the other suspects who have alibis... do u trust gardai to a do it right seen they fkd so much up or b bother at all once ib was in frame. this cud unlock a lot of things if reviewed
Well known paranoid conspiracy theorist Gemma O’Doherty wrote the Village article, the other is uncredited but reads like Bailey wrote it himself!
Bailey put her in hospital two or three times and was prosecuted at least once for it, he had an explosive, rage filled tendency for violence and his own partner says she can’t trust him when he drinks whiskey. One woman made a statement that Ian invited her to sleep in the studio and she woke up with him in bed beside her, Jules apparently showed the upset woman a massive bruise on her leg and said he did worse to her. He allegedly pinned another woman to a wall in a pub and made a pass at his partner’s daughter. His ex-wife said he flew into rages where he threw stuff around the house. I thought they showed a screenshot of one of his diaries where he wrote he would like to kill someone if he could, will have to look back over it. It seems to me he was a danger to more than just his partner.
He’s obviously prone to serious outbursts of rage and violence.
I found an account from a 2014 village article
"Allegations have emerged that a senior member of the force may have been responsible for Sophie Toscan du Plantier’s death. The officer at the centre of these claims, who is now deceased, was a notoriously violent person and a sexual predator infamous for having affairs with women, particularly foreigners. A married man who was strikingly handsome, he was a rampant alcoholic who is described as having abused his power whenever he could. One local portrayed him as being “crooked as a ram’s horn”.
He was known for rustling cattle and sheep from farmers who had committed minor offences and he was in a position to blackmail. He also drove a blue Ford car.
It is believed the officer may have come into contact with du Plantier because of her fears about drug-dealing in the countryside close to her. Some in the area claim he had a sexual encounter with the French woman, whose love-life was complicated and fraught, but that he was subsequently rejected by her.
The violent nature of the killing has always been indicative of a ‘crime of passion’ carried out by a scorned lover. The garda at the centre of these allegations was not involved in the investigation. On his deathbed, he was said to be a profoundly disturbed man. The shocking allegations against him however remain unproven."
While searching I came across an account of another possible person if interest I was unaware of up to now
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=66736&search_text=sophie%20du%20plantier
Is this one of the three new suspects recently identified?
The more one delves into the whole affair the more uncertainties one finds. What does appear clear is that there are a significant number of suspects who were not investigated with the vigour they should have been in the original investigation.
Is it true that there was a high ranking Garda in the area that was known for violence against women and other activity?
This guy was supposed to have driven a blue Ford fiesta?
Or was this made up like so many other parts of this story?
Over 7,000 people have had prosecutions taken against them last year alone for domestic violence. How many of them then killed someone else? - Zero.
Domestic violence is abhorrent, but it in no way whatsoever makes someone likely to murder. The gardai involved in the case make want some gullible people to believe this and try and make out that someone who is violent towards a partner is suddenly a good reason to suspect them of murder
And how do you know he never had any injuries himself - do you know him or were you there at the time?
While domestic violence is bad enough it's a big step between that and the random killing of a stranger.
I'm aware of at least one other potential person of interest with a history of domestic violence and given its prevalence there's undoubtedly many more. Another has a conviction for assault and a former lover described as volatile who had previously tried to strangle her, whose only alibi appears to be a receipt
You are stating the bleeding obvious here. I don't think that any of that has ever been in doubt by anyone. Of course he is a suspect, and has been for 25 years.
I'm not saying he should be convicted on this evidence, I have an opinion that he is a good suspect whose interest and impact on the retelling of the murder has been profound.
Look all the stuff you've mentioned here has been gone over and over again on this thread and explained in detail. None of the above is concrete evidence that he murdered Sophie. You've made your mind up that he is guilty though which you are entitled to think. Its very sketchy evidence to convict a man with murder and ruin his life though.
If they had, at various times, suggested to people that they did it, gave a false alibi, had a partner who said they left in the middle of the night when the murder took place and came home with an unexplained cut on their face, had noticeable scratches on their hands and arms, called into people after the gardai had been there to find out what they were asking, denied having a bonfire in the days after the murder when there was evidence and witnesses who said they did, asked a cameraman in more recent times what might happen if he pleaded guilty to a crime of passion.. I suppose they would also be a very good suspect.
Yes he is a disgusting man to do this to Jules. Nobody can defend his behaviour - he should have been sent to jail on this alone but it doesnt mean he murdered Sophie.
Im sure he wasnt the only man in the area who inflicted violence on their partner - should they be considered suspects aswell.
