Ian Bailey being extradited to France

SugarBlues78

SugarBlues78 wrote: »

The evidence against Bailey is very strong without being concrete........

There is very little evidence in your post. Assumptions & surmises really. What people think, is not evidence, what the victims son thinks, is not evidence either.
So, yes, there is some circumstantial evidence, but not enough on its own to charge anyone.

Thespoofer

Dia_Anseo wrote: »

What if Ian Bailey is reading this?

Hides under bed.....

facehugger99

Muahahaha wrote: »

Interesting that Marie Farrel said she saw a man in a beret, something typically worn by French people and not something you could buy in a clothes shop in Ireland in 1995. I remember reading before that Sophie had a huge bust up with her husband and they were estranged. She came to west Cork alone at Chrismas to get away from it all. However despite most murder victims knowing their murderer her husband was never interviewed by Gardai. The du Plantier family are very wealthy so the husband would have had a lot to gain financially.

WTF?

Late entry for the most unintentionally hilarious post of 2019.

Rows Grower

bubblypop wrote: »

There is very little evidence in your post. Assumptions & surmises really. What people think, is not evidence, what the victims son thinks, is not evidence either.
So, yes, there is some circumstantial evidence, but not enough on its own to charge anyone.

It looks like someone did a crash course in how to be an amateur detective, speed read the thread and suddenly decided to join boards.ie before the first light of dawn to educate us all.

storker

Muahahaha wrote: »

Interesting that Marie Farrel said she saw a man in a beret, something typically worn by French people and not something you could buy in a clothes shop in Ireland in 1995.

I think we have our man...

storker

TheChizler wrote: »

Funny little comment on the bottom of Daniel Toscan's Wikipedia page:

And if you follow the reference for that comment you find:

...were the stuff of gossip magazines, as was the murder in 1996, still unsolved, of his third, estranged, wife, Sophie, at her cottage in Ireland

Gotta love Wikipedia.

FrancieBrady

SugarBlues78 wrote: »

very strong without being concrete. .

If you tried to build a house on the above it might stay standing but invariably it will fall.

Working class heroes

storker wrote: »

I think we have our man...

I wonder was Brush Shiels questioned. Always thought he was dodgy.

SugarBlues78

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you tried to build a house on the above it might stay standing but invariably it will fall.

I have since changed how I phrased that sentence. I realized after that it was completely not what I was wanting to say originally. I guess my head was spinning a little when I wrote it thinking about this case today. There's seems to be a general feeling among many that Bailey absolutely is innocent, and he could well be, but when you piece together a lot of the information that appears to be credible, and separate it from the fantasy and made up nonsense, then it's still very hard not to still have him as the chief suspect.

All kinds of fairy-tale conspiracies have been dreamed up, like the notorious cop who died recently must have done it, or that the local cops know who it is but are hiding the secret etc, but yes this crime riddle will never be solved, unless in 50 years time there are some new forensic techniques that can find evidence that current forensic methods can not detect today.

SugarBlues78

Muahahaha wrote: »

Interesting that Marie Farrel said she saw a man in a beret, something typically worn by French people and not something you could buy in a clothes shop in Ireland in 1995. I remember reading before that Sophie had a huge bust up with her husband and they were estranged. She came to west Cork alone at Chrismas to get away from it all. However despite most murder victims knowing their murderer her husband was never interviewed by Gardai. The du Plantier family are very wealthy so the husband would have had a lot to gain financially.

I think this theory is pure nonsense. The forensic experts were very certain that she knew her killer, that the person who arrived at her door in the early hours during the Christmas break had not arrived there to intentionally kill her. That food was shared, and more than likely a little flirting too considering the position of the 2 chairs in the kitchen. Facing each other close up. It's highly unlikely that she would have let a man into her house after midnight who she had never met before. If her husband had hired a hit-man then she would never have let this man into her house after midnight. There would have been signs of forced entry. I think it's odd if her husband had anything to do with it, that Sophie's son would have suspected it. If he suspected it then he would not be 1000% sure that it was Bailey, like he currently is 1000% sure.
The general feeling from the French and Irish experts and forensics who have studied the case and the scene of the crime, is that some bloke arrived at her house after midnight, a friend who she knew, someone who probably was feeling horny and turned up with a bottle of wine to see if they could get lucky. At some point the fun turned nasty and the killer went from laughter and fun to psycho.

