Murder at the Cottage | Sky

I don't read much more into the manner in which the block was used other than as, from the murderer's point of view, a necessary coup de grace and the victim happened to be face up. Any attack prior to that could have been coldly carried out with Sophie quickly overwhelmed with blows or stabs. Everything about rage or passion is speculation that may have no justification. People should consider how much we might have learned had Ian Bailey been allowed to continue his investigations. And ask why was there such a determination to de-rail him.

While there has been a lot of talk about a botched investigation, there is no doubting the thoroughness of the examination of the 'evidence' from that investigation by the DPP. This has been dismissed by many people as coming just from some non-entity in the DPP's office while overlooking the fact that it was acceptable to the DPP, Eamonn Barnes.

Eddie Cassidy of the Examiner was central in setting up Bailey for some of the more ludicrous allegations.

On page 36 of the DPP's file, this is what is said about him;

"The most favourable assessment that one can apply to Eddie Cassidy is that he would

be wholly unreliable as a witness." I believe the DPP is saying Eddie is lying through his teeth along with some source who is almost without doubt a Garda.

It's all there on page 28;

"This means that Cassidy's source had informed him of the murder prior to 11.53 a.m.

on 23 December 1996. "

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/540818/83548065-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-dpp-file-2001.pdf

It’s no exaggeration to say the police destroyed the case. I do see why the DPP were so intensely critical of the Gardaí and completely refused to put this to court as a result of their incompetence and, in some cases, corruption. GSOC largely concurred, even if they lacked power to do anything about it. The plain truth is that Bailey would have almost certainly been found ‘Not Guilty’, when you consider all the tampering and inappropriate behaviour by authorities that was subsequently exposed - that kind of conduct is a gift to any defence barrister or bleach to a successful murder conviction and should be. Extradition to France would be equally crazy from a legal point of view and, again, it certainly should be that way.

However, there are many legal cases that cannot rightly or realistically be prosecuted, but in which it’s quite clear the accused is likely to be guilty and this is definitely one of them. It’s really only ‘Bailey Fanboys’ who so easily leap from legal innocence > literal innocence or simply amalgamate the two things completely. ‘There is absolutely no evidence against him!’ they cry, forgetting this isn’t a court of law - it’s a forum, basically a public square. Again, I totally agree that you can’t have murder cases being tried when the police in the case are shown to be that corrupt. It’s why O.J. Simpson got off in the States, for example, when we knew he was probably guilty. A good way to explain why is to say that police are the ‘evidence-delivery-service’ and if they are shown to be corrupt, there can be no delivery of evidence, hence no case.

But only a person who doesn’t properly understand the history of what actually happened in Schull or has their own bias - consciously or more likely unconsciously - would actually think Bailey is innocent in a literal sense, that he is some wrongly accused man worthy of pity! Many of you Fanboys recycle Ian’s own talking points. He’s pitching you a story and you’re buying it. There’s nothing wrong with us saying the strong probability is that Bailey is completely guilty of Sophie’s murder and referring to the many things that suggest that. No, the legal system we have cannot function if the Gardaí let us down like they did - but that doesn’t mean reality is altered and he didn’t kill her. The very strong probability is that he did kill her.

It has been reasonably claimed that Bailey telephoned Sophie’s office in France before the murder and spoke to her colleague. The colleague said that Sophie was a bit freaked out by it, but nervously laughed off the surprising call as Irish eccentricity, even though he’s not Irish. It’s also been claimed that Sophie told two people in France that she had met him and mentioned his poetry to them. Alfie Lyons, Sophie’s next door neighbour, even says he’s 90% sure he introduced them - not just pointed her out from the field, as Bailey likes to say. Again, Fanboys try and completely dismiss this, saying the friends of Sophie aren’t reliable or that it was declared too long afterwards, while neglecting to mention the reason some of it wasn’t known at the time is because of the poor work by the Gardaí - a fact they simultaneously rely on elsewhere in their arguments. Again, it can’t be tried because of the police, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be understood by reasonable people. I have seen Fanboys on this forum claim that none of Sophie’s friends ever said anything about her mentioning Bailey for over twenty years. That’s false. In some cases it was a few years and in one case, yes, it was 11 years and there were reasons for that. You can’t pretend it just doesn’t exist or shouldn’t count in reasonable minds. A connection between Sophie and Bailey very likely did exist. Not possibly. Not theoretically. But very, very likely to have existed.

