Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

dublin49

Woody79 wrote: »

I agree that he's guilty on balance of probability, but is there a reasonable doubt of his guilt?

If you were on a jury would you convict on basis of no doubt of his guilt.



I presume the credibility of the witnesses would swing the decision one way or another,I certainly believe Bailey would have a case to answer if the statements,evidence etc was gathered and handled properly.

Henry...

Is there any proof of no.9 above

dark crystal

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Not moving away is hardly proof someone wasn't intimidated! We've already covered this ground, unless she entered witness protection or left the country, where could she go under her own and her families names without being located by Bailey?

Strange she moved in 2006 after claiming intimidation by the Guards though, no? Surely the police could locate her much more easily than Bailey?

Her son can attest that the Guards intimidated their family. No one else can attest to Bailey doing so.

They know he has had extremely violent outbursts. I'm absolutely amazed at how his brutal attacks are consistently minimised. 'Consumed by his troubles' :rolleyes:

I never once minimised his attacks on Jules. Not once. He's a scumbag for doing so, that is without question.

Jules herself has said the last 25 years have been hell for her based on this whole situation, which was visited on her partner - they were HIS troubles. HE was accused of murder. HE has become a tiresome drunk. HE has been the cause of her family alienating her. That's what I meant, so no need for the eye roll.

MoonUnit75

Darc19 wrote: »

Close neighbour?

They lived over 3 miles apart. 3.2 miles as the crow flies, 3.9 miles by road. Very rough terrain. Pitch black.
You'd do very very well to walk it in an hour and a half and that would be someone that was sober and fit in on a fine summer's day

It wasn't pitch black, there was a full moon. You can easily hike, even on limestone pavement, under a full moon.

dublin49

dublin49 wrote: »

Woody79 wrote: »

I agree that he's guilty on balance of probability, but is there a reasonable doubt of his guilt?

If you were on a jury would you convict on basis of no doubt of his guilt.



I presume the credibility of the witnesses would swing the decision one way or another,I certainly believe Bailey would have a case to answer if the statements,evidence etc was gathered and handled properly.

Witnesses to what?

Him saying he did it when full of drink.

That might make me think hes guilty, but I wouldnt send a person to jail for murder based on that.

No evidence of him being at murder site and no confession by him. - without those I couldnt convict him, even though I dispise the man.

EmmetSpiceland

boege wrote: »

Plus
11. Soaked a heavy dark coat, with buttons, in a bucker of water a few days after the event, in the middle of winter. (Witness by Italian(?) girl leaving the shower in IB's house) (This I found very interesting!). The burnt materials, included clothing with buttons.

The same coat he was wearing at the Christmas swim, which was then taken to be analysed by the Gardaí and subsequently lost?

c.p.w.g.w

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I agree that he's guilty on balance of probability, but is there a reasonable doubt of his guilt?

If you were on a jury would you convict on basis of no doubt of his guilt.

The doubt in my head would be there is nothing to conclusively link him to being at murder sight at time.

All of the above suggests that he had the motive, the opportunity and was probably capable of such a crime.

Maria Farrells evidence is not reliable and does'nt aid or take away from his guilt.

He is never going to court or jail for this crime.

As said earlier by another poster he got lucky with poor police investigation.

If IB did do it...then who does the unidentified blood belong to...

nc6000

Henry... wrote: »

Is there any evidence either way that he used the car

There would have to have been blood found in the car afterwards, I'm not sure it was ever checked but assume it was. If he used the car then he can't have been seen by MF walking at Kealfadda Bridge.

dark crystal

boege wrote: »

Plus
11. Soaked a heavy dark coat, with buttons, in a bucker of water a few days after the event, in the middle of winter. (Witness by Italian(?) girl leaving the shower in IB's house) (This I found very interesting!). The burnt materials, included clothing with buttons.

For me the totality of evidence in the programme is what changed my mind.

