Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

OwlsZat

odyssey06 wrote: »

Lots of people burn rubbish.

Lots of people do burn rubbish.

Not many people burn mattresses, and when they do burn rubbish they tend to burn it up the back of the garden, not two feet from the back door.

The burning of the mattress is a particularly peculiar event.

odyssey06

OwlsZat wrote: »

Lots of people do burn rubbish.
Not many people burn mattresses, and when they do burn rubbish they tend to burn it up the back of the garden, not two feet from the back door.
The burning of the mattress is a particularly peculiar event.

Two feet from the back door?
Was this an arson attempt?

No idea how this connects to a murder.

tibruit

OwlsZat wrote: »

Lots of people do burn rubbish.

Not many people burn mattresses, and when they do burn rubbish they tend to burn it up the back of the garden, not two feet from the back door.

The burning of the mattress is a particularly peculiar event.

He could have had two coats. He definitely burned boots or shoes. If he burned his coat he had probably got another one by the time the guards were on his case. It was the middle of winter after all.

Gussie Scrotch

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

That's not the case though, GSOC's report says there is no evidence for corruption, falsification of evidence, coercion of witnesses or changing statements. There were other suspects, one man explained how he went to his solicitor because the gardai were investigating him so persistently that he thought he would be charged. I think it was the man who kept horses on the land around Sophie's?

GSOCs report is, just about, the most obvious and blatant cover up of the whole affair. In terms of getting to the root cause of Garda failure/corruption, it is of zero value.

Deeec

OwlsZat wrote: »

Lots of people do burn rubbish.

Not many people burn mattresses, and when they do burn rubbish they tend to burn it up the back of the garden, not two feet from the back door.

The burning of the mattress is a particularly peculiar event.

Jules said the studio had been rented out. The mattress was burned after tenents left. Thats not unusual at all.

QuietMan2010

EdHoven wrote: »

The Met is one of the best police forces in the world but they couldn't find who shot a star TV presenter in broad daylight 3 years after Schull with phone records, CCTV DNA, ballistics etc.
The French can't find who shot the Al-Hilli family in 2012.
AGS are no worse in regards to unsolved murders than any other cops. Blaming it on culchies whereas sophisticated French or English detectives could crack the case is ignoring reality.

In fact the Met managed to pin Jill Dando's murder on the local weirdo, based on the flimsiest of forensic evidence. The conviction was later overturned, in part because the Met lied about armed police being present at his arrest (which could have transferred the microscopic particle of gunshot residue on which he was convicted). So yep, whether its police corruption or incompetence, it is not unique to AGS.

Gussie Scrotch

QuietMan2010 wrote: »

In fact the Met managed to pin Jill Dando's murder on the local weirdo, based on the flimsiest of forensic evidence. The conviction was later overturned, in part because the Met lied about armed police being present at his arrest (which could have transferred the microscopic particle of gunshot residue on which he was convicted). So yep, whether its police corruption or incompetence, it is not unique to AGS.

Quite right.

Given the type of work the police do (all police) the reliance on one another the promotion processes etc, its almost inevitable that when threatened in any way, they will close ranks. Its not right and I don't defend it but it is, to an extent, unavoidable.

FileNotFound

Given the facts of the case:

IB left his house to go (nobody knows) somewhere on the night in question and he had some scratches on arms.


No evidence at the scene - testimony of him being seen en route a lie and Gardai coercion - Bailey ramblings taken as fact - hearsay from a 14 yr old - evidence if anything showing he wasn't there went missing - french did not allow any french to be interviewed by Gardai for unknown reasons - STDP had very poor relationships with both husbands - both husbands powerful men with even more powerful friends (french president to boot) - Gardai screwed the whole lot.

All in all very interesting but utterly nothing there to convict anyone of anything

Yurt2

EdHoven wrote: »

The Met is one of the best police forces in the world but they couldn't find who shot a star TV presenter in broad daylight 3 years after Schull with phone records, CCTV DNA, ballistics etc.
The French can't find who shot the Al-Hilli family in 2012.
AGS are no worse in regards to unsolved murders than any other cops. Blaming it on culchies whereas sophisticated French or English detectives could crack the case is ignoring reality.

