Murder at the Cottage | Sky

People are still getting snagged on the simplist of concepts . . .

As a journalist, Bailey needed to "ham up" the extent of his local knowledge

As a suspect, he needed to "play down" his knowledge of what happened

Who wouldn't ???

All Marie is now is someone coming back to haunt the Guards. She won't be required if it's determined, as is likely, that this friend of Daniel's was around. But you know that

Alfie Lyons is talking absolute nonsense with his 90% claim that he introduced them. Never in my life have I come across someone who was only partially sure they introduced someone to another person

You are not familiar with witness statements in crime cases? Witnesses regularly talk about how sure they are of the claim they are making. It's not in any way unusual.

Generally, a witness saying they are "at least 90% certain" would tend to indicate the witness is trying to be accurate about their degree of certainty.

Alfie Lyons, at the libel trial in 2003 testified under oath that he was "at least 90 per cent certain" that he had introduced Ms Toscan du Plantier to Mr Bailey one day, in the summer of 1995. He had asked Mr Bailey to help tidy up the garden and Sophie came to his house when Bailey was working in his garden. “Well I thought about this quite often [whether Mr Bailey had met Ms Toscan du Plantier], and when I think about it, I see Sophie Toscan du Plantier coming up to the house as she invariably did when she arrived, just to say ‘Hello’. As best as my memory serves me, she came up to the house and Mr Bailey was working close by in the garden and, as I would at any time if somebody arrived into the house or up to the property, I would always introduce them to the person who was there with me. As far as I can recollect I did introduce him to Sophie Toscan du Plantier,” said Mr Lyons.

He explained it again in the Murder at the Cottage documentary:

"He was here, doing the gardening. I had mentioned to him, I said, "Sophie is down in the house now." And then she came up and I introduced her to Bailey. I said, This is Ian Bailey and he's been doing some gardening work for me, you know. So he came over and shook hands with her and that was it. When it became important, after Sophie was murdered, when I was asked about it, I was, you know, I could remember it, and yet memory is such an elusive thing that you can't always be sure what you're remembering is what happened. I could only say that I remembered it. I was 90 percent sure that that was what happened."

Hypothetically if a judge was a practicing homosexual between 1988 and 1993 (when homosexuality was legalised in Ireland) that judge would be breaking the law. If members of AGS knew of his lawbreaking and took no action they would be perverting the course of justice. So the hypothetical judge would be in thrall to AGS and the AGS to him.

And the judge and the guards would be open to blackmail by anybody who knew.

The Guards are always going to be 'only doing their best' so it's not their fault when their witnesses aren't completely reliable. Plausible deniability is starting to become visible so are we nearing an end game where the truth is about to come out? It was always possible with things like Alfie's 90% recollection but today it's being put out there that Yvonne Ungerer's testimony might have been a reason for the Guard's being over-confident they had their man, so she is the one at fault for not having Bailey's admission verbatim.(OR had other reasons?)

If STDP's killer couldn't be found initially it was all the fault of John Harbison and an unsatisfactory preservation of evidence because of his absence.

If it turns out that the killer is someone other than who the Guards had been sure it was, Ian Bailey, it will be because of unreliable witnesses who for whatever reason were not truthful with the Guards or were driven by some dislike of Bailey.

Only doing their best. The show must go on.

I'm not saying the evidence was lost, I'm saying there is a received wisdom the investigators were happy to allow the public believe.

If DNA left at the scene were to match with that of someone in France who has never before been in the picture, things will move quickly. I believe that the idea that there was someone with Sophie is credible and it is inconceivable that people in her close circle didn't know about it. If this turns out to be the case, one has to think it must be the reason for the Gardai request to their French counterparts, some people have a lot of explaining to do.

I guess if he (or anyone else) was giving different answers in different interviews they would be accused of changing their story and people would be focussing on any inconsistencies.

Or if you are about to do a skydive and you ask the instructor if all safety precautions have been followed. When he responds that memory is an elusive thing but he's 90 even 95% sure he did-would you jump?

The 3 pages torn/cut from jobs book 2 contained 5 files.

Ian Bailey and Jules Thomas were two files, so there are 3 un-named suspect's files missing.

(Bailey was suspect number 7 at that stage.)

It's a fair bet one of these names appeared on each of the 3 pages, so they must have been a viable suspect.

I suspect the name was removed as the local Guards fckd up big time, making a prosecution impossible.

They failed to manage the scene, refused to move the body, closed up shop and went off home

probably leaving a couple of lads sitting in their car out in Dreenane.

Initially they thought she was some random holiday home owner from France

When it turned out who she really was, the news went international,

the sh1t hit the fan and the top brass were involved

The killing was brutal and showed pathological hatred of the victim,

to hate someone that much you must know them.

So the question is ; who in the locality knew Sophie well enough to hate her that much? definitely not Bailey.

Second question what motive could this suspect have? again not Bailey.

It's unlikely to be a love/ sex angle as Sophie was mostly accompanied on her visits.

So that leaves that old Irish boundary/land problem.

The latest French connection story will most likely come to nothing,

just an exercise to let the French think the Gardaí are doing something.

I could be wrong although I would have said 'averse' but I'm unsure. Did you consider both and then go ahead with what you did go ahead with?

I'm usually comfortable with my choices.

Money talks, Justice walks...

Realistically, the case is only being reviewed as to weather it merits a full cold case investigation. This is understandable, as the resources needed to support such a re-investigation would be costly.

The latest 'new leads', I kinda take with a pinch of salt. Unless there is hard evidence of something that has recently come to light.

All this he say, she say, nonsense, is only covering ass as far as I am concerned. The Irish showing the French they really, really are scrutinizing the case again.

If the Irish detectives did crack the case, and Bailey was vindicated.. How much would that cost the state? And the proceeding backlash of attempting to frame an innocent Irish citizen... That's one serious rabbit hole the Government doesn't want to go down..

Only saying...

Frame him are you for real, for what

There is a clue in Yvonne Ungerer being headline news, suggesting she might have thrown the Guards off track about Bailey and Kealfadda bridge.

Where was Sophie on the Saturday night? No sighting and no phone calls from the house. Was she with her neighbours and the person she'd come to Cork with?

There may already be answers to this in France.