Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

dublin49

quokula wrote: »

The problem is that you end up with dozens and dozens of individual things that you could wave away individually, but they add up and it gets hard to believe that they're all just a massive sequence of coincidences and misunderstandings.


If you work from a reasonable position that Sophie's murderer knew her or of her and her location Bailey would without any other evidence be top of the suspects list ,as he knew the location,has a history of violence to women with drink taken and in his own words verbalised to a witness his attraction /desire to be with her.And yet when you read through this thread some are incredulous he's even considered as a suspect.

Spudmonkey

quokula wrote: »

The problem is that you end up with dozens and dozens of individual things that you could wave away individually, but they add up and it gets hard to believe that they're all just a massive sequence of coincidences and misunderstandings.

It's mostly "his word versus their's" and you need to believe Ian Bailey every single time, even when the other person has no skin in the game and has no reason to lie. Multiple people say he confessed. He knew things he shouldn't have soon after the crime. He lied about disappearing out of the house in the middle of the night at the time of the crime until Jules said otherwise in her statement, she also said he made comments earlier that night about going to Alfie's, and that he acquired the scratch while he was out (now denying that of course, but it's another case of one person's word against the other's, and when you're comparing written statements that the police took against someone who's implicated in the crime and keeps changing their story, you'd be mad to take Bailey's side on that one)

None of which are enough to convict him beyond reasonable doubt and many of them have been shown to come from unreliable sources (Marie Farrell, Martin Graham), people under duress (Marie Farrell, Jules Thomas) and also seem to be conflicting (his coat was washed/burnt yet was seized?). **** sticks though and the more "have you heard about ...." feeds into these individual things which may or may not be bogus.

quokula wrote: »

The only court of law in which he was ever tried, which was presided over by multiple experienced and independent judges, found him guilty. The police who investigated the crime believe he is guilty. Multiple independent people say he told them he did it. He's committed extreme violence against women in the past. Every time he's taken a civil case he's ended up just digging a worse hole for himself in court. None of that paints a positive picture for Bailey.

He hasn't been convicted of anything. His libel case was thrown out as rather than being defamed he seemed more like a person who courted the infamy rather than shied away from it. He did get damages where one paper said he was violent towards he ex-wife when that wasn't the case (I think).

There are clearly things that rile people up about him. He's brash, over-confident and has an over-inflated ego. He is known to have assulted his partner while they've been together (although I'd guarantee there are a few more there who quite possibly have as well) and a lot of people don't like him. In fact when the case broke I remember my mother saying she didn't like the look of that fella. Sounds like the guards would have been happy to have someone to arrest to cover up the botch job they made of the whole affair and his neighbours would have been delighted to see the back of him. None of this means he did what people think he did.

c.p.w.g.w

tibruit wrote: »

I don`t believe Bailey at all. You are suggesting the French witnesses are inventing a story to incriminate Bailey. I don`t believe that either. Alfie was 90% certain he introduced them. There`s another Irish witness who saw Alfie introduce them. The question that really needs to be addressed is why he lied about meeting her.

Ah listen I have been briefly introduced to people while doing work, one of which is a famous person, have zero recall of the introduction...I remember the days work but not being very briefly introduced to this person

sekiro

quokula wrote: »

He's committed extreme violence against women in the past.

Violence against "women", plural?
Or violence against a specific woman?

Bailey is a pretty horrible guy who should have done prison time for the assault on his partner either way.

However, I think sometimes our biases are exposed when looking at situations like this. I've seen that "violence against women" thing a lot but it's technically a bit of a falsehood.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over this guy getting locked up just based on who he is but in terms of looking at justice there is a lot of quite worrying stuff surrounding the case.

OMM 0000

sekiro wrote: »

I wonder if he had been wearing gloves in the far West of Ireland on Xmas Day that this would have been used against him?

Based on some of the comments here it would be proof he did it.

Also, if I killed someone and my hands were covered in cuts because of it, I'd definitely be wearing gloves. It's also a freezing day so it's totally normal.

sekiro

quokula wrote: »

Yeah if you're guessing what a professional Hitman would do to make it not look like a Hitman, then surely arranging an accident / complete disappearance would make far more sense than carrying it out close to the neighbour's house, trying to make it look like a deranged lunatic leaving a massive mess behind and relying on a large dose of police incompetence in investigating the scene.

Particularly in a very remote area, where your target seems to have a fondness of complete isolation and travelling to places like three castle head where there are no people around, and there are rough seas in close proximity for dumping any evidence.

Her family would have known the husband and seem to have zero suspicions against him, the only reason people forward the theory seems to be that he was rich therefore he must be dodgy (I have no idea how on earth someone as high profile as him would start making inquiries about how to hire a professional hitman without raising any suspicions)

Yeah, I think the Hitman theory would be way off and if IB was pushing this theory then that's a big red flag.

I just don't believe that a Hitman would use that level of violence and brutality. You'd have to think the husband/ex lover would be absolutely livid with the sheer level of violence there. A hitman would surely just be in and out and would very likely go for anything that wasn't this.