So, I respectfully suggest, your assertion that doubts about the conduct of the GS are confined to closed minded conspiracy theorists, is well wide of the mark.
I'm specifically talking about the conspiracy theories that it was actually a member of AGS who was involved in the murder, or that MF was in the car with a garda whose identity she is somehow still protecting even after accusing two gardai of unwanted sexual advances or even assault.
There's plenty of reasons to be critical of the garda handling of the case, but that doesn't mean that there is no case against IB.
Yes Bailey is a very unlikeable weird character but you need to put this view aside when deciding is he a murderer.
He beat his partner with extreme violence several times and wrote in his diary that he made her feel like death was near. He's never had as much as a black eye as far as we know yet he says she's as much to blame.
Well it is very hard to give details of a man who doesnt exist isnt it. This is what was causing her difficulty in court.
Who knows why she made that original call - she could have been presuaded by someone else to make that call in return for 'favours' ( these favours are documented - assault charges dropped etc. ). I dont think we can believe anything Marie says.
I think she was out and did see a man. The idea that she was pressured into saying she was out or decided to help the gardai for her own benefit makes no sense, she made the call anonymously and then rang to cancel an agreed meeting with gardai. She also had a rather extreme reaction when told by a judge that she had to name the man she was with, getting out of the witness box and risking contempt of court when she could easily have given a fictitious name. When she did give a name, she couldn't remember even basic information about the person when questioned.
Over 20 years later, when it no longer serves any purpose and when she has already said other key parts of her statements and sworn testimony were false, she still puts up with the hassle of standing by her claim to have been out. I think she was out and I think there's someone out there who she knows can place her there.
Do you honestly believe MF was out and about driving with a mystery man on the might/morning of the murder? Do you honestly believe she was having an affair - honestly think about this?
I believe she was at home safely tucked up in bed with her husband. The Kilfeada bridge story is fiction.
MF is the definition of a turn coat mercenary. She deserved to have her private life made less private. No idea why the courts, AGS media spared her the indignity. It makes me assume a deal was struck. How we don't know the full CF back story is beyond me.
The Bandon tapes don't support MF's claims of being pressured by the gardai, or that IB was being deliberately set up. It is also inexplicable that she would contact them anonymously with information. They knew they couldn't act on an anonymous statement with no corroboration so worked hard to identify her. They then tried to identify who was with her, going to Longford and making enquiries based on the little information she gave them.
It's extremely curious that MF's statements began to align with a case for Bailey after she became his star witness. Ten years later, she changed the time she saw the man at the bridge to 2am when all along she said 3am. JT said IB got out of bed around 2.30am. This is a highly convenient change in her story. Likewise adding the previously unmentioned detail that the black coat had silver buttons. She also, completely unprompted, mentioned in a statement after 2006 that she saw Bill Fuller selling christmas trees outside her shop on the 23rd around 11am. This sighting had absolutely no significance for the case whatsoever. Except, as the state's barrister put it to MF on the stand, MF found out Bill Fuller has said he saw JT and JT and IB needed him to be somewhere else at that time. During the same trial a witness gave a sworn testimony that MF had told her she was hoping to get some of IB's winnings if he won his case.
There is also a separate discussion seeking to defend the garda
I know I started off with the same view as you - Ian Bailey was the murderer - it was obvious or so I thought. I done more research into the case and realised there is actually no compelling evidence to link him to the murder or Sophie at all - literally nothing. I now believe he was set up by the Gardai - missing statements, Bandon tapes, Marie F says she was forced by gardai to say it was Bailey she seen, not following up viable information - the whole case stinks of a cover up. My advice to you is you need to do alot more research into the case before reaching a decision on Bailey. Yes Bailey is a very unlikeable weird character but you need to put this view aside when deciding is he a murderer. Its seems there was alot of weird strange characters around the area at the time which were not investigated properly. Also the gardai seemed to ignore Sophies life in France which could have been vital to solving this case.
How do you know the others weren't violent to women? Just because they weren't prosecuted does not mean they weren't
Yes the methods deployed by the Gardai are a matter of concern, but not only to those who want to kick them. Even the Gardai themselves felt that an investigation into the conduct of the force in this mater was warranted. So, when the GS themselves were uncomfortable with the handling of the case, then its not surprising that others share that disquiet.
To suggest that only those with totally closed minds could entertain such a possibility, is wrong. Personally, I don't think IB is guilty of this crime but I don't think that he's "entirely beyond suspicion" so I'm willing to listen to alternative opinions and, if anything compelling emerges, I'll think again. But whether he's guilty or not, the behaviour of the Gardai is open to question.
