Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Murder of Sophie toscan du plantier...

«1

Comments

  • #2


    What are your thoughts on it?


  • #2


    Listened to the West Cork podcast and it's addictive. Possibly the best I've ever listened to. There's interviews throughout it with Bailey himself, warts and all.. His (now ex) partner, the victims family, locals, witnesses, Gardai... It's actually astounding how they got people to loosen up and talk for the podcast.

    A must for anyone interested.


  • #2


    John_Rambo wrote: »
    Listened to the West Cork podcast and it's addictive. Possibly the best I've ever listened to. There's interviews throughout it with Bailey himself, warts and all.. His (now ex) partner, the victims family, locals, witnesses, Gardai... It's actually astounding how they got people to loosen up and talk for the podcast.

    A must for anyone interested.

    Same. Listened to it last summer during lockdown, was done in a couple of days, as you said it’s addictive and very well produced


  • #2


    What are your thoughts on it? Ian Bailey guilty or not?

    I think he is innocent

    I must watch the two documentaries


  • #2


    frag420 wrote: »
    What are your thoughts on it?

    Impossible to no really, from my looking at the documentary tonight and reading up on it there were lots of Garda incompetency involved so hard to no what to think of it all.


  • #2
    Listened to West Cork and was astounded by the level of bumbling buffoonery of the Gardai. Have a feeling the upcoming documentaries aren't going to do their image any favours whatsoever.

    I'm inclined to think the Gardai panicked somewhat and honed in on Bailey, but Bailey made it very easy for them too at times. Very hard to know.


  • #2
  • #2


    I wonder if he's guilty


  • #2


    I wonder if he's guilty

    Well if he is, he's never going to admit to it. Is he?


    I don't know


  • #2


    I see Dominic West mentioned to play Bailey in a drama about it - good shout




  • #2


    I have not looked into it much but I wonder on what basis did the french find him guilty? because it couldn't of been from anything the guards found because they were laughable.


  • #2


    Just finished the Jim Sheridan docu. Parking the murder of Sophie, Bailey is a lunatic, the tooth extraction video was my biggest WTF reaction in awhile.


  • #2


    Just watched the first 4 of 5 episodes on sky crime. I have no idea if he is innocent or guilty. This is the fault of the Gardai investigating the crime all those years ago. They got tunnel vision early on.

    Here's something that struck me. She was in Ireland in September and the heating wasn't working so she decided to return a few days before Christmas to make sure that there was heating for when some of her family would arrive in the new year. She went there on her own, leaving her child at home without her for Christmas. A phone call from France could have arranged a plumber without her coming to Ireland. She comes to Ireland to fix the heating over the Christmas period when most plumbers aren't working and trade counters are closed until January 2nd.

    Not a bit of that rings true to me.


  • #2


    I have always thought he appeared guilty but havent really gone thru all the evidence in any detail,listening to Jim Sheridan this morning I certainly felt he thought Bailey is innocent and mentioned that the husband was never interviewed, he also added that he thought the husband had nothing to do with the murder and yet ---,he also mentioned 3 confessions by bailey and dished one of them but didnt address the other 2.They also more or less agreed Bailey has his weird moments and certainly the descriptions of his behaviour raised eyebrows but perhaps they are a function of being innocent and accused of this terrible crime.I will watch both programmes and try inform myself on where the truth lies.


  • #2


    Always been a suspicion around there about who was involved


  • #2


    From the interview on radio 1 with Sheridan it sounds like Bailey is not guilty, he's an eccentric, he likes bring interviewed . He lost his job
    There was some else at the scene of the crime but he was not identified
    I don't see how a French court found him guilty
    The Gardai just focussed on Bailey as the prime suspect
    I was on a news site and there's a large ad for a new Netflix
    Documentary on this case
    Not directed by Jim sheridan
    I wonder is there any dna evidence because now alot of old cases are being solved by tracing dna with new technology
    Eg the golden state killer was found by dna evidence from
    30 years ago


  • #2


    One thing for sure...

    The gardai were up to a lot of fcuking skullduggery in relation to that case


  • #2


    frag420 wrote: »
    What are your thoughts on it?

    Sandor Clegane says

    main-qimg-195a8ea82ab4801437ee6e21960d9023.webp


  • #2


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    One thing for sure...

    The gardai were up to a lot of fcuking skullduggery in relation to that case

    No dog in the fight but ???

    This is the nature of war. By protecting others, you save yourself. If you only think of yourself, you'll only destroy yourself.



  • #2


    archfi wrote: »
    I see Dominic West mentioned to play Bailey in a drama about it - good shout

    Ray Stevenson kinda has the look imho


  • #2


    The guards were out of their depth. It's not a Garda/Irish thing, it's a "tiny remote area where violent crime was hitherto unheard of" thing.


  • #2


    I just put this in the other thread so I’ll repeat here:

    I suppose there is nothing new to be learned about the case. There isn’t any new evidence that can be magicked up. The only thing that can solve it now is an actual confession.

