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

Living Off The Splash

Just watched the Netflix version and half way through the Sheridan version "Murder at the Cottage".

It's amazing the subtle but important differences and detail between the two versions.

The Black Coat, The scratches on the Hand, The blood on the door.....

nc6000

FileNotFound wrote: »

Just watching it now and very start - does the medical examiner lie about when he arrived on scene.

Real life he was called but refused to travel until the following day as he was at a party drinking.

But in the Netflix doc he claims to have been there in 12 hrs.

What's the source for your allegation he refused to travel because he was at a party?

mossie

FileNotFound wrote: »

Just watching it now and very start - does the medical examiner lie about when he arrived on scene.

Real life he was called but refused to travel until the following day as he was at a party drinking.

But in the Netflix doc he claims to have been there in 12 hrs.

Want that the guy from the Garda forensic dept, not the medical examiner?

MoonUnit75

dark crystal wrote: »

It's quite clear she changed her story. Sure, I posted what she said in her initial statement and what she said in the Netflix documentary was different.

What am I getting wrong exactly?

You said her story 'morphed' from clothes in the bath in her statement to a coat in a bucket on Netflix. In the Netflix interview she said the bucket was also in the shower. The two statements are logically consistent.

What are the exact words in her statement? Are you relying on a court reporter to give an exact word for word account of her statement and then accusing her of changing her story?

Gussie Scrotch

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

You said the GSOC report was 'the biggest cover-up of all' or words to that effect, how is it then that IB's legal team failed to demonstrate any of these claims in his civil case against the gardai?

OK, thanks,

I'm interpreting this question to mean that your contention is, that because Bailey's legal representatives failed to convince a jury of the validity of his case, then the GSOC report must, therefore be sound and my claim that it was utter rubbish must be incorrect.

In my opinion, there were many reasons for Bailey's High Court failure.

And the fact that the GSOC report concluded that there was no evidence to support Bailey's complaints is, I grant you, one important element of that outcome.

I would, however posit that Bailey's reputation and the beliefs and prejudices driven by the media, were a more significant factor. For this reason alone, I think that the decision to launch this action was misjudged.

Nonetheless, you have a point insofar as the report did not find evidence of corruption etc.

I still maintain that the report itself was an appalling example of cover up and of the "old boys club" environment that was eventually recognised after a number of similar scandals and resulted in the appointment of a necessary "new broom" in Drew Harris.

So, I accept your point ( if my interpretation of it was correct ) that the outcome of Bailey's High Court action does not support my contention.

But I maintain that the report itself is shameful and cowardly cover up.

lawrencesummers

I liked the way the Netflix doc kept their focus on the victim.

They were quick to dismiss anyone other than Bailey as the killer and didn’t highlight enough the mess made of the investigation by the Gardai.

They should have been able to link the woman beater two miles up the road to the beaten woman found dead and been proactive investigating him.

The ‘evidence’ when looked at collectively makes it appear only one person could have done it, but when you look at any of the evidence in isolation it’s not enough to convict anyone.

I’m not surprised the DPP never proceeded.

It’s a pity Jules didn’t have the strength to report the assaults on her. She is another victim in all of this.

Loafing Oaf

odyssey06 wrote: »

They had no emotional connection OR romantic relationship.

There is no evidence that Bailey is a scientologist either. Can you say with absolute certainty that he isn't?

easy peasy

easy peasy wrote: »

I've spent quite a bit of time down in West Cork and have a few friends down there. I would say that most initially felt it was Bailey but with the passing of time they are less sure.

In fact, most of them that I have spoken to feel that there's a less than 50% chance that it was him. But feel that he was completely stitched up by the Gardai.

I don't believe there has ever been an adequate apology or repercussions for the quality of the Garda investigation. The family have now had 25 years of suffering. Bailey may in fact be innocent, but his life has been ruined. The circus just rolls on.

One point that I would add on this is that over the years, the amount of information and statements that have gradually been given is really extraordinary.

I think there are two reasons for this: 1. an appalling culture and collection of individuals around the area who just did not want any involvement in the case even if they might have had a significant lead and 2. a general distrust of the Gardai and a feeling that if information was given that they might then become a suspect.