People wondering why Sophie asked so many people to accompany her to west Cork at the last minute, should perhaps consider this in the context of the attention she was getting from Ian and which freaked her out slightly - after he phoned her office, she probably sensed that he didn’t grasp the boundaries and would have felt more comfortable with a friend there. People who protest that Bailey wouldn’t have been able to keep it quiet if he knew Sophie should remember that it’s probable virtually nothing had happened between him and her, that he was living with a partner already in a property that partner owned and of course he was a journalist who could obviously keep quiet sometimes if he had to. After initially claiming that he never got out of bed that night, Bailey was completely tripped up by his partner Jules who said he did and then just completely changed his story - conceding that he did get up for hours and technically even admitting leaving the house, when you consider where the colder property in which he claimed to be writing in the early hours was located. Years later he admitted on camera in the Sheridan documentary that his alibi is not really an alibi and indeed it’s not - he has no alibi.

As for people who think it’s unlikely that he would have walked to Sophie’s house that night, they don’t seem to be aware that he often went walking at night, sometimes naked and howling at the moon. Sorry, they weren’t ‘rumours’, this was proudly Ian’s bag and was just what he liked to do. They forget that he was drunk, he was horny and of course there was no party at Sophie’s neighbour Alfie’s - Alfie and his partner watched A FEW GOOD MEN on video and had an early night. People confidently dismiss the fact that he actually made reference to wanting to going over to a party at Alfie’s house that night when he was talking to Jules en route home from the pub. I believe Jules was telling the truth when she said that. Yes, I believe he said it and that Jules reported same. No, I wouldn’t send it to court, because again the police work in general is so tainted and Bailey’s barrister would rubbish everything, but my personal opinion and that of many others is that we do actually think he said it and she reported that he said it. Again, not talking about what can be prosecuted - just talking probability.

It does appear that based on Sophie and Ian’s little bit of prior contact and their shared creative pursuits and Ian’s well-documented sexual obsessions, he hoped something was developing between him and her. People who saw him earlier that evening have confirmed that he didn’t have marks on his hands and face, but he certainly did the following morning and they were not consistent with killing turkeys or cutting Christmas trees, as he pathetically claims. He had months earlir put own his partner in the hospital, she was very badly beaten and had clumps of hair torn out after he attacked her. Bailey is physically huge and almost certainly alcoholic. Jules’ then 14 year old daughter stated that her mother and Ian left the house not mid-afternoon but MID-MORNING and when asked to retract this statement years later by Jules, her daughter refused to do so. Actually her daughters recently started refusing to even bring Jules’ grandchildren to the house while Ian still lived there and now Jules has told Ian to leave, which he has. Remember one of the daughter’s even claimed Ian tried it on with her, too! Jules spoke to a man at a market stall the same morning the body was discovered - again MORNING, not afternoon - and told him Ian was off investigating a murder. This is all hours before Ian claims to have first heard about the murder in a mid-afternoon phone call - at a time when he shouldn’t have known about it. There are even people in the Irish media who spoke to Ian and were offered a photo of Sophie by him, not from the crime scene - just a photo of her! This is a professional journalist with many stories published in the past who is offering over the phone to a member of the Irish media a photo of the victim. Not from the crime scene - just a photo of her in life.

Remember that just because the guards horribly let us down, that doesn’t mean everything they did and said was wrong. One guard who had seen Ian covering a previous story of an old man who fell off a cliff, said he was dressed casually on that occasion and asked the guard lots of questions. When he arrived at the Sophie scene, he was dressed formally and asked almost nothing before quickly leaving. The guard said he thought Ian looked like he was playing the role of reporter. I think that guard was spot on. Not for court, because his colleagues let him down. Out here, in reality. My view is that Ian has been playing a role throughout. I agree the ‘confessions’ were sometimes intended as sarcastic humour, but in the hope that people would think a guilty person wouldn’t speak that way. One of the few areas where I disagree slightly with the DPP is regarding some of these statements by Bailey, for example their argument that Malachi Reed shouldn’t be taken seriously because he didn’t express real concern until a day later, which I felt showed a misunderstanding of the teenage mind. Moreover, one of Bailey's statements was clearly not sarcastic humour, it was a full on confession while drunk late at night in his home to a man who testified to its veracity. It was wrong to just lump that actual confession in with the 'sarcastic' statements…

Indeed, as legally wrong as the French themselves were, to rely on such tainted evidence, they made at least one valid point. They suggested the Irish were looking at every part of the case in isolation and eliminating each piece one by one - then concluding that it all added up to nothing. That is a classic mistake people make, it is classic faulty reasoning and indeed it’s made by many commentators on this forum. Watch how people react to my post. They will cut up the sentences into little quotes and respond to each one. If any of the sentences existed alone, they might have point. But they don’t exist in isolation! You have to look at things comprehensively. There is a point at which circumstantial evidences becomes corroborative evidence. But again, the Fanboys don’t get that and live to rationalise. Some of these same people think Graham Dwyer’s mobile phone records should be ruled inadmissible and he be set free. It’s a slippery slope, when you merge legal innocence and literal innocence. Be careful who you are defending, lads - and I say ‘lads’ and fan ‘boys’ most intentionally.