I was speaking to the monoculture of the Gardai to be honest. Unlikely you'd find a senior officer in the Met outside Scotland Yard exhorting journalists to go and have a pint before closing when giving a presser around a high profile murder, and in a case they were spectacularly botching that very moment.

Mackinac

Deeec wrote: »

Scratches on hands and face - no photos was taken of these scratches, IB said they were from cutting a christmas tree and from killing a turkey. Jules Thomas daughter confirmed he cut down a christmas tree.

Coat soaking in bathroom - this was remembered years after the murder by an Italian girl who stayed in their house ( she seen it on christmas eve ). This is also the coat that Ian Bailey supposedly wore on christmas morning. He done very well to squeeze that large coat into a bucket of water and then have it fully dry for the next morning. The gardai also took this coat for forensic testing but lost the coat. How would the Italian girl know that this was a coat without taking it out of the bucket. This is also the coat he was supposed to have burned. So you tell me which is story is correct

The aunt - Remembered years later that Sophie said she was going to meet Ian Bailey.

There is no evidence that he said that a french lady was murdered before anyone else knew. News like this would have spread like wildfire in a small community. My guess was Alfie Lyons and Shirley were on the phone straight away telling locals what had happened.

You need to read up on the case and listen to the 'West Cork podcast' before you throw IB in jail. There is no evidence whatsoever that IB is guilty.

In her statement she said she saw dark clothes soaking in the bathtub not a bucket of water.

Yurt2

Mackinac wrote: »

In her statement she said she saw dark clothes soaking in the bathtub not a bucket of water.

She's explicit in the documentary that it was a bucket. Unless the word for bucket and bath in Italian are the same and she was confused when speaking English, it's fairly unambiguous.

I have a long wool coat, unless it's a supersize bucket I'm not fitting it in one.

Deeec

Mackinac wrote: »

In her statement she said she saw dark clothes soaking in the bathtub not a bucket of water.

She definitely said bucket in the netflix doc

MoonUnit75

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

GSOCs report is, just about, the most obvious and blatant cover up of the whole affair. In terms of getting to the root cause of Garda failure/corruption, it is of zero value.

Why did he lose his civil case then?

FileNotFound

Slick666 wrote: »

What about the scratches on his hands and head, the coat soaking in the bucket in the bathroom, the bonfire outside his house, Sophie knew him as she mentioned his name to her aunt, he 'confessed to killing her', the woman saw him on the bridge even though she then retracted her statement, his partner said he went out that night and wasnt sure if he did it ( his own partner ), he said to people about the murder of a french woman even before the guards announced it. Its obvious he did it and Ive no idea why stupid f**king ireland wont give him over to france!!

Once again no evidence, he had a story for the scratches, if anything having loads of scratches means leaving evidence behind - none was found at the scene. They tested under her finger nails (one of the only preserved DNA pieces) and no match to Bailey - explain.

Coat was analysed and nothing found on it, then the Gardai magically lost it with the gate. Also it was supposed to be in the bucket/tub (seems to change every now and then) but was magically fit for purpose and on video hours later?? Thats some drying in winter with nothing but the clothes line haha.

Burning anything wasn't even a crime then. he probably burnt stuff every day - they did not have bin collection - where did the rubbish go?

Sophie may have known his name he was at the market all the time.

The woman who saw him on the bridge made it up at the request of the gardai who threatened to tell her husband she was with another man and later corrected the record. So thats a nothing now.

He confessed to who? He used black humour with a reporter and a child claimed he said he did it, the child didn't even attend the case in france, his mother did!! what the hell is that.

He went out that night and his partner has said she believes he never did it, they were together for years after ans she defended him no end...

So now we have established there is no evidence against him at all - just a flawed investigation.

Sure if you can swallow the brick netflix threw fair play. But no evidence means no Guilty verdict.


Now he is a degenerate with a history of violence so I am not claiming his innocence but you'd have to be of limited intelligence to believe the info proves anything.

Aidric

dublin49 wrote: »

In fairness the DPP is never going to throw the guards under the bus if he can avoid it at all.