FrancieBrady

SugarBlues78 wrote: »

I have since changed how I phrased that sentence. I realized after that it was completely not what I was wanting to say originally. I guess my head was spinning a little when I wrote it thinking about this case today. There's seems to be a general feeling among many that Bailey absolutely is innocent, and he could well be, but when you piece together a lot of the information that appears to be credible, and separate it from the fantasy and made up nonsense, then it's still very hard not to still have him as the chief suspect.

All kinds of fairy-tale conspiracies have been dreamed up, like the notorious cop who died recently must have done it, or that the local cops know who it is but are hiding the secret etc, but yes this crime riddle will never be solved, unless in 50 years time there are some new forensic techniques that can find evidence that current forensic methods can not detect today.

So you are the arbiter of what is 'credible' and what isn't?

This isn't an Agatha Christie novel, this is real life. There are standards to be reached.

SugarBlues78

Rows Grower wrote: »

It looks like someone did a crash course in how to be an amateur detective, speed read the thread and suddenly decided to join boards.ie before the first light of dawn to educate us all.

I'm living very far away from Ireland right now so that's why it seemed my post came at the crack of dawn, when in fact it was lunch time here when I wrote it.

I know absolutely nothing about this case apart from listening to the 'West Cork' podcast, and the few articles in the media that say which witness accounts have since been utterly discredited and which ones still seem very credible, given by locals who are well respected in the community. Let's remember also that a guy who supposedly worked with Bailey many years ago when he was with his first wife, says he knows for sure that Bailey tried to strangle his ex wife to death during a drunken rage. Maybe BS but just seems daft someone in England would randomly come out with something like that.

It's very possible Bailey is innocent. I respect that no hard evidence was found, and therefor yes, it seems rather unfair that Bailey might go to jail over this. But what has bugged me for the past day, is that so many are so certain that Bailey had absolutely nothing to do with it, and that the French are simply trying to frame an innocent man so that they can put this tragedy to bed once and for all.

But when you look deep into the witness accounts from witnesses who appear to be credible, also the opinions of the forensics, and that fact that Sophie's son is 1000% certain it was Bailey, (and lets be clear, he knows this case more than anyone), then you just wonder, is there gonna be a campaign to keep someone who absolutely could be guilty, from facing punishment?
Yes I agree without concrete evidence then there should be no case at all. But it's reminding me of the recent Kevin Lunney attack. Everyone and their dog knows who the paymaster is, but it's incredibly unlikely the so called paymaster will ever face justice, as there clearly will never be a shred of evidence against him. And I just wonder, is this going to mirror the outcome of the Sophie murder case?

TallyRand

TallyRand wrote: »

And the scratch marks, disappearing in the middle of the night........the keystone cops didn’t just have a “just blame the Brit fella” moment, they knew as anyone who delves into the Circumstantial evidence as well as having a good read of a profiling author like John Douglas, Bailey made every type of move I’ve read from those books.

There was a ton of forensic evidence at the scene and Bailey freely gave samples yet not one shred of it linked Bailey to the scene. Why was that Sherlock?

Rows Grower

SugarBlues78 wrote: »

I'm living very far away from Ireland right now so that's why it seemed my post came at the crack of dawn, when in fact it was lunch time here when I wrote it.

I know absolutely nothing about this case apart from listening to the 'West Cork' podcast, and the few articles in the media that say which witness accounts have since been utterly discredited and which ones still seem very credible, given by locals who are well respected in the community. Let's remember also that a guy who supposedly worked with Bailey many years ago when he was with his first wife, says he knows for sure that Bailey tried to strangle his ex wife to death during a drunken rage. Maybe BS but just seems daft someone in England would randomly come out with something like that.

It's very possible Bailey is innocent. I respect that no hard evidence was found, and therefor yes, it seems rather unfair that Bailey might go to jail over this. But what has bugged me for the past day, is that so many are so certain that Bailey had absolutely nothing to do with it, and that the French are simply trying to frame an innocent man so that they can put this tragedy to bed once and for all.