    That Marie Farrell seems completely cracked. When I heard the description of the man with a beret I thought they must be joking. I don’t believe a single thing she said and obviously just wanted to insert herself into the investigation.

    Also what was the whole thing about “Fiona”? she rings first from a phone box somewhere and then rings from her house so they were able to trace the number. Now she says the guards told her to say those things but why were they appealing for “Fiona” to come forward so?!


  • #2


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Just watched the first 4 of 5 episodes on sky crime. I have no idea if he is innocent or guilty. This is the fault of the Gardai investigating the crime all those years ago. They got tunnel vision early on.

    Here's something that struck me. She was in Ireland in September and the heating wasn't working so she decided to return a few days before Christmas to make sure that there was heating for when some of her family would arrive in the new year. She went there on her own, leaving her child at home without her for Christmas. A phone call from France could have arranged a plumber without her coming to Ireland. She comes to Ireland to fix the heating over the Christmas period when most plumbers aren't working and trade counters are closed until January 2nd.

    Not a bit of that rings true to me.

    I’m not certain but I think I read before that the son lived with his father. Also, she was due to fly back to France on the 24th to be there for Christmas.

    From what I can gather, the only real certainties against Ian Bailey are that he knew/reported on bits that he shouldn’t have known and that he did have scratches. But that’s it afaics.

    ETA and that he did admit to domestic violence against his parter.


  • #2


    I have not looked into it much but I wonder on what basis did the french find him guilty? because it couldn't of been from anything the guards found because they were laughable.

    Here's the reason:

    "Undeterred by their failure to secure Bailey’s surrender, the French authorities proceeded to put him on trial (in his absence) in France for the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier in Ireland. As is normal in French criminal procedure, the trial was conducted largely on the basis of the police file. Unlike the situation in Ireland, a French police file is compiled under the supervision of an independent prosecutor and investigating judge. In effect, the credibility and reliability of the police evidence is tested at the investigation and pre-trial phases, so that there is less need for the application of more stringent evidential rules and due process checks at the final trial phase. The latter can proceed mostly on the basis of statement evidence from the police file.

    In Ireland, of course, the balance is the other way around. At the investigation stage, the police are left with unsupervised freedom to get on with the task of gathering evidence. Ultimately, the trial, rather than the investigation or pre-trial phase, is the centrepiece of the criminal process where the case against the accused will be tested in full. Critically, it is at the trial phase that police evidence is scrutinised closely through the examination and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses in person. The trial is also conducted in accordance with evidential and procedural rules designed to protect the accused against prejudice that may otherwise flow from having allowed the police excessive unsupervised freedom in building a case against a suspect.

    These systemic differences have little significance for the relative integrity or fairness of criminal process in Ireland or France respectively. Each is designed to function as an organic whole with its own internal checks and balances. It is a very different matter, however, when the Irish police investigation stage (and its results) is lifted from the Irish process and inserted into the French process at the post investigation stage. That is what happened in the Bailey case.

    The Garda file, which was compiled in the loosely regulated and unsupervised Irish police investigation stage, was treated by the French court as the equivalent of a French police file which would have been compiled under the scrutiny and supervision of an independent prosecutor and investigating judge. The statement evidence compiled by the Garda against Bailey was accepted at face value by the French court, even though it was not sufficiently reliable or credible to put him on trial within the norms of the Irish criminal process where it was compiled and for which it was intended. In effect, the Irish police investigation stage was combined with the French trial stage to produce a monstrous hybrid in which guilt was determined by the unadulterated results of an unsupervised, unregulated and flawed police investigation.

    Bailey was convicted in his absence by the French court essentially on the basis of the untested evidence contained in the Garda file. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison."

    https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/criminaljusticenotes/2020/11/02/the-ian-bailey-eaw-litigation/


    Imo I think Bailey is innocent. He's an arrogant pr*ck who thought he could run rings around the Gardai, but this just made him look more guilty to Gardai who had no other suspects.


  • #2


    I have not looked into it much but I wonder on what basis did the french find him guilty? because it couldn't of been from anything the guards found because they were laughable.

    Those Frenchies know a crime of passion when they see one.


  • #2


    Impossible to no really, from my looking at the documentary tonight and reading up on it there were lots of Garda incompetency involved so hard to no what to think of it all.

    i no ya


  • #2


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    One thing for sure...

    The gardai were up to a lot of fcuking skullduggery in relation to that case

    This


  • #2


    I have not looked into it much but I wonder on what basis did the french find him guilty? because it couldn't of been from anything the guards found because they were laughable.

    He was found guilty by the French ‘ in abstentia ‘.

    Which regardless of what happened is BS really... if you are on trial you should have the opportunity to be cross examined and for your legal team to cross examine witnesses and experts brought to court by the prosecutors... he was never arrested by the French police so if he’s not guilty he shouldn’t have an expectation of him that he fücks off to France and be arrested and tried for a crime he did not commit...


  • #2


    Ian Bailiey for sure.

    He bribed the guard minding the scene so he could get access as a journalist.

    Then when he was forensically traced back to the scene nothing could be proven as he’s gotten illegal access.


This discussion has been closed.