Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

solasGael

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117576600#Comment_117576600

Where there's a discrepancy between what Ian Bailey claims and numerous other witness statements, the DPP says all the witnesses have to be mistaken because Ian Bailey is to be believed. The DPP report in places reads more like it was written by Ian Bailey's defense team than potential prosecutors. There's also a news report that Jules tried to pressure her daughter to change her testimony regarding the time(s) Ian Bailey and Jules went out that morning.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117675110#Comment_117675110

And blow up ships in foreign countries...

I guess I better be on high alert just in case the Saudi secret service come after me for that sneaky pint I had the other night too...

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117677352#Comment_117677352

Well, that's one view.

But I don't think that such an extraordinary level of failure can be dismissed so easily.

This was an unsolved murder case and evidence, records, statements and exhibits should have been preserved. The number and nature of the failures do suggest conspiracy. The pages removed from the job books, in particular set alarm bells ringing as that cannot happen accidentally.

The review itself, and the conclusions were partial and recognised as such. Its never ideal for any police force to investigate itself for obvious reasons, but this report took really brought the "quis custodiet ipsos custodes" into sharp focus.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117677693#Comment_117677693

My belief is that when the murder happened the gardai thought Sophie was some French nobody and didnt put the same effort into the investigation that they would have done if it was a local or an Irish person. Some time after Christmas they found out Sophie was wealthy and well connected ( husband friends with Chirac etc) and they realised they f**cked up big time. Its possible authorities were putting pressure on Garda head office to get the murder solved. Oddball reporter Bailey was hanging around and was probably being quite annoying at the time and was actively digging into the case - someone decided he was their man. Any evidence which suggested otherwise was lost/destroyed.

The french are satisfied that Bailey is the murderer so the gardai achieved their goal. Im sure the Gardai and all are happy enough with this. GSOC Im sure didnt put too much effort into the invesigation for obvious reasons.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117675071#Comment_117675071

Other than possibly the unidentified male whose blood was found on Sophie's boot, near her laces.

OwlsZat

I don't think it was blood, named a bodily fluid which I took to mean semen / sweat / saliva.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117678146#Comment_117678146

sorry you are correct. west cork said sweat or saliva on the lace of one of her shoes maybe from the PM could have been someone speaking. I thought there was also blood on the sole of her shoe?

sekiro

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117675128#Comment_117675128

I'd like to know the French narrative of exactly what happened.

They present evidence that IB and Sophie not only knew each other but that she was telling friends about meeting some poet in Ireland and also that she was so scared that she asked everyone she knew to go with her.

They also use the Kealfadda Bridge sighting as evidence but there seems to be no effort at all to find out about the second witness, the mystery passenger in Marie's car.

The bridge sighting is just one of the most bizarre bits of evidence in the case. All they had to do is find the second witness to corroborate the story and they've got the person who was driving that second witness around in the car all night right there and it somehow doesn't happen. She gives them the runaround TWICE before settling on a third person who just happens to be deceased. My concern is that if the passenger in the car had ever been identified they would have simply said "we didn't see anyone that night" or "the person we saw was definitely not IB". So that person was somehow never found. Ridiculous.

The other thing I don't get is that when Marie is saying the Gardai essentially made her change her story until she was pointing the finger at IB why doesn't she just denounce her entire testimony? She doesn't say she wasn't out driving at all. She doesn't say she was just driving alone. She doesn't say she made all of it up just to feel involved. She just says that the man she saw was not IB but the Gardai pressured her into saying it was. Why would anyone do that? Unless there was a genuine concern that the other person in the car might come forward some day?

I feel like she was down at the bridge at that time and with someone else in the car. Everything else could be true or not, who knows?

Darc19

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117677643#Comment_117677643

You can't just read one thing and make assumtions. It has to be in context.

The Gardai fabricated stories about Bailey and spread these false stories about the area. Once the stories became "fact" as many fake news stories tend to become, the gardai started talking to people who suddenly were prejudiced against bailey.

