Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

Biker79

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

‘It takes two to tango’. He never comes across as likeable, or sympathetic, but that was a new low. Wonder if that’s why he wanted the interview taken out.

We don't know the nature of their relationship, but booze seems to have played a central part, which makes violence more likely.

You think women are incapable of driving some men to violence? That's naïve.

Xander10

SeaFields wrote: »

His account of the domestic violence was disgusting. It was like he tried to blame the partner.

Myself and partner noticed that, it immediately struck that he was shifting the blame in relation to a horrible assault he inflicted, stating:

"she had been drinking" before then stating "we both had been drinking"

"she started to grab me" "I pushed her back, hurting her"

and this somehow mitigates the savage beating he inflicted in his eyes.

Henry...

CoBo55 wrote: »

Why the sudden interest in Sophie now? The West Cork documentary on audible was brilliant. Looking forward to both of these.

Dunno really but a 'beautiful' french woman runs from her house at night and is murdered by her assailant at her gate

Case unsolved

uli84

If whatever has been shown is true I think Ian Bailey did it. Plus I always tell the truth when drunk I would say he does too.
Even the stupid thing that he was visiting a house next door on regular basis and so on and so forth.

EmmetSpiceland

Biker79 wrote: »

We don't know the nature of their relationship, but booze seems to have played a central part, which makes violence more likely.

You think women are incapable of driving some men to violence? That's naïve.

Ah sure, I’m sure whatever cutting remark or slap she gave him more than earned an eye the size of a grapefruit, clumps of hair torn from her head and a lip separated from her gum.

Looks more like one was doing the tango while the other was MMA cage fighting.

odyssey06

uli84 wrote: »

If whatever has been shown is true I think Ian Bailey did it. Plus I always tell the truth when drunk I would say he does too.
Even the stupid thing that he was visiting a house next door on regular basis and so on and so forth.

There is an element of truth... makes it easier to smuggle in the lies or rather the omissions such as the evidence going missing, pressure on witness by AGS to change her testimony.

Bigmac1euro

It was definitely Ian Bailey in my eyes.
How much more coincidences need to be connected to him?
I can see some posters defending that he didn’t do it but then who did? A hitman from France is not going to bash her head in with a rock.

I think Ian and Sophie knew each other.
I think he was into her.
I think he got ****ed out of his head like he always does and rambled up to her house. He might have even been in her house for a while. He then tried it on and an argument ensued.
The rest is history.
The man is a woman beater and an alcoholic and on this particular night he vanished from his bed and his attractive neighbour living up the road is murdered. The evidence is crap because the Garda were incompetent at the time. The crime scene was a mess. They lost a ****ing gate for Christ sake.

patobrien12

There's a lot more in this one compared to Jim Sheridan's one and its 2 episodes less. Do much waffle from Jim.

There's a few things to me that don't add up.

1. Did he definitely know about the murder before the he got the call. Were the people that say they did no interviewed? Are they credible. Because if he did no then that is huge evidence.
2. Marie Farrell caught lying on the stand about who the person was she was having the affair with. She is all over Jim Sheridan's documentary and the other person was never brought up or even asked. The fact that the Netflix doc shows she is a liar plain as. Whereas Jim Sheridan portrays here as a victim of the police. Why did Jim not show the interviews of here saying Bailey was intimidating her? Does it go against the narrative, I think so.
3. Did Ian Bailey meet and actually speak to Sophie. According to many witnesses in Netflix that is interviewed she 100% did. Why is Ian lying and also why was this not investigated more by Jim?

Seems to me like both documentaries are taking different sides and after watching both Netflix is far more reliable.

Biker79

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Ah sure, I’m sure whatever cutting remark or slap she gave him more than earned an eye the size of a grapefruit, clumps of hair torn from her head and a lip separated from her gum.

Looks more like one was doing the tango while the other was MMA cage fighting.

She was attracted to him and stayed in a relationship with him, knowing full well his drunken, domineering, gregarious character. Why?

You may not be familiar with the dark side of female nature. Its not discussed very often but it certainly exists.

EmmetSpiceland

Biker79 wrote: »

She was attracted to him and stayed in a relationship with him, knowing full well his drunken, domineering, gregarious character. Why?

