Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.
Comments
-
Ah, ok, I thought you meant Bailey was in France, where he got to know Sophie.
0 -
-
Girard claims this... Girard miraclously remembered this information when?
So to state "Sophie told Girard". Nope.
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
0 -
Girard suddenly remembered this piece of information in 1999 - 3 years after the murder. Long after Bailey became a suspect. Why did Girard suddenly remember this vital piece of information in 1999? Most rational people would have to assume he is a spoofer. If true he would have said this much earlier in the investigation.
1 -
Yeah your nothing whatsoever to do with Scooby. A simple check of your account and posts would show the most basic of armchair detectives that, but obviously not our resident drunk SoulWriter.
Moonunit, was quite clearly a garda. I believe AGS are quite vocal about placing officers in charge of social media, fair enough, needs to be done, but don't expect the rest of us to not notice. Tibs is very similar, but I prefer not to jump to conclusions. They have a job to do at the end of the day
2 -
Advertisement
-
"I`m not spinning any narratives. I`m just asking questions"
Most of your time is spent making factually incorrect statements. You continually say there is no evidence that Sophie and Bailey knew each other. Evidence that they did know each other has been produced at three separate court cases, none of which resulted in a favourable outcome for Ian Bailey. You continually deny factual reality. You are a total spinner.
"Moonunit"
You know all about Moonunit and you know nothing about Scoobie. Yeah right. Moonunit was a mine of information. Scoobie was a mine of misinformation and another total spinner. I was posting here at the same time as Moonunit. I am not he/she.
"you have no answer to the big important questions"
I have been posting on this thread for well over a year. I don`t avoid any of the issues. I didn`t get into it with one poster about his travails with the Gardaí because I couldn`t be arsed, I knew he was on a hiding to nothing and I didn`t need his law degree to see that either.
"What relationship existed between Bailey and Sophie?"
Based on both French and Irish evidence it was artistic and because she came over alone it may also have been physical. To think there was none requires a level of conspiracy that needs the participation of local Gardaí and a collection of several witnesses, French and Irish, some of whom don`t even know each other. The same principle applies to events on the day after the murder and the reality that he was able to tell a number of people about it all before he was actually contacted by the individual who first informed him about it. That requires a separate conspiracy involving several completely different witnesses.
"Why would Bailey walk so far"
It is you who keeps saying he would have walked. I am open minded about whether he walked or drove and I have no real issue with either. Both are eminently possible.
"in the middle of the night to attack a woman for no reason?"
You have invented an improbable narrative that he went over there to kill so that you can criticize that narrative. It is unlikely he went over there to kill anybody just as he didn`t walk through Jules`s front door because he had a desire to assault her.
"without leaving the slightest trace of evidence, either at the scene..."
Sophie was unable to put up a fight. Forensics indicate that she didn`t scratch her assailant, she didn`t pull his hair, no sexual assault so no semen and if it was Bailey who did this, then based on the descriptions of his scratches, he didn`t leave his blood at the scene either. Therefore, he would have been confident in giving a DNA sample later on, the alternative being a refusal that would indicate guilt. Bailey wrote an article proposing that Sophie fled from an assailant who chased her and hit her on the back of the head with a weapon which would have presumably incapacitated her. He also wrote that there had been no sexual assault and this was before that information was in the public domain. How did he know that?
"or on his person/clothing"
Clothing and footwear burned in a bonfire a couple of days after the murder by a man who was a hoarder and who never got rid of anything.
"And what was his motive?"
Asking what Bailey`s motive to kill Sophie would have been, is asking the wrong question. What was the motive for his assaults on Jules? Minimal provocation. Probably a run of the mill domestic that became a near death experience for Jules. Ordinarily the important question would be what was his motive for going over there? But we actually don`t need an answer to that either because we know from conversations that he and Jules had on Hunt`s Hill and back at the cottage that for whatever reason, he wanted to go over there, we know he got out of bed and was unaccounted for until the following morning. Have you read Jules`s statement that she signed in the presence of her legal representative yet?
