Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

Darc19

bingobars wrote: »

Average foot speed over uneven ground, barring injury, is 4 miles an hour which gives us a radius of 6 miles

I doubt that.

Average walking speed in good conditions is 3-4 mph.

Cold dark mid winter night with no street lights and uneven ground you'd find it difficult to do more than 2.5mph and that would be a fit person.


Either Bailey was an absolute genius who planned this to the nth degree (no, he's not) or he was exceptionally lucky with every single aspect of the case or he's innocent and gardai have simply continued their misguided beliefs.

I favour the last option as I have direct experience of how gardai make up their mind and ignore actual evidence and I well believe the utter incompetence of some members and their dogged refusal to back down no matter what evidence is presented and they will lie and they will make stuff up and they will steer witnesses and cajole witnesses to make their side of a case stack up and it still happens.

Gussie Scrotch

Darc19 wrote: »

I doubt that.

Average walking speed in good conditions is 3-4 mph.

Cold dark mid winter night with no street lights and uneven ground you'd find it difficult to do more than 2.5mph and that would be a fit person.


Either Bailey was an absolute genius who planned this to the nth degree (no, he's not) or he was exceptionally lucky with every single aspect of the case or he's innocent and gardai have simply continued their misguided beliefs.

I favour the last option as I have direct experience of how gardai make up their mind and ignore actual evidence and I well believe the utter incompetence of some members and their dogged refusal to back down no matter what evidence is presented and they will lie and they will make stuff up and they will steer witnesses and cajole witnesses to make their side of a case stack up and it still happens.

Yes. Confirmation bias. This matter is a classic example. The Colin Stagg case in the UK is another.

AdrianG08

AdrianG08 wrote: »

New lead from none other than Marie Farrell

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/sceptical-gardaireview-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-murder-file-following-new-lead-40610650.html

Must be nothing on telly

Article behind a paywall-but this posted last week explains what's currently happening

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/crime/gardai-given-name-frenchman-seen-24409179

I don't think this is going to come to anything. It's extraordinary how she has come forward with this information at this late stage given her past involvement in the case- it makes absolutely no sense to me - if this was so bleeding important why didn't she persevere with this information all those years ago, instead of getting caught up in the fiasco of sightings of IB on a bridge - I can't to this day explain why Marie Farrell behaved as she did.

TomSweeney

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I'm in the "who is the most likely killer given the evidence" camp.

Based on the zero evidence we have, I'm hedging my bets it's the husband as it's usually the husband. I also have serious issues with (a) he was having an affair (b) he refused to fly to Ireland when her body was discovered (wtf) and (c) there was clearly some major problem in their marriage hence her spending so much time in Ireland without him.

I can't help feel a lot of the finger pointing at Bailey is due to his personality. It reminds me a bit of Trump - because he's a clown and narcissist about half the population take that to an extreme and assume it means he's some sort of pedo nazi.

zero evidence jesus H christ.


It was Ian Bailey , 100% , he was found guilty in a French court, I would trust them more then some boards user that could be Ian Bailey for all I know.




And the comparison with Trump ??? what ???


I think some people really can't see reality.

Gussie Scrotch

TomSweeney wrote: »

zero evidence jesus H christ.


It was Ian Bailey , 100% , he was found guilty in a French court, I would trust them more then some boards user that could be Ian Bailey for all I know.




And the comparison with Trump ??? what ???


I think some people really can't see reality.

The department of Public Prosecutions have stated clearly that they see no evidence of his guilt.

And they have, very forensically explained why. https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/

odyssey06

TomSweeney wrote: »

zero evidence jesus H christ.
It was Ian Bailey , 100% , he was found guilty in a French court, I would trust them more then some boards user that could be Ian Bailey for all I know.
And the comparison with Trump ??? what ???
I think some people really can't see reality.

Our DPP has said no evidence.
The French system is totally different to ours where this is a presiding judge overseeing the investigation who ensures police processes and evidence are to court standard.
Our system is adversarial... meant to be challenged in court.
Taking our evidence as if it was gatheres under their system is fundamentally flawed - thats not opinion but that of legal experts.
It is a miscarriage of justice.