The dpp saw though this and found that most of baileys assertions could be backed up and very few of the witness statements could be backed up and they were regarded as hearsay statements that were sullied by the misinformation placed in the area by the gardai.

If you read the dpp report, it was a scathing report about garda handling and said that there was no evidence that would give rise to sending bailey to trial.

solasGael

Plus I always tell the truth when drunk 

That's why alcohol is referred to as truth serum. People, (myself included) divulge quite a lot when they're under the influence that's otherwise suppressed.

marieholmfan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117677744#Comment_117677744

This woman was rich. Look at the size of the famous 'cottage'. The roots of the murder are probably not in Ireland.

When you hear hooves don't think zebras.

When a 60 year old multimillionaire's wife dies and he marries a pregnant 29 year old Serbian model 18 months later don't think English nutter who never met her.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679334#Comment_117679334

I agree with you on the French theory - I have discussed this earlier in the thread ( or the sky thread). I think the behaviour of her husband was very odd - also he got his new partner pregnant 6 months after Sophie died - He was hardly behaving like a grieving husband.

The cottage is very small though - I cant see how you would think the cottage is large. The gardai wouldnt have assumed she was wealthy by the size of the house if thats what you are implying.

MoonUnit75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679334#Comment_117679334

The house might look big from a distance, but its only the one room wide. If it was single story it would be considered a small cottage, the length of it and the number of windows just make it look larger. Inside it looked positively poky and even a bit cluttered, with basic facilities and furniture.

Daniel had divorced at least once or twice before, why would he suddenly resort to a bizarre and clumsy contract killing, leaving the body in the wide open air where it would be found almost immediately and ask the contract killer to follow her around in a long dark coat and beret (?!) over the weekend?

MoonUnit75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117677693#Comment_117677693

The GSOC report also says there are pages with job numbers that skip sequence, but with no missing pages in between, so its possible there was nothing on the missing pages anyway, there seems to have been a general feel of disorganisation. GSOC re-interviewed anyone who made a statement and was willing to be asked questions on it, none of them retracted them or claimed they had been tampered with. Apart from Bailey, Thomas and Farrell.

There's an assumption too that this is unusual in this particular case, I'd imagine though that the archives of most state agencies would be a nightmare to audit. People taking items out to re-examine them or have a specialist look at it and it works its way back into the wrong file etc. We know several pieces of forensic evidence were tested and re-tested abroad.

solasGael

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117584634#Comment_117584634

In his written accounts to the guards, Bailey says he had access to Jules' car, a white Ford Fiesta the weekend in question. Is there a reason he could not have driven?

MoonUnit75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117678805#Comment_117678805

The problem with this supposition is that Bailey himself corroborated many of them. The DPP claimed, without evidence, that some of the witnesses may have been eager to help the gardai. Over two decades later some of these witnesses travelled to France to give testimony to a French court, more had given sworn evidence at both the libel and 'police corruption' trials and none varied or recanted their statements when interviewed by GSOC. I think it's clear the DPP made the wrong call on this in their internal report.

IB didn't deny saying something very close to 'I did it, I did it, I went too far' to the Shelley's, he has said the Gardai brainwashed him into believing he actually did it, other times he said he was saying 'they're saying I did it' or 'they think I did it'.

Likewise, he doesn't deny saying to Malachi that he 'went up there and bashed her head in with a rock', he claimed it was dark humour but Malachi said he was drunk and in foul humour.

He says he did 'joke' about killing Sophie to the Sunday Tribune editor, as Dwyer pointed out, no one else on the entire island is known to have been joking about killing someone murdered days before. The conversation worried her so much she immediately went to the gardai about it.

Jules said James Camier just got the date wrong, she probably went to his stall the next day. But that doesn't make sense since Ian was apparently using the car elsewhere and by then the news was everywhere, James said Jules was the first to tell him about the murder. It seems unlikely no one else mentioned it to a regular stall owner the next day and he and his wife missed every news bulletin over the previous 24 hours.

