Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

«134567…97

Comments

  • #2
    Mr E
    Registered Users Posts: 55,450 ✭✭✭✭Mr E


    Fixed your link, it didn't work.
    Looks good!


  • #3
    Petermc83
    Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭Petermc83


    Think Sky Crime have a doc based on this coming out this weekend also, directed by Jim Sheridan.


  • #4
    Atlantic Dawn
    Registered Users Posts: 81,112 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    Petermc83 wrote: »
    Think Sky Crime have a doc based on this coming out this weekend also, directed by Jim Sheridan.

    Yes will be interesting how they both compare.


  • #5
    CoBo55
    Registered Users Posts: 8,724 ✭✭✭CoBo55


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


  • #6
    JP Liz V1
    Registered Users Posts: 84,954 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    CoBo55 wrote: »
    Why the sudden interest in Sophie now? The West Cork documentary on audible was brilliant. Looking forward to both of these.

    I think there is a tv show in the works too based on her murder
    https://forumofgames.com/




  • Advertisement
  • #7
    fisgon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭fisgon


    Just watched this, haven't really been interested in the case but couldn't stop watching once I started.

    There was a thread about the case in the True Crime forum, but it seems to have been closed - maybe a worry about libel.

    So without making a judgment about innocence or guilt, there is only really one conclusion you can get from watching the Netflix doc. I understand that it is made from a particular slant, but a lot of the circumstantial evidence is damning.

    It doesn't much go into Garda incompetence, though, which I have heard was a big part of the case. I may have to watch the Jim Sheridan series now.....


  • #8
    Duckworth_Luas
    Registered Users Posts: 5,733 ✭✭✭Duckworth_Luas


    CoBo55 wrote: »
    Why the sudden interest in Sophie now? The West Cork documentary on audible was brilliant. Looking forward to both of these.
    It's the 25th anniversary maybe?


  • #9
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    I've been thinking a lot about this crime. My opinion below is influenced by all the True Crime documentaries I've seen.

    When a wife is murdered it's usually the husband. Typically it's something like he's having an affair, the wife threatens him (if you leave I'll expose x and y or take all your money etc.), so the husband kills her.

    There is no evidence Sophie's husband killed her. In fact he's supposed to have had a strong alibi. But we do know (a) he was having an affair at the time (b) he married this woman a little over a year after Sophie's death and (c) he refused to go to Ireland to assist with the police or view her remains after her murder.

    I've been thinking a lot about motive for the murder and I can't connect Bailey at all, but I can absolutely imagine a scenario like this:

    Sophie and husband have had their final fight and she runs off to Ireland to get away from everything. She pretends she's there to fix a heater so her parents won't worry.

    The husband confides in a cousin that Sophie is going to ruin him. She's going to expose x about him. The cousin says let me go deal with it.

    The cousin travels to Cork and arrives at her home late at night. He rings the door, she sleepily answers, and he asks can they have a talk. As she steps outside he attacks her. She reaches for the door handle but he hits her again. He's aware the house light is on and they're somewhat illuminated, so he drags her down the path into the darkness. She tries to escape. He panics and savagely kills her.

    He flees and makes his way back to Cork.

    He tells the husband what happened. The husband freaks out and decides he absolutely cannot go to Ireland right now as the police will want to talk to him and they may notice he is acting strange. So he decides to stay in France.

    Surely this is more plausible than the local reporter? Both have zero evidence yet surely the husband had a motive and should have been considered the main suspect.


  • #10
    Bigmac1euro
    Registered Users Posts: 1,454 ✭✭✭Bigmac1euro


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    I've been thinking a lot about this crime. My opinion below is influenced by all the True Crime documentaries I've seen.

    When a wife is murdered it's usually the husband. Typically it's something like he's having an affair, the wife threatens him (if you leave I'll expose x and y or take all your money etc.), so the husband kills her.

    There is no evidence Sophie's husband killed her. In fact he's supposed to have had a strong alibi. But we do know (a) he was having an affair at the time (b) he married this woman a little over a year after Sophie's death and (c) he refused to go to Ireland to assist with the police or view her remains after her murder.

    I've been thinking a lot about motive for the murder and I can't connect Bailey at all, but I can absolutely imagine a scenario like this:

    Sophie and husband have had their final fight and she runs off to Ireland to get away from everything. She pretends she's there to fix a heater so her parents won't worry.

    The husband confides in a cousin that Sophie is going to ruin him. She's going to expose x about him. The cousin says let me go deal with it.

    The cousin travels to Cork and arrives at her home late at night. He rings the door, she sleepily answers, and he asks can they have a talk. As she steps outside he attacks her. She reaches for the door handle but he hits her again. He's aware the house light is on and they're somewhat illuminated, so he drags her down the path into the darkness. She tries to escape. He panics and savagely kills her.

