Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.
Comments
-
“Ian Bailey would have known perfectly well from his journalistic experiences that the 28 hour delay in a pathologist arriving at the scene of a murder in 1996 (that he had attended before the pathologist arrived) could not have incriminated him.”
@Rows Grower You’re going to have to explain that nonsense to some on here.
They can be a bit slow.
1 -
- "Eamon Barnes and his staff were the best qualified people in the country to assess the evidence presented by the Gardaí"
- Were they? Who knows? The gardai themselves were best qualified to assess the evidence. They interviewed the witnesses and they had a better understanding of what was going on at ground level. The DPP`s report ignored or questioned a lot of witness testimony that has never wavered in the intervening years. In my opinion Barnes got his knickers a twist because there was so much outside pressure applied for a prosecution. His reaction was to go on tilt. Those cowboys below in west Cork weren`t going to be telling him how to run his show.
- Of course the DPP were better qualified. The Gardai involved in this case were, by comparison, a gang of incompetent clowns. I respect your opinion but mine is the opposite. His comments were measured and logical.
- "Nothing links him to Sophie"
- Except several witnesses, only two of whom mention a casual introduction.
- Nonsense. There is no credible example of them ever being seen together, no evidence of communication between them. No evidence of them ever even having a conversation. He was never seen at her home, she was never seen at his. as far as can be ascertained Bailey had no connection whatsoever to Sophie.
- "Nothing links him to the crime scene"
- He linked himself to the crime scene in conversations he had before and after the murder.
- Hearsay. There is no evidence whatsoever that puts him at the scene of the crime. No forensics, no eye witnesses, no fingerprints, no boot prints. Nothing.
- "He had no motive"
- Nor did he need one. Motive points to pre-meditation which may or may not be a factor. We do know that at the time, Bailey was a violent and angry man with a short fuse, capable of flying into rage with little or no provocation. Put such a man up that laneway on that very night that Sophie was murdered and what potentially followed is pretty much self evident. Bailey had a bee in his bonnet to go up there that night. Did you read Jules`s statement yet?
Pure speculation on your part. At least three people had motive, all of whom knew Sophie, one of whom was definitely present at the scene of the crime. None of whom were Bailey.
- "Nor does Bailey have any record of sexual violence"
- He doesn`t need to have one. There was no sex. Try to stay out of those rabbit holes.
- For the proposition on Bailey's motive to have any legs, a previous or subsequent example of sexual violence is necessary. Otherwise its purely speculation.
- "It is always dangerous...."
- Yada, yada, yada....
Yes, its difficult for you to argue this one.
- "As Eamon Barnes stated "senior Gardaí engaged in a persistent and grossly improper attempt to force a prosecution"."
- This is not a reference to the conduct of the investigation but to the pressure that the Gardaí were applying to Barnes. Instead of publicly criticizing them, Barnes should have been examining why they were so determined to force a prosecution. The reason is clear. The Gardaí were convinced that Bailey was a headcase who could kill again. And he nearly did. Time has not been good to Barnes.
- The comments within the DPP report and the personal observations of Eamon Barnes totally undermine the stance, actions and attitudes of the Gardai throughout this investigation. He was the Director of public prosecutions and his opinion cannot be credibly dismissed just because his views are in conflict with yours. Time has, in fact, vindicated Barnes. The public humiliation of the Gardai in this case was a significant factor in the decision to appoint Drew Morris in an effort to change the ethos of the force.
- The Gardaí were convinced that Bailey was a headcase who could kill again. And he nearly did.
- The Gardai were convinced of a lot of things. There is no evidence that he ever killed anyone.
- To accept the theory that Bailey is guilty, one has to swallow the story that, after a night of socialising with Jules. he walked several miles, on unlit country lanes, on a cold winter's night, then, for no reason, battered to death a woman he didn't know in a frenzied and bloody attack, leaving not the slightest trace of his presence, then toddled back home and carried on as normal. And that for almost thirty years not a single piece of evidence supporting the theory has emerged.
Leave a Comment
Advertisement
1 -
Why the comments he walked. If he went to her place, it's likely he did so by car.