The soaked heavy dark coat in the bucket was originally dark clothes in the bath. Her initial statement in 1999 (three years after the murder) has changed somewhat between then and now.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ian-bailey-had-fresh-scratches-on-arms-the-day-body-found-court-told-1.3908180

Ms Boarina also told gardai that she saw a mark on Mr Bailey’s forehead but she could not remember where exactly it was located. She also recalled seeing dark clothes soaking in a bath but at some stage during her stay there, they were removed from the bath.

c.p.w.g.w

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

If IB did do it...then who does the unidentified blood belong to...

Don't remember that?

Can they not use that blood now and retest against all known suspects.

As said police made many mistakes.

Can you even be sure there was unidentified blood given how poor investigation was?

They have probably lost blood :pac::pac::pac:

dublin49

Woody79 wrote: »

dublin49 wrote: »

Witnesses to what?

Him saying he did it when full of drink.

That might make me think hes guilty, but I wouldnt send a person to jail for murder based on that.

No evidence of him being at murder site and no confession by him.

Theres lots of statements from Bailey that are challenged by witnesses.such as the neighbour who saw the fire on the 26th which Bailey said didnt take place then,The witnesses that would testify to his knowledge of the crime before he should have known that he denies,etc,if the prosecution were able to demonstrate he was lyng about aspects of his statement I think he would be in trouble,

dublin49

dublin49 wrote: »

Woody79 wrote: »

Theres lots of statements from Bailey that are challenged by witnesses.such as the neighbour who saw the fire on the 26th which Bailey said didnt take place then,The witnesses that would testify to his knowledge of the crime before he should have known that he denies,etc,if the prosecution were able to demonstrate he was lyng about aspects of his statement I think he would be in trouble,

Trouble?

Can they place him at the scene?

Him having 3 or 4 days to burn all evidence was a terrible police failing,
as was crime scene evidence and not taking photograph of his hands and arms.

Is he a truthful reliable trustworthy person?

No, but that does'nt mean you can convict of him of murder?

The police messed up evidence gathering in the days after murder.

Its as simple as that.

FileNotFound

Just watching it now and very start - does the medical examiner lie about when he arrived on scene.

Real life he was called but refused to travel until the following day as he was at a party drinking.

But in the Netflix doc he claims to have been there in 12 hrs.

MoonUnit75

dark crystal wrote: »

The soaked heavy dark coat in the bucket was originally dark clothes in the bath. Her initial statement in 1999 (three years after the murder) has changed somewhat between then and now.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ian-bailey-had-fresh-scratches-on-arms-the-day-body-found-court-told-1.3908180

See post a few pages back, she clearly says in the Netflix doc that the clothes were in a bucket in the shower. She also says her english was not great at the time.

FileNotFound

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

See post a few pages back, she clearly says in the Netflix doc that the clothes were in a bucket in the shower. She also says her english was not great at the time.

Yes she has a story for the Netflix doc.

Sure episode one the medical examiner seems to lie about the time it took for him to get to the scene. Not a great start.

MoonUnit75

FileNotFound wrote: »

Yes she has a story for the Netflix doc.

Sure episode one the medical examiner seems to lie about the time it took for him to get to the scene. Not a great start.

If someone is going to claim she changed her story, then at least get what she says in the two separate statements right.

jetfiremuck

Jesus the fact that they lost the gate ffs.

Ex cop in the chair....not impressed typical if you ask me.

Bailey knew her I believe.

Strange that she was murdered by the gate ....why not near the house.

her ex husband / family have some pull and deep pockets in getting the case kept on the front burner.

Starnge that Sophie would come to ireland xmas week

Henry...

jetfiremuck wrote: »

Jesus the fact that they lost the gate ffs.

Ex cop in the chair....not impressed typical if you ask me.

Bailey knew her I believe.

Strange that she was murdered by the gate ....why not near the house.

her ex husband / family have some pull and deep pockets in getting the case kept on the front burner.

Starnge that Sophie would come to ireland xmas week

The original theory spun was that bailey turned up at the door

Altercation and she ran down

But surely shed outrun bailey

dark crystal

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

If someone is going to claim she changed her story, then at least get what she says in the two separate statements right.

It's quite clear she changed her story. Sure, I posted what she said in her initial statement and what she said in the Netflix documentary was different.

What am I getting wrong exactly?

Henry...

