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.
OwlsZat wrote: » I completely agree with your post. Her keys on the inside of the door suggest she opened the door to her killer. Unlikey to be someone she hadn't met before and given there shared love to poetry and his trips next door, I think its bordering on lunacy to say they weren't acquainted.
sekiro wrote: » If they were acquainted then why would he keep it secret? Incase he randomly decided to kill her sometime? Solid proof that they had some kind of personal or professional relationship would put this whole thing to bed and yet none exists. I suppose good questions would be if it was common for Bailey to go round to neighbors houses at odd hours. Or just to be out and about around the area at odd hours. Just seems a bit odd that he would decide in the early hours of the 23rd to go on a round-trip hike out there and end up committing a murder when he arrives. I've lived in the same house for almost 10 years and never met my neighbor on the left once. Met the neighbor on the other side many times. Yet I feel like you would describe the idea that I never met my neighbor as "lunacy" despite it being 100% true.
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.
Darc19 wrote: » Some people in the media make it out that they were "neighbours". In rural Ireland a neighbour can be miles away, whereas in Dublin a neighbour is within 100m of your house. Bailey lived 5km (3.5miles) away by the shortest route by road. I'm in rural Kildare, I would call a friend who lives about 2km over fields a "neighbour". In schull, 5km would be the neighborhood. But the media will try and twist it
Panrich wrote: » The fact that he was working the case first thing the following morning before it was public knowledge is another piece that is difficult to explain away.
Panrich wrote: » He’s by far and away the most likely killer.
sekiro wrote: » If they were acquainted then why would he keep it secret? Incase he randomly decided to kill her sometime?.
Yurt! wrote: » The DPP provides a breakdown on the timelines on this, and they are pretty convincing. The rumours on the identity and nationality of the victim were swirling very soon after the body was discovered. Even for allowing for the absence of smartphones etc - that news goes viral very quickly, and Cassidy's (the Examiner journo) account and timeline of telling / not telling Bailey about the nationality doesn't make much sense with what he said vs the phonecall logs with the Garda station. It's a cool-headed and rational report. There's no slam dunk there (to use another poster's language), Bailey only mobilized after a phonecall with Cassidy in the afternoon - after Cassidy had a few phonecalls with the Garda station, when the nationality was known by many. It stretches credibility that Cassidy wasn't aware and didn't pass that on to his stringer Bailey. No slam dunk either way, and there's nothing to hang a man on in fast moving circumstances. This is the rub. You say this because from very early on, the resources of the investigation and general media and community attention were funneled exclusively towards Bailey to the pretty ridiculous exclusion of any and all other avenues.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Because he was in a (apparently) committed relationship and was hoping to get his end away (and possibly more) with this 'acquaintance'...
Man Vs ManUre wrote: » If he did it then his now ex partner would know. She would know if he got them scratches on his arms and mark on his forehead in those exact hours that he left her bed on the early morning of the murder. But she has backed him throughout and supported his version that he got them on other dates doing other things. If she has lied about this all these years then she must be living in fear of him.
Deleted User wrote: » Was Schull actually a western county of England in 1996? Watch the first half of episode 3 and count the English contributors. It's really quite strange.
Yurt! wrote: » A lot of refugees from Thatcher's England, counter-culture types, people who had semi-dropped out of life, and generally those looking for a cheap pleasant place to live. Not so cheap anymore of course, but it would have been relatively reasonable in the 80s to mid-90s.
Interesting video uploaded by the Behaviour Panel on YouTube if anyone is interested . They are 4 body language experts that analyse Bailey’s body language in various interviews
They definitely appear to have an overwhelming opinion, but I won’t spoil it for anyone who wants to check it out
Of the two documentaries I felt this was a little more he said/she said. Which was basically the core of the French trial. I think the Sky doc was more balanced, but both were well worth the watch. Would still probably lean towards him being the culprit, but without hard evidence he can't be convicted. A couple of those Garda bigwigs involved in the case really fancied themselves and enjoyed the attention they got from the media.
A bit sad to see the state of the now long closed Courtyard pub in Schull. My favourite pub down there for years.
