Care to elaborate? It's good to get all sides of a story.
I didnt get that from it all. I think the French at this stage would welcome any new developments in the case whether they implicate Bailey or not. They want justice for their citizen/mother/daughter/sister more than anything else.
It being Jules Thomas, I dont agree, she was very supportive of Bailey in the decent documentaries, not the propaganda netflix piece. And believes him to be innocent 100%. Only reason why she left him was to see her daughters and grandchildren more. She has made this clear, she loves Bailey but loves her children more.
What a load of nonsense.
I live about 10 miles from Sophies House. There are always people from other areas visiting the area, especially around Xmas, Easter etc.
The area is a very long peninsula, people in the schull area would not take any notice of a car they didn't recognise as it could have from 15 miles further out the peninsula. Also there are others roads leading from the murder scene away that don't go near Schull without even using back roads.
I've heard theories from fellow locals about who did it and Bailey doesn't feature in plenty.
Bantry is only 16 miles away and has a large Garda station. The reason they show Bandon is because its the regional headquarters.
I can't get English subtitles up on that French documentary.
Alfie Lyons says he looked around the house with Sophie when she bought it advised her about repairs and told her names of local workmen.
But she bought in 1993 and according to the Land Registry he bought his house 31 March 1995.
And he seems to say he got a "good guard dog" a few weeks before. What did he need a guard dog for up that boreen?
What a load of absolute bull.
That depends on how many times they have already been arrested for the same crime too. You only get three goes.
I noticed your first point too, confusing as I thought the new doc showed the inside of the front door with her keys still inside from unlocking it. But that once outside then attacked, she tried to escape to the rear, but then ended up running down the grass slope at the front?
It does sound like that. I think there’s a general understanding that a married partner can’t be forced to testify against their spouse under most circumstances but I wonder does this apply to civil partners? You would wonder though if a person was in fear for themselves or their children would they still be considered an accomplice rather than another victim?
There’s one person that comes to mind who lives in Europe who has an interest in the case.
So assuming this new lead is pointing to Bailey, (the French welcoming it seems to imply that), who would Bailey have enough influence and intimidation over to get them to do this and keep quiet about it?
Unless it's some heretofore unheard of character I think it must be Jules they are talking about?
I was watching some of the French doco on YouTube and two things. They say there was a lot of Sophie's blood on the ground near the back door, that the violent attack had begun up there.
Then they say she was hit on the head with a round object and show what looks like a bottle lying in the cut back scrub.
I think the assumption has to be they are dead. Rules out Jules. As I said earlier if the person who helped wash the clothes knew at the time they were destroying evidence for a murderer then they too committed a crime.
That's one very bitter person.
It has already been noted that there were a lot of blow ins and drifters around that area at the time. So hardly the tiny insular community the author tries to paint here.
It seems strange that the gardaí would chase down a retelling of hearsay rather than go straight to the source and interview the person who the local elderly man claims told him that they had helped clean bloody clothes following the killing
...
"A new statement about the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier – and the alleged cleaning of blood-stained clothes – has been supplied to An Garda Síochána. A man yesterday gave a statement claiming another person had confessed to him that they had helped clean bloodied clothes following the killing. The murder of the filmmaker, which shocked Ireland and France in 1996, has recently been the subject of two TV documentaries that were seen in nearly 200 countries. The Irish Independent has learned that a local man – who knew Ms Toscan du Plantier before her death – contacted a solicitor in the wake of the documentaries to make a new sworn statement. In it he discloses the confession to him about bloodstained items. The elderly man has previously given other statements in connection with the investigation. It is understood he gave a three-hour interview to gardaí yesterday, when a consolidated statement was taken, in addition to the formal deposition he supplied himself. It is believed the witness has long grappled with his conscience after claiming to have been told the story about the bloodied clothes in complete confidence several years ago. The man claims there was a face-to-face conversation, which took place at a named premises in 2001. He was unnerved at the time, he asserts, and told the other person to contact gardaí, but this did not happen. He says that the other person appeared to be in fear at the time. A senior source said last night that the fresh claims, reported to Bantry garda station nearly a quarter-of-a-century after the killing, could be dynamite. It has long been felt by investigators that the killer would have been bloodstained after smashing Ms Toscan du Plantier skull with a rock and cavity-block, raining down 50 blows, the majority inflicted after she was dead. It is expected to prompt a fresh round of investigation and examination of witnesses and any supporting evidence that may lie behind the mans claims. It is understood he has made an assertion that at least partial proof of his allegations can be obtained. The man also said he discussed the matter last year with another person, who now lives in Europe. This conversation came before the recent documentaries were broadcast, and it was not known to their makers. The elderly man has now spoken to gardaí about the allegations and made a comprehensive separate statement on foot of his own sworn deposition. The person living in Europe is among those expected to speak to gardaí as investigations proceed. Alain Spilliaert, the lawyer for the Justice for Sophie campaign in France (ASSOPH), said: This is a major new statement. We look forward to other developments within a short time. Ms Toscan du Plantiers uncle, Jean Pierre Gazeau, said: This statement is of the highest interest, and I will be seriously following the further developments. He said he would like to see official action on the matter being taken as soon as possible. Throughout this investigation, An Garda Síochána has appealed to any person with any information in relation to the investigation to come forward in order to assist us. An Garda Síochána does not comment during investigations on interactions it may or may not have had with individuals with information. It is the second potential new lead to emerge in the investigation in recent weeks. New information was also passed to gardaí by film director Jim Sheridan, who made one of two recently-shown documentaries. The information came from Marie Farrell, a former Schull shopkeeper, who was once the key witness and whose evidence was later discredited. Ms Farrell believes she can now identify a man who was wearing a long dark coat outside her shop days before Ms Toscan du Plantier was beaten to death."