Honestly, some of the nonsense these guys write on this forum is really astounding. 'It must have been morning because the bed was slept in, there were fruits and nuts in her stomach and the lights were off in the house and there was bread out?' My favourite fallacy is that ‘it must have been morning because otherwise it would have been too dark for the killer to see the cement block’! None of those things mean that it wasn’t night when the crime happened! She could have just gotten into bed. She could have eaten fruit and nuts at night, people often do so, while drinking wine for instance. The lights being off means nothing in the country, nor does the bread being out. You’re just projecting your own experiences and needs based on your own opinion. We know it was a full moon that night - most people who have been out in the full moon for a few minutes would easily have sight. And there is a strong suggestion that Sophie was, generally speaking, artistic and fearless. This was her property and she was known for telling people what she thought. It’s not just Daniel who said that, it was actually her known personality. 

The whole ‘French Connection’, a seventies movie title Bailey introduced to the case in his very articles, is preposterous. As ‘chicorytip’ correctly wrote earlier in this thread “The hitman theory was put forward by Bailey when he was interviewed by journalists in the days following the discovery of the body. He also penned articles for the Daily Star alleging Sophie may have met her death at the hands of one of the many lovers she had entertained at the cottage in the aftermath of the break up of her marriage. It transpired that she had only one short lived romantic relationship during this period with a sixty nine year old French film director. Bailey also claims Daniel Du Plantier was in financial difficulties and may have had Sophie bumped off to prevent her getting half his assets under the terms of any divorce. All of this was scurrilous, self serving tactics by Bailey purely to deflect attention away from himself being a strong suspect for her killing.”

Above all, I want to add it’s particularly interesting how the Fanboys talk about there being no DNA at the scene, while they simultaneously also rubbish the Gardaí. In a violent altercation like that, there quite possibly was DNA at the scene - but if you rubbish the Gardaí like I do, it’s more reasonable or consistent to say the police probably just didn’t collect it. Yet the Fanboys leeeeeeaap from ‘the police were incompetent’ to ‘how come Bailey didn’t leave DNA?’ as if there is no contradiction between these two positions. He quite possibly did leave some, but look what happens when you cover the body with plastic, instead of a tent and when it lies there for two nights in December. When you don’t know what you’re doing and you’re in the middle of nowhere and it’s the early days of DNA. When the attack was obviously not pre-meditated and very much a violent, unplanned outburst in which the killer didn’t even enter the house (the door was locked from inside) and you admit yourselves the police were incompetent. Then you get a guilty man enjoying a police screw-up. When they WILFULLY throw away a gate, because they don’t realise it might be useful in future. No, they didn’t ‘lose’ it as so many say. They willfully threw it away and that’s actually something authorities do when they believe they have taken the samples they need. More weary, experienced authorities might keep the bloody gate. Yet the fanboys just move the goalposts around, just like.... Bailey does.

Where does it come from that th was 'thrown out'? He was spending Christmas with his paternal grandparents in Solonge. His father, Pierre Jean Baudey, drove from Paris to break the news to him after learning his ex-wife had been murdered. Is there anything to show that he was 'thrown out' rather than simply going to live with his paternal family?

Is it known for certain whether she was pregnant or not? Daniel Toscan de Plantier said that she was in the early stages of pregnancy and they had talked about it in their phone call on the night of 22nd December but he died without establishing proof of Sophie’s condition.

An autopsy, carried out by former state pathologist Dr John Harbison after Sophie’s Christmastime murder in 1996, was not divulged to her family despite repeated requests by her late husband.

@huiwe878778

I don't believe I.B Murdered Sophie but that dosen't make me or anyone else a "fanboy"

Baily had faults and was/is eccentric.... Annoying, a blowin, loud, wife beater, probably alcoholic, etc etc..

Reverting to calling names of alternate opinions and viewpoints would quickly close down forums and discussions...

My stance is that if the media and gardai put as much effort into fact finding real evidence rather than manufacturing and enhancing circumstantial evidence (as deemed by the DPP), then this case would and should be a closed case rather than a cold case.

Well, maybe she was bringing things from France she wanted to have in her Irish house. What's so unusual about that?

It's actually the 2nd left after you turn right at Kealfadda Bridge, but that's splitting hairs :p

I do agree with you though...the house wasn't/isn't hard to find at all, unless you are hopeless with directions. And this still stands taking into account the area was likely quite different back in the mid 90s, compared with today. Dwyer's claim is absolute nonsense, but I wouldn't expect any less from him going by his blatant lying on the recent documentaries.