Two different witnesses said they saw a fire underway behind the studio around Christmas, when gardai checked it out, there was evidence of a very recent fire practically outside the back door. JT and IB said it was lit earlier in December.

dublin49

IB's defenders almost wudnt accept a signed confession from him now,do they never tire of explaining away the anomalies.confessions ,inconsistencies in Baileys account ,the credible witnesses exposing Bailey's lies.How many realistic killer suspects are there who knew of Sophie ,could have found that cottage in pitch dark and carried out such a muscular attack.Only a handful I suspect ,and of that handful one of the suspects has a history of violence to women,lied initially about his whereabouts on the night and seemed to know about the attack before he should have and regularly confessed to the murder.His same defenders who dismiss every scintilla of circumstantial evidence against Bailey entertain any outlandish suggestion regarding any other suspect .Anyone but Bailey is fair game to them.

MoonUnit75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117680909#Comment_117680909

I think there may be another discussion going on totally separate from who killed Sophie. It seems like for some people, this is a juicy and ripe case for kicking the gardai and indulging in conspiracy theories about a wide ranging cover-up. You can't really indulge in these ideas without being totally committed to the premise that IB is entirely beyond suspicion. Any suggestion to the contrary is too inconvenient to contemplate rationally.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679576#Comment_117679576

The report refers to pages being cut or neatly torn from the job books. In a bound book out of sequence numbering with numbers skipped could mean the other half of the bound sheet was removed.

I've worked in industry where provably accurate record keeping is essential. You never just remove pages, even if there's a mistake. You strike it out, date it and sign or initial it with a brief explanation for the strike out if needed. Record integrity is absolute, just 'disappearing' pages would be gross misconduct.

If pages are missing there's no telling what was or wasn't on them. The integrity of the evidence and investigation is broken. With possibly missing jobs how can one tell if everyone was reinterviewed or if potentially unwanted evidence was suppressed?

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117680950#Comment_117680950

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679576#Comment_117679576

Yes the methods deployed by the Gardai are a matter of concern, but not only to those who want to kick them. Even the Gardai themselves felt that an investigation into the conduct of the force in this mater was warranted. So, when the GS themselves were uncomfortable with the handling of the case, then its not surprising that others share that disquiet.

To suggest that only those with totally closed minds could entertain such a possibility, is wrong. Personally, I don't think IB is guilty of this crime but I don't think that he's "entirely beyond suspicion" so I'm willing to listen to alternative opinions and, if anything compelling emerges, I'll think again. But whether he's guilty or not, the behaviour of the Gardai is open to question.

Its been questioned by the public.

Its been questioned by the media.

Its been questioned by the DPP.

Its been questioned by the Gardai themselves.

So, I respectfully suggest, your assertion that doubts about the conduct of the GS are confined to closed minded conspiracy theorists, is well wide of the mark.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117680909#Comment_117680909

How do you know the others weren't violent to women? Just because they weren't prosecuted does not mean they weren't

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117680909#Comment_117680909

I know I started off with the same view as you - Ian Bailey was the murderer - it was obvious or so I thought. I done more research into the case and realised there is actually no compelling evidence to link him to the murder or Sophie at all - literally nothing. I now believe he was set up by the Gardai - missing statements, Bandon tapes, Marie F says she was forced by gardai to say it was Bailey she seen, not following up viable information - the whole case stinks of a cover up. My advice to you is you need to do alot more research into the case before reaching a decision on Bailey. Yes Bailey is a very unlikeable weird character but you need to put this view aside when deciding is he a murderer. Its seems there was alot of weird strange characters around the area at the time which were not investigated properly. Also the gardai seemed to ignore Sophies life in France which could have been vital to solving this case.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117680950#Comment_117680950

There is also a separate discussion seeking to defend the garda

MoonUnit75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117682546#Comment_117682546

The Bandon tapes don't support MF's claims of being pressured by the gardai, or that IB was being deliberately set up. It is also inexplicable that she would contact them anonymously with information. They knew they couldn't act on an anonymous statement with no corroboration so worked hard to identify her. They then tried to identify who was with her, going to Longford and making enquiries based on the little information she gave them.

