Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

If we didn't have a police complaints authority even one as toothless as GSOC the lies the Guards spread around wouldn't be countered by the official report. They forgot they destroyed it at the time of the GSOC investigation? Or they are just incompetent and untrustworthy?

In a report published yesterday, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) found no evidence of any high-level corruption by gardaí, as alleged by journalist Ian Bailey, his partner Jules Thomas, and witness Marie Farrell. The report also found that other important garda exhibits connected with the case went missing, including a blood-spattered gate taken from close to where Ms Toscan Du Plantier’s body was found, a wine bottle found four months after the murder in a field near the scene, and a black overcoat belonging to Ian Bailey.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30859712.html

The Gardai admitted as part of the 2018 GSOC investigation that the gate was missing. It's as simple as that.

Now that the two series have aired and show how incompetent they were, they decide to leak a story that the gate wasn't lost after all.

This is from the GSOC report, you should read it- the gate was one of a number of missing items:

On 25 September 2013, following a written request by GSOC, documentation was received from the Garda Síochána which outlined an extensive list of significant documents including witness statements and 22 exhibits that had gone missing and could no longer be located by the Garda Síochána, along with when they were noticed as missing and what steps the Garda Síochána had taken to try and locate them. It was reported to GSOC that extensive searches had been carried out by the Garda Síochána for the missing items.

The missing exhibits included:

a) a blood-spattered gate taken from close to where Madame Toscan Du Plantier's body was found,

b) a French wine bottle found four months after the murder in a field next to the scene,

c) a black overcoat belonging to Ian Bailey, 

d) the original memo of interview of Jules Thomas following her arrest in 1997,

e) an original witness statement from Marie Farrell provided on 5 March 2004,

f) an original witness statement from Jules Thomas dated 19 February 1997

In total 139 original witness statements were either missing or not held by the garda Síochána. These included witness statements from garda members, forensic scientists and members of the public.

Finished this last night. The final episode rushed through things a lot, imo, given how much was included in the first two.

Two of the interviewees always had their arms crossed (Lepitch and I can't remember the other guy's name but had a Welsh or West Country accent) which struck me as odd. It's true that there didn't seem to be much support for Bailey but he got plenty of camera time himself. I don't think he did himself any favours.

There seems more than enough circumstantial evidence to point his way and he is certainly portrayed (and contributes himself to that portrayal) as an oddball and an attention seeker. Taking the libel case in the way he did was bizarre and the case he took against the Guards which fell flat on its face seemed to do more harm than good.

I don't think the Guards handled things properly, though I don't think it was as extreme as Bailey claims.

Dwyer is a likeable fellow and I reckon he was the most genuine and upfront interviewee, though he was quite dismissive about any concerns about the Gardai's performance. Dwyer's probably a lot more clever than he lets on and I reckon he's sure who did it but just couldn't get enough solid evidence.

All sounds great until you realise there is zero evidence to back up your claim and plenty of evidence that IB is guilty.

No DNA evidence, tons of circumstantial evidence among them his confessions to various witnesses he creeped out.

You must be new to the world of false confessions. I've read enough crime books, podcasts and documentaries to know that citcumstancial evidence means very little when cops/gardai eyes are only trained on one suspect. It's a total botch by the gardai...zero evidence that IB is guilty in terms of real evidence, eye witness, DNA etc...nothing.

Your post only serves to illustrate how selective presentation of the truth can be misleading.

The office of the director of public prosecutions has twice ruled that there is not the evidence to prosecute anyone for the murder of Sophie Touscon du Plantier. How one can say that there isn't a jury that wouldn't convict someone when there isn't even the evidence to charge someone is beyond me.

The Garda ombudsman was highly critical of the investigation only falling short of a finding of corruption and perversion of justice.

Ian Bailey has repeatedly won in court. He has won defamation actions against two newspapers (lost against another six as they were factually correct in identifying him as a suspect). He has repeatedly won, in the highest courts in the land, against attempts to extradite him to France for a crime which the Irish prosecution service has repeatedly found there is not evidence to charge or prosecute anyone.

The French trial, held in abstentia and which has been slated as "a show trial for the purpose of satisfying certain persons in relation to their own beliefs in relation to the matter.” selectively accepted evidence which had been discredited by Irish authorities while arbitrarily rejecting earlier exculpatory evidence.

The truth can be editorialised to present entirely different views. I am reminded of the following scene from Yes Minister which illustrates how easily truth can be manipulated.

Peter I think you need to do some more research on the case. The netflix doc is very selective in the info it showed in their documentary and is not a true respresentation of the mess the investigation was. It was biaised against Bailey. Have you listened to the Westcork Podcast - its gives a more detailed description of the case.

There is simply no evidence that Bailey did it. Marie Farrell also kept changing her story - by your logic shes guilty of the murder too.

TO state "It was noticed that his hand & face were cut with marks that weren't there the night before" is untrue and was rejected by the DPP report conclusively. If you are going to make that claim then you need to show why the DPP's conclusion is wrong.

The DPP looked at the so-called "stack of evidence" in closer detail than anyone here and concluded there was no evidence to warrant a prosecution. Are they Bailey fanboys also? What rubbish.

See Section 10

DPP’s Report | (wordpress.com)

Virginia Oliver (Thomas) in her statement of 2 January 1997 states that “in relation to the scratches on Ian’s hand last week I can verify that Ian killed and plucked three turkeys on the Sunday before Christmas. Ian also climbed to the top of a tree to cut the top off to use as a Christmas tree. I did see his hands scratched when he came down the tree.”

If they were cuts from briar thorns they would not have healed up so quickly after the fact.

That's because they were lighter scratches from a christmas tree.

Jules daughters didnt like him - Virginia wouldnt have said this if it was untrue as she couldnt stand him. It would have been the perfect way to get him out of their mothers lives forever by getting him sent down for murder. Even the spanish girl ( your critical witness ) staying in the house at the time seen nothing unusual. Although she did remember years and years later seeing a large coat soaking in a small bucket - years later hmmmm😲

There was also other witness's who seen him cutting down the tree. When Ian Bailey arrived at the crime scene the Gardai present didnt even notice the scratches on his hands.

Your post is utterly without merit and foundation. There is absolutely zero evidence for what you have suggested.

Her statement along with others from outside the household taken together convinced the DPP these were light tree scratches obtained before the murder and not briar scratches sustained during the murder. Where he mysteriously left no trace on the briars of any forensic evidence. It's not a credible scenario as the DPP outlines.

Even Garda statements:

"Gda. Kelleher says that he noticed Bailey’s left hand and could see scratches on the wrist. He described the scratches as being light and extending all along his left wrist."

Some people may have noticed things the day after the murder such as light scratches they did not notice the day before.

And we have witnesses who did notice the scratches the day before.

The scratches have been thoroughly discredited by the DPP.