    He flees and makes his way back to Cork.

    He tells the husband what happened. The husband freaks out and decides he absolutely cannot go to Ireland right now as the police will want to talk to him and they may notice he is acting strange. So he decides to stay in France.

    Surely this is more plausible than the local reporter? Both have zero evidence yet surely the husband had a motive and should have been considered the main suspect.

    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


  • #11
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    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

    Some of these don't really count as evidence. I'm not having a go at you (happy to be chatting to you about this) so please see my comments below as a conversation and not an attack.

    The scrapes are definitely suspicious. However they didn't find his DNA under her nails. He does spend time with chickens and from the documentary we can see he's a a bit of a mess, so I'm not totally shocked he might have some cuts and scratches on himself. But definitely suspicious and worth keeping in mind.

    My understanding is they took his jacket and found no DNA evidence. Burning clothes (if that's the case) after she died is definitely very suspicious.

    I think his "I did it" comments are more like "I am Ian Bailey, the killer you all love to hate" sort of thing. Almost making fun of how everyone thinks he's the killer. If you could imagine someone kept saying you stole the loaf of bread, after a while you'd start saying (sarcastically) yeah I'm the guy who stole the bread.

    He probably didn't know her. I've met lots of people but I would still say I don't know them and haven't really spoken to them. For example, I went to a boards beers once but I'd still say I don't know anyone from boards in real life.

    The divorce and being disliked aren't relevant.

    The going missing from his bed is suspicious, but could it be he likes to go to the little shed in his garden at night so he can drink and listen to music? He's an alcoholic with three children in the house, so I think continuing drinking in his man cave seems absolutely plausible.

    The one piece of evidence against him which does ring alarm bells in me is the article he wrote which says she wasn't raped... before he could have known that. But perhaps there is an innocent answer such as he was speaking to a guard and the guard said it doesn't look like she was raped, and he ran with that.

    It's a really weird case and I think the fact Bailey is being blamed yet there is zero motive has really screwed up the investigation.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Mav11
    Registered Users Posts: 2,238 ✭✭✭Mav11


    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

    Certainly overbearing, but also circumstantial. I can understand why the DPP wouldn't prosecute (double jeopardy), the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold couldn't be crossed.


  • #13
    fisgon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭fisgon


    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

    Also a history of violence against his partner. Bailey admits this, and accounts of the damage done to her are shocking.


  • #14
    GerardKeating
    Registered Users Posts: 7,525 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    The one piece of evidence against him which does ring alarm bells in me is the article he wrote which says she wasn't raped... before he could have known that. But perhaps there is an innocent answer such as he was speaking to a guard and the guard said it doesn't look like she was raped, and he ran with that.

    Or he just make it up, with a binary choice just this, he had a 50% chance of getting it right...


  • #15
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    GerardKeating wrote: »
    Or he just make it up, with a binary choice just this, he had a 50% chance of getting it right...

    Yes I was thinking this too. He writes for tabloids, so it's not inconceivable he took a punt on the likelihood of her situation. It's not like she can sue him if he gets a detail wrong.

    For example, I wonder in rape+murder cases, are the women usually found naked or semi-naked? My understanding is Sophie was fully clothed, therefore he may have guessed this was a murder only.

    Also, at this stage he had no idea he was the main suspect, so he had no idea this sort of reckless reporting would come back to haunt him.

    Here's a silly equivalent: I'm in my office now and I often work weird hours (weekends, very late, etc.) I'm a white guy in Japan. Imagine there was a white guy doing some weird **** late at night in my building. I don't know this now, so I keep coming in at weird hours. So I'm making myself a suspect. In hindsight, had I known about the weirdo, I'd work from home for a bit so I can be ruled out of the equation.


