Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed. **Threadbans in OP**

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120472661#Comment_120472661

You've no idea who else in West Cork had similar history, or didn't have an alibi...

But doesn't stop you pinning Bailey as the most realistic theory. Strange time to go up chancing your arm. And strange if he is supposed to gone up there half cut and picked up wounds at the scene there's zero trace of it.

Your "most realistic theory" is based on very little to begin with so doesn't take much to discount it.

And in this case, I believe Bailey's history in England was looked into by AGS, there's comments to that effect on the thread. Nothing to support your theory found.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120472661#Comment_120472661

But without evidence of past behaviour it's all a big 'what if'. His history with Thomas shows that he could strike a woman, alright, but it's also worth pointing out that these altercations were the culminations of drunken arguments between the pair. It's quite a different scenario from stealing away in the middle of the night to proposition a woman you either don't know or know to see and then beating her to death when that doesn't go how you planned.

If someone has evidence, though, that Bailey had a history of sexually motivated aggression towards strange women (stalking, peeping, following, rape etc.), then that would be a different story.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120472683#Comment_120472683

Others were looked at in the area by AGS and only Bailey was seen as a suspect. Or do we only take AGS findings on board when it suits?

Other men could have done this and Bailey could have had a dark history in England but was never caught. We don't know.

It isn't my theory, it's an admittance from Bailey. He may have made it up but that's very odd and the person he said it to didn't think he was joking. Saying he did it along with discussing the area earlier in the night, changing his story of where he was, the marks on his arms/head, the fire behind his house, the violence towards women a few months previously and you can see why this is the most realistic outcome.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120472454#Comment_120472454

That's actually an interesting aspect of the case I've never considered. They would probably have to have come by boat from France, to abduct Bailey and then take him to France in the dead of night. They would then have delivered him to the next French Police station, possibly in Normandy or Brittany to have him arrested.

If Bailey considered this as a plausible threat to himself happening, then he would have to have armed himself in secrecy?

However the fact that Bailey didn't leave the peninsula to live somewhere else in Ireland, would indicate he had no such concerns. British law would at least allow him to legally change his name and the decision of the Irish courts would have meant that he could live freely anywhere within the Republic of Ireland.

Did they abduct Krombach from Germany or Switzerland to France or from Morocco?

The interesting thing about the Krombach case is that Krombach was known to actively chase other women. Bailey is not known to have done such things at all.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120472708#Comment_120472708

Of course but absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. Also, they were drunken arguments with Jules but this may have been a drunken encounter also. The injuries Bailey inflicted on Jules weren't minor either. It wasn't just a slip. There has been numerous cases of murder where a person doesn't seem to fit the bill based on their prior behaviour. Bailey's even has a violent history so him being the main suspect is completely understandable.

Xander10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120472683#Comment_120472683

While I agree that the theory he got up half cut and walked or drove to Sophie's might appear a bit implausible.

But the theory he got up half cut to write a coherent article for the Sunday Tribune, is even more implausible.

The story that he got up, left the house and returned to Jules bed at 9 am is pretty much accepted as fact.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120472752#Comment_120472752

Your post is contradicting itself.

Bailey could have an unknown history but not someone else in West Cork?

Bailey could have a dark history? We could drive a bus through that so to talk in such uncertainty about something 'realistic' is absurd by definition.

Your grounds for considering Bailey a suspect based on a history and lack of alibi are completely flimsy.

All the particular points - the marks, the fire. Each of them are very low quality \ disputable \ contradictory.

To take some of these:

He was familiar with Alfie Lyons, so why on earth wouldn't he mention him on that night?

There are multiple witnesses attesting to his marks being present before the murder and to them not being consistent with scratches from briars as per the AGS theory.

All of these were looked at by the DPP and judged to be so low quality no case was proceeded with.

So it's not a 'realistic' theory - sticking "most" in front of it changes nothing. It's a recipe for a miscarriage of justice.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120472777#Comment_120472777

We don't know how "half cut" he was in fact, but the idea that it was a drunken assault in rage seemed to form part of AGS theory.