And I wouldnt trust any governnent with the powers to arrest non citizens anywhere in the world. That is a kangaroo court.

PokeHerKing

TomSweeney wrote: »

zero evidence jesus H christ.


It was Ian Bailey , 100% , he was found guilty in a French court, I would trust them more then some boards user that could be Ian Bailey for all I know.




And the comparison with Trump ??? what ???


I think some people really can't see reality.

Ignoring the whole 100% certainty of anything. Bailey was convicted in a French court in part, using witness statements that had since been retracted.

The Irish handling of the murder was an abomination but so was that French trial. It would never have happened for a working class French citizen. It was pantomime.

TomSweeney

OK, if you can't see all these little things adding up, if you think him admitting it to people in drunken states was "black humour" .... burning stuff in his garden the next day, covered in cuts his partner admitting he left his bed that night after constantly changing his story, denying he knew her when he clearly did , all these things on their own might not point to it , but add them up, it makes it bloody likely it was him.

Occams razor and all.

Anyway, don't think ill continue posting here, as I said earlier there is no neutrality in this.

mikemac2

Bailey saying the Gardai wouldn't know how to deal with an Englishman with education

The outstanding arrogance of the man. :rolleyes: As if he was Lord of the manor surrounded by peasants.

I didn't know about much about this case and enjoyed the Netflix series very much, thumbs up

Gussie Scrotch

TomSweeney wrote: »

OK, if you can't see all these little things adding up, if you think him admitting it to people in drunken states was "black humour" .... burning stuff in his garden the next day, covered in cuts his partner admitting he left his bed that night after constantly changing his story, denying he knew her when he clearly did , all these things on their own might not point to it , but add them up, it makes it bloody likely it was him.

Occams razor and all.

Anyway, don't think ill continue posting here, as I said earlier there is no neutrality in this.

Tom, I think you're getting a bit frustrated with this, which is perfectly understandable, its a baffling mystery which has polarised opinion. There are many people in your camp and many in the other. Nobody can be 100% sure of what happened Your opinion is perfectly valid and you may, indeed, be right in your assertions. but you could also be wrong, none of us know for sure.

cazzer22

Bigmac1euro wrote: »

Too many strange things with Bailey. Evidence seems overbearing.

-Scrapes on hands
-Scrapes on face
-Day after murder his jacket soaked in bucket of water.
-Bonfire in back of house he owned which had items of his clothing.
- He told people in a drunken state HE DID IT
- He claimed he didn’t know her when he did
- He had gone through a bad divorce previously and lost everything so might have had a hate for women.
- locals didn’t like him
- Went missing from his bed the night of the murder

I am from the area where this happened and totally agree. So many strange things with him. To see him in person, he comes across as very intimidating and huge in terms of build and stature (only relevant because because attack itself required huge strength, they said)
Around here people know everyone, that's just the way it is. People know everyone's business. To claim he didn't know her when they had been introduced is just silly.
Bailey was first at the scene, despite all communication back then being word of mouth. He couldn't have known where to go, as it hadn't been announced yet. Her body was discovered at 10am and yet, he informed a few people he couldn't meet them due to there being "a murder" an hour or so after her body had been discovered.
He also reported in the Examiner that there had been no sexual assault and her autopsy hadn't even been concluded or released.

odyssey06

cazzer22 wrote: »

I am from the area where this happened and totally agree. So many strange things with him. To see him in person, he comes across as very intimidating and huge in terms of build and stature (only relevant because because attack itself required huge strength, they said)
Around here people know everyone, that's just the way it is. People know everyone's business. To claim he didn't know her when they had been introduced is just silly.
Bailey was first at the scene, despite all communication back then being word of mouth. He couldn't have known where to go, as it hadn't been announced yet. Her body was discovered at 10am and yet, he informed a few people he couldn't meet them due to there being "a murder" an hour or so after her body had been discovered.
He also reported in the Examiner that there had been no sexual assault and her autopsy hadn't even been concluded or released.

If it was so obvious and so many people could attest to it why not say you knew her through neighbour? Nothing incriminating in that if so many people knew her.
Or maybe it isnt as obvious as you present it.