  • #16
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,064 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Bigmac1euro wrote: »
    -Scrapes on hands
    He said he got these from cutting down a Christmas tree. There is a statement on the record of a neighbour who saw him dragging a tree back to his house with one of Jules's daughters on the exact day that Bailey claimed. So it's pretty much fact that this tree cutting happened. The DPP also covered off the hand scratches quite well. A dermatologist testified that 5 days after the murder she saw nothing suspicious or obvious on his face or hands.
    Bigmac1euro wrote: »
    -Scrapes on face
    As above and Bailey also said he got a cut plucking/killing turkeys. They were know for keeping turkeys so it's plausible. As per the DPP file it was well covered off.
    Bigmac1euro wrote: »
    -Day after murder his jacket soaked in bucket of water.
    This is from the Italian student who came forward years later and initially said it was dark clothes, but then was certain it was a black coat. Unreliable at best.
    Bigmac1euro wrote: »
    -Bonfire in back of house he owned which had items of his clothing.
    From the very start Jules and Bailey said that they had a fire for a few days as they were clearing out the house of old stuff. A fire outside a house in the country is not unusual to get rid of old rubbish. DPP was not convinced it showed anything suspicious.
    Bigmac1euro wrote: »
    - He told people in a drunken state HE DID IT
    We know he's a compulsive narcissistic personality and prone to coming out with all sorts of stuff especially when drunk. The DPP file gives a lot of detail on this and it's not particularly convincing.
    Bigmac1euro wrote: »
    - He claimed he didn’t know her when he did
    Do we know that? Bailey from the start said he knew of Sophie and that she had been pointed out to him one day when he was up in Alfie's house about 18 months before the murder. There is no other evidence that he "knew her".
    Bigmac1euro wrote: »
    - He had gone through a bad divorce previously and lost everything so might have had a hate for women.
    Yes he was a domestic abuser but a hatred for women is is not evident.
    Bigmac1euro wrote: »
    - locals didn’t like him
    He's an odd character but whether locals like someone or not doesn't really matter.
    Bigmac1euro wrote: »
    - Went missing from his bed the night of the murder
    He said he went to the studio to do some writing. Jules said it was common for him to get up in the middle of the night to do writing. There is nothing to suggest that he did anything other than write as he claimed.


  • #17
    TomSweeney
    Registered Users Posts: 3,193 ✭✭✭TomSweeney


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    Some of these don't really count as evidence. I'm not having a go at you (happy to be chatting to you about this) so please see my comments below as a conversation and not an attack.

    The scrapes are definitely suspicious. However they didn't find his DNA under her nails. He does spend time with chickens and from the documentary we can see he's a a bit of a mess, so I'm not totally shocked he might have some cuts and scratches on himself. But definitely suspicious and worth keeping in mind.

    My understanding is they took his jacket and found no DNA evidence. Burning clothes (if that's the case) after she died is definitely very suspicious.

    I think his "I did it" comments are more like "I am Ian Bailey, the killer you all love to hate" sort of thing. Almost making fun of how everyone thinks he's the killer. If you could imagine someone kept saying you stole the loaf of bread, after a while you'd start saying (sarcastically) yeah I'm the guy who stole the bread.

    He probably didn't know her. I've met lots of people but I would still say I don't know them and haven't really spoken to them. For example, I went to a boards beers once but I'd still say I don't know anyone from boards in real life.

    The divorce and being disliked aren't relevant.

    The going missing from his bed is suspicious, but could it be he likes to go to the little shed in his garden at night so he can drink and listen to music? He's an alcoholic with three children in the house, so I think continuing drinking in his man cave seems absolutely plausible.

    The one piece of evidence against him which does ring alarm bells in me is the article he wrote which says she wasn't raped... before he could have known that. But perhaps there is an innocent answer such as he was speaking to a guard and the guard said it doesn't look like she was raped, and he ran with that.

    It's a really weird case and I think the fact Bailey is being blamed yet there is zero motive has really screwed up the investigation.


    I still have an episode to watch, but the scrapes were from the briars ...


  • #18
    Lucas Hood
    Registered Users Posts: 7,205 ✭✭✭Lucas Hood


    TomSweeney wrote: »
    I still have an episode to watch, but the scrapes were from the briars ...

    Could have been from the briars.


  • #19
    TomSweeney
    Registered Users Posts: 3,193 ✭✭✭TomSweeney


    Lucas Hood wrote: »
    Could have been from the briars.
    OK my point was that her DNA doesn't need to be found there to implicate him...


  • #20
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 27,844 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    TomSweeney wrote: »
    OK my point was that her DNA doesn't need to be found there to implicate him...

    Something would... hair etc
    But no, zero forensic evidence found at the scene on Bailey, despite him supposedly committing it in a frenzy.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • #21
    fisgon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭fisgon


    OMM 0000 wrote: »

    I've been thinking a lot about motive for the murder and I can't connect Bailey at all, but I can absolutely imagine a scenario like this:

    Sophie and husband have had their final fight and she runs off to Ireland to get away from everything. She pretends she's there to fix a heater so her parents won't worry.

    The husband confides in a cousin that Sophie is going to ruin him. She's going to expose x about him. The cousin says let me go deal with it.

    The cousin travels to Cork and arrives at her home late at night. He rings the door, she sleepily answers, and he asks can they have a talk. As she steps outside he attacks her. She reaches for the door handle but he hits her again. He's aware the house light is on and they're somewhat illuminated, so he drags her down the path into the darkness. She tries to escape. He panics and savagely kills her.