You may not be familiar with the dark side of female nature. Its not discussed very often but it certainly exists.

Sure thing, chief. Look, you may think it’s ok for a bloke to beat the shít out of a bird he’s twice the size of just because she, may have, said or done something but it’s, generally, considered unacceptable and, wholly, inexcusable.

Regardless of what she may, or may not, have done she did not deserve to be beaten into such a sorry state. Now, you can try defend the guy saying nonsense about “female nature” but, we both know, that’s absolute nonsense.

odyssey06

Bigmac1euro wrote: »

It was definitely Ian Bailey in my eyes.
How much more coincidences need to be connected to him?
I can see some posters defending that he didn’t do it but then who did? A hitman from France is not going to bash her head in with a rock.

I think Ian and Sophie knew each other.
I think he was into her.
I think he got ****ed out of his head like he always does and rambled up to her house. He might have even been in her house for a while. He then tried it on and an argument ensued.
The rest is history.
The man is a woman beater and an alcoholic and on this particular night he vanished from his bed and his attractive neighbour living up the road is murdered. The evidence is crap because the Garda were incompetent at the time. The crime scene was a mess. They lost a ****ing gate for Christ sake.

None of that is real evidence though.
What "you think" isn't even circumstansial evidence.

If you're going to accuse someone of murder, you need a helluva lot more than that and "who else did it" is not an argument of any serious consideration.
The "only suspect" we have doesn't mean they did it.
There's innocent people freed on forensics who were the "only suspect".
It often means it was the suspect the police fixated on and directed their investigations that way. It's a recipe for miscarriages of justice and for the real guilty party to go free.

The guards lost evidence, but the didn't find anythng at the scene from a 'frenzied' attack they could tie to Bailey. He was supposed to have been scratched, yet no blood, no DNA, no hair, nothing. No fingerpints either.

They then tried a fit up job on Bailey so poor the DPP threw it back at them.

Biker79

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Sure thing, chief. Look, you may think it’s ok for a bloke to beat the shít out of a bird he’s twice the size of just because she, may have, said or done something but it’s, generally, considered unacceptable and, wholly, inexcusable.

Regardless of what she may, or may not, have done she did not deserve to be beaten into such a sorry state. Now, you can try defend the guy saying nonsense about “female nature” but, we both know, that’s absolute nonsense.

I never said that, and I don't excuse.it.:rolleyes:

But your comments are typical of the black and white, simplistic thinking that surrounds these topics and have resulted in the life of an innocent man being ruined.

In Germany they call it ' island mentality ' .

odyssey06

patobrien12 wrote: »

There's a lot more in this one compared to Jim Sheridan's one and its 2 episodes less. Do much waffle from Jim.

There's a few things to me that don't add up.

1. Did he definitely know about the murder before the he got the call. Were the people that say they did no interviewed? Are they credible. Because if he did no then that is huge evidence.
2. Marie Farrell caught lying on the stand about who the person was she was having the affair with. She is all over Jim Sheridan's documentary and the other person was never brought up or even asked. The fact that the Netflix doc shows she is a liar plain as. Whereas Jim Sheridan portrays here as a victim of the police. Why did Jim not show the interviews of here saying Bailey was intimidating her? Does it go against the narrative, I think so.
3. Did Ian Bailey meet and actually speak to Sophie. According to many witnesses in Netflix that is interviewed she 100% did. Why is Ian lying and also why was this not investigated more by Jim?

Seems to me like both documentaries are taking different sides and after watching both Netflix is far more reliable.

There's no certain information that Bailey knew about the murder before information of it started to spread through other channels.

The guards intimidated Marie Farrell into changing her story.
Her original evidence was that the guy she saw wasn't Bailey.
So why would she change her story because Bailey intimidated her?
Why say anything?

Alfie Lyons thinks he probably did introduce them, but isn't 100% certain.
Why would Bailey deny ever being introduced to Sophie if there were so many witnesses to it?

The West Cork podcast is the most complete in terms of covering all evidence. Both of the TV documentaries have their flaws, Netflix in bias and the Jim Sheridan one in being as much about Jim.

