Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

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.

Yes, that does make sense insofar as a theoretical hitman would likely not want to make it obvious that it was an organised , planned assassination.

However, my problem with this theory, is that a professional hitman would also be unlikely to leave the body in a totally exposed position. By hiding it in some way...carrying her back into the house for example, he would probably delay the discovery....for hours at least and maybe even days.

If it was a hitman, it is more than reasonable to assume that it was arranged by the husband, in France, and that the hitman would have come from France and would have to return. An extra few hours or a day or so, would probably guarantee a clean escape.

you know that question, you get asked an odd time... if you could go back in time to witness something what would it be... for me, I think it is this... I dont need to see Jesus rising from the dead... just give me a glimpse of the STDP murder.

tibruit wrote: »

My point is that he did know her and it went beyond an introduction that he would nevertheless have remembered. The point surely is why he denies it. Remember he also initially lied about being out of his bed for several hours on the night of the murder. He got caught out on that one too when Jules dropped him in it. At the outset he was lying to put some distance between himself and Sophie.

He got caught on some lies. He had to accept what Jules said. Jules was his life support and he was on thin ice with her at the time because he had put her in hospital six months previously. He ploughed on with the not meeting Sophie lie. Alfie wasn`t sure and the French accusations came later.

It didn't go beyond the introductions.
Can you explain why it took so long for these French 'witnesses' to 'remember' that Sophie was planning to meet 'Bailey'?
What were they doing in between, on an Arctic expedition?
They must have been aware Sophie was murdered, and they didn't think this was pertinent information?
But no.. years later, and in one case was it a decade later?

Can you explain how Sophie based in France could be in contact with Bailey and leave no phone records, no letters & in Ireland no witness ever having seen the two of them together?

odyssey06 wrote: »

It didn't go beyond the introductions.
Can you explain why it took so long for these French 'witnesses' to 'remember' that Sophie was planning to meet 'Bailey'?
What were they doing in between, on an Arctic expedition?
They must have been aware Sophie was murdered, and they didn't think this was pertinent information?
But no.. years later, and in one case was it a decade later?

Can you explain how Sophie based in France could be in contact with Bailey and leave no phone records, no letters, no witness ever having seen the two of them together?

Sophie was a regular visitor to Ireland. Bailey attended Alfies parties and did some gardening for him. I`d say Alfie`s film producer neighbor was at forefront of his mind for a long time. If he didn`t bump into her accidentally on purpose in the village, I`d be amazed if he didn`t knock on her door. He is delusional about his artistic talent and was constantly on the lookout for his next gig. He wrote a film script for David Puttnam at one point.

He might have only met her once or twice before the night of the murder. She could have rejected him artistically. I seem to remember that during the libel trial, the only time he became agitated was when one witness made a derogatory remark about his poetry. He never batted an eyelid through accounts of his assault on Jules.

Why would there be letters or phone calls? It is possible that Sophie might have considered him tall, dark, handsome and articulate, so he might have made a good first impression but I`d say if she met him twice, she would had enough of him.

tibruit wrote: »

Sophie was a regular visitor to Ireland. Bailey attended Alfies parties and did some gardening for him. I`d say Alfie`s film producer neighbor was at forefront of his mind for a long time. If he didn`t bump into her accidentally on purpose in the village, I`d be amazed if he didn`t knock on her door. He is delusional about his artistic talent and was constantly on the lookout for his next gig. He wrote a film script for David Puttnam at one point.

He might have only met her once or twice before the night of the murder. She could have rejected him artistically. I seem to remember that during the libel trial, the only time he became agitated was when one witness made a derogatory remark about his poetry. He never batted an eyelid through accounts of his assault on Jules.

Why would there be letters or phone calls? It is possible that Sophie might have considered him tall, dark, handsome and articulate, so he might have made a good first impression but I`d say if she met him twice, she would had enough of him.

There's a lot of could haves \ might haves. It's a bit of a fantasy to be honest?
We have nothing to put the two of them together in Cork ever apart from one brief meeting in the previous year, we have nobody coming forward putting Bailey at her place in that year even.
We don't even have Alfie saying "Ian was always dropping hints to me to invite Sophie to the parties..."

