Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

Biker79

Biker79 wrote: »

I never said that, and I don't excuse.it.:rolleyes:

But your comments are typical of the black and white, simplistic thinking that surrounds these topics and have resulted in the life of an innocent man being ruined.

In Germany they call it ' island mentality ' .

Eh, no this just sounds like you trying to justify domestic violence. I do think there was insufficient evidence against Bailey and I'd veer towards him being innocent. Equally so, he very much so is guilty of domestic violence and the fact she remained with him doesn't mean she deserved it or something.. I would say you've managed to illustrate how warped your views are than anything else...

Aidric

Watched this series and thought it did a decent enough retelling of the case whilst coming down strong in a certain direction in terms of the perpetrator.

The West Cork podcast is still the benchmark when it comes to this case. To echo what I said in that thread there are so many loose ends and bungles in this case, not to mention the shady testimonies, that it is possible to come to any number of conclusions.

I don't believe Bailey did it. He is an oddball attention seeker for sure but there is no forensic evidence linking him to the murder. Additionally where is the motive?

Marie Farrell is the nub of this case and the key witness for the Gardai. The fact that she lied in evidence should mean any testimony from her should be dismissed out of hand. If she was having an affair her timelines are dodgy. With a husband and kids at home she was cruising on country roads at 3AM?

odyssey06

Treppen wrote: »

Is the podcast only available on Audible?

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9yc3MuYWNhc3QuY29tL3dlc3Rjb3Jr

Pirate Master

Treppen wrote: »

Is the podcast only available on Audible?

It's on Google Podcasts aswell.

Biker79

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh, no this just sounds like you trying to justify domestic violence. I do think there was insufficient evidence against Bailey and I'd veer towards him being innocent. Equally so, he very much so is guilty of domestic violence and the fact she remained with him doesn't mean she deserved it or something.. I would say you've managed to illustrate how warped your views are than anything else...

Shots fired from the signallers of impeccable virtue.

Maybe Jules was bashing IB around? Its common in Ireland. Maybe he doesn't bruise that easily?

We just don't know. Well I don't...you appear to be an expert in these matters.

Biker79

Biker79 wrote: »

Shots fired from the signallers of impeccable virtue.

Maybe Jules was bashing IB around? Its common in Ireland. Maybe he doesn't bruise that easily?

We just don't know. Well I don't...you appear to be an expert in these matters.

There has never been a suggestion that she beat him.... So you're just making incredible claims to justify the fact he most definitely beat her. The bar for virtue signaling is incredibly low for you...

Darc19

The superintendent comes across as a bit of an eejit.

Untrustworthy would be my impression.

It's been proven that the gardai were utterly incompetent in the investigation, yet listening to him you'd think they were brilliant.

TheQuietBeatle

I'm not a fan of Bailey and the way he carries on. However, this case looks like a classic crime of passion and someone known to the victim. There's no evidence of lovers, etc. so I'm open to the Bailey theory especially as the cuts do look bad for him and the fact he told about 5 people he did it and ''went too far''.

odyssey06

TheQuietBeatle wrote: »

I'm not a fan of Bailey and the way he carries on. However, this case looks like a classic crime of passion and someone known to the victim. There's no evidence of lovers, etc. so I'm open to the Bailey theory especially as the cuts do look bad for him and the fact he told about 5 people he did it and ''went too far''.

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.

Aidric

Darc19 wrote: »

The superintendent comes across as a bit of an eejit.

Untrustworthy would be my impression.

It's been proven that the gardai were utterly incompetent in the investigation, yet listening to him you'd think they were brilliant.

I wouldn't say he was an eejit but he definitely came across more cocksure than he should have given he led a sketchy investigation at best. It shouldn't be forgotten that a lot of garda requests to interview persons of interest in France were stonewalled by the French authorities.

Xander10

The person accessing her house when she was away, using her bath and snooping around her stuff.

Pity she didn't set up the camera to trap them. After she changed the locks, it appears to have stopped the access.

tibruit

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think he was drunk and had a blackout.
That's why his account of his actions is all over the place.

We don't even know what time Sophie was killed at.
It could quite possibly happened in early morning - the food found in the stomach suggested breakfast. In which case Bailey has a clear alibi.
.