That and IB and JT blabbing about him getting up in the night.
Remember folks "no comment", the cops are not your friends!
Someone else.
Is the person "now living in Europe", who the old man discussed it with, the person who told the story of the bloodied clothes to the old man or someone else who the old man repeated the story to?
Genuine question :
Is this whole thing more or less based on MF seeing someone at the bridge ?
The lady who will not tell who she was with (and the only person that can corroborate her story). She has changed directions more times than the wind.
Forget IB, how do we actually know that MF was at the bridge ?
A named place could be a clinic or hospital, or a church?
I believe she had an open ticket and changed her original plans.
She made arrangements to meet her housekeeper at 11 am on Monday.
and told her husband on the phone that she would be back in Paris lunchtime 24th.
If you put on subtitles then go to settings (along the bottom of the screen) and change the subtitles from french autogenerated to english.
The translation is dire but you'll get the jist easy enough.
Read it again. The clothes WERE NOT cleaned at the pub. The original confession WAS MADE at the pub in 2001 - in confidence. Meaning not released to the public. In fact, the 2000 page investigation still remains confidential as the case is still open.
Would the killer really go back to a public house to change his blood soaked clothes??
I mean any bar (gossip centre), in a one horse town would be the last port of call for me... ?? - Unless he was a total moron!
The person who has come forward with this revelation, could well be a Doctor, Priest, Therapist or Councillor.... Their Patient / Priviliged information M'larkey might have come into play here... Although, I wouldn't be sure how water tight that would be with regards to a Murder, or indeed the likelihood of a murderer still running around the village at large..??
Did the Gards know this back then...??? Did the dispose of this little nugget too??
Why is the person bringing this information up now, after 20yrs?? Because he watched a couple of documentaries and felt a pang of guilt? It isn't really going to cut the mustard is it.....? Back 20yrs ago it would have been prime news on every television / radio station 24/7... Did it really take a Sky / Netflix series to bring home how potentially important this item of information is..??
Why does he deem it 'alright' now to spill the beans..??
Is this just another layer of WTF to add to the already complexities of the case....
That seems be all in French, what do they say about her plans?
Im not sure I've seen it confirmed anywhere that she planned to fly home early on the 23rd.
It just occurred to me, the person making "the confession" is an accessory to murder.
If they are still alive shouldn't they be arrested and questioned?
"... claiming another person had confessed to him that they had helped clean bloody clothes following the killing" so not IB.
Who would help the killer clean clothes?
The confession took place "at a named premises" to me that sounds like a pub.
The other person did not contact the guards.
I can't see any between the lines identification.
"it is expected to prompt a fresh round of investigation and examination of witnesses and any supporting evidence that may lie behind the man's claims"
Why was Sophie even at the cottage just before christmas?
The whole fix the heating seems questionable given the housekeeper living locally would be better placed to sort it
She has asked friends to accompany her so doesnt suggest she was planning a liaison, or just wanted some alone time either.
2001 was a significant year for some of the main people in the case. Maybe a counsellor or therapist?
Realistically.... If somebody shared some highly confidential information, pertaining to blood stained garments after an horrific murder...... What do you do?
1) Would a potential murderer share this information with somebody else (as long as they keep it a secret)?
2) Would a witness who seen the blood soaked garments (probably a family member) confide in a villager of the same?
3) Based on the above, at least two people were aware of this information going back 20yrs ago - And said nothing?
If true, then a three hour deposition has been handed over to the Gards - What next?
Is it obvious 'between the lines' of the article who 'the confessor' is?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bd89cdce15309a6ec2dff928c865017a.svg)
