Murder of Sophie toscan du plantier...

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.

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

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

I think he is innocent

I must watch the two documentaries

I wonder if he's guilty

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

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.

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.

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

frag420 wrote: »

What are your thoughts on it?

Sandor Clegane says

archfi wrote: »

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

Ray Stevenson kinda has the look imho

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?!

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

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.

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

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

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

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...

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.

Arms all briar scratches
Scratch on his forehead
Burned the clothes he was wearing that night for some reason
Knew she wasn't sexually assaulted before it was in the public domain
History of assault and losing control

He did it, guards messed up.

JeffKenna wrote: »

Arms all briar scratches
Scratch on his forehead
Burned the clothes he was wearing that night for some reason
Knew she wasn't sexually assaulted before it was in the public domain
History of assault and losing control

He did it, guards messed up.

Have to agree on those items from the podcast .

Specifically about the scene why did he know all of that and how .

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

There didn't appear to be any scratches on Bailey in the video of the Christmas Day swim. The burning of clothes only said eyelids of burned boots were identified, no evidence of the black jacket.

Yeah because he was covered from head to toe.
Where is the black jacket then, he handy to check it for someone's DNA.

JeffKenna wrote: »

Arms all briar scratches
Scratch on his forehead
Burned the clothes he was wearing that night for some reason
Knew she wasn't sexually assaulted before it was in the public domain
History of assault and losing control

He did it, guards messed up.

He was topping a tree for Christmas & got the scratches. Think about this. He is supposd to have work his long black coat at time of murder. It would be impossible to get scratches high on his arm with said coat on. He claims to have gotten scratched high up in a tree while topping it for a Christmas tree & he had no coat on at the time



Didn't in fact burn clothes he was wearing. They have Garda inventory of them seizing the coat & having it in evidence. Local Gardai didn't send this to the DPP as part of the evidence. Local Gardai wanted to make the case work. It was never burned



I strongly recommend watching the one on Sky Crime

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

A black jacket was seized by Gardai, think the Gardas name was PJ, it was in the documentary and seizure mentioned by Bailey's partner. He had his hands and most of face easy to see in the video.

Ah no he was totally covered in the video, you couldn't see his arms or forehead.

Didn't realise the guards have the coat though.