Statement analysis is psuedoscience and those four guys are very bit as narrcisstic as Bailey. So smug with their pop psychology. They should analyse the superintentent O'Dwyer and the guys with their arms crossed. A report says five books are being published about the case
There’s only a few references to statement analysis, he rest is looking at his dramatic change in behavior and fluency when asked about his claimed alibi, scratches on his arms and head etc. For a guy who speaks with certainty, fluidity and confidence about how the gardai allegedly treated him, he completely flaps about and stammers his way though the events that night and in the previous days.
Body language is no more scientific than statement analysis SCAN.They made a big deal because Bailey said "I left the bed" instead of "I got out of bed". That was statement analysis SCAN
Those guys are the equivalent of astrologers. An innocent person could get flustered too at the fact they have no real alibi. One of the guys says Bailey does a hand movement as if pushing away the questions. One of the four does a similar hand movement.it suits them and their psuedoscience to give a meaning to a movement in one context but not another. They are just as arrogant and narcisstic as Bailey sneering and laughing and massaging each other's egos. They look incredibly amateur and they are not anywhere approaching science
They also refer to eye accessing cues. https://www.nlpworld.co.uk/nlp-glossary/e/eye-accessing-cues/ That is from NLP, another psuedoscience, and is discredited
Bailey may be gulity but body language shows nothing
One thing that annoys me about the Netflix documentary is that they pitch it as putting Sophie at the centre and the media just swallow that line even though it doesn't live up to that byline at all.
We still have no idea who Sophie was, there's about 5 seconds of her voice played in the background in the very last episode. We find out nothing about why she was a film producer with zero credits and exactly what attracted her to millonare Daniel Tuscon de Plantier. The reason for this is that the people making the film, the men making the film, judge herpersonality to be detrimental to the empathy they are trying to engage in the story. They don't actually give a flying **** about Sophie and what she was like or what she was about, they just want to sell a TV programme.
She doesn't seem to have produced anything of note. Google her on imdb it just shows the documentary. Any search of her just goes to the murder
That's a great find. Just a real shame we don't really interview with any real skill over here. It's not in the slightest bit surprising either.
Give it a rest. When your explaining here you really are loosing.
Why you make the rules here do you? I'm not losing. it is rubbish. Look up Police Interrogation and American Justice Richard Leo to see criticism of SCAN statement analysis psuedoscience. NLP eye accessing is also psuedoscience and body language has no scientific basis. Posthoc reasoning
SCAN https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4766305/
The getting up in the night lie from Ian, which ends up being he got up, murdered the Turkeys and scratched his head did some writing and went back to bed is a total hot mess in the body language interview.
I'm not a body language expert but the lies he's telling here are very reminiscent of interviewing a child you know they've done something wrong. Unnecessary detail, crazy language, stuttering, prose all over the place.
The body language you can evaluate yourself. It's just another of a vast amount of small clues.
I thought that programme was going to be very interesting but less than 2 minutes it was clear it was just another entertainment show dressed up as science. That's literally all it is, entertainment.
Like the many documentary channels on sky, they are now nothing but reality TV junk.
Any scientist would laugh them to scorn
I'd recommend the West Cork podcast. It's excellently researched and put together.
Having listened to it through it. I thought a decent Garda job should have got an IB conviction, it wasn't great though.
Regardless, there are swathes of circumstantial evidence against IB, including himself. It's hard to believe an innocent man would act anything like IB.
The only tit bits of evidence in the whole thing that didn't add up to IB were.
I think I read recently this man lives in Paris, and is being actively investigated. Hard to believe this wasn't done at the time.
IB fits the description under so many counts; violent to woman, heavy drinker, liar, proximity, no alibi, injuries etc, etc., so granted they should investigate who this other man might be but if it wasn't IB the only explanation is he was so black-out drunk he doesn't know himself if he killed her or not. Considering he was on the whiskey for 48 hours beforehand it's possible he doesn't. However, it's also far more likely he got up and murdered her instead of getting up, killing some turkeys and doing some writing by hand, before going back to bed after a 48 hour bender.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1de30a3af99564ce338f7a27f88f9656.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bd89cdce15309a6ec2dff928c865017a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)