How many people have bleach on their mind on Christmas eve though? I agree it's not incriminating in itself, it's an odd thing to be thinking about on that day though.
He didn't just get up, he said he got up to write a story for the paper, then said he went down the road to an unheated, unoccupied house to type it up. All during the night, in the middle of winter. The story he apparently wrote all night Sunday/Monday morning wasn't actually dictated to the paper until Tuesday afternoon. It's not clear why you would get fully dressed in the middle of a cold winter night to go and type it up in an unheated, unoccupied house down the road when it was to be dictated anyway.
That's what it says on page 8 of the GSOC report:
3.11 From the material reviewed by GSOC in this investigation, it appears that there was a reasonable belief held by gardaí at that time that Ian Bailey and Jules Thomas were responsible for the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier. The arrests of both were therefore lawful. It appears to GSOC that the Custody Regulations were complied with in full by gardaí at that time in relation to both prisoners with both being offered access to a solicitor during their detention. GSOC is satisfied from its investigations that both were detained lawfully.
https://www.gardaombudsman.ie/news-room/archive/information-report-from-the-garda-siochana-ombudsman-commission-at-the-completion-of-the-investigation-into-the-complaints-of-ian-bailey-catherine-jules-thomas-and-marie-farrell/?download=file&file=2748
https://www.gardaombudsman.ie/news-room/archive/information-report-from-the-garda-siochana-ombudsman-commission-at-the-completion-of-the-investigation-into-the-complaints-of-ian-bailey-catherine-jules-thomas-and-marie-farrell/
Yes but people arent desperate for you to be guilty of a murder there's very little evidence you committed!! 🤣
How often do you buy bleach? Do you usually leave the house when you wake up during the night?
Are you saying that the GSOC report stated that the DPP were incorrect and that the arrest of Jules was in fact lawful?
I haven't read the GSOC report, is there a link available to this?
This bleach thing came up a couple of times in this thread. Who the hell doesn't buy bleach? It's mental people are pointing at that as if it's weird.
The same as "getting up in the night", FFS, I wake up randomly sometimes and go play video games or read a book or whatever.
It's worth remembering that there are several assertions in the report that are just plain wrong.
Neither the arrest of Ian or Jules was unlawful, much of what was said in the interviews that the DPP was ruling out as inadmissible would have been admissible. GSOC officially confirmed this. This includes Ian's change of story on his alibi, the DPP incorrectly said this would be 'fruit of the poison tree' and inadmissible as he only changed his story about being in bed all night after Jules revealed he had left during the night. It also disregards the fact that he could be cross examined on the change in story during a trial regardless of his statements as he had spoken to the media about it.
The report states that the 'studio' that IB claims he went to during the night the murder was committed was directly beside the house and was on the Thomas lands, presumably to make it sound like his assertion he was 'at home' all night could be technically correct. The studio is actually on a separate parcel of land 100m or so further along the public road. There is no way of getting there without leaving the Thomas lands and going down the public road.
It takes IB's explanations of 'confessions' as jokes completely at face value, even though he was visibly upset for at least two of them. It says at other times he forcefully proclaimed his innocence but didn't draw the obvious distinction that when he was sober and collected, he denied it, but when he was drunk/upset/challenged, he repeatedly replied or blurted out that he was responsible.
The DPP says that Kealfadda Bridge was neither on the way to or the way back from IB's house when you can go either north or south along the peninsula to get there. The travel times are very similar. In the podcast IB drives the two interviewers along the route he and Jules took to the scene after 2pm, he said they will turn left to go down the lane to Sophie's house, this is the way from Kealfadda Bridge.
That's just a start.
Apologies if this has been posted previously. I haven't read all the pages. But here's a copy of the DPP report.
https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/30/
Maybe trying to clean it with no success. Then deciding it was better to just get rid of it. He was spotted buy a large container of bleach.
Easier to clean a large article of clothing rather than have it disappear. If the cleaning doesn't work then burning would be a last resort.
IB denied having a bonfire around Christmas but when challenged in court that he told journalist Brighid McLaughlin he did burn clothes because there was turkey blood on them he protested that he when told her this it was supposed to be 'off the record'.