"I realize these are uncomfortable questions for you"
You realized wrong.
"that you would rather discuss the phase of the moon on the night"
No thanks. Don`t attribute things to me that I haven`t said. The moon only came up in our discussions because you tried to spin a false narrative that it was a dark night.
"these are the questions I want answers to before I can give serious consideration to this absurd proposition"
You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself and think the rest of us are here to provide answers to your questions. You cannot on the one hand conclude that the proposition is absurd and at the same time acknowledge that you require answers to a number of questions.
2 -
1
-
Did anyone ever see this.? I can't find it online anywhere. It sounds a bit trashy tv3 garbage
0 -
Given the amount the Garda invested in framing Bailey, I'd suggest the Guards were in on it in some way. Otherwise they would never have bothered coercing Marie Farrell and offering drugs to a transient ex-soldier to get close to Bailey, as well as the Bandon Garda tapes, which make some lamentable listening.
To me it's a fact that the Garda played a role in this murder in some way shape or form. Nobody would have gone to that length if they hadn't something to cover up.
I also don't believe that Bailey walked 11km in the dark anywhere from 1am to early morning after several drinks in the pub, just to meet a women who barely was ever at her holiday home, to ask for sex and if rejected killed her. Yes, it's possible, Bailey had the time, the means, no alibi, but it's just not credible. Also the motive for Bailey is to date not established. Other than the endless sexual story, nobody ever came up with a credible and decent motive.
Alfie has had issues with the law, namely drugs. He was also a known drug user. Thus I'd judge him as a dodgy character. He was also the closest to her with Shirley during the night of the murder.
Leo Bolger has had issues with the law as well, also drugs, not using, but growing and dealing. He'd gotten off lightly once before and any next offence would have sent him straight to jail for quite a while. His motive to murder Sophie would have been even higher.
And then there were the Garda who gave drugs to a transient without any home, who was sleeping in barns. Since when are the Guards handing out drugs to get somebody to talk?
Sophie's husband, viewed by motive he would still be suspect number one, as he had from a financial perspective the strongest motive, - how he would have organized a hitman, and paid him without leaving a paper trail is another matter. I'd suggest the financials would have left Daniel Toscan du Plantier financially way worse of than Leo Bolger losing out on any drug dealing.
In light of what has happened, I'd say the killer is either in relation to the husband wanting to avoid a messy and costly divorce or some drug related matter and Guards being in on it, and covering things up.
I clearly don't think it was Bailey wanting sex with Sophie.
2 -
100%. Thinking logically about it this is the only conclusions you can come to. Unless DNA evidence, of which there must be lots still available, says otherwise.
2 -
Advertisement
-
Most of your time is spent making factually incorrect statements. You continually say there is no evidence that Sophie and Bailey knew each other. Evidence that they did know each other has been produced at three separate court cases, none of which resulted in a favourable outcome for Ian Bailey. You continually deny factual reality. You are a total spinner.
You seem to be getting frustrated Tibruit.
The problem for you, as I see it, is that the theory you expound needs there to be, at a minimum, a credible association between IB and STDP to hold any water. And there simply isn't one. Even Judge Moran accepted that. And it needs Bailey to be a raving sex maniac who cannot accept rejection.. It also needs him to be a criminal mastermind who could launch a prolonged and bloody assault, with a big concrete block, within a short and distance of other people, on a still, quiet night, without being seen or heard whilst managing to avoid any transfer of forensic material either to or from his person or clothing. Otherwise it topples over.
There is no evidence of any association between Bailey and Sophie. No sightings of them together, never seen in a car together, a pub together, at either of their houses together. No correspondence between them, no telephone records, no photographs, nothing.
I have only a few statements to make:
1) Bailey did not know Sophie - as distinct from knowing of her. And, as I stated above, Judge Moran agreed.
2) There is no evidence of his presence at the crime scene.
3) He had no motive to kill her. Inventing one doesn't change that.
4) He may have done it, but it is no more than a very remote possibility.