I can see someone drunk with amorous intent turning up
at her door at like 3am

I can't really see this murder taking place at 9am even with the evidence pointing towards it

jetfiremuck

So. The fixation on Bailey by the police coupled with a general dislike for him because of his bombastic attitude in the village precluded investigating deeper in case they the police were wrong. Im sure Bailey could have throttled Sophie at any stage if he wanted to. Why would he want to kill her ?. No motive as I see it. I noticed the 2 empty wine glassses and keys in the door leads me to believe that she knew and invited someone in to her house.

Loafing Oaf

Ken Mc Carthy wrote: »

How the french could find a guilty verdict is but another crime

Let's be honest that carry on in Paris was pure mickey mouse stuff...I wouldn't even go as far as referring to it as a 'showtrial' or a 'kangaroo' Court... it was a farce, an insult to justice, two fingers to the Irish legal system. I thought it was funny when the reporter asked IB solicitor if he would be following the French 'trial'... he answered ' why bother, Ian will be found guilty'. The 'trial' was at the behest of AND heavily financed by the du plantier family[/QUOTE]

French justice system seems to take this guy as a role model

Mr Ian Bailey - a man who by his own admission is a liar, a humbug, a hypocrite, a vagabond, a loathsome spotted reptile and a self-confessed chicken strangler.

Although the chicken bit would be nearly correct, now that I think...

FileNotFound

jetfiremuck wrote: »

Jesus the fact that they lost the gate ffs.

Ex cop in the chair....not impressed typical if you ask me.

Bailey knew her I believe.

Strange that she was murdered by the gate ....why not near the house.

her ex husband / family have some pull and deep pockets in getting the case kept on the front burner.

Starnge that Sophie would come to ireland xmas week

That chap should be ashamed of the mess he made of the case.

What a fukcin failure at his job.

He mad to still claim he was on the right side despite no evidence and a load of bad work.

FileNotFound

jetfiremuck wrote: »

Jesus the fact that they lost the gate ffs.

Ex cop in the chair....not impressed typical if you ask me.

Bailey knew her I believe.

Strange that she was murdered by the gate ....why not near the house.

her ex husband / family have some pull and deep pockets in getting the case kept on the front burner.

Starnge that Sophie would come to ireland xmas week

I'd be as likely to believe the French were involved at this stage. French refused to allow gardai question them.

All a bit odd.

odyssey06

noc1980 wrote: »

A woman is murdered and there's a close neighbour with the following...

1. A history of battering women.
2. Away from his home and without an alibi at the time of the murder.
3. Changed his account multiple times of his whereabouts at the time of the killing.
4. Confessed numerous times, including telling 2 witnesses "I went too far" - leaving no room for "black humour" interpretation.
5. Had a wife who 'didn't know' if he did it.
6. Displayed a scar on his head that wife couldn't account for prior to the murder.
7. Lit a fire destroying clothes and a mattress in backyard.
8. Knew earlier than he 'should have' of murder.
9. Knew there was no rape when he 'couldn't have'
10. Claimed to not know the victim, disputed by others.

Does all this make IB guilty? No but some on here seem to think if there isn't a CSI tv show load of forensic evidence that all other evidence is worthless. Ridiculous. That man should have stood trial.

Bucket load of CSI evidence?
There isn't even a single piece linking him to the crime.
How could he get these cuts at the scene is a supposedly frenzied drunken attack and leave no evidence?
The DPP report said so too and discredits most of your other points or either they could have innocent explanations.

He had no 'scar' on his head, he may have had an easily missed 'nick' or graze along with the other cuts attested to by witnesses observed before the murder.
"Richard Tisdall in his statement 190B recalls seeing scratch marks on one of Bailey’s hands on Sunday night 22 December 1996 (prior to the murder but after the cutting of the tree and the killing of the turkeys)...
It is interesting to note that the Gardaí did not ask Bailey to show the scratches to a medical or any other expert witness in order to obtain an opinion as to causation."
Where is the picture of this 'scar'? Or the drawing by a kindergarten cop?

The DPP report also shows he didn't know earlier than he should have about the murder.

He can't account for his whereabouts on the night as he was likely drunk and had a blackout.