The level of violence implies psychosis (drugs? Someone off their meds? Mental issues?) or something deeply personal (as in she knows her killer or its someone who feels that she should be killed).

odyssey06

quokula wrote: »

The only court of law in which he was ever tried, which was presided over by multiple experienced and independent judges, found him guilty. The police who investigated the crime believe he is guilty. Multiple independent people say he told them he did it. He's committed extreme violence against women in the past.

Those judges have doubtful experience judging evidence gathered under a completely different judicial adversarial system to their own.
The French system with a presiding magistrate acts as a DPP throught the investigation - that did not happen here.
So we have a miscarriage of justice.
The French didnt seem too bothered about the legality of their jurisdiction or basics of a fair trial or due process.
And I would doubt their independence in such a political show trial.
What did the French police ever contribute to this investigation - remembering some of the initial other suspects were on French soil.

Every innocent person freed on further evidence was put there because the police thought them guilty.
Every person found not guilty in a fair trial was tried becaude the police thought them guilty.

sekiro

On Sky the archive footage of her parents has them stating that they had been to Ireland and that the heating wasn't working. So she went to fix the heating so the family could use the place after Xmas.

On Netflix it's shown that she more or less begged everyone she knew to come with her cos she was meeting this poet guy called Owen/Eion?

The thing is that if IB hadn't specifically planned to kill her then this idea that he was meeting some French film maker to work on a cultural project wouldn't be something he would keep secret. It also wouldn't really explain the timing for when he decides to go up there. After midnight on the 22nd while drunk.

The "he definitely knew her" angle seems like its there to imply that the whole thing was premeditated?

odyssey06

sekiro wrote: »

On Sky the archive footage of her parents has them stating that they had been to Ireland and that the heating wasn't working. So she went to fix the heating so the family could use the place after Xmas.
On Netflix it's shown that she more or less begged everyone she knew to come with her cos she was meeting this poet guy called Owen/Eion?

The witnesses who took how many years to 'remember' this ... they didnt think to mention it when Bailey was arrested in 1997?
Or when Sophie was killed?

TheQuietBeatle

odyssey06 wrote: »

Theres no evidence Bailey was a lover.
I have never heard of a classic crime of passion involving two people who were never alone together.

I never said Bailey was but open to this being someone else. This looks like classic crime of passion.

Either that or an incredibly random attack from a random stranger. I just don't buy that theory.

Has the man with Marie ever been identified? He's a key witness.

tibruit

OMM 0000 wrote: »

He didn't though, he just forget he went out to the house in their back garden. It's quite normal to forget things you did the other day. For example, did I go to the shops on Saturday? I don't think so... but there's probably a receipt someone can produce to prove I'm "lying".

I don`t accept this at all. It wasn`t an ordinary day or night he was being asked to recall. A murder locally in a rural community makes it an extraordinary day. You would be hyper-focused on what you were up to at the time of the murder and if you might have noticed anything suspicious the day before the event or in the immediate aftermath. There can be no doubt that he lied initially.

yaboya1

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There was a few days before the murder and him being suspected. Plenty of time to burn evidence.

I don't think anybody was suspected before the murder....

yaboya1

yaboya1 wrote: »

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

I don't think anybody was suspected before the murder....

Maybe a comma might have gone in there somewhere!

lawrencesummers

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I wonder how far have we really come since the days of the witch trials?

He's a bit weird

He probably secretly knew her

He was divorced so he probably hated women

He beat up his girlfriend

...convict him for the murder of the French woman.

Considering we never put him on trial it’s fair to say we have come very far.


What’s utterly sad about him and his character (guilty or not) is that he craves and courts attention so much that he is enthusiastically open about the idea of gaining attention from being considered a murderer, surely that’s something that you never want to be associated with.

Guilty or not after all these years he has nothing to gain from giving these interviews (presuming sky / Netflix didn’t pay him) only to cast the spotlight on him, a spotlight that surely nobody wants shone their way.

What a terrible flaw of a person.

yaboya1

This case reminds me a lot of the Madeleine McCann case, with IB replacing the McCanns and STDP replacing Madeleine.

Many think the McCanns/IB are guilty, while many others think the complete opposite.

I've no idea what to make of either case. Given how long they've both gone unsolved, I'm obviously not the only one.

Neither case has any/enough concrete evidence to prove anyone's guilt, never mind lead to a conviction.

lawrencesummers

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Considering we never put him on trial it’s fair to say we have come very far.


What’s utterly sad about him and his character (guilty or not) is that he craves and courts attention so much that he is enthusiastically open about the idea of gaining attention from being considered a murderer, surely that’s something that you never want to be associated with.

Guilty or not after all these years he has nothing to gain from giving these interviews (presuming sky / Netflix didn’t pay him) only to cast the spotlight on him, a spotlight that surely nobody wants shone their way.

What a terrible flaw of a person.

You could very easily " turn the coin" & say for a guy thats been persecuted by the legal system for nearly 3 decades for a heinous crime that he's never been tried for ( due to lack of evidence, motive, incompetence etc.) He's actually quite resilliant???????

lawrencesummers

Ken Mc Carthy wrote: »

You could very easily " turn the coin" & say for a guy thats been persecuted by the legal system for nearly 3 decades for a heinous crime that he's never been tried for ( due to lack of evidence, motive, incompetence etc.) He's actually quite resilliant???????