Not sure when this liaison is supposed to have started but Sophie's wasn't in town for long.
It seems reasonable to expect phone calls in 1996, Bailey mightn't have wanted calls at his home number but Sophie would have had no reason not to receive them.
Was there a pattern of calls to Sophie's house (either France or here) from phone boxes in the area?

Sophie hardly looked like she was expecting a visitor that night and post midnight is not exactly the time to make an first time artistic liaison with the view to something more.

tibruit wrote: »

Sophie was a regular visitor to Ireland. Bailey attended Alfies parties and did some gardening for him. I`d say Alfie`s film producer neighbor was at forefront of his mind for a long time. If he didn`t bump into her accidentally on purpose in the village, I`d be amazed if he didn`t knock on her door. He is delusional about his artistic talent and was constantly on the lookout for his next gig. He wrote a film script for David Puttnam at one point.

He might have only met her once or twice before the night of the murder. She could have rejected him artistically. I seem to remember that during the libel trial, the only time he became agitated was when one witness made a derogatory remark about his poetry. He never batted an eyelid through accounts of his assault on Jules.

Why would there be letters or phone calls? It is possible that Sophie might have considered him tall, dark, handsome and articulate, so he might have made a good first impression but I`d say if she met him twice, she would had enough of him.

Her son recalled her taking him to traditional Irish music and poetry readings in pubs, she did have a deep interest in literature and poetry so I would be amazed if she didn’t find herself in IB’s presence when he was well known for impromptu poetry readings in the local pubs. Even the woman recording the video of the Christmas swim knew to ask Bailey to recite a topical poem.

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

I'm just baffled how you lose a gate?

Find the gate a retest it. This needs to be a priority.

In the Murder at the Cottage version there was one witness who recalled that Ian Bailey was at the Christmas Day swim with his "hands deep in his pockets".

Have you ever referred to anyone with their hands "deep in their pockets". Would you not just say that he had his hands in his pockets.

It almost suggests that by having his hands deep in his pockets he was trying to hide them. (his scratches). It sounds as if the wording of the witness statement was helped along.

In the Netflix version the detective said that they did not find his black coat. It was even suggested that buttons were found in the fire. In the Murder at the Cottage version there is a Garda statement that he the Garda took the black coat away for examination. The same detective said in the Murder at the Cottage version that they never found the black coat, yet one of his men has a statement saying that he took it away.

Would it be easy to burn a coat that had been soaking in a water filled bucket/bath in a back garden on a winter's day. Was there any evidence to show that petrol was used in the back garden fire.

I wonder how far have we really come since the days of the witch trials?

He's a bit weird

He probably secretly knew her

He was divorced so he probably hated women

He beat up his girlfriend

...convict him for the murder of the French woman.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I wonder how far have we really come since the days of the witch trials?

He's a bit weird

He probably secretly knew her

He was divorced so he probably hated women

He beat up his girlfriend

...convict him for the murder of the French woman.

He lied about his alibi, first said he was at home all night but then suddenly remembers he did leave his house in the middle of the night to work on an article in a cold, dark uninhabited studio up the road. If you got home drunk and then got up and rolled up your sleeves to do some work in the middle of the night, you might remember that.

He admitted he had scratches on his hands and a small cut on his forehead. He denied having a fire directly behind the studio but two neighbours said he did, one was only in the area over the Christmas period.

He called into people after the gardai visited to find out what they asked and what they were told.

He wrote an article on the 26th which said there was no indication of sexual assault, this had not been publicly released.

He told around 10-11 people he did it, claiming it was humour or programmed into his head by the gardai.

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

He lied about his alibi, first said he was at home all night but then suddenly remembers he did leave his house in the middle of the night to work on an article in a cold, dark uninhabited studio up the road. If you got home drunk and then got up and rolled up your sleeves to do some work in the middle of the night, you might remember that.

He admitted he had scratches on his hands and a small cut on his forehead. He denied having a fire directly behind the studio but two neighbours said he did, one was only in the area over the Christmas period.