0 -
Yes, but then it would be necessary to ensure no transfer of forensics to car seats etc.........a tall order.
My contention is that he neither walked nor drove.....he wasn't there at all.
1 -
Did the gardai carry out any forensics on the car? Seemed a pretty keystone cops investigation to me.
0 -
Advertisement
-
I think the problem with that is it means it can't really have been him seen walking by Kealfadda Bridge then. Plus there would surely have been evidence left in the car.
1 -
- “For the proposition on Bailey's motive to have any legs, a previous or subsequent example of sexual violence is necessary. Otherwise its purely speculation.”
- There is a prior history of sexual assault on the part of Ian Bailey. He had sexually assaulted Colette Gallagher, an almost total stranger to him, while the young woman was in bed asleep staying as a guest overnight in the studio house after attending a party at Jules Thomas’s house. Colette Gallagher woke up to find Bailey had gotten into bed beside her and he was touching her. He had undressed and it appeared to Colette he was naked/semi-naked; the lower half of his body was covered by the sheet. Jules Thomas walked in and said words to the effect of ‘what are you doing in bed with Ian’. Colette Gallagher described being terrified and fleeing the property, running back to Jules Thomas’s house where Jules then attempted to apologise for what Ian had done, saying he had done ‘much worse’ to her and raising her garment to display bruising about the torso.
Ian Bailey had also made non-consensual sexual advances to Jules Thomas’s teenage daughter on 25 December 1995, almost one year before the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier.
I take it these facts are known to you and therefore your statement that there is no evidence of previous sexually motivated offending on Bailey’s part indicates you don’t regard these prior acts as sexually motivated assaults. But there is no doubt Colette Gallagher was sexually assaulted by Ian Bailey. The inappropriate touching of Jules’s teenage daughter may or may not have reached the threshold of assault but in the case of the assault on Ms Gallagher, there is no doubt the facts display sexual violence (i.e. putting a woman in fear for her safety by getting into a bed beside her without her consent and in a naked state and putting hands on her body while she was sleeping and not in any position to defend herself or to give consent to the sexual advance).
2 -
So, if I understand your position:
The Colette Gallagher event = assault
The Sophie Toscan event = assault
Therefore Ian Bailey's behaviour towards Colette indicates a tendency on his part to act in the way that Sophie's asssailant did.
No, I don't accept that.
In fact, I would suggest that the event concerning Colette is evidence of his willingness to accept rejection....he didn't attack her after she knocked him back. Ditto regarding the incident with Jules's daughter.
So, no nothing in Bailey's behaviour before or since indicates a tendency to react with lethal violence when his sexual advances were rejected.
And, remember, there is nothing to indicate that the motive for the attack on Sophie actually was sexual.
3 -
Bailey knew that the state pathologist had not arrived at the scene, the whole country knew. It was all over the news.
The ladies body was left where it was found, out on a roadway in the freezing cold wind and rain all day and all night until the pathologist arrived.
0 -
I don't think that there was much wind that night or the following day, same as I don't think there was a lot of rain. I think I recall, there was little wind and no rain at all.
Even if the body would have been covered, which it was, some DNA would have been found. Apparently no DNA was found on her body. Nothing from Sophie's fingernails and fingers was ever linked to Bailey. I also don't think that the local Guards were completely inapt to collect evidence from hands and fingernails, - but then there is the possibility that another Guard tampered with the evidence as well?
I am also not certain, if the cold would have ruined all the DNA evidence, or if the thaw in the morning on the brambles could have done it. Bailey could have speculated this, and as written before, on the off chance he volunteered his DNA, knowing well, that either the Guards would not be able to collect any from the murder scene, link it to him, or they would get a court warrant to get his DNA. Either way, he would have to have submitted his DNA anyway. By volunteering, he could easily build a case in his favour.
That's all speculative on my part. Too many lose ends, as everywhere in this case.
0 -
Advertisement
-
How in the name of God and all the saints in heaven can you “think” there was little wind and no rain at all from the time the body was discovered until 28 hours later?
Could you expand on that please, on second thoughts don’t bother. Just give yourself a high 5 there bud. You win.