On the contrary, I think he was pretty strong in his criticism of their work on the case. He referred to questionable practices.

Gussie Scrotch

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Why did he lose his civil case then?

Sorry, MoonUnit, I don't understand your question.

Can you exoand a bit?

dark crystal

Yurt! wrote: »

She's explicit in the documentary that it was a bucket. Unless the word for bucket and bath in Italian are the same and she was confused when speaking English, it's fairly unambiguous.

I have a long wool coat, unless it's a supersize bucket I'm not fitting it in one.

Her original testimony was that she saw dark clothes soaking in the bath:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ian-bailey-had-fresh-scratches-on-arms-the-day-body-found-court-told-1.3908180

Ms Boarina also told gardai that she saw a mark on Mr Bailey’s forehead but she could not remember where exactly it was located. She also recalled seeing dark clothes soaking in a bath but at some stage during her stay there, they were removed from the bath.

This somehow morphed into a black coat soaking in a bucket by the time she gave the Netflix interview.

Mackinac

Yurt! wrote: »

She's explicit in the documentary that it was a bucket. Unless the word for bucket and bath in Italian are the same and she was confused when speaking English, it's fairly unambiguous.

I have a long wool coat, unless it's a supersize bucket I'm not fitting it in one.

Possibly there could be language confusion. Nick Foster had a copy of her statement to the Guards and it is that he refers to in his book and hence the bathtub/tub. In her statement there is no mention of a coat just dark clothes. She said she did not get close enough to the tub to see what kind of clothes they were.

Why would you tell a 14 year old lad in a car that you smashed her brain in with a block?

Why would you burn a matress, clothes and boots metres from your back door over christmas?

Why would you continually threaten and intimidate a female witness if your were innocent?

Gussie Scrotch

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

Sorry, MoonUnit, I don't understand your question.

Can you exoand a bit?

Sorry MoonUnit, I meant expand.........

EmmetSpiceland

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Why did he lose his civil case then?

The Netflix doc seems to blame the failure of the case on Marie Farrell’s lying under oath. She was the Bailey’s star witness and she rendered herself useless to their case.

FileNotFound

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

The Netflix doc seems to blame the failure of the case on Marie Farrell’s lying under oath. She was the Bailey’s star witness and she rendered herself useless to their case.

Yes the person the Gardai told to tell a tale or they would inform her husband she was with another man was the best they had. And all she had was a man at a crossroads in the dark in a dark jacket that might have been bailey. And even the Gardai ommited the other person from the report.

Reality is if thats the best there is its a pretty poor case.

EmmetSpiceland

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why would you tell a 14 year old lad in a car that you smashed her brain in with a block?

He claims in the Sheridan doc that he, sarcastically, said ‘they’re saying I went up there and bashed her head in with a rock’.

The young lad, who apparently wasn’t too upset about it until after a Garda spoke to him, only heard Bailey say the part about going up and bashing her with a rock.

FileNotFound

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

He claims in the Sheridan doc that he, sarcastically, said ‘they’re saying I went up there and bashed her head in with a rock’.

The young lad, who apparently wasn’t too upset about it until after a Garda spoke to him, only heard Bailey say the part about going up and bashing her with a rock.

Then his mother acted as proxy witness in the french trial when the kid was an adult... All so odd.

How the french could find a guilty verdict is but another crime

How the french could find a guilty verdict is but another crime[/QUOTE]

Let's be honest that carry on in Paris was pure mickey mouse stuff...I wouldn't even go as far as referring to it as a 'showtrial' or a 'kangaroo' Court... it was a farce, an insult to justice, two fingers to the Irish legal system. I thought it was funny when the reporter asked IB solicitor if he would be following the French 'trial'... he answered ' why bother, Ian will be found guilty'. The 'trial' was at the behest of AND heavily financed by the du plantier family

Yurt2

dark crystal wrote: »

Her original testimony was that she saw dark clothes soaking in the bath:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ian-bailey-had-fresh-scratches-on-arms-the-day-body-found-court-told-1.3908180



This somehow morphed into a black coat soaking in a bucket by the time she gave the Netflix interview.