This has all been rejected by the DPP.
Theres no evidence he knew anything special about the crime scene before others or couldnt have picked up. He knew stuff before it was public but so did lots of people.

cazzer22

odyssey06 wrote: »

If it was so obvious and so many people could attest to it why not say you knew her through neighbour? Nothing incriminating in that if so many people knew her.
Or maybe it isnt as obvious as you present it.

This has all been rejected by the DPP.
Theres no evidence he knew anything special about the crime scene before others or couldnt have picked up. He knew stuff before it was public but so did lots of people.

The thing is, lots of people didn't know. He drove to the area with no hesitation, first on the scene and if you don't know where you're going, a remote area such as hers can be impossible to find. A reporter from Cork said with directions, it still took him 40 mins or so to find the actual house. The DPP may have rejected it, but that really doesn't mean much.
He should've just admitted her knew her or of her, claiming to now know her, but knowing exactly how to get to her house is bizarre especially down here. He also knew it was a French person when that information wasn't readily available.

odyssey06

cazzer22 wrote: »

The thing is, lots of people didn't know. He drove to the area with no hesitation, first on the scene and if you don't know where you're going, a remote area such as hers can be impossible to find. A reporter from Cork said with directions, it still took him 40 mins or so to find the actual house. The DPP may have rejected it, but that really doesn't mean much.
He should've just admitted her knew her or of her, claiming to now know her, but knowing exactly how to get to her house is bizarre especially down here. He also knew it was a French person when that information wasn't readily available.

The DPP rejected it because there was no evidence he knew anything he shouldnt have, having reviewed phone logs in detail.
If you think that doesnt mean much to you I dont know what to tell you. But it means everything.

He knew Alfie Lyons, knew he had a french neighbour, may have met her and he heard a French woman was dead. Not many other places he would have gone to.
Why wouldnt he know where he was going?

patobrien12

Can this women really be trusted?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sceptical-gardaireview-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-murder-file-following-new-lead-40610650.html

cazzer22

odyssey06 wrote: »

The DPP rejected it because there was no evidence he knew anything he shouldnt have, having reviewed phone logs in detail.
If you think that doesnt mean much to you I dont know what to tell you. But it means everything.

He knew Alfie Lyons, knew he had a french neighbour, may have met her and he heard a French woman was dead. Not many other places he would have gone to.
Why wouldnt he know where he was going?

It may mean everything to you, but not to me. The DPP, I don't believe, handled it very well and threw out the case.
There are a number of witnesses who state he gave them information not available to the public, who have stated that on the podcast, as well as on the Netflix doc and Sky doc. Those witnesses still live locally and tell tell same story.
To be honest, you couldn't and I couldn't know, for a fact, the exact nature of what the DPP investigated, as neither of us were part of their investigation team. The Gardaí and the DPP at the time did not do a flawless, thorough investigation and didn't investigate avenues, I and others feel they should have.
Perhaps, with advances in DNA, evidence could have been retested and could bring up more leads, but a lot of evidence has been lost.

I am going to leave my debate with you there. Respect your opinion, but I share a different one.

dublin49

TomSweeney wrote: »

zero evidence jesus H christ.


It was Ian Bailey , 100% , he was found guilty in a French court, I would trust them more then some boards user that could be Ian Bailey for all I know.
And the comparison with Trump ??? what ???
I think some people really can't see reality.

I agree with your surprise at zero evidence but think you then go too far the other way in suggesting he is 100% guilty.In my view if you discount the hitman theory than Bailey is the most likely attacker from the locality given the myriad of anomalies around him ,none of which are a silver bullet ,you must have some sympathy for the guards focusing on him given his violent nature,his knowledge of the area and self confessed lack of an alibi.

Field east

Three aspects of the whole murder intrigue me
(1) re the Netflix document , two French individuals referred Sophie referring to a man who wants to meet her in Ireland and that he was a journalist and poet and that she was a bit apprehensive about meeting this man. At what point did these two women make their statements ?
(2) what on earth motivated MF to report anonymously on three occasions re fingering IB to the guards. If she had absolutely no connection to the murder , would life have not been MUCH easier by keeping her head down / singing dumb - and she phoned within a few days after the murder. Did she mention / discuss it with her husband and what did he recall what was said. She initiated her actions unilaterally and not the guards and later RETRACTED the whole lot at a later date. In other words the guards could not have infuenced/ coerced her at the outset. So why 100% IB at the outset and in the end -100% IB.