0 -
What a weekend our Ian had;
Killing, plucking and gutting several 30lb turkeys, climbing spruce tree and cutting top off for Christmas tree.
Saturday spent swanning around Schull in his long trench coat, huge boots, carrying his long staff and wearing a big hat, or was that a beret or Breton cap?
Then an all night bender at a party house in Schull, and depending what you read, left and tried to thumb a lift home before dawn or went back to the house to sleep and got lift home early Sunday afternoon.
Back out Sunday night drinking Guinness and whiskey and playing his 'badharann' until the early hours. A sightseeing detour on the way home took him to hunts hill where he had a premonition about bad things happening.
Then home to bed for some well earned sleep, except he didn't sleep all night. Now depending on what you read; he got up after an hour or so and still full of whiskey and Guinness, he left the house and went looking for another party at 2 in the morning. Headed off on a two and half mile trek towards Alfie's, but nothing going on, so he killed the French woman who lived nearby instead, then trekked another four & half miles home via Kealfadda bridge in time to take Jules her coffee in bed.
Or he did some work on a newspaper article until morning when he took Jules a cup of coffee in bed.
4 -
Isn`t it gas that he remembered making the cup of coffee, but forgot he`d been up all night.
1 -
This is absurd.
How would Bailey (or anyone else) know that the SP would be late BEFORE committing the murder? He would need to know the SP lateness was going to compromise evidence/make it difficult to find forensic links BEFORE committing the murder. For all anyone knew, BEFORE the murder, the SP might have arrived very quickly e.g. army helicopter.
3 -
What i meant was Bailey could not have known before the murder, if he did it, that Harbison would be late in getting to the scene
1 -
Do you understand the difference between the words HAD and WOULD?
0 -
It's possible.
However this would have meant that Bailey did some advance planning on the murder. If Bailey really did the killing, then I don't think he planned it much in detail.
However there are a few more thoughts of mine:
Going back to the mid 90ies, to the Mizen Head peninsula, I'd suggest Bailey would have been one of the residents of the area who would have had one of the better working knowledges of forensics and what DNA could do.
As a journalist he covered forensics at some point, as far as I know ( I could be wrong here, pls correct me if I am wrong ).
He lived in the UK, one of the countries where DNA was more advanced than in other places.
I'd suggest that many of the lower ranking local Guards had no real idea what DNA could do, and how to properly gather DNA evidence. Maybe the one or other sergeant may have had some theoretical police training on the matter.
Volunteering his DNA early on would have been taking a gamble on the off chance for Bailey, speculating that they didn't gather anything anyway from the murder site.
I think the weather at the night of the murder and afterwards was mentioned in both documentaries, Netflix and Sky, same as on the West Cork Podcast one can find on Youtube. Other information I don't have.
0 -
"His comments were measured and logical"
Nah. He was clearly on tilt, rattled by the pressure he was being put under and reacted against it.
"Nonsense"
If you want to define believing witnesses who contradicted the liar Bailey as nonsense, so be it. Whatever floats your boat.
"Hearsay"
He acknowledges he said a lot of it. It was that darned black humour don`t ya know. You choose to believe the liar Bailey. I believe the witnesses.
"At least three people had motive"
Daniel and the upcoming divorce....Was there even an upcoming divorce? She had just planted a tree outside his office as an Xmas gift and they had planned a trip to Africa together in the new year.
Bruno, three years after a break-up. You know what, I`ll wait til she goes to Ireland on her own and send my hitman over after her. Sure why do something simple when you can make it complicated?
Alfie. Was there ever even a harsh word spoken between them? Josephine Hellen said they were friends.
"For the proposition on Bailey`s motive to have any legs, a previous or subsequent example of sexual violence is necessary."
I had to quote this because it is so ridiculous.
"Yes, it is difficult for you to argue this one."
Rabbit holes and trees? I have a life.
"To accept the theory that Bailey is guilty, one has to swallow the story that, after a night of socializing with Jules, he walked several miles..."
Well, he was a well known night time and early morning walker.
"on unlit country lanes"
Full moon.
"on a cold winters night"
He had been previously seen out and about at night in only Y fronts and a cowboy hat.
"battered to death a woman"
He was a well known woman batterer.