It would have to have been very early. The doctor was on the scene at 11 am and noted that rigor mortis had set in. This usually begins approximately 4 hours after death, but in colder conditions it would take longer. It got down to 2 degrees that night so she was probably killed before 5 am. She spoke on the phone to her husband shortly after midnight. She was killed at the same time that Bailey was out of bed.

Windmill100000

tibruit wrote: »

It would have to have been very early. The doctor was on the scene at 11 am and noted that rigor mortis had set in. This usually begins approximately 4 hours after death, but in colder conditions it would take longer. It got down to 2 degrees that night so she was probably killed before 5 am. She spoke on the phone to her husband shortly after midnight. She was killed at the same time that Bailey was out of bed.

Rigor mortis averages 2-4 hours I think.

Watched both with an open mind. Had only read about the story in passing interest whenever it’s been in the media. Read up a little since.

I’d be absolutely open to the theory that it could have been Bailey. But I just don’t see it. Both docs seems to have a differing opinions. Sheridan seems to want to exonerate Bailey, the Netflix one pushes him as chief suspect most of the way through, but as a previous poster mentioned about the creators, neither seem to take a genuine neutral stance.

A lot of the Gardai behaviour doesn’t add up. Too many important things lost - how do you lose a blood splattered gate? I know the gardai’s incompetence is accepted as a given in this, but I dunno, it doesn’t add up. Some of MF’s allegations and theories would do with some exploration into Gardai behaviour in this case.

I’ll have a listen to the pod and see if that pushes me in either direction. I wouldn’t lean any way between whether it was IB, the husband or a member of the community being protected.

odyssey06

tibruit wrote: »

It would have to have been very early. The doctor was on the scene at 11 am and noted that rigor mortis had set in. This usually begins approximately 4 hours after death, but in colder conditions it would take longer. It got down to 2 degrees that night so she was probably killed before 5 am. She spoke on the phone to her husband shortly after midnight. She was killed at the same time that Bailey was out of bed.

It can start within 2-4 hours, and yes low temperatures can delay it - but 'violent exercise' can cause it to occur more quickly according to this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/rigor-mortis

So it could have happened at 7am or even 8am.

tibruit

Windmill100000 wrote: »

Rigor mortis averages 2-4 hours I think.

2-6 depending on the temperature. 4 is the average. It can be 2 hours in warmer conditions. That`s my understanding of it anyway. It was just above freezing on the night in question.

tibruit

odyssey06 wrote: »

It can start within 2-4 hours, and yes low temperatures can delay it - but 'violent exercise' can cause it to occur more quickly according to this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/rigor-mortis

So it could have happened at 7am or even 8am.

Bailey still doesn`t have an alibi at 8.

Henry...

Darc19 wrote: »

It's important to know that one of the producers of the Netflix doc is a friend of the Du Plantier family.

And that Ian Bailey has not been convicted of any crime

Nozebleed

has marie farrell ever been questioned about the murder? she was in the area at the time of death and seems a little bit odd in fairness. just as odd as mr.bailey

Foweva Awone

My theory is that the mystery man in the car with Marie Farrell was in fact Ian Bailey.

They were having some sort of an affair, they had a fight, and she dumped him out of her car at or around that Kealfada bridge. He's pissed off and drunkenly decides to make his way to the French woman's house, possibly to try it on with her. Gets rejected, gets violent with her, takes it too far.

Marie Farrell hears of the murder the next day, immediately suspects Bailey as she knows he'd been in the area and in a bad mood, so she decides to report him "anonymously" so her husband won't find out what she was up to.

I don't think it's much more outlandish than any other theory!

odyssey06

tibruit wrote: »

Bailey still doesn`t have an alibi at 8.

I thought I read he was home at 9am... and there was no sign of his car at the scene so that's a bit of a stretch to cover on foot in that time.

odyssey06

Foweva Awone wrote: »

My theory is that the mystery man in the car with Marie Farrell was in fact Ian Bailey.
They were having some sort of an affair, they had a fight, and she dumped him out of her car at or around that Kealfada bridge. He's pissed off and drunkenly decides to make his way to the French woman's house, possibly to try it on with her. Gets rejected, gets violent with her, takes it too far.
Marie Farrell hears of the murder the next day, immediately suspects Bailey as she knows he'd been in the area and in a bad mood, so she decides to report him "anonymously" so her husband won't find out what she was up to.
I don't think it's much more outlandish than any other theory!