I'm not so sure, he was friendly with John Montague at one time, who would have been a bigger name around there. I don't remember hearing about him boasting about this or writing about it in his diaries.
🤣Your're actually right. There is no way he would have kept it quiet.
yes, there's no evidence he knew Sophie - though I'm sure he knew of her ...
if he'd actually spent some time with her he would have told everybody in Schull (at least twice) and he probably would have written some bad poetry about her in his journals - she is never referenced in any of his writing
Just a thought. Did anyone else in West Cork at the time have a coat?
If you want to get really "out there" on motives and potential perps go to the Da Vinci Code.
The Priory of Sion was first "revealed" by Philippe Toscan du Plantier who either doesn't exist or is her husband Daniel's brother. Personally I would like to see some proof "Philippe" was not in fact "Daniel".
Also the recent revelation that some members of the French intelligence service DGSE are (I kid you not) operating a Masonic hit squad.
I still cannot post links. Google Priory of Sion Philipe Toscan du Plantier and DGSE masonic hit squad.
why would you soak it in a bucket if you were going to burn it?
Couple of thoughts:
Bailey insisted he never met Sophie and didn't know her yet he proceeded to write numerous trashy tabloid stories about her filled with "personal" sensationalized info. How would he have known any of this if he "didn't know her"?
In the 1st episode of the Sky doc during the video footage of the Christmas Day swim Florence Newman (woman with the video camera) asks Bailey to say something. He answers he doesn't want to comment but asks that she talk to his lawyer. This is 2 days after the murder and well before Bailey was a known suspect. It's a curious remark.
RE: The coat. I think Dwyer's remark about not finding the coat refers to not finding THE coat. i.e.; the one covered in blood. Which very well could have been soaking in a bucket in the bathroom before being burned. It's very possible there was more than one coat owned by Bailey.
I thought after watching it I have some clearer picture of what happened but if anything I'm even more tore as to what to believe, there's so many questions and avenues to go down it just hurts your brain
In other words we don't know how sober or drunk he was or whether he drove home or not but if he was, he was and if he wasn't he wasn't and if he did, he did but if he didn't, he didn't.
I meant he was not too drunk to drive home c midnight if in fact he was the driver.
Sophie could have been killed any time between 11pm or so on the 22nd December and around 10am on the morning of 23rd December when she was found.
In the DPP's report https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/
it states : 'The original questionnaire of Bailey completed on 31 December 1996 asks at question 5 “account of your movements between 9 p.m. Sunday and 9.a.m. Monday, include persons, vehicles met with the times of meeting etc.”
Three lines are provided for the response.
The relevant portion of Bailey’s reply is “then came home about 12 midnight”.'
Is there information somewhere to indicate who was driving? Is there any information to indicate whether he had any more to drink or not after they came home?
Whether he was sober enough to drive or not is largely irrelevant anyway as no car has been identified as being at the scene.
People make much of fact that IB had been drinking that evening. Yet was able to drive.... surely he would have sobered up by time suggested that Sophie was killed? He is a large man and capable of absorbing a bit more maybe than average chap.
Has the since deceased GARDA mentioned as the possible driver of the blue ford fiesta ever been identified?
I know. The look on some peoples faces when I tell them I had to walk 2km to the nearest village to make a phone call.
People judge everything by the here and now. If they never experienced something then it wasnt ever possible for anyone else to have.
As someone else posted, the last 70 pages are going around in circles. With the benefit of hindsight, it would have been very useful to have had a stickied synopsis of both sides points, including the DPP report.
Some things that have occurred to me from both series and so far in West Cork;
I have evergreen trees, and I always end up with scratches when I'm topping them, or trimming.
I thought in one programme, it may have been West Cork, that they spoke about having another child, rather than her being pregnant. Also he convinced her to fly home on Christmas Eve, according to him. All very strange coming all the way to Cork to fix the heating, when she had a housekeeper here who could surely let them in.
Baileys memory in drink is hardly a surprise, he couldn't remember where he was the previous night to the murder either, sleeping over on the couch after the party.