It's extremely curious that MF's statements began to align with a case for Bailey after she became his star witness. Ten years later, she changed the time she saw the man at the bridge to 2am when all along she said 3am. JT said IB got out of bed around 2.30am. This is a highly convenient change in her story. Likewise adding the previously unmentioned detail that the black coat had silver buttons. She also, completely unprompted, mentioned in a statement after 2006 that she saw Bill Fuller selling christmas trees outside her shop on the 23rd around 11am. This sighting had absolutely no significance for the case whatsoever. Except, as the state's barrister put it to MF on the stand, MF found out Bill Fuller has said he saw JT and JT and IB needed him to be somewhere else at that time. During the same trial a witness gave a sworn testimony that MF had told her she was hoping to get some of IB's winnings if he won his case.

OwlsZat

MF is the definition of a turn coat mercenary. She deserved to have her private life made less private. No idea why the courts, AGS media spared her the indignity. It makes me assume a deal was struck. How we don't know the full CF back story is beyond me.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117682905#Comment_117682905

Do you honestly believe MF was out and about driving with a mystery man on the might/morning of the murder? Do you honestly believe she was having an affair - honestly think about this?

I believe she was at home safely tucked up in bed with her husband. The Kilfeada bridge story is fiction.

MoonUnit75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117682962#Comment_117682962

I think she was out and did see a man. The idea that she was pressured into saying she was out or decided to help the gardai for her own benefit makes no sense, she made the call anonymously and then rang to cancel an agreed meeting with gardai. She also had a rather extreme reaction when told by a judge that she had to name the man she was with, getting out of the witness box and risking contempt of court when she could easily have given a fictitious name. When she did give a name, she couldn't remember even basic information about the person when questioned.

Over 20 years later, when it no longer serves any purpose and when she has already said other key parts of her statements and sworn testimony were false, she still puts up with the hassle of standing by her claim to have been out. I think she was out and I think there's someone out there who she knows can place her there.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117683006#Comment_117683006

Well it is very hard to give details of a man who doesnt exist isnt it. This is what was causing her difficulty in court.

Who knows why she made that original call - she could have been presuaded by someone else to make that call in return for 'favours' ( these favours are documented - assault charges dropped etc. ). I dont think we can believe anything Marie says.

MoonUnit75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117682546#Comment_117682546

Yes Bailey is a very unlikeable weird character but you need to put this view aside when deciding is he a murderer.

He beat his partner with extreme violence several times and wrote in his diary that he made her feel like death was near. He's never had as much as a black eye as far as we know yet he says she's as much to blame.

MoonUnit75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117681917#Comment_117681917

So, I respectfully suggest, your assertion that doubts about the conduct of the GS are confined to closed minded conspiracy theorists, is well wide of the mark.

I'm specifically talking about the conspiracy theories that it was actually a member of AGS who was involved in the murder, or that MF was in the car with a garda whose identity she is somehow still protecting even after accusing two gardai of unwanted sexual advances or even assault.

There's plenty of reasons to be critical of the garda handling of the case, but that doesn't mean that there is no case against IB.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117683131#Comment_117683131

Yes he is a disgusting man to do this to Jules. Nobody can defend his behaviour - he should have been sent to jail on this alone but it doesnt mean he murdered Sophie.

Im sure he wasnt the only man in the area who inflicted violence on their partner - should they be considered suspects aswell.

MoonUnit75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117683171#Comment_117683171

If they had, at various times, suggested to people that they did it, gave a false alibi, had a partner who said they left in the middle of the night when the murder took place and came home with an unexplained cut on their face, had noticeable scratches on their hands and arms, called into people after the gardai had been there to find out what they were asking, denied having a bonfire in the days after the murder when there was evidence and witnesses who said they did, asked a cameraman in more recent times what might happen if he pleaded guilty to a crime of passion.. I suppose they would also be a very good suspect.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117683197#Comment_117683197

Look all the stuff you've mentioned here has been gone over and over again on this thread and explained in detail. None of the above is concrete evidence that he murdered Sophie. You've made your mind up that he is guilty though which you are entitled to think. Its very sketchy evidence to convict a man with murder and ruin his life though.