There is zero evidence placing him at the crime scene - neither witnesses nor any other evidence.

No confession worthy of the name - angry drunken sarcastic remarks don't count.

He had no motive. He did not personally 'know' Sophie, he was likely introduced to her once briefly in public and stated that in his evidence to the Guards. He wasn't hiding anything.
They had no emotional connection OR romantic relationship and there is no financial motive.

OMM 0000

New theory.

Pervert was standing at the window watching her undress.

He would do this every night.

She had suspected she was being watched, and was ready to catch him that night.

She ran out and caught him as he legged it down the dirt path.

She grabbed his arm and threatened to call the police.

It escalated and he ended up hurting her badly. He panics and kills her.

Mantis Toboggan

OMM 0000 wrote: »

New theory.

Pervert was standing at the window watching her undress.

He would do this every night.

She had suspected she was being watched, and was ready to catch him that night.

She ran out and caught him as he legged it down the dirt path.

She grabbed his arm and threatened to call the police.

It escalated and he ended up hurting her badly. He panics and kills her.

BOOM, Bombshell, case closed!

Find the pervert find the killer!

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

dublin49 wrote: »

Him having 3 or 4 days to burn all evidence was a terrible police failing,

There was a few days before the murder and him being suspected. Plenty of time to burn evidence.

odyssey06

odyssey06 wrote: »

He can't account for his whereabouts on the night as he was likely drunk and had a blackout.

He had no motive. He did not personally 'know' Sophie, he was likely introduced to her once briefly in public and stated that in his evidence to the Guards. He wasn't hiding anything.
They had no emotional connection OR romantic relationship and there is no financial motive.

There's a bit of conjecture there.

OMM 0000

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

BOOM, Bombshell, case closed!

Find the pervert find the killer!

New theory:

I was looking at your post history and noticed an absolute lack of posts at 3 AM on December 23, 1996.

****ing suspicious man.

Living Off The Splash

Just watched the Netflix version and half way through the Sheridan version "Murder at the Cottage".

It's amazing the subtle but important differences and detail between the two versions.

The Black Coat, The scratches on the Hand, The blood on the door.....

nc6000

FileNotFound wrote: »

Just watching it now and very start - does the medical examiner lie about when he arrived on scene.

Real life he was called but refused to travel until the following day as he was at a party drinking.

But in the Netflix doc he claims to have been there in 12 hrs.

What's the source for your allegation he refused to travel because he was at a party?

mossie

FileNotFound wrote: »

Just watching it now and very start - does the medical examiner lie about when he arrived on scene.

Real life he was called but refused to travel until the following day as he was at a party drinking.

But in the Netflix doc he claims to have been there in 12 hrs.

Want that the guy from the Garda forensic dept, not the medical examiner?

MoonUnit75

dark crystal wrote: »

It's quite clear she changed her story. Sure, I posted what she said in her initial statement and what she said in the Netflix documentary was different.

What am I getting wrong exactly?

You said her story 'morphed' from clothes in the bath in her statement to a coat in a bucket on Netflix. In the Netflix interview she said the bucket was also in the shower. The two statements are logically consistent.

What are the exact words in her statement? Are you relying on a court reporter to give an exact word for word account of her statement and then accusing her of changing her story?

Gussie Scrotch

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

You said the GSOC report was 'the biggest cover-up of all' or words to that effect, how is it then that IB's legal team failed to demonstrate any of these claims in his civil case against the gardai?

OK, thanks,

I'm interpreting this question to mean that your contention is, that because Bailey's legal representatives failed to convince a jury of the validity of his case, then the GSOC report must, therefore be sound and my claim that it was utter rubbish must be incorrect.

In my opinion, there were many reasons for Bailey's High Court failure.

And the fact that the GSOC report concluded that there was no evidence to support Bailey's complaints is, I grant you, one important element of that outcome.

I would, however posit that Bailey's reputation and the beliefs and prejudices driven by the media, were a more significant factor. For this reason alone, I think that the decision to launch this action was misjudged.

Nonetheless, you have a point insofar as the report did not find evidence of corruption etc.