But when you look deep into the witness accounts from witnesses who appear to be credible, also the opinions of the forensics, and that fact that Sophie's son is 1000% certain it was Bailey, (and lets be clear, he knows this case more than anyone), then you just wonder, is there gonna be a campaign to keep someone who absolutely could be guilty, from facing punishment?
Yes I agree without concrete evidence then there should be no case at all. But it's reminding me of the recent Kevin Lunney attack. Everyone and their dog knows who the paymaster is, but it's incredibly unlikely the so called paymaster will ever face justice, as there clearly will never be a shred of evidence against him. And I just wonder, is this going to mirror the outcome of the Sophie murder case?

I'm no detective myself but I kind of surmised that to be honest.

SugarBlues78

SugarBlues78 wrote: »

But when you look deep into the witness accounts from witnesses who appear to be credible, also the opinions of the forensics, and that fact that Sophie's son is 1000% certain it was Bailey, (and lets be clear, he knows this case more than anyone)

WTF? He is emotionally invested, wants revenge for his mother's death, and wasn't even there, while there is no credible evidence against Bailey. None at all. There isn't even any evidence he ever met Sophie. There also was zero forensic evidence against Bailey despite blood and hair everywhere at the murder scene, and there should have been fingerprints everywhere. Really this should have been an open and shut case if Bailey actually did it.

The DPP wouldn't throw out a case like this if there was even the smallest chance he could get a conviction.

All the other stuff is just hearsay and speculation.

He sounds like an unsavoury character but again this is hearsay.

Rows Grower

Deleted User wrote: »

WTF? He is emotionally invested, wants revenge for his mother's death, and wasn't even there, while there is no credible evidence against Bailey. None at all. There isn't even any evidence he ever met Sophie. There also was zero forensic evidence against Bailey despite blood and hair everywhere at the murder scene, and there should have been fingerprints everywhere. Really this should have been an open and shut case if Bailey actually did it.

The DPP wouldn't throw out a case like this if there was even the smallest chance he could get a conviction.

All the other stuff is just hearsay and speculation.

He sounds like an unsavoury character but again this is hearsay.

I'd agree with what you say except for the bit in bold.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

WTF? He is emotionally invested, wants revenge for his mother's death, and wasn't even there, while there is no credible evidence against Bailey. None at all. There isn't even any evidence he ever met Sophie. There also was zero forensic evidence against Bailey despite blood and hair everywhere at the murder scene, and there should have been fingerprints everywhere. Really this should have been an open and shut case if Bailey actually did it.

The DPP wouldn't throw out a case like this if there was even the smallest chance he could get a conviction.

All the other stuff is just hearsay and speculation.

He sounds like an unsavoury character but again this is hearsay.

Didn’t the guards make a clusterfcuk of the forensics so that it was of no use, and Bailey was on the scenery as a “journalist” before the guards actually began to attempt to get their act together?

GM228

SugarBlues78 wrote: »

I know absolutely nothing about this case apart from listening to the 'West Cork' podcast, and the few articles in the media that say which witness accounts have since been utterly discredited and which ones still seem very credible, given by locals who are well respected in the community.

And this is where people go wrong, Podcasts and the media do not always represent facts and are often based on emotive opinions which are then digested like facts.

I suggest those who just listen to podcasts and the media to read the actual facts from the official 2001 DPP report.

SugarBlues78

SugarBlues78 wrote: »

that fact that Sophie's son is 1000% certain it was Bailey, (and lets be clear, he knows this case more than anyone), then you just wonder, is there gonna be a campaign to keep someone who absolutely could be guilty, from facing punishment?

why would you assume her son knows more about this case than anyone else? He knows what he has been told, and victims relatives are never the most neutral of people.

Whether people believe Bailey guilty or innocent is not the issue with the extradition. He has not faced charges in this country, because there was not enough evidence against him. France had a trial, without Bailey being present, presented some evidence & convicted him. Now they want Ireland to send him there to serve his sentence?
anyone who is remotely interested in justice, human rights or their own safety in future, should have an issue with this.

GM228

SugarBlues78 wrote: »

If he suspected it then he would not be 1000% sure that it was Bailey, like he currently is 1000% sure.