(3) when IB was first to arr at the scene apart from the lady who discovered the body and a guard , was it the case that he walked all over the murder scene thus leaving his dna/evidence. So when such evidence was presented he could say. “ sure I was one of the first to visit the murder scene and walked around to see what happened. That’s why u found my dna. The guard saw me there”

Yurt2

cazzer22 wrote: »

It may mean everything to you, but not to me. The DPP, I don't believe, handled it very well and threw out the case.
There are a number of witnesses who state he gave them information not available to the public, who have stated that on the podcast, as well as on the Netflix doc and Sky doc. Those witnesses still live locally and tell tell same story.
To be honest, you couldn't and I couldn't know, for a fact, the exact nature of what the DPP investigated, as neither of us were part of their investigation team. The Gardaí and the DPP at the time did not do a flawless, thorough investigation and didn't investigate avenues, I and others feel they should have.
Perhaps, with advances in DNA, evidence could have been retested and could bring up more leads, but a lot of evidence has been lost.

I am going to leave my debate with you there. Respect your opinion, but I share a different one.

Not true. There was a DPP report on the Garda file that became public domain via the discovery process for Bailey's civil trial. That's how we know the DDP's stance. They even stated there was exculpatory evidence pointing towards him not being the perpetrator.

tibruit

costacorta wrote: »

Is it not strange to be talking to husband after midnight? Just wondering did he ring her and did he always do it previously at that time roughly or was it a coincidence that he was talking to her hours before she was murdered . His albi? .

Why would it be strange? Anyway, she called him but the line was busy and then he called her back at 12-10 am.

Gussie Scrotch

cazzer22 wrote: »

It may mean everything to you, but not to me. The DPP, I don't believe, handled it very well and threw out the case.
There are a number of witnesses who state he gave them information not available to the public, who have stated that on the podcast, as well as on the Netflix doc and Sky doc. Those witnesses still live locally and tell tell same story.
To be honest, you couldn't and I couldn't know, for a fact, the exact nature of what the DPP investigated, as neither of us were part of their investigation team. The Gardaí and the DPP at the time did not do a flawless, thorough investigation and didn't investigate avenues, I and others feel they should have.
Perhaps, with advances in DNA, evidence could have been retested and could bring up more leads, but a lot of evidence has been lost.

I am going to leave my debate with you there. Respect your opinion, but I share a different one.

No.

The nature of what the DPP investigated is in the public domain. Anybody can access it.

It it clear, concise, thorough and gives, point by point, the precise reasons for their rejection of the "evidence" presented by the Gardai.

Not only that, it is scathing in its comments regarding the whole Garda approach and strongly hints at manipulation of witness interviews and statements

It could scarcely be more damning of the quality of the evidence or the approach of the Gardai,

Here it is: https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/

cazzer22

cazzer22 wrote: »

The thing is, lots of people didn't know. He drove to the area with no hesitation, first on the scene and if you don't know where you're going, a remote area such as hers can be impossible to find. A reporter from Cork said with directions, it still took him 40 mins or so to find the actual house. The DPP may have rejected it, but that really doesn't mean much.
He should've just admitted her knew her or of her, claiming to now know her, but knowing exactly how to get to her house is bizarre especially down here. He also knew it was a French person when that information wasn't readily available.

He did admit he knew of her and had seen her in the distance

Unearthly

After watching both there is not enough evidence to be 100% sure and there is doubt. Balance of probability it was IB but not enough to convict imo

Oh and Marie Farrell is a complete clown

FrankN1

Unearthly wrote: »

After watching both there is not enough evidence to be 100% sure and there is doubt. Balance of probability it was IB but not enough to convict imo

Oh and Marie Farrell is a complete clown

Which one is better? I've only seen the Netflix one.

Unearthly

FrankN1 wrote: »

Which one is better? I've only seen the Netflix one.