Gussie Scrotch

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

There is no evidence that Bailey is a scientologist either. Can you say with absolute certainty that he isn't?

You raise a good point.

Proving a negative is a very difficult thing to do.

And that, effectively, is what Bailey is faced with. He has, for many, being tried and convicted and finds himself in exactly this dilemma.

odyssey06

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

There is no evidence that Bailey is a scientologist either. Can you say with absolute certainty that he isn't?

I can say that beyond a reasonable doubt there is no evidence to support it, on the basis that Bailey has been investigated by the authorities and no such evidence was forthcoming of any prior relationship.
I think people understand what is meant by the statement when used in that way.

Anyone proposing the alternative is engaged in conjecture and mere speculation without evidence.

Mackinac

odyssey06 wrote: »

I can say that beyond a reasonable doubt there is no evidence to support it, on the basis that Bailey has been investigated by the authorities and no such evidence was forthcoming of any prior relationship.
I think people understand what is meant by the statement when used in that way.

Anyone proposing the alternative is engaged in conjecture and mere speculation without evidence.

On the other hand though there are lots of people I have fleetingly known in my life and have no record of but I still knew them. Just because I don’t have evidence of knowing them doesn’t mean I never met them.

OwlsZat

Notice Jules when interviewed isays that she soaked Ian's shorts which we bloody from the time he killed the turkey. She also stated that the cut on Ian's eye came after he came back to bed on the night of the the murder. So Ian got up during the night put on shorts, went killed the turkeys getting cut in the process and returned to bed.

That's after a two day bender. The chances of that series of events being true is almost zero.

Also no mention of the winter coat soaking outside the shower that the Italian student observed there.

FileNotFound

Mackinac wrote: »

On the other hand though there are lots of people I have fleetingly known in my life and have no record of but I still knew them. Just because I don’t have evidence of knowing them doesn’t mean I never met them.

In a simple legal sense (which is what our justice system works on) there was no evidence to support conviction.

After watching it all to be honest there isn't much of anything to even make a reasonable assumption.

Stories told years later, retracted statements, dodgy Gardai dealings, disaster forensics and lost evidence.

Its all a bit farcical and truly awful for the family of Sophie. even worse was the french circus trial. Shambles all round and no justice to be had now sadly.

odyssey06

Mackinac wrote: »

On the other hand though there are lots of people I have fleetingly known in my life and have no record of but I still knew them. Just because I don’t have evidence of knowing them doesn’t mean I never met them.

That's not what I said though.
I didn't say he never met her. He knew of her, and was likely introduced to her by Alfie in the garden one day. This is in his statements to AGS.

Meeting someone briefly is not a 'relationship' or 'emotional connection'.
Meeting someone briefly, unless there is something other financial or criminal entanglement, is not a motive for murder.

They were never seen together in the area.
There is no evidence of any letters, phone calls, communications between them - bearing in mind Sophie was in France most of the time, there would be a trail.

Given one of the persons involved was murdered and her past looked into... that is compelling evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

Ian Bailey had no motive to murder Sophie.

Mackinac

FileNotFound wrote: »

In a simple legal sense (which is what our justice system works on) there was no evidence to support conviction.

After watching it all to be honest there isn't much of anything to even make a reasonable assumption.

Stories told years later, retracted statements, dodgy Gardai dealings, disaster forensics and lost evidence.

Its all a bit farcical and truly awful for the family of Sophie. even worse was the french circus trial. Shambles all round and no justice to be had now sadly.

That’s the whole problem isn’t it? So much hearsay. The killer/killers got very lucky that night. Hopefully technology will catch up with them.

odyssey06

Mackinac wrote: »

That’s the whole problem isn’t it? So much hearsay. The killer/killers got very lucky that night. Hopefully technology will catch up with them.

Alas, that process would stand more chance of success had there been better preservation of the evidence

OwlsZat

Another lie appears in the form of the bonfire. Jules recalls it in October/November, Ian early December. There direct neighbors the Jacksons happy to testify that it was over the December holiday period because it was the only time that Delia Jackson was actually home.