I still maintain that the report itself was an appalling example of cover up and of the "old boys club" environment that was eventually recognised after a number of similar scandals and resulted in the appointment of a necessary "new broom" in Drew Harris.

So, I accept your point ( if my interpretation of it was correct ) that the outcome of Bailey's High Court action does not support my contention.

But I maintain that the report itself is shameful and cowardly cover up.

lawrencesummers

I liked the way the Netflix doc kept their focus on the victim.

They were quick to dismiss anyone other than Bailey as the killer and didn’t highlight enough the mess made of the investigation by the Gardai.

They should have been able to link the woman beater two miles up the road to the beaten woman found dead and been proactive investigating him.

The ‘evidence’ when looked at collectively makes it appear only one person could have done it, but when you look at any of the evidence in isolation it’s not enough to convict anyone.

I’m not surprised the DPP never proceeded.

It’s a pity Jules didn’t have the strength to report the assaults on her. She is another victim in all of this.

Loafing Oaf

odyssey06 wrote: »

They had no emotional connection OR romantic relationship.

There is no evidence that Bailey is a scientologist either. Can you say with absolute certainty that he isn't?

easy peasy

easy peasy wrote: »

I've spent quite a bit of time down in West Cork and have a few friends down there. I would say that most initially felt it was Bailey but with the passing of time they are less sure.

In fact, most of them that I have spoken to feel that there's a less than 50% chance that it was him. But feel that he was completely stitched up by the Gardai.

I don't believe there has ever been an adequate apology or repercussions for the quality of the Garda investigation. The family have now had 25 years of suffering. Bailey may in fact be innocent, but his life has been ruined. The circus just rolls on.

One point that I would add on this is that over the years, the amount of information and statements that have gradually been given is really extraordinary.

I think there are two reasons for this: 1. an appalling culture and collection of individuals around the area who just did not want any involvement in the case even if they might have had a significant lead and 2. a general distrust of the Gardai and a feeling that if information was given that they might then become a suspect.

Gussie Scrotch

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

There is no evidence that Bailey is a scientologist either. Can you say with absolute certainty that he isn't?

You raise a good point.

Proving a negative is a very difficult thing to do.

And that, effectively, is what Bailey is faced with. He has, for many, being tried and convicted and finds himself in exactly this dilemma.

odyssey06

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

There is no evidence that Bailey is a scientologist either. Can you say with absolute certainty that he isn't?

I can say that beyond a reasonable doubt there is no evidence to support it, on the basis that Bailey has been investigated by the authorities and no such evidence was forthcoming of any prior relationship.
I think people understand what is meant by the statement when used in that way.

Anyone proposing the alternative is engaged in conjecture and mere speculation without evidence.

Mackinac

odyssey06 wrote: »

I can say that beyond a reasonable doubt there is no evidence to support it, on the basis that Bailey has been investigated by the authorities and no such evidence was forthcoming of any prior relationship.
I think people understand what is meant by the statement when used in that way.

Anyone proposing the alternative is engaged in conjecture and mere speculation without evidence.

On the other hand though there are lots of people I have fleetingly known in my life and have no record of but I still knew them. Just because I don’t have evidence of knowing them doesn’t mean I never met them.

OwlsZat

Notice Jules when interviewed isays that she soaked Ian's shorts which we bloody from the time he killed the turkey. She also stated that the cut on Ian's eye came after he came back to bed on the night of the the murder. So Ian got up during the night put on shorts, went killed the turkeys getting cut in the process and returned to bed.

That's after a two day bender. The chances of that series of events being true is almost zero.

Also no mention of the winter coat soaking outside the shower that the Italian student observed there.

FileNotFound

Mackinac wrote: »

On the other hand though there are lots of people I have fleetingly known in my life and have no record of but I still knew them. Just because I don’t have evidence of knowing them doesn’t mean I never met them.

In a simple legal sense (which is what our justice system works on) there was no evidence to support conviction.

After watching it all to be honest there isn't much of anything to even make a reasonable assumption.

Stories told years later, retracted statements, dodgy Gardai dealings, disaster forensics and lost evidence.