"he didn`t know"
He did really though.
"in a frenzied and bloody attack"
Describes accurately his assaults on Jules.
"then toddled back home and carried on as normal"
No he didn`t. The fire was not normal. Jules says he was a hoarder who never got rid of anything. Yet in the days following the murder he got rid of footwear, clothing and a mattress. I wonder was the cup of coffee normal? Did he pop into her with a cuppa every morning or was it a one off? So unusual in fact that it became memorable?
This is kinda like the old days, when Bailey had his minions on here, busily spinning the false narratives. I would have thought that after the upsettling encounter you would stop spinning, but it seems no.
2 -
First off, this is what I said, "This is intrinsic to a modern functioning democracy, you take away due process & innocent until proven guilty, then we're not better than Stalins Russia or Hitlers Germany". Where did I say I was comparing modern Ireland to Soviet Russia Nazi Germany.
Secondly, so now you can read the mind of Bailey, even if he knew there was a significant delay for the state pathologist to arrive, how could he have known 100% that he didnt leave any DNA behind that could have been caught. He absolutely couldnt, its impossible. And you say Im for the birds, lol.
Thirdly, we're not ahead of the game when it comes to this, Garda corruption is still quite significant in this country & I believe we're at the tip of the iceberg, we dont even have an effective form of internal affairs, GSOC are certainly not fit for purpose. As for the recent arrests and convictions of Gards, the vast vast majority of these have nothing to do with their work, how does some gard getting convicted of Coercive control have anything to do with Garda corruption, what the hell are you on about, are you right in the head? See the Guerin report, look at what happened to various Garda whistleblowers, look at the two former garda commissioners & they're behaviour, former justice ministers, the list goes on. This is all only in the last few years, God knows what was going on before that.
Finally, I would have thought from your weird obsession with guns in a country like Ireland, that you're a fella, and you probably are, a wannabe white knight sitting behind your keyboard. And now you're accusing me of bullying when you made the snarky uncalled for remark about my post in the first place, then when I called you on it & asked you to pm, you started playing the victim and running to the mods. On top of this, now you're stalking my posts and making stupid counter arguments. I think that says alot.
Now as I said before, if you want to continue on this discussion, pm me as I dont want to derail this thread.
Unfortunately, it now looks like the looney toons from twitter etc have infected this thread.
Post edited by jimwallace197 on0 -
I would have thought that after the upsettling encounter you would stop spinning, but it seems no.what upsetting encounter?
1 -
Advertisement
-
The events I described indicate a prior history of sexual assault on Bailey’s part. That his assault on the sleeping Colette Gallagher was interrupted by Jules was in some respects fortunate for the victim in that assault.
I don’t regard the violence perpetrated on Sophie as a sexual assault, no, I regard it as a lethal series of physical assaults culminating in murder.
The assault of Colette Gallagher is evidence of a history of sexual assault on Bailey’s part, which is a relevant consideration in examining Bailey as a suspect in the Toscan du Plantier murder from the perspective of prior offences and the perspective of any motive Ian Bailey had for attacking Sophie (ie the rage evident in the overkill would be consistent with a violent overreaction to being rejected).
0 -
Heh, heh, heh. Running to the mods?
Not at all lad, keyboard warriors like you amuse me.
Do you still want to fight me and break me in two? 😂😂😂😂
0 -
"His comments were measured and logical"
Nah. He was clearly on tilt, rattled by the pressure he was being put under and reacted against it.
He was the Director of Public prosecutions. His views on the value of presented evidence carried more weight than anyone else in the country. Time has proved him to be spot on. He is not known for ever getting "rattled".
"Nonsense"
If you want to define believing witnesses who contradicted the liar Bailey as nonsense, so be it. Whatever floats your boat.
I repeat, there is no credible evidence of any association between Bailey and Sophie.
"Hearsay"
He acknowledges he said a lot of it. It was that darned black humour don`t ya know. You choose to believe the liar Bailey. I believe the witnesses.
You choose to do so and that's your perogative. In my view clumsy, ill concieved drunken attention seeking attempts at sarcasm/black humour do not constitue confessions. This reflects the opinion of the DPP, who are the real experts.