MoonUnit75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117683244#Comment_117683244

I'm not saying he should be convicted on this evidence, I have an opinion that he is a good suspect whose interest and impact on the retelling of the murder has been profound.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117683289#Comment_117683289

You are stating the bleeding obvious here. I don't think that any of that has ever been in doubt by anyone. Of course he is a suspect, and has been for 25 years.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117682325#Comment_117682325

While domestic violence is bad enough it's a big step between that and the random killing of a stranger.

I'm aware of at least one other potential person of interest with a history of domestic violence and given its prevalence there's undoubtedly many more. Another has a conviction for assault and a former lover described as volatile who had previously tried to strangle her, whose only alibi appears to be a receipt

Darc19

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117683131#Comment_117683131

Over 7,000 people have had prosecutions taken against them last year alone for domestic violence. How many of them then killed someone else? - Zero.

Domestic violence is abhorrent, but it in no way whatsoever makes someone likely to murder. The gardai involved in the case make want some gullible people to believe this and try and make out that someone who is violent towards a partner is suddenly a good reason to suspect them of murder

And how do you know he never had any injuries himself - do you know him or were you there at the time?

champchamp

Is it true that there was a high ranking Garda in the area that was known for violence against women and other activity?

This guy was supposed to have driven a blue Ford fiesta?

Or was this made up like so many other parts of this story?

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117686465#Comment_117686465

I found an account from a 2014 village article

"Allegations have emerged that a senior member of the force may have been responsible for Sophie Toscan du Plantier’s death. The officer at the centre of these claims, who is now deceased, was a notoriously violent person and a sexual predator infamous for having affairs with women, particularly foreigners. A married man who was strikingly handsome, he was a rampant alcoholic who is described as having abused his power whenever he could. One local portrayed him as being “crooked as a ram’s horn”.

He was known for rustling cattle and sheep from farmers who had committed minor offences and he was in a position to blackmail. He also drove a blue Ford car.

It is believed the officer may have come into contact with du Plantier because of her fears about drug-dealing in the countryside close to her. Some in the area claim he had a sexual encounter with the French woman, whose love-life was complicated and fraught, but that he was subsequently rejected by her.

The violent nature of the killing has always been indicative of a ‘crime of passion’ carried out by a scorned lover. The garda at the centre of these allegations was not involved in the investigation. On his deathbed, he was said to be a profoundly disturbed man. The shocking allegations against him however remain unproven."

While searching I came across an account of another possible person if interest I was unaware of up to now 

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=66736&search_text=sophie%20du%20plantier

Is this one of the three new suspects recently identified?

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/three-new-suspects-murder-sophie-23950293

The more one delves into the whole affair the more uncertainties one finds. What does appear clear is that there are a significant number of suspects who were not investigated with the vigour they should have been in the original investigation.

MoonUnit75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117683619#Comment_117683619

Bailey put her in hospital two or three times and was prosecuted at least once for it, he had an explosive, rage filled tendency for violence and his own partner says she can’t trust him when he drinks whiskey. One woman made a statement that Ian invited her to sleep in the studio and she woke up with him in bed beside her, Jules apparently showed the upset woman a massive bruise on her leg and said he did worse to her. He allegedly pinned another woman to a wall in a pub and made a pass at his partner’s daughter. His ex-wife said he flew into rages where he threw stuff around the house. I thought they showed a screenshot of one of his diaries where he wrote he would like to kill someone if he could, will have to look back over it. It seems to me he was a danger to more than just his partner.

He’s obviously prone to serious outbursts of rage and violence.