But her original evidence against Bailey was all over the shop... she actually said the guy was the same height as her husband who isn't ballpark same height as Bailey.

"The 2001 DPP analysis examined the quality of Ms Farrell’s evidence. It found that she had given different physical descriptions of the man whom she had identified as Bailey. The man on the bridge, she said, was the same man whom she saw in Schull a few days later."
“Marie Farrell’s powers of observation and identification are diminished even further by virtue of the statement she made on January 22, 1997. She describes the man she saw in the town who she later purports to identify as Bailey as being very tall. This contradicts her description of the man as being five foot 10 inches in height as stated by her on December 27, 1996.”

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30928165.html

odyssey06

Plus are we expected Bailey was staggering drunk .. yet you can make it home by moonlight.
After a frenzied adrenalin rush attack.
This wasnt a route he walked daily and knew the terrain instinctively.

odyssey06

Remember it is the unlikeable types that are their own worst enemies that police hone in on when they need to 'get a result'.

tibruit

odyssey06 wrote: »

I thought I read he was home at 9am... and there was no sign of his car at the scene so that's a bit of a stretch to cover on foot in that time.

Given the prevailing temperature, she was dead before 7, and probably before 5.

odyssey06

tibruit wrote: »

Given the prevailing temperature, she was dead before 7, and probably before 5.

Even accounting for the effect of her fleeing and fighting for her life?

qwerty13

Foweva Awone wrote: »

My theory is that the mystery man in the car with Marie Farrell was in fact Ian Bailey.

They were having some sort of an affair, they had a fight, and she dumped him out of her car at or around that Kealfada bridge. He's pissed off and drunkenly decides to make his way to the French woman's house, possibly to try it on with her. Gets rejected, gets violent with her, takes it too far.

Marie Farrell hears of the murder the next day, immediately suspects Bailey as she knows he'd been in the area and in a bad mood, so she decides to report him "anonymously" so her husband won't find out what she was up to.

I don't think it's much more outlandish than any other theory!

IB fancied himself as an intellectual, and probably as a cut above the locals. I can’t see him going for someone like MF - I don’t think his image of himself would let him go for someone as ordinary as her.

cloudatlas

If her husband or someone else from france killed her wouldn't they be on flight or ferry passenger lists?

GerardKeating

cloudatlas wrote: »

If her husband or someone else from france killed her wouldn't they be on flight or ferry passenger lists?

Not if they came via the UK, easy to slip in unrecorded via the north. And did anyone actually check into this?

bassy

may do one for jo jo dollard as shes irish and must be deserving of it.

Windmill100000

I thought it ironic that IB was outraged that newspapers printed stories it might be him, but he had no problem pushing the idea it was a hitman hired by Sophie's husband.

I really don't know what to make of IB. He is an abominable drunk and I got the feeling Jules was afraid of him (understandable). On one of the documentaries she said she did not believe he did it ('Murder at the cottage', recent interview), in the Netflix one she said (in a statement at time of murder) she did not know if he did it or not.

I don't know if we will ever know the truth.

Muppet Man

Think jules really does know the truth, and now that they are separated, a lot more will come out.

whisky_galore

odyssey06 wrote: »

Remember it is the unlikeable types that are their own worst enemies that police hone in on when they need to 'get a result'.

Watched too many episodes of the Famous Five.

DeadHand

Muppet Man wrote: »

Think jules really does know the truth, and now that they are separated, a lot more will come out.

We'll hear little more and nothing new from Jules , I suspect.

She'll wash her hands of Bailey and the incident (insofar as that is possible) and move on from her life.

I didn't get the impression from her interviews that she was in any way manipulated or intimidated by Bailey, and likely has not been for a long time, even if she was at some stages of their relationship.

The impression I did get was that, though she no longer loved him, she had committed to stand by him until the nightmare was over and honoured that commitment. That is why as soon as the threat of extradition dissipated, she got rid of him immediately.

It didn't strike me as a scenario whereby a battered partner finally escaped her tormentor and will tell all. More a case of a woman moving on after doing what she believed to be the right thing. Her watch is over.