And none of the vague assertions that you have made in reply are convincing.
You know all about Moonunit and you know nothing about Scoobie. Yeah right. Moonunit was a mine of information. Scoobie was a mine of misinformation and another total spinner. I was posting here at the same time as Moonunit. I am not he/she.
I didn't say you were Tibruit. I said there was a remarkable similarity in your posting habits.
"Why would Bailey walk so far"
It is you who keeps saying he would have walked. I am open minded about whether he walked or drove and I have no real issue with either. Both are eminently possible.
Well, think about it. If he drove, and if his coat and boots were so contaminated that he had to burn them, then its logical to expect that a transfer of that contamination to the car seat, pedals steering wheel etc. would have occured. Which would be much more problematic to remove/destroy/conceal. There are no reports of such findings. So I don't accept that he drove. And the proposal that he walked there and back is difficult to swallow.
Clothing and footwear burned in a bonfire a couple of days after the murder by a man who was a hoarder and who never got rid of anything.
Clothing that is on record as having been seized by the Gardai.
"these are the questions I want answers to before I can give serious consideration to this absurd proposition"
You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself and think the rest of us are here to provide answers to your questions. You cannot on the one hand conclude that the proposition is absurd and at the same time acknowledge that you require answers to a number of questions.
Isn't the purpose of this board to discuss? To challenge? To persuade? To be open to persuasion?
Or are you suggesting that it should be an echo chamber just for those who accept a given position?
Of course I can ask questions on the fundamental points underpinning a proposition. And I do regard the basic theory of any man walking miles, through the dead of a Winter's night to murder a woman unknown to him for no apparent reason, without leaving any trace, as absurd. So do many others and, most importantly, so did the DPP.
Having said all that, I acknowlege that Bailey may have done it. But it isn't at all likely, and your position that he is definitely responsible, that his guilt is an unchallengeable fact, that no other possibility exists, that any suggestion to the contrary is without merit, is equally absurd.
Finally, I'm not a spinner. I have never had any other identity on this board, I have no connection to anyone involved and my only reason for posting is that I find the mystery of Sophie's murder and the entire background intriguing.
4 -
Regarding the Guards, in previous discussions there was often mention of a certain "horny Guard from Bantry" who had a "complicated sex life" and interest in "foreign women" and having been known to have had "multiple affairs" despite being married. He would also have fitted the profile of somebody who had insight into DNA and fingerprint gathering, where they were kept, also did he apparently have a higher rank than just constable. Meaning he had the means and access to collude and pervert the course of the investigation.
Honestly, only in the context of this "Guard from Bantry" would I be seeing a sexually motivated murder, not with Bailey. And then there is also the motive of the Guards being in on some minor drug activity together with characters like Leo Bolger or Alfie Lyons and Shirley was simply made to shut up if she noticed something.
The motive of Bailey hiking for around 11 km after more than a few drinks for a woman he barely knew or somebody like the ex-lover Bruno in France sneaking secretly into Ireland, killing Sophie and then flying back, - it's all possible, doable and manageable, but I doubt that that's what happened. None of them had a big enough financial motive, none had a reputation to lose or a possible jail sentence. Furthermore if Bailey wanted to cheat on Jules there would have been more choices all year round on the Mizen Head, Bruno most likely had even better options in France to sleep around.
Sophie's husband Daniel would have had the highest financial motive to organize and pay a killer who'd go to Ireland and back, however that takes a certain amount planning, energy to do so. The marriage clearly wasn't working out, he was already in bed with the next future wife, soon pregnant, reputation as a film producer, some financial problems, not wanting a divorce or ex-wife getting half of his estate. I wouldn't ever rule him out. The financial motive is just too big to ignore.
However judging by the way the local Guards did the investigation they were most likely to be inapt to find a solid financial trail to a contract killer. As they were more engaged in colluding and cover ups they also had sadly a motive for that and their incompetence does indeed give a lot away. The Bandon Garda station tapes are just too convincing to be explained away, same as drugs to transients to get Bailey to talk, coercing Marie Farrell, - it's all a clear sign, it was started and instigated by a Guard with some local knowledge.