He was 15 at the time, was in France, didn't know Bailey and only has what everyone else has to go by, but yet the fact he is 1000% certain means Bailey did it?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Didn’t the guards make a clusterfcuk of the forensics so that it was of no use, and Bailey was on the scenery as a “journalist” before the guards actually began to attempt to get their act together?

The question is WHY did the Guards make a clusterfcuk of the the forensics? I mean, there was such an abundance of evidence, that they would have actively had to make an effort to make a clusterfcuk of it.

milehip

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The question is WHY did the Guards make a clusterfcuk of the the forensics? I mean, there was such an abundance of evidence, that they would have actively had to make an effort to make a clusterfcuk of it.

The clue is probably in your username.

Padre_Pio

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The question is WHY did the Guards make a clusterfcuk of the the forensics? I mean, there was such an abundance of evidence, that they would have actively had to make an effort to make a clusterfcuk of it.

Because it was 1996.
It was Christmas.
It was West Cork.

Right now, it takes over 4 hours to drive from Dublin to Schull. It took 6 or 7 hours back in 1996. Add to that most people were on their holidays and had to be called in, you can see how it could take an entire day before a forensic team could get down there.

After that there was plenty of general incompetence in how evidence was gathered and preserved.

SugarBlues78

GM228 wrote: »

And this is where people go wrong, Podcasts and the media do not always represent facts and are often based on emotive opinions which are then digested like facts.

I suggest those who just listen to podcasts and the media to read the actual facts from the official 2001 DPP report.

OJ Simpson stabbed his wife and her boyfriend to death and no evidence linking him to the crime was found at the scene. It happens.

And it happens too where sometimes members of the public taking an interest in a case that remains unsolved, sometimes end up being the key to unsolving the mystery somehow. So it can only be a good thing that so many have an interest in this case, despite limited facts and evidence.

chicorytip

The body lay uncovered for approximately ten hours before the alarm was raised. The killer would have had ample opportunity to return to the scene and remove or destroy any incriminating evidence - even in broad daylight the possibility of being seen would be slim. I too believe 1000% Bailey to be the guilty party. There are too many inconsistencies in his and Jules Thomas' original statements to Gardai which leads me to believe they both lied. The compelling statements given by those witnesses who engaged with the French inquiry are damning of Bailey and his stated movements and actions around the time of the killing and undermine his insistence that he was not previously acquainted with Sophie.

Mad_maxx

Our police tried to stitch up Maurice Mccabe, if they tried that against one of their own, its hardly a stretch to imagine what they would pin on an oddball blow in

Mad_maxx

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Our police tried to stitch up Maurice Mccabe,

Want to explain that one?

Mad_maxx

bubblypop wrote: »

Want to explain that one?

oh please .

Mad_maxx

Mad_maxx wrote: »

oh please .

Ah so you can't.
Fair enough

tibruit

Apart from the messing around by gardai that probably in the end convinced the DPP to not proceed with a prosecution, it is surprising how people seem to have forgotten so many of the facts surrounding this case. Marie Farrell has retracted her initial testimony and so anything she might have to say would be now tainted.

So leaving all this aside....Bailey told a number of witnesses that he was the killer. He had scratches on backs of his hands in the days following the murder. The DPP gave far too much weight to the Xmas tree and turkey killing excuse for this in my opinion. Contrary to one article cited on this thread, Bailey does not have an alibi. By his own admission he was not in his bed that night. Based on the evidence of his diary in his libel action and his own admissions, he has assaulted Jules Thomas on at least three occasions. He expressed the desire in his diary to kill someone during one particular assault (presumably Thomas).

After one assault she received eight stitches to a mouth wound. A neighbour testified that he stayed in the Thomas household after an assault and slept with a hammer under his pillow. The locals lived in fear of him and it is something that wasn`t really conveyed in the media. If I was Marie Farrell and there was no prosecution imminent, then I would have withdrawn my testimony too. Apart from the odd conspiracy nut and gardai kicker (Gemma O Doherty comes to mind), Bailey is still the prime suspect.

His own testimony on intricacies surrounding the case is contradicted by numerous witnesses. The DPP should have given us our day in court although we got it to a degree during the libel case where Bailey was shown to be the type of character that many had long suspected him to be. The very least they should have done was charge him with wasting garda time.