Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119765838#Comment_119765838

Yes.

He cannot have been so acutely aware of the need to hide any evidence linking him to the crime, that h cunningly stripped off at the scene and drove home in his birthday suit, whilst simultaeneously being naive enough to not realise the critical need to get his alibi straight and keep his mouth shut.

But, of course, that is obvious to most people.

flanna01

Regardless of Bailey's innocence or guilt..

His actions following the murder, and subsequent Garda interviews are bizarre to say the the very least..

For me, the elephant in the room is the time he claims he was officially notified about the murder.

Cassidy and Bailey both agree on 1.40pm on the day of the murder.

Yet, multiple people have submitted statements to the contrary...

They were seen (with Jules) out and about from 10am in the locality of the murder scene.

The photo developer that was asked to develop a reel of film for a male he identified as Ian Bailey. He states that the person was agitated and in a hurry to develop the film, even up to the point of grabbing some negatives whilst they were still wet.

The various news agencies stating that they were offered crime scene pictures by Bailey before Bailey was officially notified of the murder.

The market stall holders, shop keepers, post office clerk, neighbours driving cars on the morning... All made statements of seeing them early in the morning, in a rush by all accounts...

Either, half the rural community are guilty of perverting the course of justice, or Bailey & Jules were out and about early that morning?

Weird case......

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119766396#Comment_119766396

Ok. So the point you are making is that he should have disposed of the clothes before he went home. Fair enough. I assumed you meant in the days after the murder.

I have no specific narrative. I am open minded about how it all went down. The rolled up clothes was a specific reply to a poster who couldn`t see how he could have driven home without contaminating the car. If he was aware he had blood on him, he knew he would contaminate the car. Jim Sheridan maintained that the killer took the time to go back up to the house and attempted to open the side door.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119766392#Comment_119766392

"All he needed to do was tell Jules in the morning that he got up in the night and left the house to do some work."

He probably did tell her that. I`m sure he assumed that at some point during the night Jules would have realized he was out of bed. It required an explanation. Jules knew he was up but after she was arrested, she still stuck to the script and said he was in bed all night. It was only when she was told he was seen at Kealfada Bridge that she started telling the truth.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119766656#Comment_119766656

It is a weird case but then... if you were the murderer, would you engage in these shenanigans?

IN the (alleged) statement made to the Guards, the photo developer is claimed to have said:

He said the area looked like the laneway where Ms Toscan du Plantier's body had been discovered. He said he thought the photos may have been taken at night.

Can someone explain how the photos could have been taken at night? Bailey brought a camera to the murder???

Is this the same photo developer who withdrew his evidence... as noted on this thread from a 2007 Mirror article:

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117904496#Comment_117904496

So there is no doubt there has been attempts to pervert the course of justice here, there is the indisputable evidence of pages deliberately ripped from the book of evidence. And now we have witnesses withdrawing statements which do not seem credible in the context of the murder...

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119766656#Comment_119766656

You forgot Jules`s youngest daughter who stands by her statement to this day.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119766855#Comment_119766855

The thing is, if he was fabricating the story, he would not have asked Jules to lie.

He would have kept Jules out of it altogether, only to confirm he left the bed, because as you say yourself;

" I`m sure he assumed that at some point during the night Jules would have realized he was out of bed."

So did he get up and perhaps forgot?,

and maybe Jules thought he was in bed all night;

10feb1.jpg

Mavbe they had trouble reading her writing;

10feb2.jpg

Arrested 12:30 pm, no solicitor until 4:30, released half past midnight.

All this in the media glare. I wonder how they knew about the arrests, Dwyer was media savvy I hear.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119767336#Comment_119767336

"Maybe they had trouble reading her writing"

I don`t understand what your point is. If you are suggesting that the handwriting in pic 1 is Jules`s, you are mistaken. If you are suggesting that the printed statement in pic 2 is a mis-representation of the handwriting in pic 1, you are also mistaken.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119767336#Comment_119767336

I've had these thoughts about Jules as well. However would Jules really have lied for Bailey, considering all the domestic abuse she's been getting from him? I understand this domestic abuse was some time ago, but still, I find that theory hard to believe.

Suppose Bailey did it, and Jules helped him, she drove and then disposed of and dealt with the evidence whilst Bailey cleaned himself up at the studio. Like they both decided on the spur of the moment, after the night in the pub, to kill Sophie for whatever reason or motive? It could theoretically all have happened that night. Only what motive could they have had? None, I could think of.

There is neither evidence for that, or against that. Sophie would probably have opened the door to a man and a woman together, rather than a man alone, especially that late at night.

It's worth a consideration.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119767443#Comment_119767443

Enlighten me please, I thought it was Jules writing,

But the printed statement in pic 2 contradicts the hand written statement one in pic 1. So how did that happen?

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119768363#Comment_119768363

I don`t think pic 1 is part of her statement. It looks like a record of her initial questioning, handwritten by one of the questioners. The question and the reply are by the same hand. She initially stated that Bailey never got out of bed. But then they told her that a witness saw Bailey at Kealfada at 3 am on the night of the murder and she then admitted that he had got out of bed and that is what you have in pic 2 which is part of the statement that she signed. I dunno why the first pic is labelled "statement". Where is that taken from?

pixelburp

Closing this thread: it had its chance. There have been a bunch of recent issues that cropped up, putting the final nail in the coffin. Needless to say the continued bickering after the last warning & closure was bad enough; but the combination of posts from users using multiple accounts (a bannable offence TBH), to recent comments skirting the realms of questionable legality, means the discussion is being closed.

That's all aside from the fact it has gone well beyond the remit of a discussion of the TV show, and into a generalised debate of the crime itself. If people want to continue that discussion I'm sure there are more appropriate fora on Boards, and folks are welcome to take the discussion there - debated under those fora's relative charters.