Whether Bailey knew Sophie from a boat trip to some Island, or if Alfie introduced them with 90% of being sure of, the French Bottle of wine or whether the house was easy to find or not, are all totally irrelevant. Sadly some people still focus on that one.
2 -
"You seem to be getting frustrated"
Jaysus. Am I? I hadn`t noticed.
"the theory you expound needs there to be, at a minimum, a credible association between IB and STDP to hold any water."
No it doesn`t. It only needs Bailey`s own version of their relationship, i.e. he knew of her, basically who she was and what she was. I`m arguing with you about it because you deny there is any evidence of a relationship. You claimed you are a defender of justice. You`re not. Denial of reality is denial of justice.
"it needs Bailey to be a raving sex maniac"
You obviously haven`t read his diaries either. If you have though, you are yet again spinning a false narrative.
"who cannot accept rejection"
Narcissists do get nutty when rejected. Most are relatively harmless. Bailey was a violent narcissist. I note you claimed that Colette Gallagher rejected him and he didn`t go apeshit. Colette didn`t get a chance to reject him. Jules interrupted them. So yet another false narrative.
"a prolonged and bloody assault"
Prolonged? Really? I`d say it was all over in a minute or two.
"without being seen or heard"
In the middle of nowhere with the nearest neighbours tucked up in their bed.
"whilst avoiding any transfer of forensic material either to....(his clothing)"
If Bailey is the killer, he clearly burned the incriminating clothing.
"or from his person or clothing."
You`ve just exonerated everybody. It must have been the horse wot did it.
"There is no evidence of any association..."
Denial of reality is a denial of justice.
"No sightings of them...yada,yada,yada....."
You`ve just listed off a variety of circumstances that all sides of the argument would accept and you`ve ignored that several witnesses describe a relationship of varying degrees that in all cases goes beyond him "knowing of her".
"There is no evidence of his presence at the crime scene"
Yes there is. Not only that but at around 1 am he expressed a desire to go up there and asked Jules to come with him.
"He had no motive to kill her"
If he took the trouble to go over there, things needed to progress in line with his expectations or else he was liable to lose the plot.
"He may have done it, but it`s no more than a very remote possibility."
Your grasp of probability leaves a lot to be desired. Don`t ever become a bookie.
"Well, think about it. If he drove, and if his coat and boots were so contaminated that he had to burn them, then it is logical that a transfer of that contamination to the car seat, pedals, steering wheel etc."
I don`t need to think about it. I`ve dealt with this problem (not blood but mud) several times myself. It isn`t rocket science. You strip down, remove your shoes, roll them up in the clothes clean side out, pop it in the boot and drive home in your underwear. I wasn`t trying to get away with murder, just trying to keep the vehicle interior clean. Bailey was a former court reporter and knew all about forensics and blood contamination.
"Clothing is on the record as having been seized by the Gardaí."
So what? Bonfire came first.
"Isn`t the purpose of this board to discuss?"
Ah yeah. But you come on here a lot recently and present falsehood as fact and deny the existence of fact.
"your position that he is definitely responsible, that his guilt is an unchallengeable fact, that no other possibility exists, that any suggestion to the contrary is without merit, is equally absurd."
Jeez I don`t remember saying any of this. I`d appreciate if you wouldn`t attribute things to me that I haven`t actually said and if you wouldn`t call me absurd for saying things that you choose to attribute to me that I haven`t said.
0 -
Who would be Colette Gallagher in this murder case of Sophie? I don't think I've ever come across this name in connection to this murder mystery. I've must have missed this.
Also there is no knowledge or confirmation that Jules ever drove him to the murder site. That's also something new.
0 -
Knowing of her is completely different to knowing her - surely you know that and can see the difference. Knowing of her is different to having any kind of link with her. No concrete links between Bailey and Sophie have been established - none. Please please dont come back and mention Guy Girard, or some young lad thinking he seen the two of them chatting at a festival ( when the witness didnt actually know Sophie).
