Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Ungerer was a pensioner in 1996. If you could show that he was a violent man and assaulted his wife then you might have something. Men tend to think about sex a lot. Few are talented enough to transfer those thoughts onto paper like he did. At age 65, I seriously doubt the testosterone was raging inside of him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYcAccrxwc

The act does, the drawing of it doesn`t. What is your point exactly?

Change the subject why don`t ya

Was there anything about potential Garda impropriety or the curious case of Nick Foster in that documentary or was it relevant in some obscure way?

You can say that with a straight face?

Why do you believe that any new investigation or cold case review should be mostly concerned with investigating the Gardai involved in the investigation to try to determine amongst other things why someone like Bailey was made the no. 1 suspect with zero hard evidence?

She could not have travelled on Christmas Day as "anticipated" there are no flights out of Dublin Christmas Day. And I just realised he says this call was IN THE MORNING.

Daniel is probably mixed up about what she told him. There was never an intention to travel on the 25th. She arrived with two return tickets, 23rd and 24th.

In his statement he makes it clear, there was a phone call on the morning of the 22nd when she talked about the flights. And another phone call on the night of the 22nd which is the one we are all familiar with.

Daniel TduP couldn't be arsed to travel to the place of his wife's demise.

That's what Ian Bailey says. And in his reporting, just after the murder, Ian claimed Daniel did not travel to Ireland because he had too many business commitments in France. No indication as to how Bailey got this information or if he just made it up himself. Meanwhile, Sophie's family say he did not travel because he was in no fit state emotionally to travel.

Personally, I think he may have suspected Sophie was murdered by a boyfriend/lover in Ireland and that might explain his reluctance to travel straight after the murder.

He lied about arranging to meet her at Toulouse airport on a flight from Dublin on Christmas Day.

No, if you read his statement you will see he says they arranged that he would meet her in Toulouse on 24th when her plane arrived.

Daniel: "I am saying that in a telephone call that I received on the morning, my wife had told me she had finally intended to return to France on 24 December and that she had been able to get a seat on a flight arriving in Toulouse at 8 p.m., though she had initially anticipated returning on 25 December. There was no particular reason for this change of plan and it was agreed that I would meet her at Toulouse–Blagnac, on the arrival of the Aer Lingus flight. During the last telephone conversation, Sophie did not make any reference to any particular plan."

He says Aer Lingus, but how would he know which airline it was. She bought the tickets. He is assuming Aer Lingus because... Ireland.

If being a rotten partner indicates guilt then look no further than Daniel.

The way you are speaking about Daniel, it is like you are channelling the comments Ian Bailey has made about him over the years. You and Bailey share the exact same sentiment about Daniel.