He did seem contrite in one of the shows about the battering of Jules. Of course, the "Two to tango" is the one that sticks. They were both alcoholics from what I can make out, and it wouldn't surprise me if there was provocation on the night she ended up in hospital. I'm sure we've all seen drunks winding each other up at some stage? Nothing excuses what he did to her, but she certainly didn't push it on the show, and she didn't seem to mind talking about anything else. I would wonder if she would put her children in harm's way if she really thought Bailey had done it? She had a golden opportunity to be rid of him if she really was afraid. She does come across as desperately sad for him, as she can see what an absolute bellend he is with drink.
I don't know who did it, but if I was on jury, I couldn't see that evidence swaying me to put someone away for life. I do wonder at the Gemma O'Doherty theory, though, that was put together when she was a very good investigative journalist. If he was the one with MF it would be a lot better fit than Ian Bailey.
I thought the Forensic guy Gilligan was the best by far, he seemed to be reasonable in his comments, and very frustrated by decisions made locally judging by his outburst on West Cork.
I've gone through this several times now, Ian was at the party on the Saturday night, he says himself he left during the night and went back to the house. He slept on the couch. Someone in the house gave him a lift home the next day. One of the people was awake early because they had to work and they said they heard the front door being opened around 7am. In his questionnaire Ian said he was in bed at home all night Saturday and Sunday, when in fact he wasn't at home at all Saturday night and left the house in the middle of the night Sunday.
Why is this important? Because the man MF said she saw in the long black coat was seen in three places:
1. Hitching a lift towards Schull at the same spot Ian had stayed, without a car, on that Sunday morning. One witness said he heard the front door opening at 7am and MF says she saw the man in the long black coat hitching around 7.30am. Neither MF or the gardai knew Ian was at that location when MF made her statements and Ian 'forgot' to tell them anything about it.
2 Outside her shop while Sophie was browsing clothes inside on the Saturday. Another witness bumped into Sophie as she was coming out of the Spar and said she saw Ian across the road. This was on the same day, around the same time. This witness is named in the West Cork podcast. Ian said he was in Schull that day but didn't see Sophie. In his account of the murder to Bill Fuller, Ian said 'you saw her walking down the aisle in Spar and her tight arse turned you on' or something very similar.
3 On the road at the bridge at 3am on the night of the murder. Yvonne Ungerer said Ian told her he was seen at the bridge.
So there are three sightings, we know Ian was around the first two places and MF nor the gardai could not have known that in advance of MF making those statements. If MF was making up seeing this man to stitch up Ian Bailey then she also has psychic powers. Ian gave gardai false alibis for sightings 1 and 3.
If MF was making these sightings up, why say Kealfadda Bridge? Why not that she saw him walking down the road from Sophie's? Why not say she saw what looked like blood on him? It was over 1km from the scene, it might have had no connection whatsoever. The killer could have been discovered or been identified by other means at any time after she made those statements and she would have made no difference to the case. Why ring anonymously and refuse to make an official statement even when found out?
The question for Ian, though, is why give two false accounts for where he was when two of these sightings of a man in a long black coat occurred? Did he know MF or her van, or notice it was a little unusual for a woman to be driving that particular commercial vehicle at two odd times, 7am on a Sunday morning and 3am on a Monday morning? Why the campaign of intimidation against her in particular?
There was no mention of pregnancy other than mentioned by her husband. He only mentioned this at a later date to a french reporter. Its not clear if he had communicated this to the gardai at the time - you would think it would have been important to mention this.
Given that it was rumoured their marraige was over I think pregnancy is unlikely. I think the husband could have conveniently mentioned this to make it seem that ' they were so in love and happy'. You would also think pregnancy would have been confirmed in a post mortem. If she was pregnant it could be significant to the investigation. ( ie. could be a reason to murder her ).
Sophie was wearing cotton nightclothes and a bathrobe when she ran through the briars, there’s no mention of any fibers from these being found and no material is seen caught on any of the briars, just the barbed wire. I’m not sure lumps of woolen gloves would come off, the way they are woven.
In any case, there’s only two items we know the killer touched that were left at the scene, the stone and the concrete block. Neither would preserve fingerprints and there was no human tissue from the killer that could be detected with 1996 technology. Gloves may not be necessary.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