Tibruit you seem like a reasonably intelligent person therefore you should know that Bailey cannot be convicted on the basis that there is very little evidence that he was in involved in this murder. Thats the truth - just because he is a horrible individual, had scratches on his hands, happened to have gotten up out of bed that night, happened to buy bleach, happened to have lit a fire, happened to be on the airhill rd etc does not mean he is a murderer. Have you never bought bleach, have you never got up during the night, have you never lit a fire, have you never scratched your hands. Remember anyone could find themselves in this position (including you Tibruit) so we have to ensure that justice prevails and that people cant be convicted based on flimsy information.
Now I am not 100% convinced myself that he is innocent - but I have not heard any hard evidence to convince me he is guilty. In fact when you look at all the events surrounding the Gardai investigation it looks like Bailey may also be a victim. You cannot look at this case and think the Gardai done a good job and didnt use corrupt tactics - you just can't. There are more plausible suspects who had motive. Also the area seemed to be home to several dodgy characters with shady dealings going on - Ive never seen such a gang of dodgy characters involved in any other crime investigation. If this was a movie we would all think its far fetched - but its not - these events really happened
Tibruit when looking at this case you simply cannot look at Bailey alone. Why do you not explore other theories? Why do you not question how the Gardai investigated this crime?
4 -
One needs to investigate in every direction, and every possible suspect.
Knowing of somebody or knowing somebody closer doesn't prove murder, it's not even circumstantial evidence. Same goes for howling at the moon, taking occasional walks at night, drinking habits, loitering in dark streets and alleyways, wearing a dark coat, nor not shaving for three days, or even buying a bottle of expensive French wine from some unknown source.
If there is no evidence linking anybody to the scene of the crime, one can only look at motive.
Yes, Bailey could have done it, but his motive is in my opinion rather slim, nor not more, more similar to Bruno, Sophie's ex lover.
I also don't understand that those who think Bailey did it, always exclusively think his motive was sexual.
4 -
Do you remember that conversation we had a couple of weeks ago about you and that planet?
0 -
It's very bizarre. There are several posters who want to believe that Bailey did it, and also want in to be sexual. Why would you want to believe this based on flimsy circumstantial evidence?
The posters arguing against Bailey having done it don't care whether he did it, and if tomorrow morning evidence was announced - Bailey's DNA recovered from the brick or whatever - or even some ongoing affair, friendship or some financial or other dispute from a CREDIBLE source (i.e. not Marie Farrell or some pothead) I'd be delighted to see him locked up for life. Anything I've said here has been pure speculation based on what is in the public domain about this case.
The facts are that all the above motives are present with people OTHER than Bailey who seem beyond suspicion for some reason.
3 -
"Knowing of her is completely different to knowing her"
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
"Why do you not explore other theories?"
I have, in some detail, here on Boards as it happens.
"Why do you not question how the Gardaí investigated this crime?"
I do. There is no doubt that the Gardaí stepped over the line in this investigation. It doesn`t mean that Bailey didn`t do it.
0 -
Excellent posting.
I honestly couldn't care less about Bailey if he was locked up in some damp and cold prison where even the mice would be squealing for the rest of his life, no chance of parole, if the evidence would show beyond reasonable doubt that Bailey actually did it.
But as long as some users are insisting Bailey did it without any evidence, it's automatically a question about police procedures, evidence gathering and the legal system. These matters do concern all of us. Would we tolerate police corruption, collusion and coercion of witnesses?
Just saying "Bailey did it" without any evidence is just a threat for all of use wanting an impartial police and legal system.
2 -
Advertisement
-
To me it's a fact that the Garda played a role in this murder in some way shape or form. Nobody would have gone to that length if they hadn't something to cover up
Do you really think that a Garda role in one of the most high profile murders in the history of the state could be so easily covered up for over a quarter of a century?