MoonUnit75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117688716#Comment_117688716

Well known paranoid conspiracy theorist Gemma O’Doherty wrote the Village article, the other is uncredited but reads like Bailey wrote it himself!

thecretinhop

the other suspects who have alibis... do u trust gardai to a do it right seen they fkd so much up or b bother at all once ib was in frame. this cud unlock a lot of things if reviewed

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117688789#Comment_117688789

Knowing her reputation I was a little reluctant to include the village reference but Gemma O'Docherty was once considered one of the country's leading investigative journalists. When she jumped the track to being considered a paranoid conspiracy theorist, I'm not sure but she was correct in her reporting on significant issues like the quashing of penalty points scandal and Terenure College abuse case. The allegations should at least have been worthy of investigation. There is more connecting them to the crime scene than there is Ian Bailey.

The second potential person of interest identified, albeit by anonymous sources, is consistent with the information regarding one of the three new suspects mentioned in the linked newspaper article.

MoonUnit75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117689239#Comment_117689239

She seems to have a thing for blaming senior gardai for unsolved murders. The second article is barely literate, I’d be embarrassed to link to it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117688785#Comment_117688785

None of which makes him a murderer to point out the obvious.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117688785#Comment_117688785

Reading section 15 of the DPPs report https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/ you seem to be overstating his propensity for violence.

Jules Thomas says she "never felt threatened by him. It only happens about once every four or five years." ..."The principal assault on Jules Thomas did not require her to be detained in hospital. It related to a domestic incident and unfortunately such violence is not uncommon."..."The killing of Sophie Toscan du Plantier is not similar to the domestic violence in relation to Jules Thomas and this is further emphasised by the further domestic incident set out in file 4643/1/2001."

With regard to the allegedly pinning another woman to a wall in a pub "The evidence relating to this is consistent with the view that it was not a sexual assault, but was a flirtatious act on the part of Bailey. When his approach was not welcomed he immediately desisted therefrom."

His former wife "who has known him since the 1970’s has asserted that he never used violence towards her person. "

So, article below, from 2015 gives a good summary of the civil case taken by Ian Bailey against the state and where MF U turns on the evidence provided in 2003. The next article outlines the 5 reasons Ian Bailey was first arrested in 1997

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/ian-bailey-case-marie-farrell-evidence-derailed-action-1.2160459

So my question is:

1. What exactly did MF say in her phone calls to AGS when she spoke anonymously using a telephone box to make the call- did she say "I saw IB on the bridge or did she say i say "a man on the bridge"?
2. If she just said "a man" did she supply a description ?
3. If she supplied a description, whist still anonymous, did this description bare any resemblance to IB?
4. Did she clearly indicate a time when she saw this man on the bridge?
5. Did she indicate at the time, whilst still being anonymous that she may have known this man?

I think these are critical questions to answer because quite simply, MF couldn't possibly have known that AGS where fingering IB as a suspect whilst she remained an anonymous caller and phoned in her sightings. It was only after AGS made contact with her, was it possible that they could have introduced the concept that it was IB that was on the bridge.

It would be wonderful to obtain the untainted recordings of these phone calls and it would probably make most peoples minds up, one way or the other. If you saw IB on a bridge at X time of the morning, and you wanted to help the investigation, you'd phone AGS, anonymous or otherwise, and make such a statement.

However, if you were unsure as to who the person was, you'd state "a man".

"Creed also highlighted another difficulty for the State where Sgt Frank Looney admitted he could not explain how Bailey’s name ended up on a questionnaire filled in with Farrell on January 17th. At that time, gardaí had not yet discovered that Farrell was “Fiona”, the then anonymous telephone caller who contacted Bandon Garda Station on January 11th, 1997, to report seeing a man at Kealfadda Bridge."

"A Detective Garda has told the High Court there were five reasons for arresting Ian Bailey for the late 1996 murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier, including that Mr Bailey had told people he committed the murder.