Naw, if this happened a ‘normal’ person the Garda and public investigations into him would be a massive inconvenience and they would be tormented and avoid anything to do with the case. He welcomes it, and even appears to enjoy the attention and interviews. At no point has he said that he is fed up with all of it.


He’s a strange strange man be it a guilty one or not.

Henry...

Is the Netflix one as good as the sky one ?

OMM 0000

Henry... wrote: »

Is the Netflix one as good as the sky one ?

Different.

The Sky one is thoughtful, slow, almost poetic.

The Netflix one is faster and aimed at a different audience. Entertainment rather than "trying to get to the bottom of this".

FishOnABike

patobrien12 wrote: »

Find the gate a retest it. This needs to be a priority.

I'd say that would be worthless at this stage. Once the chain of custody is broken it could have little or no evidential value.

fryup

the sky one is slightly sympathetic to Bailey, the netflix one is a guillotine job on Bailey as it was partly sponsored by the toscan du plantier family

OMM 0000

tibruit wrote: »

I don`t accept this at all. It wasn`t an ordinary day or night he was being asked to recall. A murder locally in a rural community makes it an extraordinary day. You would be hyper-focused on what you were up to at the time of the murder and if you might have noticed anything suspicious the day before the event or in the immediate aftermath. There can be no doubt that he lied initially.

OK, but he's an alcoholic. It changes everything.

I know in Ireland people don't really understand alcoholism, but I live in Asia where I'm surrounded by expat alcoholics, and his behaviour (messy, forgetful, ridiculous) is totally normal to me so him not really remembering things properly and being an idiot is expected.

Henry...

Henry... wrote: »

Is the Netflix one as good as the sky one ?

The NF one is a good ol fashioned lynch job, a hatchet job of IB, no sense of balance. A bit like the farcical kangaroo court in Paris, its funded by the du planter family

MoonUnit75

Henry... wrote: »

Is the Netflix one as good as the sky one ?

It's more factual and talks to the witnesses, they tell their story. Jim Sheridan's tells Jim Sheridan's story.

lawrencesummers

Ken Mc Carthy wrote: »

The NF one is a good ol fashioned lynch job, a hatchet job of IB, no sense of balance. A bit like the farcical kangaroo court in Paris, its funded by the du planter family

This I didn’t know. What’s the story with that?


The Nf one mentions a few other possible suspects for half an episode, like a ghost and a hitman. And then it goes full Bailey for the rest of it.

TheQuietBeatle

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

There’s surely enough evidence to convict........Marie Farrell

She along with her lover were in the area, 100%. She is more shady than Ian with her story changing every 5 minutes.

dublin49

Ken Mc Carthy wrote: »

The NF one is a good ol fashioned lynch job, a hatchet job of IB, no sense of balance. A bit like the farcical kangaroo court in Paris, its funded by the du planter family

The netflix one interviews lots of witnesses and put their accounts on film record.I watched the SKY one first and wasnt aware of most of accusations against Bailey by the end of the series.

EmmetSpiceland

lawrencesummers wrote: »

This I didn’t know. What’s the story with that?

Isn’t one of the cousins or uncles a producer for the Netflix doc?

EmmetSpiceland

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Isn’t one of the cousins or uncles a producer for the Netflix doc?

In the last fortnight IB has stepped back from the NF version, has distanced himself from it completely, realised it was a du planter funded/ produced hatchet job.....all a bit like the kangaroo Court in Paris. I love the part in NF where the interviewer asks Frank buttimer ( IB solicitor) if he'd be following the Paris charade.....' why would I, he'll be found guilty'

MoonUnit75

Ken Mc Carthy wrote: »

In the last fortnight IB has stepped back from the NF version, has distanced himself from it completely, realised it was a du planter funded/ produced hatchet job.....all a bit like the kangaroo Court in Paris. I love the part in NF where the interviewer asks Frank buttimer ( IB solicitor) if he'd be following the Paris charade.....' why would I, he'll be found guilty'

Here's what IB says of the Jim Sheridan one:

I understand that Jim Sheridan is making a documentary about your situation.
Jim Sheridan, the national treasure that he is, approached me during the 64-day civil action up in Dublin. He came into the court and listened to the proceedings and introduced himself and we had a cigarette at lunchtime. He said he was very interested in the story and wanted to do something about it, but didn’t know what. At the same time, I’d been approached by a well-known investigative journalist, Donal MacIntyre. He expressed the same views. So what I did was, in effect, a bit of horticulture. I cross-fertilised Jim Sheridan and Donal MacIntyre, and I brought them together. As a result it is now a two-pronged project which is a work in progress

https://www.hotpress.com/culture/the-full-interview-with-ian-bailey-victim-of-the-state-20380088

Is this one of these strange peculiarities in our Irish psyche where we think a documentary is more likely to be manipulated by the family of the victim than the one made in collaboration with the self-confessed main suspect?