It doesn't necessarily follow he had to be half cut to do the writing.

Xander10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120472797#Comment_120472797

So you're suggesting he wasn't half cut?

Benmann

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120472787#Comment_120472787

There are multiple witnesses attesting to his marks being present before the murder 

There are also lots who say his marks were not present before the murder.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120472787#Comment_120472787

I just said it could have been someone else. We don't know, it's just that Bailey is the most likely based on what we know. The other poster was ruling him out because he had no history of these crimes but we don't know his history. Or do you know it? Or you are basing it on the AGS investigation? The same AGS who think Bailey committed the murder?

Didn't he mention something bad happening in the area? Not just a random conversation. He said himself he did it. Who were the witnesses who said the marks were there before the murder? Do we believe them but not the witnesses who saw the fire?

You're very inconsistent here. When you're explaining you're losing and Bailey has been explaining a lot. Everything tied in together make him the most likely suspect. And his theory is the most believable in my view. You obviously think different, fair enough, doesn't mean everyone else has to agree.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120472772#Comment_120472772

Regarding the first sentence, I agree, but it's not a basis for suspicion. At best, it means there's an avenue to be investigated.

We know how violent Bailey could get with Jules Thomas, but three points about this are (per my understanding) that drink was involved, that these violent incidents were a culmination of arguments the pair were having and that (until further evidence emerges) the violence was contained within their relationship. While there's no end of bad things you can say about a person who beats their romantic partner, one thing I don't think you can immediately spring to is this idea that they would predate on strangers/people barely known to them. I think that's a whole other psychological category, and one that has history if you dig for it.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120472865#Comment_120472865

My point is that you can't rule him out because of a history we have no clue about. We just don't know his full history.

It would be unusual that his first moment of violence towards women only occured with Jules but again, we don't know for sure.

The numerous points I've raised point towards him being the culprit ahead of anyone else but the showing up the morning after the murder is something that really raises alarm bells for me. It's something that has been seen a lot with those who commit these types of crimes. Ian Huntley murdered Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman and got involved in the investigation. He even volunteered to go on the search for them. It's actually a common enough thing and it adds to the suspicion against Bailey.

Again, this is my opinion. With all the things we know, it points towards Bailey. Unlikely any evidence to convict him will emerge at this stage though.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120472813#Comment_120472813

The thing is, we don't know. It's only pure speculation.

I doubt very much that we or any court of law is able to prove that Bailey was drunk after that night in the pub or not, given the number of years or better decades which passed after this murder.

I would be inclined to speculate that Bailey was at least legally over the limit to drive a car after that night in the pub, but possibly still capable of handling a car and driving straight. However since he was in company, had fun, I don't think that he would have had shown inclination of violence that night. There were no reports by anybody that night that he acted violently that night, or made violent or abusive verbal remarks towards anybody.

Again, this is just pure speculation. How would Bailey build up aggression, or any for of low threshold of aggression if he was in a good company on a night out? And even if he had aggression that night, he didn't take it out on Jules that night, as far as we know.

So why hike or drive over to Sophie's to kill her in aggression?

The motive or kind of motive the Guards were looking at doesn't even make sense.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120472752#Comment_120472752

but it isn't an admittance. If I recall correctly the 'he' in that drunken conversation refers to the person Ian Bailey was talking to, not Ian himself.

Following your logic are we to conclude that Ian had reason to believe the person he was talking to was the murderer?

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120472912#Comment_120472912

Not trying to rule him out as a suspect. My point was that he has no known history of propositioning women he didn't know or barely knew and then becoming aggressive when rebuffed and so the 'Spar theory' doesn't have much legs.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120472927#Comment_120472927

Oh yeah, his admittance was on other occasions. On this one he acted very strangely and expressed a theory that seems quite realistic but was saying it was the man he was talking to. It was really odd behaviour and something someone with a guilty mind might engage in. The same with his breakdown while saying he did it to other people. The actual theory of seeing her in Spar, fancying her and paying a visit to her house is very believable.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120472948#Comment_120472948

It's a strange thing for him to invent. Very specific and that it came from his mouth tells us it's something that has at least crossed his mind. And that's what gives it legs. The most likely suspect has given us a very plausible theory directly from his mouth.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120472912#Comment_120472912

You can't rule him out because of things we don't know about? Read that back to yourself and think about it for a moment as to why it's the kind of thinking that leads to miscarriages of justice.