Good luck getting that past the DPP then

Slick666

FileNotFound wrote: »

Once again no evidence, he had a story for the scratches, if anything having loads of scratches means leaving evidence behind - none was found at the scene. They tested under her finger nails (one of the only preserved DNA pieces) and no match to Bailey - explain.

Coat was analysed and nothing found on it, then the Gardai magically lost it with the gate. Also it was supposed to be in the bucket/tub (seems to change every now and then) but was magically fit for purpose and on video hours later?? Thats some drying in winter with nothing but the clothes line haha.

Burning anything wasn't even a crime then. he probably burnt stuff every day - they did not have bin collection - where did the rubbish go?

Sophie may have known his name he was at the market all the time.

The woman who saw him on the bridge made it up at the request of the gardai who threatened to tell her husband she was with another man and later corrected the record. So thats a nothing now.

He confessed to who? He used black humour with a reporter and a child claimed he said he did it, the child didn't even attend the case in france, his mother did!! what the hell is that.

He went out that night and his partner has said she believes he never did it, they were together for years after ans she defended him no end...

So now we have established there is no evidence against him at all - just a flawed investigation.

Sure if you can swallow the brick netflix threw fair play. But no evidence means no Guilty verdict.


Now he is a degenerate with a history of violence so I am not claiming his innocence but you'd have to be of limited intelligence to believe the info proves anything.

Alright you have answers for everything. I do not see how cutting down a xmas tree would give you all those scratches and a turkey pecked his forehead... you believe that story? wow.

You never gave an explanation how he was telling people about the french woman murdered even before it was announced?

Gussie Scrotch

Yurt! wrote: »

Good luck getting that past the DPP then

Fits the pattern of the other interviews.

q) Can you tell me what you saw?

a0 well it was a long time ago and my memory is a bit hazy now.

q) Can you try? There's an lot resting on it. A woman is dead and if we can't get this bastard off the streets, no woman in Cork is safe.

a) Well, I'll try...I have a vague memory of a bucket on the floor in the bathroom, with something in it.....


q) Could it have been a coat?

a) Well, I think it may have been clothes of some kind.

q) A coat maybe?

a) It could have been I suppose

q) Was it dark coloured?

a) I think so, but as I said, its so long ago...

q) So it could have been a dark coloured coat?

a) possibly...I'm not sure...but it was clothing of some kind...

q) Was there a smell of bleach off the bucket?

a) I really can't be sure...there may have been.....

q) So a big dark coat soaking in a bucket of water with bleach?

a) well, yes, I guess it could have been, I suppose


" Good. Just sign here please, we're all done".

odyssey06

Slick666 wrote: »

Alright you have answers for everything. I do not see how cutting down a xmas tree would give you all those scratches and a turkey pecked his forehead... you believe that story? wow.

You never gave an explanation how he was telling people about the french woman murdered even before it was announced?

Scratches explained in DPP report
Dr. Louise Barnes, a dermatologist (skin specialist) closely observed Bailey some five days after the murder. She states “at no time, did he strike one as being suspicious. As a keen observer of peoples appearance due to my profession I certainly did not notice any marks or injuries to his face or hands.”
Denis O’Callaghan saw Bailey on 24 December 1996 (the day after the murder) and he noticed multiple light scratches on Bailey’s arms.
Such light scratches are not consistent with cuts by razor like thorns.
Richard Tisdall in his statement 190B recalls seeing scratch marks on one of Bailey’s hands on Sunday night 22 December 1996 (prior to the murder but after the cutting of the tree and the killing of the turkeys)...
It is interesting to note that the Gardaí did not ask Bailey to show the scratches to a medical or any other expert witness in order to obtain an opinion as to causation.

The full report is here.
It also discredits the idea Bailey somehow knew about the murder before information about it started circulating.
https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/30/

Slick666

FileNotFound wrote: »

Now he is a degenerate with a history of violence so I am not claiming his innocence but you'd have to be of limited intelligence to believe the info proves anything.

So I've limited intelligence because I believe he did it?? Like who the heck else did it! An assassin from Paris? Please don't make me laugh.