John Paul Culligan, now retired, said he had gone with two other gardai to Mr Bailey's studio house, located close to the home he shared with his partner Jules Thomas, near Schull on February 10th 1997."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/detective-tells-court-investigators-had-five-reasons-to-arrest-bailey-for-murder-30947993.html

MoonUnit75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117689783#Comment_117689783

MF gave a statement in her own name in December 1996/Jan 1997 to say she saw Sophie in her shop and a man in a long black coat appeared to be watching her from across the street. She also said she drove to Cork on the Sunday morning and saw the same man hitching a lift around 7.30am.

Sometime in mid January she rang anonymously to say she had been out driving on the night of the murder and saw a man in a long black coat close to the bridge at Kealfadda. She never rang back and gardai had to appeal on the Crimewatch TV programme for this person to call back.

None of these statements mentioned Ian Bailey. MF was only living there a year and said she had never seen this man before.

The next part is in now in dispute. As far as I can gather MF originally said she saw a picture of IB in a newspaper and took it out on to the street and showed two Gardai, saying this was the man she saw and they named him as IB. She now says she was told by the gardai that the man she saw was IB.

Curiously, her sighting of the man in the coat hitchhiking on the Sunday morning ties in with IB having spent the night at a house on that road, apparently only 100m away from MF's sighting. One person in the house said he had to get up for work that morning and heard the front door opening around 7am. IB had left the house in the early hours and came back but no one really knew for sure if he also left again at 7am and came back. IB left out the entire episode in his account of his movements over the weekend given to the Gardai.

Even more curiously, it appears, from Michael Sheridan's book, that IB himself was the source of the rumour that he had been spotted at the bridge 'washing his boots'. MF never mentioned this in any of her statements, yet IB told journalists after his arrest that he was told he had been spotted washing his boots at the bridge. This isn't included in any statements of his interviews with gardai that I can find. Michael Sheridan thinks IB filled in that detail himself because that's what he was doing, but at the time didn't know that MF had only said she saw a man walking.

If IB spotted MF as he hitchhiked on the Sunday morning, and also realised it was her that spotted him at the bridge, that would explain him leaving out the night spent at the party in his original statements. He only corrected this after going to the house and hearing that they had told the gardai he spent the night there. He then went to the station and amended his statement.

MoonUnit75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117689356#Comment_117689356

This was all tested at the libel trial, the judge concluded the papers were correct to call him a violent man. It is the DPP who understated this element.

champchamp

So, 5 reasons for arresting Bailey:

1. "that Mr Bailey had had several opportunities to account for his movements and they were "not correct" ".

To me this is interesting and suspicious. He initially said that he was in bed all night, then changed his story when Jules said that he left the bed during the night.

2."that he had scratches on both arms"

There is too much conflicting evidence re these scratches to know what the truth is here. Seems likely that he had light scratches which he was able to account for (the forehead scratch is interesting as Jules said in her statement that it wasn't there the previous evening, however I think the garda statements have to be viewed with caution due to their carry on at the time).

3. "gardai were told he had been seen at Kealfadda Bridge (near Schull) at 3am"

Were they? I thought they were told that "a man" was seen there, the same man that MF saw standing across the road from her shop and was roughly the same height as her husband (5' 8")? Either way this witness's statements must be disregarded due to her being unreliable.

4. "he was very violent towards his partner Jules Thomas"

This is mentioned by the guards twice and is evidence that he was violent towards his partner, nothing else.

5. "Mr Bailey had told people he committed the murder"

I'm on two minds about this. As someone who uses sarcasm a lot, I can see how it could be misrepresented as fact, however it does seem odd that numerous people said he told them this.

All in all there just doesn't seem to have been enough evidence to arrest IB, certainly not convict.

The French Court conviction was an absolute joke.

Do I think he killed her?

Certainly possible, unfortunately for him and the victim's family this murder looks like it will never be solved.

I wonder if there had been a thorough, professional Garda investigation at the time would the killer have been brought to justice? We'll never know.

The way this case has gone over the years, it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few more twists and turns yet...