Its been questioned by the public.
Its been questioned by the media.
Its been questioned by the DPP.
Its been questioned by the Gardai themselves.
The report refers to pages being cut or neatly torn from the job books. In a bound book out of sequence numbering with numbers skipped could mean the other half of the bound sheet was removed.
I've worked in industry where provably accurate record keeping is essential. You never just remove pages, even if there's a mistake. You strike it out, date it and sign or initial it with a brief explanation for the strike out if needed. Record integrity is absolute, just 'disappearing' pages would be gross misconduct.
If pages are missing there's no telling what was or wasn't on them. The integrity of the evidence and investigation is broken. With possibly missing jobs how can one tell if everyone was reinterviewed or if potentially unwanted evidence was suppressed?
I think there may be another discussion going on totally separate from who killed Sophie. It seems like for some people, this is a juicy and ripe case for kicking the gardai and indulging in conspiracy theories about a wide ranging cover-up. You can't really indulge in these ideas without being totally committed to the premise that IB is entirely beyond suspicion. Any suggestion to the contrary is too inconvenient to contemplate rationally.
IB's defenders almost wudnt accept a signed confession from him now,do they never tire of explaining away the anomalies.confessions ,inconsistencies in Baileys account ,the credible witnesses exposing Bailey's lies.How many realistic killer suspects are there who knew of Sophie ,could have found that cottage in pitch dark and carried out such a muscular attack.Only a handful I suspect ,and of that handful one of the suspects has a history of violence to women,lied initially about his whereabouts on the night and seemed to know about the attack before he should have and regularly confessed to the murder.His same defenders who dismiss every scintilla of circumstantial evidence against Bailey entertain any outlandish suggestion regarding any other suspect .Anyone but Bailey is fair game to them.
The problem with this supposition is that Bailey himself corroborated many of them. The DPP claimed, without evidence, that some of the witnesses may have been eager to help the gardai. Over two decades later some of these witnesses travelled to France to give testimony to a French court, more had given sworn evidence at both the libel and 'police corruption' trials and none varied or recanted their statements when interviewed by GSOC. I think it's clear the DPP made the wrong call on this in their internal report.
IB didn't deny saying something very close to 'I did it, I did it, I went too far' to the Shelley's, he has said the Gardai brainwashed him into believing he actually did it, other times he said he was saying 'they're saying I did it' or 'they think I did it'.
Likewise, he doesn't deny saying to Malachi that he 'went up there and bashed her head in with a rock', he claimed it was dark humour but Malachi said he was drunk and in foul humour.
He says he did 'joke' about killing Sophie to the Sunday Tribune editor, as Dwyer pointed out, no one else on the entire island is known to have been joking about killing someone murdered days before. The conversation worried her so much she immediately went to the gardai about it.
Jules said James Camier just got the date wrong, she probably went to his stall the next day. But that doesn't make sense since Ian was apparently using the car elsewhere and by then the news was everywhere, James said Jules was the first to tell him about the murder. It seems unlikely no one else mentioned it to a regular stall owner the next day and he and his wife missed every news bulletin over the previous 24 hours.
Two different witnesses said they saw a fire underway behind the studio around Christmas, when gardai checked it out, there was evidence of a very recent fire practically outside the back door. JT and IB said it was lit earlier in December.
In his written accounts to the guards, Bailey says he had access to Jules' car, a white Ford Fiesta the weekend in question. Is there a reason he could not have driven?
The GSOC report also says there are pages with job numbers that skip sequence, but with no missing pages in between, so its possible there was nothing on the missing pages anyway, there seems to have been a general feel of disorganisation. GSOC re-interviewed anyone who made a statement and was willing to be asked questions on it, none of them retracted them or claimed they had been tampered with. Apart from Bailey, Thomas and Farrell.
There's an assumption too that this is unusual in this particular case, I'd imagine though that the archives of most state agencies would be a nightmare to audit. People taking items out to re-examine them or have a specialist look at it and it works its way back into the wrong file etc. We know several pieces of forensic evidence were tested and re-tested abroad.
The house might look big from a distance, but its only the one room wide. If it was single story it would be considered a small cottage, the length of it and the number of windows just make it look larger. Inside it looked positively poky and even a bit cluttered, with basic facilities and furniture.
Daniel had divorced at least once or twice before, why would he suddenly resort to a bizarre and clumsy contract killing, leaving the body in the wide open air where it would be found almost immediately and ask the contract killer to follow her around in a long dark coat and beret (?!) over the weekend?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bd89cdce15309a6ec2dff928c865017a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