Hundreds of Gardai with impeccable records who have been involved in some shape or form in the investigation all keep a for decades secret to protect who exactly?
0 -
Why would you want to believe this based on flimsy circumstantial evidence?
Because there is so much circumstantial evidence that points to Bailey.
Far more than anyone else.
The scratches.
The missing hours from the house.
The mark on his forehead.
The timing of his arrival at the scene.
The premonition on Hunt's Hill (or whatever it's called).
The bonfire.
The admissions of guilt to people, more than once.
The history of violence.
No one else has that level of circumstancial evidence against them.
So why wouldn't be lead to believe he did it ?
0 -
Because it is weak circumstantial evidence, each of which can be disputed either in fact or relevance.
Lots of murders go unsolved where there is no one else. You dont just pin it on whoever you have the most evidence against. It is a recipe for miscarriages of justice.
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
4 -
The question the poster asked was
"Why would you want to believe this based on flimsy circumstantial evidence?"
I gave the reasons why someone would want to believe.
I never suggested it was enough for a charge, let alone a miscarriage of justice, and as we well known there has never been a charge.
But that doesn't stop me or anyone else believing that that level of circumstancial evidence makes Ian Bailey the prime suspect for the murder, way ahead of anyone else we have heard about to date.
0 -
But remember the quantity of such weak evidence is a factor of how much focus AGS had in Bailey.
Had they shone a similar spotlight on others in the locality we could find lots of circumstantial evidence on them too.
What stands out to me is Bailey was put under that spotlight and not a single piece of solid quality evidence was found connecting him to the murder.
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
6 -
The mark on his head and the scratches, yet the forensics found no evidence of either on Sophie - Baileys blood and DNA should have been under her fingernails in that case. None was found.
The other stuff is pure hearsay that you will hear about every murder or notable event.
And as for violence - I'm sure a low grade drug dealer living next door wouldn't be innocent of violence either for example - but we'll never know because they weren't properly investigated.
Again - I'm not saying he's innocent - but I am saying there isn't even remotely enough evidence to convict him, and the case should be re investigated from first principles.
The fact whoever did it left no evidence whatsoever despite a very messy murder suggests either gross incompetence or a coverup. Drew Harris has done sterling work cleaning up the Gardai - this one could crown his successes.
And the admissions of guilt? I remember half a dozen people in conversation with my parents "confessing" they had stolen Shergar at the time.
1 -
But who says a similar spotlight light was not shone on others in the locality by the Gardai, but turned up nothing in a short period of time.
And thus we don't here about it.
The reason Bailey is and has been in the spotlight is because there is so much circumstantial evidence against him, that is just not there for others.
If there was really a better suspect than Bailey don't you think we would have heard about it by now, some journalist would have found enough for a tv show, a book, a podcast?
But there is nothing.
0 -
Im not saying there is enough evidence to put Bailey on trial.
What I'm saying is there is enough circumstantial evidence to make him far and away the prime suspect to this day.
0 -
We just dont know.
Why do we hear so little about alfies hand.
Or this young man who left the area after the murder.
There is no better suspect but it proves nothing about Bailey's actual guilt in and if itself.
Murderers can get away with murder, leaving zero evidence to them of any kind.
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
1 -
Advertisement
-
As he wasn't convicted for murder in Ireland, so in that sense it wasn't a miscarriage of justice. However in France it was certainly a miscarriage of justice.
Maybe one of the reasons they focused on Bailey is not only his personality problem, but also that he was English. As far as I recall Ireland back in the mid and late 90ies is that there was always an anti-English sentiment around. I recall English co workers having difficulty finding rental accommodation in Dublin as opposed to French, Spanish or German.
They focused on Bailey, but had no evidence. As they couldn't even connect Bailey's DNA which he volunteered to the murder site, Bailey also doesn't need to explain scratches on his hand, and stories about killing turkeys or chopping down Christmas trees.
The Guards couldn't match him to the scene of the crime, even though he volunteered DNA. Either gross incompetence by the Guards or he simply didn't do it.
3
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