    He flees and makes his way back to Cork.

    He tells the husband what happened. The husband freaks out and decides he absolutely cannot go to Ireland right now as the police will want to talk to him and they may notice he is acting strange. So he decides to stay in France.

    Surely this is more plausible than the local reporter? Both have zero evidence yet surely the husband had a motive and should have been considered the main suspect.

    I would say that this situation is completely implausible. A cousin? Why is he attacking her? I know for a fact that if I asked any of my cousins to travel to a foreign country at Christmas and talk to/attack my estranged wife, they would tell me where to go - and rightly so.

    Bailey also spun the story of the husband hiring a hitman to kill her. This is utterly ludicrous. A hitman arrives without a weapon, lures her outside and attacks her with a random block that is lying on the ground? Seriously? A very disorganized, unprofessional hitman.

    The husband angle is completely unconvincing.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    fisgon wrote: »
    The husband angle is completely unconvincing.

    The husband angle is far more convincing than the local reporter, considering husbands are usually responsible for the deaths of wives. Yet it seems the gardai completely dismissed the husband as he had an alibi.


  • #23
    TomSweeney
    Registered Users Posts: 3,193 ✭✭✭TomSweeney


    Gas, like Making a Murderer people are solidly in one camp or the other, very little neutrals.


  • #24
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 27,844 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    TomSweeney wrote: »
    Gas, like Making a Murderer people are solidly in one camp or the other, very little neutrals.

    Just to complicate matters, this time there is a rival documentary which puts a different spin on things.
    The page for the Jim Sheridan's documentary series is at 114 pages...
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058184650

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • #25
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    TomSweeney wrote: »
    Gas, like Making a Murderer people are solidly in one camp or the other, very little neutrals.

    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.


  • #26
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    As above and Bailey also said he got a cut plucking/killing turkeys. They were know for keeping turkeys so it's plausible. As per the DPP file it was well covered off.

    Do we know that? Bailey from the start said he knew of Sophie and that she had been pointed out to him one day when he was up in Alfie's house about 18 months before the murder. There is no other evidence that he "knew her".

    He said he went to the studio to do some writing. Jules said it was common for him to get up in the middle of the night to do writing. There is nothing to suggest that he did anything other than write as he claimed.

    She also said he'd a cut he didn't have the night before? (Although no mention of the cuts)

    Several French people gave testimony she knew him.

    I'm less convinced of his innocence now, and a foreign killer makes no sense to me - big pile of highly circumstantial evidence v a conspiracy. (Although I've heard persistent rumours for years of someone else doing it)

    The whole Marie Farrell thing is a farce.


  • #27
    DeadHand
    Registered Users Posts: 2,712 ✭✭✭DeadHand


    I've watched the other one and gone halfway through this one.

    I feel Bailey didn't do it, but one element nags me: the fact he and Jules told three people about the murder hours before it was announced and he got the call from the Cork Examiner.

    That he flatly denies this happened puts a doubt in my mind. It seems unlikely all three are lying/mistaken/conspiring with corrupt Gardai. Had he come out with a better explanation, such as having a contact in the Gardai, I'd accept it readily.

    Did the DDP address this issue? Has Jules Thomas explained this? What are people's thoughts/theories around?


  • #28
    fisgon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭fisgon


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    The husband angle is far more convincing than the local reporter, considering husbands are usually responsible for the deaths of wives. Yet it seems the gardai completely dismissed the husband as he had an alibi.

    A husband who was thousands of kilometres away is a more likely suspect than a guy who lives down the road?


  • #29
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users Posts: 10,526 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    fisgon wrote: »
    A husband who was thousands of kilometres away is a more likely suspect than a guy who lives down the road?

    A rich and powerful movie mogul with money problems and a mistress who’s wife will get half his estate in the divorce?

    In a normal situation he’d be the prime suspect but, you’d imagine, if he’d hired a “hitman” that the attack wouldn’t have been as frenzied and violent. You’d be expecting car tampering, single gunshot or, at least, a staged robbery.

    I think the fact he stayed in France after put him in a bad light. Grief can make people do strange things. I, personally, don’t buy the husband did it angle but with all the twists, turns and messing you wouldn’t be surprised by it.

    The tide is turning…



  • #30
    SeaFields
    Registered Users Posts: 6,551 ✭✭✭SeaFields


    fisgon wrote: »
    Also a history of violence against his partner. Bailey admits this, and accounts of the damage done to her are shocking.

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


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users Posts: 10,526 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


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

    ‘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.

    The tide is turning…



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement