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

babybuilder

bingobars wrote: »

Baileys car would have been a hotbed of evidence. Ok ok investigation was not great but why never discussed???

Was thinking that very thing myself. Keystone cops. Why are they never ever held to account?

[Deleted User]

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

With due respect, what's the point of your post???. Nobody, but nobody, is denying it was a very "flawed", dare I say it 'amateurish' investigation......thats what it was. Ultimately, the guards put all their "eggs" into one basket......' this Bailey chap ticks all the boxes, he'll do'. If gsoc/ guards drive on with another dozen 'reviews' it ain't ever going to change the end result....the whole investigation was handled dismally. / it was flawed from the off

dublin49

just finished watching Sophie,Much more informative than Sheridans one,I found most of the witnesses convincing and am more of the view that Bailey did commit the murder.

[Deleted User]

dublin49 wrote: »

just finished watching Sophie,Much more informative than Sheridans one,I found most of the witnesses convincing and am more of the view that Bailey did commit the murder.

I'm definitely of OPPOSITE view...... that NF documentary was totally one sided, a lynch job without any answers, that kangaroo court thing in France......when IB solicitor was asked if he'd watch the trial he said ' what's the point, he'll be found guilty' . He was right on the money there

odyssey06

dublin49 wrote: »

just finished watching Sophie,Much more informative than Sheridans one,I found most of the witnesses convincing and am more of the view that Bailey did commit the murder.

Cross check some of the witnesses names versus how the DPP evaluated their evidence:
https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/30/

If Guy Girard is one of the witnesses, ask yourself why he took several years to 'remember' his evidence in connection with a murder.

dublin49

odyssey06 wrote: »

Cross check some of the witnesses names versus how the DPP evaluated their evidence:
https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/30/

If Guy Girard is one of the witnesses, ask yourself why he took several years to 'remember' his evidence in connection with a murder.

I would imagine the DPP was never goin to allow the shambolic investigation into court,for Bailey to be telling the truth ,lots of ordinary locals need to be lying for no apparent reason.I dont see me changing my mind now and that probly goes for all on both threads.

odyssey06

dublin49 wrote: »

I would imagine the DPP was never goin to allow the shambolic investigation into court,for Bailey to be telling the truth ,lots of ordinary locals need to be lying for no apparent reason.I dont see me changing my mind now and that probly goes for all on both threads.

They don't have to be lying.
People don't remember nearly as well as they think they do.
They misunderstand, misinterpret, remember things in the wrong order.
They notice things after a murder has been announced they didn't notice the previous day.

ctrl-alt-delete

I'm just baffled how you lose a gate?

[Deleted User]

odyssey06 wrote: »

They don't have to be lying.
People don't remember nearly as well as they think they do.
They misunderstand, misinterpret, remember things in the wrong order.

Or to use the new phrase "HERD IMMUNITY "

OwlsZat

bingobars wrote: »

Baileys car would have been a hotbed of evidence. Ok ok investigation was not great but why never discussed???

He thumbed a lift home the Saturday from Murphy's house. He was on foot when seen at the bridge. Not sure he was even driving at the time.

I got the impression that his relationship with Jules was partly because he had o money and she would have a place for him to stay.

Anyways, I didn't once here his explanation for his matress burning or soaking the coat beside the shower and then burning it. There's no doubt enough evidence for a Jury to convict. It's more a case of why didn't the DPP want the case to be taken?

[Deleted User]

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

I'm just baffled how you lose a gate?

Like it wasn't a handy gate like a side gate or a doggie gate.....it was massive!!!!!

OwlsZat

odyssey06 wrote: »

They don't have to be lying.
People don't remember nearly as well as they think they do.
They misunderstand, misinterpret, remember things in the wrong order.
They notice things after a murder has been announced they didn't notice the previous day.

If your trying to make out like a lead suspect in a murder "misremembered" not getting up the exact time of the murder or that he was in fact that he slept on his friends couch the previous night then your wrong. He's literally misremembered his movements at the exact time of the murder and the previous 24 hours.

If he had the correct movements and some incorrect timings. All good but to "misremember" two facts that implicate him in the murder. Naa not for me. I'd be calling that deliberate lying to try to avoid getting charged with the murder. Possibly the biggest red flag on earth.

odyssey06

OwlsZat wrote: »

He thumbed a lift home the Saturday from Murphy's house. He was on foot when seen at the bridge. Not sure he was even driving at the time.
I got the impression that his relationship with Jules was partly because he had o money and she would have a place for him to stay.
Anyways, I didn't once here his explanation for his matress burning or soaking the coat beside the shower and then burning it. There's no doubt enough evidence for a Jury to convict. It's more a case of why didn't the DPP want the case to be taken?