"At least three people had motive"
Daniel and the upcoming divorce....Was there even an upcoming divorce? She had just planted a tree outside his office as an Xmas gift and they had planned a trip to Africa together in the new year.
Both Daniel and Sophie had lovers. They had already seperated once. Daniel stood to lose a substantial share of his fortune in the event of a divorce. He subsequently married his pregnant girlfriend a short time after Sophies death. He refused to come to Ireland with the rest of the family. The marriage was obviously on the rocks. Clearly, he had motive.
Bruno, three years after a break-up. You know what, I`ll wait til she goes to Ireland on her own and send my hitman over after her. Sure why do something simple when you can make it complicated?
Bruno had already violently attacked Sophie once and had to be restrained by members of the public. If Bailey's assault on Jules puts him under suspicion, then Bruno's attack on Sophie is even more concerning.
Alfie. Was there ever even a harsh word spoken between them? Josephine Hellen said they were friends.
They were known to be in dispute over the Gate ( which was, interestingly, the actual scene of the murder - could it also have been the reason Sophie put on her boots and went down there?) Secondly, it is extremely curious that Alfie and Shirley neither saw nor heard anything when Sophie was attacked, on a clear, silent night, a matter of yards from their door. Alfie had a banadged hand on the morning after. Shirley's hasty trip to the dump that morning also raises some important questions.
"For the proposition on Bailey`s motive to have any legs, a previous or subsequent example of sexual violence is necessary."
I had to quote this because it is so ridiculous.
I don't understand what you mean. If Bailey did it, the only possible/plausible motive that he could have had was sexual. More specifically, a violent, impulsive response to sexual rejection. Yet there is no history of him reacting to rejection with extreme violence either before or since. Therefore the proposition is entirely speculative. Had such an example existed, then the proposition would have had some merit.
But it didn't.
"Yes, it is difficult for you to argue this one."
Rabbit holes and trees? I have a life.
I have become familiar with your posts, Tibruit and, I enjoy them and I admire your persistence. But, with respect, it is obvious to me that you are only comfortable when discussing fine detail, trivia, minutiae etc. Most of which is froth. When confronted with the important aspects of the case, No Association, No links, no forensics, no motive etc.,( the big, important questions) you tend to shy away and seek refuge in, often irrelevant, detail. It seems to me that you are unwilling to see the absurdity in the proposition that a drunken man would, for no reason, walk three miles+ in the cold darkness of a Winter's night, attack and kill a woman that he didn't know, for no reason, and walk home again without leaving the faintest trace of his presence. I will repeat, at this point, that I admire your dogged persistence but your proposition does not stand scrutiny.
"To accept the theory that Bailey is guilty, one has to swallow the story that, after a night of socializing with Jules, he walked several miles..."
Well, he was a well known night time and early morning walker.
OK, I'll grant you that.
"on unlit country lanes"
Full moon.
I'll grant you that too.
"on a cold winters night"
He had been previously seen out and about at night in only Y fronts and a cowboy hat.
Allegedly. But not significant. He is not accused of eccentricity. He is accused of murder
"battered to death a woman"
He was a well known woman batterer.
I acknowledge that his attacks on Jules are testament to his propensity for violence. But there were, and, sadly, still are, many woman batterers in the area. However domestic violence and motiveless murders of complete strangers are entirely different things.
"he didn`t know"
He did really though.
There's no evidence that he knew her. I've been introduced to Angela Merkel. But I certainly don't "know her"
"in a frenzied and bloody attack"
Describes accurately his assaults on Jules.
He didn't take a concrete block to Jules head, nor did he kill her, nor was she a stranger, nor was/is domestic violence unusual. Motiveless murder of a stranger is unusual.
"then toddled back home and carried on as normal"
No he didn`t. The fire was not normal. Jules says he was a hoarder who never got rid of anything. Yet in the days following the murder he got rid of footwear, clothing and a mattress. I wonder was the cup of coffee normal? Did he pop into her with a cuppa every morning or was it a one off? So unusual in fact that it became memorable?
Burning rubbish in rural gardens is not unusual. Bringing ones wife a coffee in bed is not unusual.