Jules strikes me as an independent, strong, moral woman. I think she fully believes Bailey is innocent and a massive injustice was inflicted on him. To the point she sacrificed a chunk of her life fighting the corner of a man she had come to despise.

bingobars

Foweva Awone wrote: »

My theory is that the mystery man in the car with Marie Farrell was in fact Ian Bailey.

They were having some sort of an affair, they had a fight, and she dumped him out of her car at or around that Kealfada bridge. He's pissed off and drunkenly decides to make his way to the French woman's house, possibly to try it on with her. Gets rejected, gets violent with her, takes it too far.

Marie Farrell hears of the murder the next day, immediately suspects Bailey as she knows he'd been in the area and in a bad mood, so she decides to report him "anonymously" so her husband won't find out what she was up to.

I don't think it's much more outlandish than any other theory!

Average foot speed over uneven ground, barring injury, is 4 miles an hour which gives us a radius of 6 miles

Gussie Scrotch

Windmill100000 wrote: »

Rigor mortis averages 2-4 hours I think.

Onset of rigor mortis can take anything from 1-6 hours.

costacorta

tibruit wrote: »

It would have to have been very early. The doctor was on the scene at 11 am and noted that rigor mortis had set in. This usually begins approximately 4 hours after death, but in colder conditions it would take longer. It got down to 2 degrees that night so she was probably killed before 5 am. She spoke on the phone to her husband shortly after midnight. She was killed at the same time that Bailey was out of bed.

Is it not strange to be talking to husband after midnight? Just wondering did he ring her and did he always do it previously at that time roughly or was it a coincidence that he was talking to her hours before she was murdered . His albi? .

Gussie Scrotch

costacorta wrote: »

Is it not strange to be talking to husband after midnight? Just wondering did he ring her and did he always do it previously at that time roughly or was it a coincidence that he was talking to her hours before she was murdered . His albi? .

He was in France, no question about that.

The only way he could have been involved is if he arranged a third party to kill her. He didn't do it himself

Mr.Crinklewood

costacorta wrote: »

Is it not strange to be talking to husband after midnight? Just wondering did he ring her and did he always do it previously at that time roughly or was it a coincidence that he was talking to her hours before she was murdered . His albi? .

Do we know who called who?

If he called her, it could have been a way to help identify the house? ( "I'll call at 0015" - light goes on...house identified..)

AdrianG08

New lead from none other than Marie Farrell

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/sceptical-gardaireview-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-murder-file-following-new-lead-40610650.html

Must be nothing on telly

Darc19

bingobars wrote: »

Average foot speed over uneven ground, barring injury, is 4 miles an hour which gives us a radius of 6 miles

I doubt that.

Average walking speed in good conditions is 3-4 mph.

Cold dark mid winter night with no street lights and uneven ground you'd find it difficult to do more than 2.5mph and that would be a fit person.


Either Bailey was an absolute genius who planned this to the nth degree (no, he's not) or he was exceptionally lucky with every single aspect of the case or he's innocent and gardai have simply continued their misguided beliefs.

I favour the last option as I have direct experience of how gardai make up their mind and ignore actual evidence and I well believe the utter incompetence of some members and their dogged refusal to back down no matter what evidence is presented and they will lie and they will make stuff up and they will steer witnesses and cajole witnesses to make their side of a case stack up and it still happens.

Gussie Scrotch

Darc19 wrote: »

I doubt that.

Average walking speed in good conditions is 3-4 mph.

Cold dark mid winter night with no street lights and uneven ground you'd find it difficult to do more than 2.5mph and that would be a fit person.


Either Bailey was an absolute genius who planned this to the nth degree (no, he's not) or he was exceptionally lucky with every single aspect of the case or he's innocent and gardai have simply continued their misguided beliefs.

I favour the last option as I have direct experience of how gardai make up their mind and ignore actual evidence and I well believe the utter incompetence of some members and their dogged refusal to back down no matter what evidence is presented and they will lie and they will make stuff up and they will steer witnesses and cajole witnesses to make their side of a case stack up and it still happens.

Yes. Confirmation bias. This matter is a classic example. The Colin Stagg case in the UK is another.

