mikemac2 wrote: » Bailey saying the Gardai wouldn't know how to deal with an Englishman with education The outstanding arrogance of the man. :rolleyes: As if he was Lord of the manor surrounded by peasants. I didn't know about much about this case and enjoyed the Netflix series very much, thumbs up
kravmaga wrote: » Well in fairness IB would not be far off the mark there, remember it was rural Ireland in 1996. As far a I know IB is well educated , has a law degree and standing at 6ft 3 was a tall imposing man for the Gardai to interact with. Gardai didnt exactly excel themselves in the criminal investigation into the murder
Field east wrote: » Three aspects of the whole murder intrigue me (1) re the Netflix document , two French individuals referred Sophie referring to a man who wants to meet her in Ireland and that he was a journalist and poet and that she was a bit apprehensive about meeting this man. At what point did these two women make their statements ? (2) what on earth motivated MF to report anonymously on three occasions re fingering IB to the guards. If she had absolutely no connection to the murder , would life have not been MUCH easier by keeping her head down / singing dumb - and she phoned within a few days after the murder. Did she mention / discuss it with her husband and what did he recall what was said. She initiated her actions unilaterally and not the guards and later RETRACTED the whole lot at a later date. In other words the guards could not have infuenced/ coerced her at the outset. So why 100% IB at the outset and in the end -100% IB. (3) when IB was first to arr at the scene apart from the lady who discovered the body and a guard , was it the case that he walked all over the murder scene thus leaving his dna/evidence. So when such evidence was presented he could say. “ sure I was one of the first to visit the murder scene and walked around to see what happened. That’s why u found my dna. The guard saw me there”
Field east wrote: » (2) what on earth motivated MF to report anonymously on three occasions re fingering IB to the guards. If she had absolutely no connection to the murder , would life have not been MUCH easier by keeping her head down / singing dumb - and she phoned within a few days after the murder. Did she mention / discuss it with her husband and what did he recall what was said. She initiated her actions unilaterally and not the guards and later RETRACTED the whole lot at a later date. In other words the guards could not have infuenced/ coerced her at the outset. So why 100% IB at the outset and in the end -100% IB.
Gussie Scrotch wrote: » 2) Marie Farrell, initially, did not name Bailey as the person she saw. She only did so after the Gardai had interviewed her several times. She has not retracted her claim that she saw someone at the bridge. She has only retracted the identification of the person as IB. at this stage I'd discard MF as a factor entirely, if it wasn't for one intriguing detail - who was her companion and why was it so important to withhold his identity?
babybuilder wrote: » I agree with your impression on the Netflix series. The factual omissions are telling. Particularly leaving out the fact that the overcoat had been taken for analysis by the guards. Then the "top" forensics guy saying they found coat buttons in the fire ashes. No photographs of these buttons? Then a very brief mention of the gardai investigation irregularities. Initially I came away from the Netflix series convinced of IB guilt but having seen JS show on sky I'm less so. However, the anguish and pain of the family is so palpable. Particularly the parents
Chuck Noland wrote: » I’m amazed that the state PATHOLOGIST gets such a pass in all this? He’s hungover after his birthday and doesn’t bother traveling to Cork until the next day? A pathologist is the doctor who performs the post mortem examination. A coroner is the state official who holds an inquest to establish who died, where they died, when they died & how they died. But you are correct. If he was on a day off/hungover, his deputyshould have attended tge scene. To have left poor dead Sophie in that boreen for over 24 hours is inexcusable.
Foggy Jew wrote: » A pathologist is the doctor who performs the post mortem examination. A coroner is the state official who holds an inquest to establish who died, where they died, when they died & how they died. But you are correct. If he was on a day off/hungover, his deputyshould have attended tge scene. To have left poor dead Sophie in that boreen for over 24 hours is inexcusable.
Aidric wrote: » She phoned twice from a public phone box using the alias Fiona. She then makes a third call from her home address using the same alias allowing Gardai to trace the call. Why the sudden change in tack?
Foggy Jew wrote: » Chuck Noland wrote: » I’m amazed that the state PATHOLOGIST gets such a pass in all this? He’s hungover after his birthday and doesn’t bother traveling to Cork until the next day? A pathologist is the doctor who performs the post mortem examination. A coroner is the state official who holds an inquest to establish who died, where they died, when they died & how they died. But you are correct. If he was on a day off/hungover, his deputyshould have attended tge scene. To have left poor dead Sophie in that boreen for over 24 hours is inexcusable. I don’t think he had a deputy at the time ofSophie’s murder. The man couldn’t be everywhere, and it would be unreasonable to expect him to be on call 24/7/365. He gave instructions for the body to be moved - but the instructions were not acted on by local Gardai.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » From what I remember, she said on her last pay phone call that she would meet gardai at a certain time but rang to cancel at the last minute from her house, maybe she panicked and wasn’t thinking right. She doesn’t seem the sharpest.
Ken Mc Carthy wrote: » Wasn't there rumours knocking around at the time that the buck in the car with her was a gard????