The evidence you have come across hasn't been challenged by a defence barrister.
If serving on a jury, you wouldn't convict after hearing one side only.

No motive.
No forensics.
No eye witness placing Bailey at the crime scene.

An extremely unreliable eye witness putting him (or maybe not him) in the vicinity, who wouldn't stand up to any kind of cross examination.

Circumstansial evidence most of which the DPP discredits on closer examination.
See "14. Fire on the Thomas property"
https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/30/

Gussie Scrotch

OwlsZat wrote: »

He thumbed a lift home the Saturday from Murphy's house. He was on foot when seen at the bridge. Not sure he was even driving at the time.

I got the impression that his relationship with Jules was partly because he had o money and she would have a place for him to stay.

Anyways, I didn't once here his explanation for his matress burning or soaking the coat beside the shower and then burning it. There's no doubt enough evidence for a Jury to convict. It's more a case of why didn't the DPP want the case to be taken?

You can read the DPPs reasoning here :https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/

OwlsZat

Ken Mc Carthy wrote: »

Like it wasn't a handy gate like a side gate or a doggie gate.....it was massive!!!!!

If you were Sophie's family you'd be raging and rightly so. Love to hear the gates last known movements. Makes you wonder was Bailey blackmailing someone in the Guards to do some of his bidding. Loosing it is frankly implausible.

Loosing the gate, and the DPP not taking the case leads me to suspect something greater was at play.

[Deleted User]

. There's no doubt enough evidence for a Jury to convict. It's more a case of why didn't the DPP want the case to be taken?[/QUOTE]

SERIOUSLY??? Did you even watch the documentary??? It would be been laughed out of court, acquitted in under an hour. The dpp had nothing to "run with"

Gussie Scrotch

OwlsZat wrote: »

If your trying to make out like a lead suspect in a murder "misremembered" not getting up the exact time of the murder or that he was in fact that he slept on his friends couch the previous night then your wrong. He's literally misremembered his movements at the exact time of the murder and the previous 24 hours.

If he had the correct movements and some incorrect timings. All good but to "misremember" two facts that implicate him in the murder. Naa not for me. I'd be calling that deliberate lying to try to avoid getting charged with the murder. Possibly the biggest red flag on earth.

No body knows the exact time of the murder.

OwlsZat

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

You can read the DPPs reasoning here :https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/

Thanks for that will definitely read. Am I wrong in saying Graham Dwyer was convicted on circumstantial evidence?

Gussie Scrotch

OwlsZat wrote: »

Thanks for that will definitely read. Am I wrong in saying Graham Dwyer was convicted on circumstantial evidence?

Sorry, don't know. I'm not familiar with that case.

acequion

Just found this thread which seems very interesting.

Can anyone tell me how long it will stay on Netflix as it says "limited series" and how many episodes are there? Thanks a lot.

Nozebleed

There has to be a local guard involved in this murder, maybe along side MF, someone well established in the community who has influence a land owner.

IB is a horrible man, i genuinely think his demeanour is odd, he's a typical nob but an innocent man in fairness.

was there any input from local politicians in the documentary? who were the local politicians at the time?

sigmundv

acequion wrote:

Can anyone tell me how long it will stay on Netflix as it says "limited series" and how many episodes are there? Thanks a lot.

There are three episodes, which is what 'limited' refers to.

[Deleted User]

odyssey06 wrote: »

The evidence you have come across hasn't been challenged by a defence barrister.
If serving on a jury, you wouldn't convict after hearing one side only.

No motive.
No forensics.
No eye witness placing Bailey at the crime scene.

An extremely unreliable eye witness putting him (or maybe not him) in the vicinity, who wouldn't stand up to any kind of cross examination.

Circumstansial evidence most of which the DPP discredits on closer examination.
See "14. Fire on the Thomas property"
https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/30/

"She says that she noticed the fire on 26 December 1996.
After a period of four months her recollection could easily be in error as to the date."

Recalling a key date in Ireland, such as St Stephen's Day, incorrectly, I think is very unlikely.