Bigmac1euro

odyssey06 wrote: »

None of that is real evidence though.
What "you think" isn't even circumstansial evidence.

If you're going to accuse someone of murder, you need a helluva lot more than that and "who else did it" is not an argument of any serious consideration.
The "only suspect" we have doesn't mean they did it.
There's innocent people freed on forensics who were the "only suspect".
It often means it was the suspect the police fixated on and directed their investigations that way. It's a recipe for miscarriages of justice and for the real guilty party to go free.

The guards lost evidence, but the didn't find anythng at the scene from a 'frenzied' attack they could tie to Bailey. He was supposed to have been scratched, yet no blood, no DNA, no hair, nothing. No fingerpints either.

They then tried a fit up job on Bailey so poor the DPP threw it back at them.

Why did Bailey change his story multiple times?
He told the lead detective he slept the whole night through when the murder happened.
Then he said he got up during the night?

When his wife was asked did he do it her reply apparently was “I don’t know”

Unfortunately the guards done a terrible job so we essentially have no evidence. Our only option is to make an accurate guess. The most likely person that murdered her due to NUMEROUS coincidences is Ian Bailey.
That said we can’t punish him as there isn’t enough evidence.

Who do you think murdered her? What is the story in your head that happened?
If someone had a gun to your head and you had to answer what would you say?

odyssey06

Bigmac1euro wrote: »

Why did Bailey change his story multiple times?
He told the lead detective he slept the whole night through when the murder happened.
Then he said he got up during the night?

When his wife was asked did he do it her reply apparently was “I don’t know”

Unfortunately the guards done a terrible job so we essentially have no evidence. Our only option is to make an accurate guess. The most likely person that murdered her due to NUMEROUS coincidences is Ian Bailey.
That said we can’t punish him as there isn’t enough evidence.

Who do you think murdered her? What is the story in your head that happened?
If someone had a gun to your head and you had to answer what would you say?

I think he was drunk and had a blackout.
That's why his account of his actions is all over the place.

We don't even know what time Sophie was killed at.
It could quite possibly happened in early morning - the food found in the stomach suggested breakfast. In which case Bailey has a clear alibi.

I don't think he could have carried out the attack in a 'frenzied' manner as has been described, received scratches during it and not left some evidence at this scene even by the standards of 1996 forensics and the incompetence of the investigation.
Something would have been found, DNA, blood, hair, fingerprints.
In contrast nothing.

The DPP went over the evidence and threw it back at the Guards it was so poor.

Well our only option isn't to make an accurate guess, which is really a contradiction in terms!
It's not betting on a football team.

But if you want to make a guess on probability, I would say that:
I don't know who did it. But I would rule out Ian Bailey.
On the balance of probability, I would say he is innocent rather than 'not guilty' or 'unproven'.

Chuck Noland

I’m amazed that the state coroner gets such a pass in all this? He’s hungover after his birthday and doesn’t bother traveling to Cork until the next day?

Also the gate…. How was a gate lost?

a_squirrelman

Chuck Noland wrote: »

I’m amazed that the state coroner gets such a pass in all this? He’s hungover after his birthday and doesn’t bother traveling to Cork until the next day?

Also the gate…. How was a gate lost?

He isn’t on call 24/7. He was off that day.
I’d be more concerned that local Gardai ignored the forensics team and left the body out all night.
And also that the same Gardai lost (got rid of) a load of evidence.

Darc19

It's important to know that one of the producers of the Netflix doc is a friend of the Du Plantier family.

odyssey06

a_squirrelman wrote: »

He isn’t on call 24/7. He was off that day.
I’d be more concerned that local Gardai ignored the forensics team and left the body out all night.
And also that the same Gardai lost (got rid of) a load of evidence.

You can be sure any evidence that they thought would help their frame up job on Bailey wouldn't have been 'lost'.

Treppen

odyssey06 wrote: »

There's no certain information that Bailey knew about the murder before information of it started to spread through other channels.

The guards intimidated Marie Farrell into changing her story.
Her original evidence was that the guy she saw wasn't Bailey.
So why would she change her story because Bailey intimidated her?
Why say anything?

Alfie Lyons thinks he probably did introduce them, but isn't 100% certain.
Why would Bailey deny ever being introduced to Sophie if there were so many witnesses to it?

