Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Did Jules not claim Baily said he cut his head on a stick?

Bailey had no motive.

Again, as I say, clueless people thinking they know something.

1. There is a very common belief that the prosecution needs to provide a motive. They don't. It helps the case, but a motive is never necessary.
2. Just because you personally can't envision a motive does not mean there is no motive.
3. Perhaps you've read too many of your Agatha Christie books, because in real life, motives are very mundane.
4. Example: A rapist attacks a woman. She resists. He kills her and flees. You show up at the crime scene. What is the motive? Rape? But there was no rape. So you are flummoxed because you can't figure out what the motive was.
5. A man beating a woman he doesn't know to death is a common crime. You simply haven't seen many examples of this type of crime because they get reported once and the papers don't bother with them after that.
6. There is a case of a prostitute (Belinda Pereira) who was beaten to death with a blunt instrument in Dublin less than a week after Sophie's murder. (Nobody remembers her. Her case was never solved). She was not raped or molested. What was the motive in her case? If we found her killer, would we say "Oh he didn't have a motive".
7. Serial killer Ted Bundy has a list of victims as long as your arm. Their skeletons were found in the mountains. What did he do to them? We don't know. So he doesn't have a motive, right?

Man wants sex with woman - woman rebuffs him - man murders her. The motive is as old as time. It happens again and again, year in year out. Sadly.

We have two witnesses linking him to the victim. He knew who she was, he knew where she lived and he frequented the area multiple times. We also have multiple other witnesses saying he told them he knew her. (You may not like any of these witnesses but they exist and their statements are evidence against Bailey)

See my previous comment for discussion of motive.

The current circumstantial evidence makes him a good suspect, but not enough to prove anything.

No, there is no evidence of an associatioen between IB and Sophie.

Alfie said he may have introduced them. Even if he did, an introduction does not constitute an association. And he wasn't certain anyway. There is no evidence that they ever had a conversation, nobody claims to have seen them together, he was never seen at her house nor her at his, etc etc. That's a dead duck.

Generally, in murder cases there will be a motive. It may not be obvious or even apparent but there will almost always be a motive.

With serial killers, like Ted Bundy or Peter Sutcliffe, the motive was the crime itself.

If you are suggesting that Bailey killed her for no reason, I think that makes it even more unlikely that he was the killer. (i.e. he got out of bed in the early hours, went to her house and killed her on a whim)

The circumstantial evidence, in the absence of a real link, is not evidence at all.

And I would like to again point out - there is more evidence pointing in Alfies direction than Bailey's.

Clueless? You mean like the people trying to make a case against Bailey out of nothing?

Because that's what you have and you are. Nothing. Just this ramble about 'motive' in the general which are obvious smokescreens as to the lack of things like, you know, a motive. Real evidence. Forensics. Witnesses.

I listed several aspects of the lack of a case against Bailey. Motive was one of them.

You then jump on that in classic strawman fashion. But hold on, nowhere did I say motive was essential.

I didn't. I listed several aspects demonstrating the lack of real evidence against Bailey. So you're not fooling anyone with jumping on one sentence and turning it into a strawman argument.

But motive is one of the key planks of a criminal investigation to lead the authorities to suspect someone.

Bailey has no known motive that would lead one to suspect any pre-meditated reason for him to want to murder SOphie. In contrast to Daniel, or for example, neighbours who may have been in dispute with Sophie over boundary and drugs issues.

So in shorthand, Bailey had no motive.

So this stick/turkey cut was never resolved.... Someone's lying.... The gaaaaaards I suppose 😂

Well, it appears that Guard(s) destroyed evidence deliberately, some of it relating to statements by Jules...

https://www.thejournal.ie/grave-concern-over-missing-evidence-in-du-plantier-murder-investigation-4161933-Aug2018/

Nonsense. It's very easy to locate. I've never been there but I located it in a few minutes from bits and pieces in a few posts in this thread when I first started reading it, with clear directions I could have located it in seconds.

It is not hidden in a maze. Even someone who had never been in the area could easily find it from very simple directions. Four short sentences a child could follow would get you from Schull to the house.

If you start with fundamentally flawed assumptions that the house is difficult to find and on the balance of probability the murder was a long time resident then everything that follows is also fundamentally flawed.

It is self evident the house isn't difficult to locate. Without supporting evidence, any assumptions regarding the murderer are unhelpful, possibly misleading, nonsense.

I would like to see a source for this statement.

Bailey didnt cut himself on a 'stick' as least my understanding of the word. It sounds like a misunderstanding of tree / branch although maybe thats what it was referred to.

If Jules said that she could have misremembered. Or it was misremembered for her!

Or by stick here she meant Ian was scratched when cutting the tree and assumed this particular one was of same origin. No lies needed.

Ah Bailey didn't gash himself with a stick alright, but he did initially say that to Jules.

I shall simplify for you... "You'd not think either Jules or Ian were lying?"

Yes or No

I am being told you are wrong .very difficult to find by all accounts,especially at night

I was certain 007s Butler was killed in Skyfall.... Watching it for the 2nd time years later I was amazed to see he wasn't.

Jules misremembering (your explanation) what Ian said to her that morning I'd not consider plausible.

Did you use Sat.Nav on your bike Fish ,

or Google maps from your armchair?

If as you say you've been reading it from the start you will know that before the Murder Tourist Ghouls turned up in Dreenane you could put "Sophie Toscan Du Plantier house" in Google maps search and you would find it at the click of a mouse.

It's a bit different navigating around there in the dark with only your "four short sentences" in 1996

You seem fixated with either Bailey or Jules lying.. That's all you've been drumming on about for the last few pages.

Wait until you see Maria Farrell's statements and contradictions....

You'll get some serious mileage out of her..... 🤣😂😆