What you can't dispute is that the place is very, very remote. You hear that it is but you only get a true impression once you go there. Once you turn off at Kealfadda Bridge it is a very small/minor road, and the lane leading to the house even more so. It is not somewhere that you would 'happen upon' by chance.

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever put together all the so-called facts of the case, referencing their source and validity? I really feel this would be of huge benefit. So much is mentioned here without the ability to properly reference the source, so much so that at this stage a lot the 'facts' are, in reality, just hearsay and supposition.

I would want to think it could have been Bailey if we could actually establish a stronger motive for him. This would have to have been something other than rage.

Why would Bailey want her dead? Was Sophie in the way for Bailey, his career maybe? and if so, why? What would be the financial benefit to Bailey? We all don't know that, even worse, we neither have DNA, fingerprints, hair or fiber of his clothes linking him to the murder scene. We don't even know the time of murder. Bailey wouldn't have used Jule's car, thus he must have hiked there, but building up a rage and an anger during a 1 hour hike and an evening in the pub doesn't sound credible at all and that all with the risk of being seen on the side of the road, or Sophie not even opening the door to him.

The only other two strong motives we know are:

The husband with the financial motive of avoiding a divorce and cashing in on the life insurance of his wife who was apparently in the early stages of pregnancy. The husband was probably also not too interested in having a child from a cheating wife he wanted to divorce anyway. Husband wanting the marriage to her to be over, but wife not, and also wanting his child? Separating the whole du Plantier estate? Child support payments? etc... Sophie's death would have been very convenient to her husband, and also financially rewarding.

The drug ring Sophie had possibly uncovered and wanted to do something against that. She would have been clearly in the way of somebody's racket, which we don't know who else was involved in? - possibly a corrupt Guard? maybe Alfie? or that farmer who grew cannabis? This scenario would not only have involved one, but possibly more people or a whole "network" who wanted her dead.

Any kind of casual sexual relationship Sophie may have had or is alleged to have had with somebody whilst in Ireland ( the German musician or that unknown Frenchman ) would most likely not have had any financial motive attached to it. In the worst case rejection could have resulted in rage and murder, however that's a bit too strong the way she was murdered.

@tinytobe

Motive's

I'm putting forward another motive...

Sophies house property, land sale, right of way was being invaded and encroched upon to varying degrees.

1. someone using her house when away (locks changed)
2. Dispute over gate being left open (right of way).
3. Parking area now not in cottage holding.
4. new fencing taking place in paddock as outlined in photo.
5. Dispute surrounding ownership of outhouse..
6. Continous travel/traffic at her very back door up to Alfies & fields.
7. Sophies (a later day blowin) approach to dealing with any of these issues could cause resentment, conflict, rage?. I don't suspect Alfie due to medical /physical condition at that time but there are other neighbours within walking distance.

In a night dress?

Not a chance

There are people here who will keep banging on with long discredited lies as if it's 1998. Never mind, more than one DPP, GSOC, the Bandon tapes or High court evidence where evidence is heard that a jury is not allowed deliberate on. They will refer to recent articles about people in the gutter press as if they were gospel truth.... Come to think of it😀

@huiwe878778

There is more credible evidence that Alfie Lyons was more likely to have been guilty of this murder than Ian Bailey?

I am neither so fascinated with the possible drug ring, nor am I pushing any agendas here.

I am just stating that the possible drug ring and Sophie seeing something she shouldn't have, knowing something and being prepared to do something would be a strong motive for murder. It was known that Sophie didn't approve of this activity.

There has been known drug trafficking in the area, on the rather isolated coast lines and isolated harbours.

Also drug trafficking can be very lucrative and financially rewarding, and given the fact that real good career perspectives were very limited in the area, it was probably a good way to make a bit of money in some sideline.

Murders in the drug scene are in general known for their brutality and to send a message.

And then there was that case where the Guards actually gave this ex-British soldier in the area drugs in an ill-fated attempt to get close to Bailey.

I would personally rate the drug ring similarly high in financial motive for murder as the husband / hitman theory.

No, I don't think so.

Alfie would have had a couple of "advantages" to Bailey. Alfie would have known exactly when she was there and when not. Alfie would have heard cars coming and going. Alfie would probably have known when she would do the shopping or when she went to bed, or if she was an early riser. Remember, Sophie's house didn't have curtains in many rooms so light would have shone outside easily.

If Alfie did it, he would fit more into the drug-gang motive theory than the husband hired hitman theory. Also if Alfie did it, then Shirley would have known. I don't think he could have hidden blood all over him from Shirley.

But again, that's only theory, nothing proven at all.