The West Cork podcast is the most complete in terms of covering all evidence. Both of the TV documentaries have their flaws, Netflix in bias and the Jim Sheridan one in being as much about Jim.

Is the podcast only available on Audible?

Biker79

Biker79 wrote: »

I never said that, and I don't excuse.it.:rolleyes:

But your comments are typical of the black and white, simplistic thinking that surrounds these topics and have resulted in the life of an innocent man being ruined.

In Germany they call it ' island mentality ' .

Eh, no this just sounds like you trying to justify domestic violence. I do think there was insufficient evidence against Bailey and I'd veer towards him being innocent. Equally so, he very much so is guilty of domestic violence and the fact she remained with him doesn't mean she deserved it or something.. I would say you've managed to illustrate how warped your views are than anything else...

Aidric

Watched this series and thought it did a decent enough retelling of the case whilst coming down strong in a certain direction in terms of the perpetrator.

The West Cork podcast is still the benchmark when it comes to this case. To echo what I said in that thread there are so many loose ends and bungles in this case, not to mention the shady testimonies, that it is possible to come to any number of conclusions.

I don't believe Bailey did it. He is an oddball attention seeker for sure but there is no forensic evidence linking him to the murder. Additionally where is the motive?

Marie Farrell is the nub of this case and the key witness for the Gardai. The fact that she lied in evidence should mean any testimony from her should be dismissed out of hand. If she was having an affair her timelines are dodgy. With a husband and kids at home she was cruising on country roads at 3AM?

odyssey06

Treppen wrote: »

Is the podcast only available on Audible?

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9yc3MuYWNhc3QuY29tL3dlc3Rjb3Jr

Pirate Master

Treppen wrote: »

Is the podcast only available on Audible?

It's on Google Podcasts aswell.

Biker79

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh, no this just sounds like you trying to justify domestic violence. I do think there was insufficient evidence against Bailey and I'd veer towards him being innocent. Equally so, he very much so is guilty of domestic violence and the fact she remained with him doesn't mean she deserved it or something.. I would say you've managed to illustrate how warped your views are than anything else...

Shots fired from the signallers of impeccable virtue.

Maybe Jules was bashing IB around? Its common in Ireland. Maybe he doesn't bruise that easily?

We just don't know. Well I don't...you appear to be an expert in these matters.

Biker79

Biker79 wrote: »

Shots fired from the signallers of impeccable virtue.

Maybe Jules was bashing IB around? Its common in Ireland. Maybe he doesn't bruise that easily?

We just don't know. Well I don't...you appear to be an expert in these matters.

There has never been a suggestion that she beat him.... So you're just making incredible claims to justify the fact he most definitely beat her. The bar for virtue signaling is incredibly low for you...

Darc19

The superintendent comes across as a bit of an eejit.

Untrustworthy would be my impression.

It's been proven that the gardai were utterly incompetent in the investigation, yet listening to him you'd think they were brilliant.

TheQuietBeatle

I'm not a fan of Bailey and the way he carries on. However, this case looks like a classic crime of passion and someone known to the victim. There's no evidence of lovers, etc. so I'm open to the Bailey theory especially as the cuts do look bad for him and the fact he told about 5 people he did it and ''went too far''.

odyssey06

TheQuietBeatle wrote: »

I'm not a fan of Bailey and the way he carries on. However, this case looks like a classic crime of passion and someone known to the victim. There's no evidence of lovers, etc. so I'm open to the Bailey theory especially as the cuts do look bad for him and the fact he told about 5 people he did it and ''went too far''.

Theres no evidence Bailey was a lover.
I have never heard of a classic crime of passion involving two people who were never alone together.

Aidric

Darc19 wrote: »

The superintendent comes across as a bit of an eejit.

Untrustworthy would be my impression.

It's been proven that the gardai were utterly incompetent in the investigation, yet listening to him you'd think they were brilliant.

I wouldn't say he was an eejit but he definitely came across more cocksure than he should have given he led a sketchy investigation at best. It shouldn't be forgotten that a lot of garda requests to interview persons of interest in France were stonewalled by the French authorities.