's also in doubt whether the watch was ever even taken, a poster on twitter has said the watch is visible in crime scene photos in the house.

I would also doubt that her family are directing all questions about the murder to Nick Foster, but who knows.

But he does state that in the book, he clearly states that Bailey said "I did it, I killed sophie..." when on the tape he clearly doesn't say that. It's Bailey theorising that if the French police are convinced he was the murderer AND that he previously knew Sophie, why don't they charge him with a crime of passion.

It's a pretty blatant difference in what Foster wrote and what Bailey said, I don't see how anybody could see that differently.

People who think Nick Foster didn't exaggerate that part are basically accusing Jim Sheridan of lying when he played the tape on Blindboy's podcast.

Why would Sheridan call out Foster if Foster didn't make that part up.

Curious that Foster often challenges Bailey and Jim Sheridan to a TV debate, is his goal to solve the crime or to become famous and piggyback off of other peoples fame. Why does something have to be done on TV, why publicly at all if your goal is to actually bring peace and comfort to a heartbroken and mourning family.

Sheridan is a world renowned oscar nominated movie director, why would he arsed to do a live TV debate with a little known author with a pendant for joining the dots in a borderline fantasist way. There's only one person who would benefit from that, it's not Sheridan and it's certainly not Sophie's family. Who Foster claims to care so much for.

In his latest interview with Neil Prendeville, Neil asks Nick if it's the bravery of the people of West Cork that will eventually solve the crime. Nick responds by practically saying actually it will be my info.

The man comes across as desperate for fame and desperate for book sales IMO.

Foster`s biggest problem is that he is thinking out loud in the media and as far as I can see some people are attributing things to him that he hasn`t said at all and then criticizing him for saying them. He should shut up and write his book and people can then decide if he has something worthwhile to reveal or not.

But it's not just thinking out loud is it, he's reporting things as fact that he couldn't possibly know are facts. It's dangerous, irresponsible and terrible journalist ethics.

For example, he tweeted:

"The murder of #sophietoscanduplantier was, I believe, precipitated by an argument over a bottle of wine. Sophie's assailant knocked on her door in the early hours of 23/12/96. She opened it, and he saw a bottle in her porch. He picked it up, and refused to give it back."

"#sophietoscanduplantier called out "Monsieur, Monsieur!" after the man. This is not a way a French person would address a prowler or indeed a 'hitman'. It rather suggests Sophie knew her attacker. She was angry with the man for taking the bottle. He then struck her with it."

In these two tweets alone he is stating as fact that Sophie's murderer took a bottle of wine from her porch when she opened the door and beat her with it after she followed him, how could he possibly know this as fact unless the murderer told him or he witnessed it himself. He also states as fact that Sophie called out "Monsieur!" to her murderer, again he couldn't possibly know this as fact unless he was there on the night or the murderer or witness to the murder told him.

If a source told him this info, Foster should state clearly that a witness or source said this happened. Rather than him stating it as fact that this is what happened that night.

What he is doing is crossing the line from factual reporting into fantasist stuff. He is confusing his role as a journalist/author with a joining the dots armchair detective IMO. If a poster in here put those tweets as a comment they would be quite rightly called out and asked how the F*ck could you possibly know that.

Wasn't Finbarr Hellen already in the area by noon, and approached the crime scene when he noticed the Garda activity?

If his visit with his son on the previous Saturday took them close enough to Sophie's house to be able to see her inside

it's a fair bet his Monday morning visit would have taken the same route.