it is not necessarily the only logical explanation "that the killer was involved in the construction and/or maintenance of this structure." Someone may have ran away found it by chance and ran back to finish her off. Or may not have intended hitting her again until they stumbled on it. Someone moving around there would have to move somewhere, could have found it by chance. A "French assassin" may have been there some time and searched around for ways to make it look local
I don't recall that shot exact from the docs but i skipped over the cringy Sheridan one
I feel for the guards a little because like in every job your only as good as your training. Clearly, they had little to none in dealing with this kind of serious crime.
I also think the interview process in Ireland is unhelpful. Obviously, you want to detain and interview all suspects as early as possible and let themselves tie themselves in knots before alibis are created and possible evidence is destroyed. I'm not sure on the current setup if anyone knows but it certainly lends itself to people getting away with serious crime.
It was an interesting doc at times, but I hated the ugly bitch with the books behind her, awful face. And why were there so many bellies ready to burst out of shirts below crossed arms in the frame? Just raise the camera a bit so I don't have to look at this tumescent loaf of flesh around some weird guy's belly. Some odd choices for interviewees too, you're really going to have somebody titled "psychic" giving their hot take? Doubt Bailey did it either.
Such a tragic story. The guards completely botched the case and a killer remains free.
If you wear gloves for example you won't leave prints. If you don't rape someone or get cut, you'll not leave blood or semen.
If your unlucky enough to leave trace blood. If you did so in 1996 there's a huge chance you'd still get away with it as the amount of blood required at that time was vast.
Again even if you did leave a vast sample in 1996 you still might not get caught as a huge amount of DNA samples are mixed and regression techniques weren't established until decades later.
Lastly, if the crime scene is outdoors it's less likely that any DNA would be preserved. Further to this if a crime scene isn't protected or forensically investigated immediately then DNA or forensic evidence can be lost. Also if the perpetrator isn't arrested in a timely manner possible forensic evidence can be destroyed or disposed of.
The forensics evidence or lack of doesn't prove IB's innocence, he is just a hugely lucky man that the crime was committed in 1996.
Nice detective work. So the killer knew the lay of the land for sure.
Absolutely amazing.
Especially given he trampled through the crime scene during the investigation.
Sorry, but this website really is a piece of ****. Impossible to carry on any disourse in it, which is unfortunate because that's supposed to be the purpose of the site. Twitter links appear and then dissappear. The site is a disaster.
This blog is a great resource for everything to do with this case and helpfully includes free links to both the Netflix and Sky programs:
The blog also contains some crime scene photographs which appear to be screenshots from the documentaries.
One in particular caught my attention:
The killer retrieved a cinder block from this concrete structure and used it to to attack Sophie.
This concrete structure is approximately 20 ft behind the location of the attack and on the other side of the boreen, so not immediately to hand for the killer.
The attack almost certainly happened at night so how could the killer have possibly known that there would be a loose cinder block that he could retrieve from this structure?
The only logical answer is that the killer was involved in the construction and/or maintenance of this structure. It's simply implausible that anyone else such as a "French assassin" or some other person unfamiliar with the property would have known about this or stumbled upon it - in the dark.
The structure appears to be communal for the three houses up the laneway and Ian Bailey is known to have done "gardening work" for one of those property owners, Alfie Lyons. Jules Thomas mentions in the Sky documentary in the context of her own property how Ian Bailey had done a lot of hard labour around her property including the building of walls.
I wonder if he was ever asked by Gardaí (or anyone else for that matter) if he had anything to do with the construction or upkeep of the structure from which the cinder block was taken to attack Sophie?
In a related matter, if the Gardaí still have that cinder block they should be analysing it for touch DNA as it would be a good repository for skin cells of the killer if he was ungloved.
This is fun for her. A young woman battered to death, a son lost his mother, parents lost a daughter, if Bailey is innocent his life has been unfairly ruined, if he is guilty justice has utterly failed. But Sinead O Connor is having fun, because she thinks this is all about her.
And yet after a frenzied attack the big drunken lunk somehow managed to leave not one single trace of himself behind. What a stroke of luck! But then he volunteered DNA samples because he wanted to get caught. But foiled again, the Gaurds were totally inept.
I reckon Sinead O Connor is more likely to confess to the murder than Bailey. She's on a twitter rant about her 'interview' right now.
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.
Any scientist would laugh them to scorn
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.
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.
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/
Give it a rest. When your explaining here you really are loosing.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bd89cdce15309a6ec2dff928c865017a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1de30a3af99564ce338f7a27f88f9656.svg)