Why would it be unusual? Statement without foundation.

He showed up the morning after the murder. He was a journalist who lived in the area. If he didn't show up people would be saying it was unusual.

How many innocent people show up the morning after murders? Start listing all their names and come back to us when you're finished.

After all we don't know their full history.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120473016#Comment_120473016

It's not "his" theory. It's the case AGS have alleged against him. Can you show us where he said it before AGS alleged it?

You won't be able to. So it's not "his" theory in any meaningful sense.

He has also suggested other possible suspects and theories for the murder that don't involve him. But they aren't "his" theories?

briany

Ian Bailey sees Sophie at a Spar and thinks, 'Hmm, she seems nice. I wonder if she's single. Maybe I'll creep over to her house at 3AM some time and ask her.'

As you do, like.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120472813#Comment_120472813

I don't know if he was or wasn't.

I'm pointing out it is part of the AGS story - drunk Bailey, chancing his arm, rebuffed, kills Sophie in an frenzied drunken attack and was picked up injuries at the scene.

I find this inconsistent with the lack of forensic evidence at the scene.

I think whoever did it didn't get injured at the scene or was familiar enough with violent action and forensics not to leave traces.

He could have been sober all along \ tipsy at 2am and sober enough to function at 6am \ or tipsy the whole time. Typical of the uncertainty with the case.

briany

Have we ruled out the idea that, given the evidence tampering uncovered by watchdogs, that it wasn't someone either within the Garda or someone who the Garda were trying to protect?

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120473087#Comment_120473087

We're not in a court room here! There's no miscarriage of justice going on. I'm giving reasons why I think he's the most likely suspect and you don't think he did it.

Because violent men like Bailey usually have a history of it.

He was a part time journalist at best and he was acting very strangely around the scene, unless you choose not to believe AGS on this occasion? And there is doubt about how early he knew of the murder which raises even more suspicion.

How many others had the long list of circumstantial evidence against them like Bailey. Start listing their names and then come back to us.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120473181#Comment_120473181

So now you're gone from turning up at the scene suggest guilt to this.

AGS's version of acting strangely around the scene was ... A journalist with an English accent was asking questions about the murder.

It's laughable stuff.

The reason why there's so much circumstantial evidence against Bailey is because AGS focused on him. They even tried to bribe someone to get a confession from him! And despite all this, despite the dodgy shenanigans with Marie Farrell and evidence books ... the best evidence they could come up with as a case against Bailey was based on dubious low quality evidence rejected by the DPP multiple times.

You are the one making the accusation, it's up to you to support it and what you have so far is the same dubious doubtful low quality evidence the DPP reviewed and discounted.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120473092#Comment_120473092

Members of AGS were there when Bailey said: "You did it. You saw her in Spar on Saturday. You saw her walking up the aisle with her tight arse. You fancied her. You went up there to see what you could get. She ran off screaming. You chased her to calm her down. You stirred something in the back of your head. You went too far. You had to finish her off."?

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120473121#Comment_120473121

Well that's what he told Bill Fuller. He then said it sounds like something you would do and Bailey said:

"Funny you should say that, that's how I met Jules. I saw her tight arse, but she let me in."

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120473202#Comment_120473202

Turning up at the scene, acting strangely and trying to get information about the case adds to why I think he's the main suspect based on the other things we know as well. The marks, the fire, the premonition, the history of violence etc. I'm giving reasons why I believe it was him. All you're giving is it's all a plot by AGS, we shouldn't believe them, unless they find something that assists Bailey that is.

You can't even come up with alternative suspects.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120473181#Comment_120473181

Well,

there are quite a few.

But Alfie Lyons springs to mind immediately.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120473255#Comment_120473255

I think he's very unlikely based on what we know about him and his health. But if you think he's the most likely suspect then fair enough. I think Bailey has far more against him.