The memory of this event wasn't old. There is no reasonable excuse for Jules to be two months out, only she knows it's incriminating. The holiday period is so unique it would anchor any memories at this time. Not to mention how unusual it would appear to be burning mattresses and clothing at a time of a murder enquiry. Can you imagine that being your partner?

Mackinac

odyssey06 wrote: »

That's not what I said though.
I didn't say he never met her. He knew of her, and was likely introduced to her by Alfie in the garden one day. This is in his statements to AGS.

Meeting someone briefly is not a 'relationship' or 'emotional connection'.
Meeting someone briefly, unless there is something other financial or criminal entanglement, is not a motive for murder.

They were never seen together in the area.
There is no evidence of any letters, phone calls, communications between them - bearing in mind Sophie was in France most of the time, there would be a trail.

Given one of the persons involved was murdered and her past looked into... that is compelling evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

Ian Bailey had no motive to murder Sophie.

For what’s it worth I agree with you, I don’t think there was any kind of romantic or emotional relationship between them. They may have crossed paths though and there just isn’t concrete evidence to prove it apart from hearsay. Crossing paths with someone shouldn’t make them a murder suspect either, lots of people are murdered by people they had no relationship with.

odyssey06

Mackinac wrote: »

For what’s it worth I agree with you, I don’t think there was any kind of romantic or emotional relationship between them. They may have crossed paths though and there just isn’t concrete evidence to prove it apart from hearsay. Crossing paths with someone shouldn’t make them a murder suspect either, lots of people are murdered by people they had no relationship with.

Yes, and well many murders are carried out without a motive, or a motive specific to the victim. But there you are usually looking at a pattern, or some other criminal motive such as robbery.

So if you want to phrase it as, he had no known personal motive that could plausibly form the basis for murdering Sophie.

Gussie Scrotch

odyssey06 wrote: »

Yes, and well many murders are carried out without a motive, or a motive specific to the victim. But there you are usually looking at a pattern, or some other criminal motive such as robbery.

So if you want to phrase it as, he had no known personal motive that could plausibly form the basis for murdering Sophie.

Yes, that puts the motive issue in a nutshell.

And, if such a motive could be established, then the case against him would be very much stronger.

OMM 0000

Mackinac wrote: »

For what’s it worth I agree with you, I don’t think there was any kind of romantic or emotional relationship between them. They may have crossed paths though and there just isn’t concrete evidence to prove it apart from hearsay. Crossing paths with someone shouldn’t make them a murder suspect either, lots of people are murdered by people they had no relationship with.

The "he knew her" angle is really clutching at straws.

Let me give an example.

There is a boards.ie user called Wibbs. He posts a lot so maybe you've seen some of his comments.

I don't know him.

Yet I've had one or two drinks with him, and he was even in my apartment once.

So, like, yeah, I've met him briefly, but I know almost nothing about him.

When he was in my apartment, there was another person with him, and I'm sure I spoke to that person a bit and even had a drink with him, but I have no idea who that was and would probably say I've never met him.

If Wibbs ends up dead, am I the killer?

dark crystal

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

You said her story 'morphed' from clothes in the bath in her statement to a coat in a bucket on Netflix. In the Netflix interview she said the bucket was also in the shower. The two statements are logically consistent.

What are the exact words in her statement? Are you relying on a court reporter to give an exact word for word account of her statement and then accusing her of changing her story?

What court reporter? She gave a written statement to the Gardai in 1999 stating that she saw dark clothes soaking in a bath and that at some stage they were removed. In the Netflix documentary, her story switches to a black coat soaking in a bucket by the shower. That's not consistent no matter how you look at it.

Anyway, no point continuing this discussion with you. Interpret her account however you wish.

tibruit

OMM 0000 wrote: »

If Wibbs ends up dead, am I the killer?

You would be a suspect if you denied knowing Wibbs and it later became apparent that you were lying. You would be in deeper if a witness said Wibbs was going to meet with you in the general time period of the murder.

odyssey06

tibruit wrote: »

You would be a suspect if you denied knowing Wibbs and it later became apparent that you were lying. You would be in deeper if a witness said Wibbs was going to meet with you in the general time period of the murder.