This is kinda like the old days, when Bailey had his minions on here, busily spinning the false narratives. I would have thought that after the upsettling encounter you would stop spinning, but it seems no.
This sentence confuses me Tibruit. If you are suggesting that I am a "minion" of Bailey's then you are wrong. I regard him, as you and most others do, as a contemptable, self obsesessed, pathetic, drunken, wife beater who should, rightfully, be behind bars for his cowardly attacks on Jules.
The only thing I'm defending here is justice.
4 -
No.
I disagree.
There is no evidence of a sexual element to the the assault on Sophie.
Therefore, if, despite the lack of evidence, the motive was sexual, then rejection had to be the trigger.
There is no evidence of Bailey reacting violently to such rejection. In fact, the incidents involving Colette and Jules's daughter would suggest a tendency to accept rejection.
0 -
Bailey didn’t do it. He’s an attention seeker.
If I was an outsider accused of the murder of a French aristocrat in a remote place, would I stay there knowing I hadn’t done it? Hell no.
Would I then go on to sue newspapers for libel and take a market trader to court for slander? Make a big show of going to college to study law? Definitely not.
I move away and get on with my life.
At nearly 30 years on from this terrible crime there is the strong possibility that the killer is dead and some people who might know something have also passed away.
As for a certain ‘key witness’ everyone focuses on - compulsive lier.
This is water. Inspiring speech by David Foster Wallace https://youtu.be/DCbGM4mqEVw?si=GS5uDvegp6Er1EOG
2 -
"(ie the rage evident in the overkill would be consistent with a violent overreaction to being rejected)."
"Could be" or "maybe"? would be better here.
0 -
Pm me so, more than happy to meet up, i know if I pm you first you'll go running to the mods. The only thing amusing on this thread is you & you're ridiculous posts
0 -
-
I would only accept a guilty verdict if it's proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law and suspect being present and also having legal aid as well. Only in these terms the term guilty should be used.
I would never exclude Bailey as a suspect. He did indeed have time as well as means to do it, but Bailey is lacking in motive. Personally, I don't think he did it, it's just not credible after a night out, a long hike, making sexual advances, smelling of alcohol, and getting rejected at 2am or later on that night/morning, reciting his poetry, killing hiking back, cleaning up, and keeping it all from Jules. The only thing odd about Bailey would not be the cuts on his hands as his DNA was never found at the murder site, but the fact that he was burning something behind the studio, which could potentially have been something incriminating, like blood on clothes, a coat, etc....
Her husband Daniel Toscan du Plantier had the strongest motive by far to kill his wife. I don't think they had any pre-nuptial agreements thus Sophie stood to get half of Daniel's estate and that would have meant a big problem for Daniel who already had eyes on his next wife playing the financially strong future husband. How he hired and paid a contract killer, how this killer came to Ireland, how he travelled, how the killer was paid is just a part of creativity and thoughts the Mizen Head Guards could never have imagined.
Bruno's alibi is in my opinion rather weak, he could have easily made it to and from Ireland in secrecy as well.
Alfie and Shirley not hearing anything that night is also an odd one and still raising questions today, same as them coming and going, apparently driving by the murder site without any restrictions?
The "drug theory" may be more focused towards Leo Bolger. None of the people on the Mizen Head lead a life of luxury, thus any drug related motive might focus more on avoiding a jail sentence. Leo Bolger was already in trouble with the law, and would certainly not have wanted a jail sentence. How strong Alfie's brush with the law was, I don't know. He might have had the same motive.
All my speculation, of cause.
2 -
Advertisement
-
The point being that the murderer, whoever that might be, would have had no idea that the forensics would be done late. So they couldnt have planned for this or had this on their mind. I can't imagine the murderer, when carrying out the bad deed, was thinking ...."you know........I reckon that the Harbison guy will be late in getting here, so I don't need to worry about forensics, DNA, leaving traces etc...."
Knowing that Harbison got there late after the event does not have any impact on how the murder was carried out. You cant use it to allege that a drunk Bailey could afford to be messy as the SP will be late etc. Whoever did it would have to assume that forensic traces would be left at the scene and on themselves.
2
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