Preferred netflix. More concise. Sky one can ramble on a bit.

Both seem to have their bias though and some information missing from both depending on the narrative they want to tell

sekiro

A few of things that I find odd about the Netflix show.

They really seemed to skip over the Gardai misconduct with recorded phonecalls not being mentioned at all.
They seem quite eager to show how MF was an unreliable witness that caused IB's case against Gardai to fail but still had no issue with showing interviews with her going on about how she was intimidated by IB.

Questions regarding Sophie and why she might be in Ireland where often allowed to have a supernatural or mystical element added. Talk of palm reading and clairvoyants and white ladies all shoehorned in at various points. Even the whole story of a sheep being savaged by a fox is in there to distract and point towards an "ooooh spooky" element of her story.

Why was the incident at Three Castle Head not really looked into in detail? This just really gets glossed over by giving us a ghost story and quickly moving on. If she was freaked out enough to head over to someone's house for safety then surely that would be up for some thorough investigation.

I hate that nobody really even seemed that bothered about whoever was in the car with MF on the night of the murder.
These two individuals driving around near a murder scene at an odd hour but let's never really try to identify one of them.

Similarly with the IB timeline. It would 100% be a smoking gun if he had been talking about the murder before the body was even discovered. However if he had a Gardai contact then when body was discovered maybe he did get some leaked info early. In any case it feels a bit sketchy. Even if he was told who had found the body it would be easy enough to make an assumption? That whole thing just seems so cloudy and unsure but it really makes up the backbone of the "he did it" argument. He knew there was a murder before anyone knew. Yet it still seems he showed up at the scene well after the story had been on the radio and well after rumours would have been making the rounds.

The Netflix show seems like there's more of an Ireland vs France thing going on where the DPP is more or less accused of refusing to prosecute this guy so the French need to step in and do what the incompetent Irish won't. Of course, this angle really goes away once the facts of the Gardai investigation are looked at.

In the podcast there is audio of the Xmas swim played multiple times. I was surprised that we never did get to see this footage. I wonder if it even still exists? In the podcast I am sure IB is described as wearing his jacket in that clip but the Netflix show seems to say that his jacket was both soaking in a bucket and being burned at one point or another.

Would it be unfair to think that the Netflix episodes are specifically designed to put pressure on the Irish government to extradite IB?

sekiro

TomSweeney wrote: »

It was Ian Bailey , 100%.
I think some people really can't see reality.

I think in cases like this it can be useful to consider why such cases become the subject of books and documentaries and podcasts etc.

It it precisely because of the impossibility of coming to a "100%" conclusion.

Being 100% convinced one way or the other seems very irrational here.

The whole "popularity" and "mystery" surrounding the case is down to the fact that nobody knows anything for sure. That's the reality.

sekiro

patobrien12 wrote: »

Can this women really be trusted?

I wish the article would be a little clearer in this instance.

If they had taken 49 random photos and then inserted a photo of someone they knew as a suspect and she somehow, unprompted, pointed to that one photo out of the 50 then they would be onto something for sure.

If they've said to her "here are 50 people we thought might be suspects can you identify any of them" then it's just a complete waste of time and more or less what they already did with her when she identified IB in the past.

It's not really clear.

Darc19

sekiro wrote: »

A few of things that I find odd about the Netflix show.

They really seemed to skip over the Gardai misconduct with recorded phonecalls not being mentioned at all.


Would it be unfair to think that the Netflix episodes are specifically designed to put pressure on the Irish government to extradite IB?

One of the producers is a very close friend of the Du plantier family and it was made with the blessing of the family.

EG, we'll make sure its slanted towards your feelings.

Unearthly

Unearthly wrote: »

After watching both there is not enough evidence to be 100% sure and there is doubt. Balance of probability it was IB but not enough to convict imo

Oh and Marie Farrell is a complete clown

I'm the same.

I reckon he's an absolute narcissist, possible megalomaniac, enjoying "toying" with the Gardai who I think he believes beneath him, and intimidated by him and his towering intellect.
And now probably pretty sure he's gotten away with it, is brazening it out via spurts of civil litigation.

MF should be locked up until she tells the truth that can be verified.