From the DPP report:
Bailey has steadfastly maintained that he did not know Sophie Toscan du Plantier on a personal basis. He had on 31 December 1996 indicated to the Gardaí that he had seen Sophie once about eighteen months previously.

The French 'witnesses' had no proof Sophie was planning to meet Bailey, just hearsay information and given the amount of elapsed time between the murder and when they came forward are scarcely credible.

tibruit

odyssey06 wrote: »

From the DPP report:
Bailey has steadfastly maintained that he did not know Sophie Toscan du Plantier on a personal basis. He had on 31 December 1996 indicated to the Gardaí that he had seen Sophie once about eighteen months previously.

The French 'witnesses' had no proof Sophie was planning to meet Bailey, just hearsay information and given the amount of elapsed time between the murder and when they came forward are scarcely credible.

I don`t believe Bailey at all. You are suggesting the French witnesses are inventing a story to incriminate Bailey. I don`t believe that either. Alfie was 90% certain he introduced them. There`s another Irish witness who saw Alfie introduce them. The question that really needs to be addressed is why he lied about meeting her.

odyssey06

tibruit wrote: »

I don`t believe Bailey at all. You are suggesting the French witnesses are inventing a story to incriminate Bailey. I don`t believe that either. Alfie was 90% certain he introduced them. There`s another Irish witness who saw Alfie introduce them. The question that really needs to be addressed is why he lied about meeting her.

I don't know if the French witnesses are mis-remembering, or outright lying but either way I dismiss it as evidence given how long it took them to come forward. They are not believable.
If Sophie was planning to meet Bailey where's the letters, phone call logs.
She was in France most of the time.
It simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

When did he lie about meeting her?
He said he did not 'know' her, but said he had been briefly introduced to her once in the incident described by Alfie Lyons.
It's not as if Alfie describes seeing them alone \ canoodling together somewhere.
It was a brief moment of introduction by Alfie and there may have been someone else present also.

This is from the DPP report:
"He had on 31 December 1996 indicated to the Gardaí that he had seen Sophie once about eighteen months previously and the Gardaí allege that on 21 September 2000 Bailey stated that he had seen Sophie in Schull on the Saturday before she died."

I don't know what this is about the Saturday before she died, there seems to be zero supporting evidence for it, unless it simply means he saw her about in the town from a distance.

dark crystal

tibruit wrote: »

I don`t believe Bailey at all. You are suggesting the French witnesses are inventing a story to incriminate Bailey. I don`t believe that either. Alfie was 90% certain he introduced them. There`s another Irish witness who saw Alfie introduce them. The question that really needs to be addressed is why he lied about meeting her.

The witness that claimed he saw Alfie Lyons introducing them... isn't that the same guy that testified that the guards gave him money, hash and clothing if he would get friendly with Bailey and illicit a confession from him?

OMM 0000

tibruit wrote: »

You would be a suspect if you denied knowing Wibbs and it later became apparent that you were lying. You would be in deeper if a witness said Wibbs was going to meet with you in the general time period of the murder.

My point is I'm not lying though. I don't know him. I met him briefly, maybe the moment was important and memorable to him, but to me he was just some random guy I met while having a drink. Something I've done thousands of times.

So for Ian, a very sociable extroverted person, his brief (seconds) interaction with Sophie probably counted for nothing.

Also, when you think it through, there's no advantage to him pretending he didn't casually know her. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with him saying "ah yeah the French woman down the road, I've met her once or twice". That doesn't make him guilty.

Risoc

No, it's not him.
It's a guy called Leo Bolger who was roofing Sophies.

Also didn't come forward til years later.

Edit: And then I google Leo Bolger, West Cork and see his credibility shot.

Spudmonkey

fisgon wrote: »

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.

While I don't believe the hitman angle, this was put forward by the guards as a reason this wasn't believable.

Were a hitman to arrive to kill Sophie, was he really going to do it by shooting her and making it look like it was killed by a professional? It would have been one way of directly implicating the husband.

So saying a hitman carried out a hit in an unprofessional manner as a means of proving it therefore wasn't a hitman actually goes the opposite way. In fact I would assume a "professional" hitman would actually make a murder look like it was performed by an amateur whilst simultaneously ensuring nothing was left behind at the scene.