Murder at the Cottage

[MrsPelligrinoPetrichor]

Documentary on Sky Crime, I think it is 5 episodes.

Omg it was so good ( if a programme about a murder can ever be 'good')

I can't remember anything about this in the news at the time so I was watching it with fresh eyes.

I started watching it, DH came in to get a coffee, sat down and he was hooked too which is rare.

Anyone else seen it?

@sammylady37

Can I ask something that’s puzzling me a little. Lots of people on this thread and others I’ve read keep saying that it is unlikely to have been Bailey as there’s no forensic evidence whatsoever to link it to him, and they go on to emphasise how violent and rage-fuelled an attack it was, so how could he not have left evidence behind etc. Except, AFAIK, there was no DNA from anyone else at the scene... so whoever perpetrated this did commit a frenzied, brutal attack and leave no trace, so it’s possible to do that, therefore IB is not ruled out on grounds of no forensics. Someone did this, but left no blood etc. (This makes sense in my head, hope it does when read by someone else!)

And I know there’s now talk of unidentified male DNA on her boots, but if I’m correct that info is quite recent?

That’s not what I’m saying. Obviously someone murdered her and left no detectable trace. IB can’t be ruled out on those grounds, no. But there’s no concrete evidence against him at all, including forensic evidence. He has a record of DV, no reliable alibi for the (presumed) time of death, some scratches no one photographed at the time, and a tendency to drunken and/or sarcastic confessions. He’s also someone with a positive gift for irritating the living shit out of people. A narcissistic creep.

I think those ‘body language experts’ simply knew very little about the case, IB’s self-aggrandising personality, his knowledge almost no one believes he’s innocent, and how many times he’s been over the same territory (the clip in the shirt and tie is from the best part of two decades after the murder) , and how mannered , pompous and ‘off’ normal his normal manner is — the guy did two law degrees based entirely on his interest in his own case. I know someone who was in his year. It was ‘the law as it concerns me’.

His accent changes all the time, but that’s not unusual for someone from a WC background who went to a well-regarded middle-class school and then moved countries and played around with fake-Irishness.

Regarding DNA, the murder weapon was a rock and a something else like a brick or boulder (can't remember) but a forensics expert said fingerprints can't be lifted from a rock. The blood spots on the fence and door all belonged to Sophie.

@Ouch44 thanks for posting that, so interesting. I love behavioural experts, pretty damning isn't it?

@sammylady37 yes if course wrt DNA.

His accent changes all the time, but that’s not unusual for someone from a WC background who went to a well-regarded middle-class school and then moved countries and played around with fake-Irishness

It wasn't that his accent changed, it was when it changed.

The experts didn't need to know the case to read behaviour. Better that they don't really. When they break down the turkey story it really is utterly ridiculous.

I believe he's guilty. Too many details point in that direction, and the devil really is in the detail with this case.

A previous poster said "so the sad archive interview with her parents (now long dead) were inserted instead of recent interviews"

Sophie's parents are alive. I hope they live to see the perpetrator prosecuted.

@Caiti19

A previous poster said "so the sad archive interview with her parents (now long dead) were inserted instead of recent interviews"

Sophie's parents are alive. I hope they live to see the perpetrator prosecuted.

Surely it’s very unlikely? I can’t see how IB can ever be tried in Ireland now, and extradition requests from France have been overruled by the Supreme Court on the grounds of lack of reciprocity (Ireland can’t convict a foreigner for a crime committed abroad against an Irish citizen, France can), though I suppose that’s still to be fully explored legally. Even if Marie Farrell now says she can identify the black-coated man outside her shop, how likely is that to be credible in court after 25 years, and from a known perjurer?

I think it's unlikely - unless, after some time apart from him to see the wood from the trees, Jules decides to talk. She's the only hope for a prosecution that I can see.

I don't see a thread on "Sophie: A Murder in West Cork" on Netflix. Watch both if you can.

I saw the Netflix series first and then binged the Sky one. Thanks to this thread I am just starting on the podcast. As I’ve watched them both this week, here are my musings so far:

I am constantly in two minds about Bailey. He hung around (but was a journalist), he knew things too early (but may have had useful contacts in the police), there was the fire.

If it was him, why did he put himself through the two cases he brought plus do the law degree? I know he seems to court notoriety by his actions and words but the effort he has put in over the years is massive. It’s clearly had a detrimental affect on his mind, looking at interviews from then and now.

Given Sophie had her boots on, it seems she had time to do that and leave the cottage before the murder happened. It also now seems it likely happened the next morning.

The woman in the car ringing up as Fiona. Feels like she wanted to tell them something, it doesn’t tally with her later assertion that they made her say stuff.

Why use the breeze block to inflict the damage they did, presumably she was already very hurt if not dead by then? Feels unplanned and frenzied. How does her putting her boots on to go outside tally with what happened next (neighbour dispute?)

And where the hell is the gate?!

It doesn't seem planned so a hitman theory is out.
Who was using her house and why? They key lies with a local. Becoming more convinced it's not IB.

In the Netflix doc was it the forensics guy who was the double of Junior Soprano?

@MadeForThis

In the Netflix doc was it the forensics guy who was the double of Junior Soprano?

I will never be able to unsee that.

Is Ian Bailey making money out of this?
I'm sure I've read that Netflix didn't pay him ... which I find hard to believe, but there's been countless other media engagements and interviews.

@WeatherToday

Is Ian Bailey making money out of this? I'm sure I've read that Netflix didn't pay him ... which I find hard to believe, but there's been countless other media engagements and interviews.