MoonUnit75 wrote: » Maybe, I’m not interested in the Garda conspiracy theories though, particularly madcap theories that a Garda saw a murder suspect and preferred to say nothing while the person they were with gave statement after statement.
cloudatlas wrote: » If her husband or someone else from france killed her wouldn't they be on flight or ferry passenger lists?
qwerty13 wrote: » Foggy Jew wrote: » I don’t think he had a deputy at the time ofSophie’s murder. The man couldn’t be everywhere, and it would be unreasonable to expect him to be on call 24/7/365. He gave instructions for the body to be moved - but the instructions were not acted on by local Gardai. Given that Murder was a very rare event in those days it is not unreasonable to expect immediate attention by the responsible authority.
Foggy Jew wrote: » I don’t think he had a deputy at the time ofSophie’s murder. The man couldn’t be everywhere, and it would be unreasonable to expect him to be on call 24/7/365. He gave instructions for the body to be moved - but the instructions were not acted on by local Gardai.
Welshprince wrote: » qwerty13 wrote: » Given that Murder was a very rare event in those days it is not unreasonable to expect immediate attention by the responsible authority. Then they should have had more people doing the job. He wasn’t working that day and wasn’t reachable for most of it.
qwerty13 wrote: » Given that Murder was a very rare event in those days it is not unreasonable to expect immediate attention by the responsible authority.
thomas 123 wrote: » You would have to wonder though, they surly could not have been so inept: - no photos of the fire
a_squirrelman wrote: » Welshprince wrote: » Then they should have had more people doing the job. He wasn’t working that day and wasn’t reachable for most of it. Why would they need more people doing the job? How many murders do you think were happening back then? Murder in Ireland was something sensational because it was a very rare event, this, compared to many other Countries is still a fairly civilized place to live.
Welshprince wrote: » Then they should have had more people doing the job. He wasn’t working that day and wasn’t reachable for most of it.
mikemac2 wrote: » Netflix had a photo of the fire We burned rubbish down home in rural Tipperary but it seems in Cork you do it a mere 5 metres from your back door I was struck how close to the house that fire was. Just no common sense at all, nobody starts a fire metres from your house. Even if your back garden is tiny you don't do that.
Welshprince wrote: » a_squirrelman wrote: » Why would they need more people doing the job? How many murders do you think were happening back then? Murder in Ireland was something sensational because it was a very rare event, this, compared to many other Countries is still a fairly civilized place to live. Because you are saying there should have been immediate attention from an unreachable person on their day off.
a_squirrelman wrote: » Why would they need more people doing the job? How many murders do you think were happening back then? Murder in Ireland was something sensational because it was a very rare event, this, compared to many other Countries is still a fairly civilized place to live.
odyssey06 wrote: » Nothing madcap about it. Given pages have been deliberate destroyed from the evidence book. Given other pieces of physical evidence has been lost. Given the Guards are happy to accept MF's evidence but have not established who she with, as loing as they can use it in their fit up job. This is what corruption looks like. This is what perverting the course of justice looks like. “It is of serious concern that... members of An Garda Síochána involved in the investigation, including the officer responsible for preparing the report for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, were prepared to contemplate altering, modifying or suppressing evidence that did not assist them in furthering their belief that Mr Bailey murdered Madame Toscan du Plantier.”https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20447206.html Madcap indeed. Corrupt as ****, as bad as any criminals, and as corrupt as this are capable of anything.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » Chief Supt Con Cadogan of the West Cork Garda Division, who heads up the murder investigation, told The Irish Times Mr Bailey was “perfectly entitled” to write to the commissioner seeking a review of the original investigation. But he pointed out the case had already been the subject of at least three reviews , one by Chief Supt Austin McNally in 2002, one by Assistant Commissioner Ray McAndrew in 2005 and one by the Garda ombusman (Gsoc) which reported in 2018. “All three reviews found no evidence of any conspiracy to frame Mr Bailey - Gsoc found there were failings in the Garda management of the original case but they found no evidence of any garda trying to pervert the course of justice. “In fact, Gsoc was quite clear and I quote: ‘There is no evidence to suggest that Ian Bailey was ‘framed’ for the murder or that evidence was falsified, forged or fabricated by members of An Garda Síochána’.” Chief Supt Cadogan said Mr Bailey in his original complaint to Gsoc relied on comments by DPP solicitor, Robert Sheehan, in a 2001 review regarding the Garda investigation being flawed as evidence of Garda corruption. But he pointed out Gsoc was quite clear following its seven year long inquiry, which involved interviewing some 55 witnesses and reviewing the original file, that Mr Sheehan’s criticism of the Garda file was not evidence of corruption. “Gsoc noted ‘This critique is the opinion of the DPP and is not evidential in and of itself. There is no evidence within the critique that members of the Garda Síochána had attempted to pervert the course of justice’,” he said.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ian-bailey-seeks-new-review-of-garda-investigation-into-du-plantier-murder-1.4572952
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9a4b6f81bcce70b1d15bba9354ad9550.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9a4952ab90540098eee4dc1853b171f0.svg)