He called into people after the gardai visited to find out what they asked and what they were told.

He wrote an article on the 26th which said there was no indication of sexual assault, this had not been publicly released.

He told around 10-11 people he did it, claiming it was humour or programmed into his head by the gardai.

You're not being totally fair.

It's difficult to remember the timeline of things you did a few days ago.

He says he was home but later remembered he went to the little house at the end of his garden. Is that technically still at home? He's an alcoholic with three children in the house. He was drunk that night. It is absolutely believable he went down to the little house to continue drinking. Can you say this means he was technically not at "home"? I guess so, but it's not very fair.

But regardless, he remembered he actually went down to the little house and told the police this. There's nothing wrong with remembering extra details and then correcting your previous statement.

Regarding the fire, we have three different dates from four people. So who knows what's true. I also feel this is very weak. "He lit a fire so he's the murderer". Surely we've moved beyond that sort of madness?

The scratches, definitely not great. He does have a witness (one of Jules' daughters) that said she was with him as he was cutting down the tree. Also, surely if he was covered in scratches from murdering someone he'd be covering them up with long sleeves?

The article about knowing she was not sexually assaulted is definitely suspicious. However maybe a guard told him this? He was at the scene of the crime every day, so someone might have said "it seems she wasn't raped" and he ran with this. This is pretty standard for tabloid journalism and it seems he was trying to get sensationalist articles published every day. He does appear to be a sleazy tabloid journalist.

He sarcastically referred to himself as the killer.

So what evidence do we have? Literally nothing.

I can accept a case being made about the article (knowing she wasn't sexually assaulted) and the claims he's the killer, but these are really weak and I find it worrying I live in a society where people so confidently cast guilt on people based on almost nothing.

dublin49 wrote: »

The issue I have with the Bailey is innocent side of the discussion is there seems to be no acceptance that 10 pieces of circumstantial evidence are much stronger than one or two.If the only evidence were the scratches or his changing Alibi ,or the confessions ,or the fire , etc etc.I would agree no case to answer, but the scale of suspiciousness around him suggests to me he has a case to answer.

OK, I see your angle.

For what its worth, my position is not that he's innocent, but that his guilt is not proven .

And to be moved from that position, I would want to see at least one of the following:

A forensic link.
or
A motive
or
Definitive conformation that they had ever interacted ( not Alfie's 90% memory or introducing them) Even someone confirming seeing them in conversation.

With one or more of the above, the "circumstantial" evidence would, for me, be more convincing.

odyssey06 wrote: »

The Guards tried all they could including coercing witnesses and they came up with very little.
The DPP went over the 'case' he had to answer and concluded there wasn't enough evidence for a trial - well their conclusion is stronger than that and criticising the Garda investigation on multiple levels.

And let's say if you are totting up points per 'suspicious activity', let's look at the scratches.
The DPP report cites witnesses who claim to have seen scratches before the murder, and attest to the activities claimed as their cause.
So it's very debateable whether the scratches are even circumstantial evidence and should even warrant a point.
So can you really give a 'suspicion point' for the scratches?
Or should points be deducted for the lack of forensics at the scene.
If he got the scratches at the scene, where's the hair fibres, clothes fibres, fingerprints, blood, DNA. It's just not there.

Should points be deduced for Bailey being so forthcoming with forensic samples?

Should points also be deducted for the lack of motive?
Lack of "conformation that they had ever interacted"?
Lack of reliable witnesses putting him at the scene? Marie Farrell's testimony is very unreliable, and the location described doesn't even make sense for Bailey.

Yes, even some of the circumstantial evidence is questionable in the context of the Garda obvious attempts to make witness statements etc fit their preferred outcomes. I am particularly concerned by the inexplicable "loss" of exhibits, witness statements and job records, all of which had the potential to implicate or exonerate IB.

Nevertheless, a single piece of direct evidence, even a credible motive, may sway me.

quokula wrote: »

The problem is that you end up with dozens and dozens of individual things that you could wave away individually, but they add up and it gets hard to believe that they're all just a massive sequence of coincidences and misunderstandings.