Its all a bit farcical and truly awful for the family of Sophie. even worse was the french circus trial. Shambles all round and no justice to be had now sadly.

odyssey06

Mackinac wrote: »

On the other hand though there are lots of people I have fleetingly known in my life and have no record of but I still knew them. Just because I don’t have evidence of knowing them doesn’t mean I never met them.

That's not what I said though.
I didn't say he never met her. He knew of her, and was likely introduced to her by Alfie in the garden one day. This is in his statements to AGS.

Meeting someone briefly is not a 'relationship' or 'emotional connection'.
Meeting someone briefly, unless there is something other financial or criminal entanglement, is not a motive for murder.

They were never seen together in the area.
There is no evidence of any letters, phone calls, communications between them - bearing in mind Sophie was in France most of the time, there would be a trail.

Given one of the persons involved was murdered and her past looked into... that is compelling evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

Ian Bailey had no motive to murder Sophie.

Mackinac

FileNotFound wrote: »

In a simple legal sense (which is what our justice system works on) there was no evidence to support conviction.

After watching it all to be honest there isn't much of anything to even make a reasonable assumption.

Stories told years later, retracted statements, dodgy Gardai dealings, disaster forensics and lost evidence.

Its all a bit farcical and truly awful for the family of Sophie. even worse was the french circus trial. Shambles all round and no justice to be had now sadly.

That’s the whole problem isn’t it? So much hearsay. The killer/killers got very lucky that night. Hopefully technology will catch up with them.

odyssey06

Mackinac wrote: »

That’s the whole problem isn’t it? So much hearsay. The killer/killers got very lucky that night. Hopefully technology will catch up with them.

Alas, that process would stand more chance of success had there been better preservation of the evidence

OwlsZat

Another lie appears in the form of the bonfire. Jules recalls it in October/November, Ian early December. There direct neighbors the Jacksons happy to testify that it was over the December holiday period because it was the only time that Delia Jackson was actually home.

The memory of this event wasn't old. There is no reasonable excuse for Jules to be two months out, only she knows it's incriminating. The holiday period is so unique it would anchor any memories at this time. Not to mention how unusual it would appear to be burning mattresses and clothing at a time of a murder enquiry. Can you imagine that being your partner?

Mackinac

odyssey06 wrote: »

That's not what I said though.
I didn't say he never met her. He knew of her, and was likely introduced to her by Alfie in the garden one day. This is in his statements to AGS.

Meeting someone briefly is not a 'relationship' or 'emotional connection'.
Meeting someone briefly, unless there is something other financial or criminal entanglement, is not a motive for murder.

They were never seen together in the area.
There is no evidence of any letters, phone calls, communications between them - bearing in mind Sophie was in France most of the time, there would be a trail.

Given one of the persons involved was murdered and her past looked into... that is compelling evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

Ian Bailey had no motive to murder Sophie.

For what’s it worth I agree with you, I don’t think there was any kind of romantic or emotional relationship between them. They may have crossed paths though and there just isn’t concrete evidence to prove it apart from hearsay. Crossing paths with someone shouldn’t make them a murder suspect either, lots of people are murdered by people they had no relationship with.

odyssey06

Mackinac wrote: »

For what’s it worth I agree with you, I don’t think there was any kind of romantic or emotional relationship between them. They may have crossed paths though and there just isn’t concrete evidence to prove it apart from hearsay. Crossing paths with someone shouldn’t make them a murder suspect either, lots of people are murdered by people they had no relationship with.

Yes, and well many murders are carried out without a motive, or a motive specific to the victim. But there you are usually looking at a pattern, or some other criminal motive such as robbery.

So if you want to phrase it as, he had no known personal motive that could plausibly form the basis for murdering Sophie.

Gussie Scrotch

odyssey06 wrote: »

Yes, and well many murders are carried out without a motive, or a motive specific to the victim. But there you are usually looking at a pattern, or some other criminal motive such as robbery.

So if you want to phrase it as, he had no known personal motive that could plausibly form the basis for murdering Sophie.

Yes, that puts the motive issue in a nutshell.

And, if such a motive could be established, then the case against him would be very much stronger.