• MF her contempt for the court and lack of will from AGS or the courts to put her behind bars where she should have gone (suggests she's was with AGS member hence protection from law)
• This is an interesting one. Marie Farrell hasn't really changed her story... not by much.... She still said she saw the mysterious man in the black coat outside her shop, on the road in the morning and at Kealfadda... The only change she made is in claiming now it was definitely not Ian Bailey. So it would be difficult for her to be prosecuted for this. We know prosecuting her was looked into, it was reported in the papers. But I would say they didn't prosecute because they didn't want all the hassle and would be unable to prove it. In a perjury case, you have to prove intentional lying under oath. And perjury is very rarely prosecuted anyway unless it is very obvious.
• Interestingly, Marie had trouble with the gards in 2004. She claims they were harassing her and her son. She was stopped for driving without insurance on the very same day she contacted Bailey's lawyers. That's the point where she started claiming all this stuff. We know from Geraldine O'Brien that MF told her she would be getting a cut of Ian Bailey's millions when he sued the state. Bailey's lawyers would have explained to her how to change her story without leaving herself open to prosecution.
• MF and the house she and CF built from zero no mortgage no nothing (suggests proceeds of crime)
• Well, I only know what I read in GSOC. That the politician said the gard never met with him. That MF received no special treatment. That the politician said everything was done according to normal process and he was not pressured by anyone.
• The house keeper Josephine Hellen pointing the finger at AL for using the bath (suggests willingness to break laws and also that JH had reason to distrust him)
• This only happened once and could only have happened at the latest in the summer of 1993. Also, we are not given any reason for her thinking it was Alfie. It could have been anyone and it may not have even happened, since she could have forgotten to clean the bath or Bruno could have dirtied it himself.
• The lack of any into on AF before he moved to Schull and bought the Basil Brush (suggests lack of AGS will to actually look anywhere but IB)
• Do you mean a lack of information on the internet when you search? We only started using the internet properly in ireland around 1997/1998. Prior to that I would be surprised if any random person's information was on the internet.
• Body not moved to mortuary as requested by state pathologist (willingness of AGS to allow forensics to disappear)
• I think this was a garda in charge who thought the best course of action was for the body to be examined in situ (which usually is what they do for best results). The pathologist told them to take the body to the mortuary just because he would be delayed. There was a murder case in the UK in 2010 - The murder of Joanna Yeates - The woman's body was found outside in freezing conditions in December. The forensics team had to decide whether to remove the body or examine it in situ. They said it was much of a muchness because they were afraid of losing evidence either way. They decided the best course of action was to leave the body there where it was found overnight and do the evidence collection there. They ended up getting a very low level DNA sample that matched one of the suspects and solved the case.
• I think the gard in charge in Sophie's case insisted on leaving the body there because he thought that was the best chance to collect any evidence that might be on the body.
• Fiesta sightings prior to murder no re-enactment on crimewatch but poorly discredited (suggests willingness from AGS to ignore obvious lead and is also typical AGS car at time)
• This one deserves a much longer answer. Isn't the source of this information Ian Bailey. I don't think it has appeared independently. Just what he claims is in the garda evidence.
• The witness supposedly said he saw a car driving fast on a different road around 7:30am before the body was discovered. To even believe this is related, we would have to believe Sophie was murdered a little while before this car was supposedly seen. The pathologist says she was killed around 2am. For her to be killed at 7am and be already in rigor mortis at 10:30am would be unbelievable since it was near zero temperatures which delays rigor mortis a hell of a lot. For example, in the case of Joanna Yeates in the UK, the body was found 3 days after the murder around Christmas in freezing conditions. The body only went through rigor mortis after they removed it from the scene and before the pathologist was able to examine it. That's an example of how temperature affects rigor mortis.
• AGS bribing of witnesses (will at all costs from AGS to frame IB. They are incredibly aware they have no case, and have no interest in catching real killer)
• Another one that deserves a much longer answer. I think a lot of people hear that Martin Graham was given some money and some clothes by the gardai and think that is bribery. Most people don't realize that the gards commonly give "operational expenses" to informants. It is not illegal, nor is it bribery. It is how the gards normally operate with informants. They give the informant money out of pocket and then the gards claim this money back from the state.
• In this case, I do believe they gave Martin Graham some small amounts of hash from the evidence room. This is not allowed and they broke the rules doing this. I think their intention was that Graham would meet Bailey, they would smoke hash and Bailey would confide in Graham, possibly giving a confession. This was their intention. We know Graham gave them some evidence from Bailey and told them to plant it in order to implicate Bailey. We know the gards got angry with him for this suggestion and told him that was not what they wanted. They wanted him to ingratiate himself with Bailey and if Bailey confessed, to record it.
• AL drug infringements and past history of growing (willing to deal or dabble in drugs)
• Alfie grew hash, I am sure he grew it to smoke himself and I am sure he sold a bit here and there to people he knew as well, but he was not a drug dealer in the real sense. We know Bailey smoked hash prior to the murder. Where did he get it? Probably from his friend Alfie. In Schull, how could there be any big drug scene? How many people lived in the area? About 200. Most of these were tourists. So about 100 permanently lived there. Most of them older people. Of these, how many smoked hash regularly? Not nearly enough to make a business out of selling drugs. Barely any...
• STDP drugs complains
• We know from a recent Irish Times article that the gards say Sophie never made any complaint about anything to the gards. There was never any reason to think she did.
• AL and STDP tension over the gate, access issues, shed issues etc.,
• I think it would be very hard to get pissed off over access issues with a woman who was only in the country 4 weeks a year maximum. In 1996, she was only in the country 2 weeks in Spring and the few days she was here in December. Josie said there was no tension over these issues and they were all sorted easily and amicably. And she was in a position to know.
• AGS tampering with Job books (AGS very aware casework won't stand up to scrutiny and is again willing to break law to prevent poor casework becoming criminal matter)
• This happened. It's in GSOC. I don't know why someone would do this. All I can think of is the gards didn't want to give the DPP evidence of other early suspects. So they tore out the pages associated with those suspects. Which would be illegal and wrongdoing.
• The jobs books just contain info about the jobs the gardai carry out. Just to clarify, it is not a book of evidence. It is a book of actions to be carried out and the reasons for those actions. ... for example, checking out the sighting of Sophie at the petrol station. That would be written down in the job book and assigned to a gard.
• It's interesting to note that in GSOC, they say that there was a previous review of the garda job books in 2002 and that prior review did not find any pages to be missing. GSOC says that the prior review would have noticed if there were pages missing, which indicates that the missing pages disappeared many years after the murder, long after the case was defunct. So if the missing pages indicate garda wrongdoing, it had to have happened at the very earliest, sometime after 2002, or thereabouts. When nobody had any intention of bringing a case against Ian Bailey