AdrianG08

AdrianG08 wrote: »

New lead from none other than Marie Farrell

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/sceptical-gardaireview-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-murder-file-following-new-lead-40610650.html

Must be nothing on telly

Article behind a paywall-but this posted last week explains what's currently happening

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/crime/gardai-given-name-frenchman-seen-24409179

I don't think this is going to come to anything. It's extraordinary how she has come forward with this information at this late stage given her past involvement in the case- it makes absolutely no sense to me - if this was so bleeding important why didn't she persevere with this information all those years ago, instead of getting caught up in the fiasco of sightings of IB on a bridge - I can't to this day explain why Marie Farrell behaved as she did.

TomSweeney

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I'm in the "who is the most likely killer given the evidence" camp.

Based on the zero evidence we have, I'm hedging my bets it's the husband as it's usually the husband. I also have serious issues with (a) he was having an affair (b) he refused to fly to Ireland when her body was discovered (wtf) and (c) there was clearly some major problem in their marriage hence her spending so much time in Ireland without him.

I can't help feel a lot of the finger pointing at Bailey is due to his personality. It reminds me a bit of Trump - because he's a clown and narcissist about half the population take that to an extreme and assume it means he's some sort of pedo nazi.

zero evidence jesus H christ.


It was Ian Bailey , 100% , he was found guilty in a French court, I would trust them more then some boards user that could be Ian Bailey for all I know.




And the comparison with Trump ??? what ???


I think some people really can't see reality.

Gussie Scrotch

TomSweeney wrote: »

zero evidence jesus H christ.


It was Ian Bailey , 100% , he was found guilty in a French court, I would trust them more then some boards user that could be Ian Bailey for all I know.




And the comparison with Trump ??? what ???


I think some people really can't see reality.

The department of Public Prosecutions have stated clearly that they see no evidence of his guilt.

And they have, very forensically explained why. https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/

odyssey06

TomSweeney wrote: »

zero evidence jesus H christ.
It was Ian Bailey , 100% , he was found guilty in a French court, I would trust them more then some boards user that could be Ian Bailey for all I know.
And the comparison with Trump ??? what ???
I think some people really can't see reality.

Our DPP has said no evidence.
The French system is totally different to ours where this is a presiding judge overseeing the investigation who ensures police processes and evidence are to court standard.
Our system is adversarial... meant to be challenged in court.
Taking our evidence as if it was gatheres under their system is fundamentally flawed - thats not opinion but that of legal experts.
It is a miscarriage of justice.

And I wouldnt trust any governnent with the powers to arrest non citizens anywhere in the world. That is a kangaroo court.

PokeHerKing

TomSweeney wrote: »

zero evidence jesus H christ.


It was Ian Bailey , 100% , he was found guilty in a French court, I would trust them more then some boards user that could be Ian Bailey for all I know.




And the comparison with Trump ??? what ???


I think some people really can't see reality.

Ignoring the whole 100% certainty of anything. Bailey was convicted in a French court in part, using witness statements that had since been retracted.

The Irish handling of the murder was an abomination but so was that French trial. It would never have happened for a working class French citizen. It was pantomime.

TomSweeney

OK, if you can't see all these little things adding up, if you think him admitting it to people in drunken states was "black humour" .... burning stuff in his garden the next day, covered in cuts his partner admitting he left his bed that night after constantly changing his story, denying he knew her when he clearly did , all these things on their own might not point to it , but add them up, it makes it bloody likely it was him.

Occams razor and all.

Anyway, don't think ill continue posting here, as I said earlier there is no neutrality in this.

mikemac2

Bailey saying the Gardai wouldn't know how to deal with an Englishman with education

The outstanding arrogance of the man. :rolleyes: As if he was Lord of the manor surrounded by peasants.

I didn't know about much about this case and enjoyed the Netflix series very much, thumbs up

Gussie Scrotch

TomSweeney wrote: »

OK, if you can't see all these little things adding up, if you think him admitting it to people in drunken states was "black humour" .... burning stuff in his garden the next day, covered in cuts his partner admitting he left his bed that night after constantly changing his story, denying he knew her when he clearly did , all these things on their own might not point to it , but add them up, it makes it bloody likely it was him.

Occams razor and all.

Anyway, don't think ill continue posting here, as I said earlier there is no neutrality in this.

Tom, I think you're getting a bit frustrated with this, which is perfectly understandable, its a baffling mystery which has polarised opinion. There are many people in your camp and many in the other. Nobody can be 100% sure of what happened Your opinion is perfectly valid and you may, indeed, be right in your assertions. but you could also be wrong, none of us know for sure.