He was explicitly asked on an RTE radio interview whether he'd been paid for participation in the Netflix documentary and said no. In this article, he's quoted as saying he got 'legitimate expenses' from the Sky/Jim Sheridan documentary.

www.independent.ie/irish-news/i-amnot-trying-to-stay-in-the-news-ian-bailey-following-two-new-documentaries-on-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-murder-40625427.html

I have never heard a mention of whether he was or was not paid for participating in the West Cork podcast.

I doubt very much whether he's made any significant money from being a suspect since he stopped being able to write about the case as a journalist. When someone is so hungry for publicity to 'clear their name', especially in a situation where large numbers of people believe they're guilty and/or blame them for bringing the area into disrepute and attracting murder tourists, I imagine that even someone so self-obsessed and so un self-aware would be conscious of how it would play to ask for appearance fees.

He certainly has no signs of having any money at all -- he tried to crowdfund a self-published collection of poems but raised only a small proportion of the money, was still selling pizza at the market when last I heard, and is apparently camping out in Jules' house because even though she's dumped him, he has no means of renting anywhere else. Not sure how he funded the two law degrees a while back.

All costs were awarded against him for his libel action back in 2015, so he owes a few million to the state for that.

@Caiti19

All costs were awarded against him for his libel action back in 2015, so he owes a few million to the state for that.

Yes, I vaguely wondered about that -- if he has no assets and no ability to pay those costs, what powers does the state have?

Why use the breeze block to inflict the damage they did, presumably she was already very hurt if not dead by then?

My personal thoughts on that (regardless of who did it), was that it destroys evidence. If she'd been hit with something identifiable, the resulting marks would be obliterated by the breeze block.

I think it was just the nearest thing to hand in a rage, I don't think there was any thought behind the murder weapon , I just think IB git incredibly lucky they couldn't lift DNA from it.

@ThisIsSimplyBeyond

Why use the breeze block to inflict the damage they did, presumably she was already very hurt if not dead by then?

My personal thoughts on that (regardless of who did it), was that it destroys evidence. If she'd been hit with something identifiable, the resulting marks would be obliterated by the breeze block.

I think John Harbison (the state pathologist) thought there was a third murder weapon, based on his interpretation of her wounds, though -- as well as the stone and the breeze block. There's been some speculation that it may have been the small hatchet used for splitting firewood that the woman who cleaned the house for Sophie thought was missing from its usual spot. But it has never been found.

I’ve now heard about the possible missing murder weapon, on the podcast. There are many other details on there that I hadn’t known from watching the two TV programmes. Still working through it!

Some interesting posts here.. I've watched both programmes - I binged so they've blurred a bit in my mind.

I don't think he did it. I think the Guards took a blinkered view of the case and didn't really look at other suspects. For example, there was a German man living a mile from her - I can't think of his name offhand.. They were acquainted. He was at home on his own that night.. He had been violent to a previous partner but was single at the time. He returned to Germany in early 1997 and committed suicide that year. Its possible it could have been him? And I understand there was a French man who knew her living in the area too who also left soon after the murder and has since died? I only know vague details about them.. All we hear about is Bailey!

There was a blue car seen speeding in this very quiet area at 7.30am - I vaguely remember hearing about it at the time.. I don't think the Guards really publicised it?

Bailey and Jules were drunk that night.. I can understand why there may have been some confusion over whether he got up as he often did. Especially when Bailey and Jules statements were taken about 7 weeks later?

If he had gotten scratches at the scene he would have left a trace of himself. And presumably wouldn't have gone around with his arms uncovered?

His 'confessions' are ridiculous.. One of these 11 was to the Editor of the Tribune. She told him that people were starting to say it was him and he said 'it was, I did it to get a story'.. This is a stupid joke, not a confession!

The Guards should be held to account for all the missing evidence.. It really is unacceptable. And the 'Bandon tapes' were a disgrace too. The DPP report explaining why they would not proceed with a case against Bailey is very good - it clearly explains why a lot of the things said about Bailey are untrue. For example, he did not have knowledge of the case before anyone else - this was shown with phone records. And yet people (such as my mother in law) continue to insist this is true. So much of the 'evidence' against him is hearsay, gossip and 'impressions' people have gotten.

The man who was allegedly with Marie Farrell that night should clearly be a suspect.. He was out and about on the night in question. Perhaps after leaving Marie he headed over in th direction of Sophies house?? We know almost nothing about him.

If this was a film people would think it was far fetched..

The DPP report is here: syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/?s=Knowledge

@Sailorsgirl44 : when you say "For example, he did not have knowledge of the case before anyone else - this was shown with phone records."

.....how was he able to report in print that the body was not sexually violated days before the coroner's report was published?

Marie Farrell identified man seen near Sophie Toscan du Plantier’s house as associate of victim’s husband

www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/garda-need-dpp-approval-to-request-help-from-french-police-in-west-cork-case-1.4616072%3fmode=amp

Though at this stage any evidence Marie Farrell provides must be close to worthless.

Caiti19.. Its not that I want to defend him as such - I just think the case against him is more of a witch hunt than a logical conclusion based on sound evidence. He is 'guilty until proven innocent'.
He was a tabloid journalist.. He earned money from writing stories for papers. Because her body was fully clothed when found - I imagine he took a guess that she hadn't been raped? Would a rapist dress his victim afterwards? I don't know.. Its all so sad. It was speculation on his part.. I certainly would not see that as 'evidence' that he committed murder. Journalists often write things that may or may not be true.