nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

Agent Coulson

Drops June 30th.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-FoSNGGldg

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Biker79

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Sure thing, chief. Look, you may think it’s ok for a bloke to beat the shít out of a bird he’s twice the size of just because she, may have, said or done something but it’s, generally, considered unacceptable and, wholly, inexcusable.

Regardless of what she may, or may not, have done she did not deserve to be beaten into such a sorry state. Now, you can try defend the guy saying nonsense about “female nature” but, we both know, that’s absolute nonsense.

I never said that, and I don't excuse.it.:rolleyes:

But your comments are typical of the black and white, simplistic thinking that surrounds these topics and have resulted in the life of an innocent man being ruined.

In Germany they call it ' island mentality ' .

odyssey06

Bigmac1euro wrote: »

It was definitely Ian Bailey in my eyes.
How much more coincidences need to be connected to him?
I can see some posters defending that he didn’t do it but then who did? A hitman from France is not going to bash her head in with a rock.

I think Ian and Sophie knew each other.
I think he was into her.
I think he got ****ed out of his head like he always does and rambled up to her house. He might have even been in her house for a while. He then tried it on and an argument ensued.
The rest is history.
The man is a woman beater and an alcoholic and on this particular night he vanished from his bed and his attractive neighbour living up the road is murdered. The evidence is crap because the Garda were incompetent at the time. The crime scene was a mess. They lost a ****ing gate for Christ sake.

None of that is real evidence though.
What "you think" isn't even circumstansial evidence.

If you're going to accuse someone of murder, you need a helluva lot more than that and "who else did it" is not an argument of any serious consideration.
The "only suspect" we have doesn't mean they did it.
There's innocent people freed on forensics who were the "only suspect".
It often means it was the suspect the police fixated on and directed their investigations that way. It's a recipe for miscarriages of justice and for the real guilty party to go free.

The guards lost evidence, but the didn't find anythng at the scene from a 'frenzied' attack they could tie to Bailey. He was supposed to have been scratched, yet no blood, no DNA, no hair, nothing. No fingerpints either.

They then tried a fit up job on Bailey so poor the DPP threw it back at them.

EmmetSpiceland

Biker79 wrote: »

She was attracted to him and stayed in a relationship with him, knowing full well his drunken, domineering, gregarious character. Why?

You may not be familiar with the dark side of female nature. Its not discussed very often but it certainly exists.

Sure thing, chief. Look, you may think it’s ok for a bloke to beat the shít out of a bird he’s twice the size of just because she, may have, said or done something but it’s, generally, considered unacceptable and, wholly, inexcusable.

Regardless of what she may, or may not, have done she did not deserve to be beaten into such a sorry state. Now, you can try defend the guy saying nonsense about “female nature” but, we both know, that’s absolute nonsense.

Biker79

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Ah sure, I’m sure whatever cutting remark or slap she gave him more than earned an eye the size of a grapefruit, clumps of hair torn from her head and a lip separated from her gum.

Looks more like one was doing the tango while the other was MMA cage fighting.

She was attracted to him and stayed in a relationship with him, knowing full well his drunken, domineering, gregarious character. Why?

You may not be familiar with the dark side of female nature. Its not discussed very often but it certainly exists.

patobrien12

There's a lot more in this one compared to Jim Sheridan's one and its 2 episodes less. Do much waffle from Jim.

There's a few things to me that don't add up.

1. Did he definitely know about the murder before the he got the call. Were the people that say they did no interviewed? Are they credible. Because if he did no then that is huge evidence.
2. Marie Farrell caught lying on the stand about who the person was she was having the affair with. She is all over Jim Sheridan's documentary and the other person was never brought up or even asked. The fact that the Netflix doc shows she is a liar plain as. Whereas Jim Sheridan portrays here as a victim of the police. Why did Jim not show the interviews of here saying Bailey was intimidating her? Does it go against the narrative, I think so.
3. Did Ian Bailey meet and actually speak to Sophie. According to many witnesses in Netflix that is interviewed she 100% did. Why is Ian lying and also why was this not investigated more by Jim?

Seems to me like both documentaries are taking different sides and after watching both Netflix is far more reliable.

Bigmac1euro

It was definitely Ian Bailey in my eyes.
How much more coincidences need to be connected to him?
I can see some posters defending that he didn’t do it but then who did? A hitman from France is not going to bash her head in with a rock.

I think Ian and Sophie knew each other.
I think he was into her.
I think he got ****ed out of his head like he always does and rambled up to her house. He might have even been in her house for a while. He then tried it on and an argument ensued.
The rest is history.
The man is a woman beater and an alcoholic and on this particular night he vanished from his bed and his attractive neighbour living up the road is murdered. The evidence is crap because the Garda were incompetent at the time. The crime scene was a mess. They lost a ****ing gate for Christ sake.

odyssey06

uli84 wrote: »

If whatever has been shown is true I think Ian Bailey did it. Plus I always tell the truth when drunk I would say he does too.
Even the stupid thing that he was visiting a house next door on regular basis and so on and so forth.

There is an element of truth... makes it easier to smuggle in the lies or rather the omissions such as the evidence going missing, pressure on witness by AGS to change her testimony.

EmmetSpiceland

Biker79 wrote: »

We don't know the nature of their relationship, but booze seems to have played a central part, which makes violence more likely.

You think women are incapable of driving some men to violence? That's naïve.

Ah sure, I’m sure whatever cutting remark or slap she gave him more than earned an eye the size of a grapefruit, clumps of hair torn from her head and a lip separated from her gum.

Looks more like one was doing the tango while the other was MMA cage fighting.

uli84

If whatever has been shown is true I think Ian Bailey did it. Plus I always tell the truth when drunk

I would say he does too.
Even the stupid thing that he was visiting a house next door on regular basis and so on and so forth.

Henry...

CoBo55 wrote: »

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

Dunno really but a 'beautiful' french woman runs from her house at night and is murdered by her assailant at her gate

Case unsolved

[Deleted User]

SeaFields wrote: »

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

Myself and partner noticed that, it immediately struck that he was shifting the blame in relation to a horrible assault he inflicted, stating:

"she had been drinking" before then stating "we both had been drinking"

"she started to grab me" "I pushed her back, hurting her"

and this somehow mitigates the savage beating he inflicted in his eyes.

Biker79

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

‘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.

We don't know the nature of their relationship, but booze seems to have played a central part, which makes violence more likely.

You think women are incapable of driving some men to violence? That's naïve.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

[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.

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.

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

TomSweeney

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

Lucas Hood

TomSweeney wrote: »

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

Could have been from the briars.

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 ...

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.

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.

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...