So the DPP is leaning incorrectly on that one.

dublin49

OwlsZat wrote: »

He thumbed a lift home the Saturday from Murphy's house. He was on foot when seen at the bridge. Not sure he was even driving at the time.

I got the impression that his relationship with Jules was partly because he had o money and she would have a place for him to stay.

Anyways, I didn't once here his explanation for his matress burning or soaking the coat beside the shower and then burning it. There's no doubt enough evidence for a Jury to convict. It's more a case of why didn't the DPP want the case to be taken?

In my view the DPP was all too aware of the shortcomings of the investigation and the likely fiasco of the case collasping in court due to lack of adherence to due diligence and therefore as stated in "Sophie" he gave the benefit of all doubt to Bailey so he could rule insufficient evidence,bit like a bishop paying off a case to prevent reputational damage,Sophie missed out on justice for the perceived greater good.

tibruit

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

I'm just baffled how you lose a gate?

Depends where it was. Gates used to get lifted in the countryside as often as bikes get lifted in Dublin. Not so much any more with cctv. It seems ridiculous that the guards might have stored it outside, but there you go.

odyssey06

OwlsZat wrote: »

If your trying to make out like a lead suspect in a murder "misremembered" not getting up the exact time of the murder or that he was in fact that he slept on his friends couch the previous night then your wrong. He's literally misremembered his movements at the exact time of the murder and the previous 24 hours.
If he had the correct movements and some incorrect timings. All good but to "misremember" two facts that implicate him in the murder. Naa not for me. I'd be calling that deliberate lying to try to avoid getting charged with the murder. Possibly the biggest red flag on earth.

I was talking about witnesses, whose recollections are notoriously unreliable, the more so the elapsed time between the event and interview.

It's a red flag you know the "exact time" of the murder.
What was the "exact time"?
Because no exact time has ever been specified.

I expect some of Bailey's misremembering is down to being drunk and possibly having a blackout.

MoonUnit75

odyssey06 wrote: »

That's why you 'lose' the evidence, so GSOC can't find it.
What did the DPP say about the missing pages from the evidence book?

GSOC said the pages appear to have been removed sometime after the McNally review in 2002 as that investigation into the actions of the gardai would have noted them. They also re-interviewed many of the original witnesses and asked them if they recognised and stood over their original statements. The report mentions only MF, IB and JT questioning their original statements.

They sent the statements which MF said were filled in by gardai for expert forensic analysis and this did not show anything untoward or unexpected, the ink used for all of the writing on the pages matched and they also examined the indentations on pages beneath other pages, which did not back up her claims that statements were altered after she signed them.

MoonUnit75

odyssey06 wrote: »

I was talking about witnesses, whose recollections are notoriously unreliable, the more so the elapsed time between the event and interview.

It's a red flag you know the "exact time" of the murder.
What was the "exact time"?
Because no exact time has ever been specified.

I expect some of Bailey's misremembering is down to being drunk and possibly having a blackout.

Witness statements were given in testimony at the libel trial, statements that the DPP regarded as ‘unreliable’ in print (the DPP didn’t actually speak to any of them) stood up in open court, Judge Moran mentioned them by name in his judgement.

MoonUnit75

dublin49 wrote: »

In my view the DPP was all too aware of the shortcomings of the investigation and the likely fiasco of the case collasping in court due to lack of adherence to due diligence and therefore as stated in "Sophie" he gave the benefit of all doubt to Bailey so he could rule insufficient evidence,bit like a bishop paying off a case to prevent reputational damage,Sophie missed out on justice for the perceived greater good.

As above, the same investigation played out under cross-examination in Bailey’s libel case and stood up to scrutiny. The DPP was completely wrong IMO to disregard and discredit every single witness except the accused and those close to him.

Gussie Scrotch

dublin49 wrote: »

In my view the DPP was all too aware of the shortcomings of the investigation and the likely fiasco of the case collasping in court due to lack of adherence to due diligence and therefore as stated in "Sophie" he gave the benefit of all doubt to Bailey so he could rule insufficient evidence,bit like a bishop paying off a case to prevent reputational damage,Sophie missed out on justice for the perceived greater good.

No,

They analysed, forensically dissected and comprehensively demolished every single facet of the case presented by the Gardai. Line by line.

Not only that, they heavily criticised the approach and methods used by the Gardai to in their attempts to achieve the required outcomes.

Its right here in black and white: https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/