It's mostly "his word versus their's" and you need to believe Ian Bailey every single time, even when the other person has no skin in the game and has no reason to lie. Multiple people say he confessed. He knew things he shouldn't have soon after the crime. He lied about disappearing out of the house in the middle of the night at the time of the crime until Jules said otherwise in her statement, she also said he made comments earlier that night about going to Alfie's, and that he acquired the scratch while he was out (now denying that of course, but it's another case of one person's word against the other's, and when you're comparing written statements that the police took against someone who's implicated in the crime and keeps changing their story, you'd be mad to take Bailey's side on that one)

The only court of law in which he was ever tried, which was presided over by multiple experienced and independent judges, found him guilty. The police who investigated the crime believe he is guilty. Multiple independent people say he told them he did it. He's committed extreme violence against women in the past. Every time he's taken a civil case he's ended up just digging a worse hole for himself in court. None of that paints a positive picture for Bailey.

Let's go through everything you said:

"Multiple people say he confessed"

OK but he hasn't confessed and in fact has spent over two decades saying he's totally innocent.

"He knew things he shouldn't have soon after the crime"

He's a literal investigative reporter who was investigating the crime.

"He lied about disappearing out of the house in the middle of the night at the time of the crime"

He didn't though, he just forget he went out to the house in their back garden. It's quite normal to forget things you did the other day. For example, did I go to the shops on Saturday? I don't think so... but there's probably a receipt someone can produce to prove I'm "lying".

"she also said he made comments earlier that night about going to Alfie's"

He didn't go to Alfie's though.

"he acquired the scratch while he was out (now denying that of course, but it's another case of one person's word against the other's, and when you're comparing written statements that the police took against someone who's implicated in the crime and keeps changing their story, you'd be mad to take Bailey's side on that one)"

The DPP said people saw him with the scratches before the murder.

"The only court of law in which he was ever tried, which was presided over by multiple experienced and independent judges, found him guilty."

Surely this is an embarrassment though? He was found guilty of murder with literally no evidence. The Irish government won't even extradite him because they think it's a farce.

"The police who investigated the crime believe he is guilty."

They also paid people to pretend to be his friend and asked witnesses to lie.

"He's committed extreme violence against women in the past. "

Doesn't make him a murderer though.

As I said earlier, this is exactly like the witch trials. "Well she's a bit weird and someone said they heard her saying something which sounded like a satanic prayer, and the priest thinks she's a witch so... let's burn her".

Really goes to show we haven't really progressed at all.

Living Off The Splash wrote: »

In the Murder at the Cottage version there was one witness who recalled that Ian Bailey was at the Christmas Day swim with his "hands deep in his pockets".

Have you ever referred to anyone with their hands "deep in their pockets". Would you not just say that he had his hands in his pockets.

It almost suggests that by having his hands deep in his pockets he was trying to hide them. (his scratches). It sounds as if the wording of the witness statement was helped along.

In the Netflix version the detective said that they did not find his black coat. It was even suggested that buttons were found in the fire. In the Murder at the Cottage version there is a Garda statement that he the Garda took the black coat away for examination. The same detective said in the Murder at the Cottage version that they never found the black coat, yet one of his men has a statement saying that he took it away.

Would it be easy to burn a coat that had been soaking in a water filled bucket/bath in a back garden on a winter's day. Was there any evidence to show that petrol was used in the back garden fire.

What's worse is that the footage from the Xmas day swim shows his carrying a camera around in his hand with both hands out of his pockets.

Made even worse by the fact that the lady giving the statement is the owner of the footage, which she shot herself.

If anything all she has proved is how unreliable witness testimony can be.

How is it possible that she gave a statement that doesn't match up with footage that she made herself. How hard would it have been to think "I recall he has his hands deep in his pockets but I could always just check my footage to be sure".

Very telling also that Netflix used stock footage, or their own specifically made footage, of an Xmas swim as opposed to the actual footage of THE Xmas swim. Possibly because the real footage shows Bailey wandering around in his big black coat 48 hours after the murder with his hands on show for all to see?

I wonder if he had been wearing gloves in the far West of Ireland on Xmas Day that this would have been used against him?