I agree somewhat that the murderer went into a blind rage. The amount of blows to the head points towards a frenzied attack were the murderer had lost the plot altogether...
Sophie had a wad of cash in the house, so robbery wasn't the motive.
This murder appears to be a crime of passion, a passion that was maybe rejected, rebuffed, ridiculed??
A lot has been said about Sophie rolling up just before Christmas (broken heating my arse).
She was filmed carrying a load of luggage from the airport, why so many cases for such a short stay.. (just to check the heating is working)??
Had she not arranged to lend some of her art pieces to her former boyfriend to display somewhere (that one that nearly choked her)?
Is all her luggage accounted for? Bar the missing bottle of wine?
Was she meeting somebody in Ireland?
If Bailey had stumbled over to Sophie's on that fateful night, knocked on her door at daft o'clock, and made a half baked pass at her, I'm sure the door would have been slammed in his face, followed by a call to the Gards.
To think a drunken Bailey chased her down to the gate, through the briars, and then smashed her face in beyond recognition, is fanciful to say the least. To then click his heels, head back home, make coffee for Jules and act perfectly normal is stretching it a bit... Assuming he drove part of the way, would he not be scrubbing the car down to the metal work, in between washing and scrubbing his hands, nails, hair.....etc
If he had murdered Sophie, he would know first hand that there was blood everywhere down there, probably hair and fibre's too.. Would he really 'VOLUNTEER' his blood samples or Dna to the Gards without being asked to???
I cannot understand why people still think Bailey could have done this murder....
He was in a relationship with Jules. Would he really be telling all and sundry he was interested in another woman? If he knew, or even knew of, Sophie he most likely would have been interested, knowing what we know of him.
As to the motive. Judging by the scene the killer was in a blind rage. Blind rage is not premeditated and can come on in an instant in some people. Rejection or ridicule or even resistance, possibly to an attempted rape, could bring on the furious anger necessary.
The GSOC report is an embarrassment for everyone involved in the investigation but when it comes to the Garda Siochana's powers of arrest, GSOC was only going to come to one conclusion: that this arrest was lawful because of the "honest belief" of the investigating Gardai. I don't believe the Garda had any grounds for suspecting Jules Thomas, even as an accomplice after the fact. Neither did the DPP. Why did the Gardai abandon this "honest belief" but persist in their belief that IB is the murderer.
But you are not answering my central thesis: if IB didn't know Sophie, he had no motive to murder her brutally at the bottom of her laneway in the early hours of a Christmas morning. And if IB had any form of relationship with Sophie prior to the murder (e.g. if he was the poet she allegedly was to meet during her last visit), he would have told anyone and everyone in earshot. The Gardai knew this undermined their whole investigation but, despite interviewing everyone with any contact to IB, they couldn't get any better than vague recollections about a brief introduction years before and some post-hoc hearsay.
All that convinces me that IB did not have even a tenous relationship with Sophie and therefore he had no motive to murder her. She may have been murdered by a stranger e.g. a serial killer or a hired assassin, but not IB.
I don’t think the Gardai ever thought he actually intended to call to Alfie or had a real premonition that something bad was going to happen, my understanding of their case was that he may have mentioned this to JT as a pretext to him leaving the house to go to Sophie’s house. They had both been drinking and it was late at night, I doubt it was the most rational and reasoned discussion they ever had.
Her statement, which she said has been altered, said he stopped the car on the way home and got out to look at the moon, he mentioned there was a light on at Alfie’s and that he had a bad feeling. The statement says at some point he mentioned he might go over to Alfie but JT herself was too tired to go. The Garda seemed to believe this was all laying the groundwork for him wanting to go over to Sophie’s after he observed that she was alone in Schull that afternoon. He had not gone back to the house with her at all the previous night.
Part of her statement is quoted in Nick Foster’s book, taken from court transcripts:
“At that time, you can call me green but I never associated the comments made by Ian on Hunt’s Hill the night before when we were looking up at Alfie’s house and him getting a bad feeling about something going to happen there, and the murder subsequently happening and the fact that he was missing the night before.”
Thomas: “I didn’t say it.”
O’Higgins: “Invention?”
Thomas: “Yes, I didn’t say it.””
I'm sorry but that's a load of tosh. "Will I drunkenly stagger in the dark all the way over to Alfie's to find out why he has a light on cos I've a funny feeling or will I just phone him?". "Alf - mate. Sorry for disturbing you but I've a funny feeling", "F Off Ian you complete knob."
No, they were all in the Garda file. It seems there was a typed report of another statement JT made a couple of weeks after they were released but the original hand written memo it was based on was not in the file. I haven’t seen any reference to what was in that statement mentioned in any of the court cases in any case so it may have been of little relevance.
They both seemed quite sure it was a premonition, not an observation that something bad was actually happening right then. There wouldn’t be much point ringing Alfie and asking him if he was aware that some ominous event may or may not happen in the near future in the general vicinity.
The thing is that if Bailey stood in front of me with his hand on a Bible and swore he'd done it I don't think I'd be any the wiser.
I see Scooby Doo is still desperately trying to insert himself into the narrative. What kind of a clown would push for a media stunt like this in an ongoing murder case? He probably replays over and over in his head exactly what he will say to trick the dastardly Bailey into confessing on live TV.
To be fair to Moonunit, he/she is far more articulate than this deluded donkey.
Marie Farrell was the one who said she signed blank pages - not Jules Thomas.
Exactly. Unless the house was meant to be unoccupied / it is lived in by a vulnerable person on their own / elderly relation... adults dont call into other adults cos they see a light on after bedtime at night out of concern.
after 135 pages it comes down to :do you believe Bailey or not,I dont so think he did it ,others take a different view and thats fine.
Or he could have phoned Alfie. On the telephone Alfie had. In Alfie's house. Asked Alfie if everything was ok as he saw a light on, and received a feed of abuse for drunk calling Alfie at stupid o'clock to ask a stupid question.
Werent the original interview pages with Jules deliberately cut from the Garda book of evidence?
Cant believe anyone putting any weight on what was allegedly contained in the interview Jules disowned.
Neither of the arrests were unlawful, this was confirmed by GSOC:
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.
3.12 Nothing was noted in the documentary review conducted by GSOC that undermined the decision to arrest either Ian Bailey or Jules Thomas in any way and there is no information available to suggest that either constituted an unlawful arrest. It is further noted that the legality of this arrest has never been successfully challenged by either Mr. Bailey or Ms. Thomas at any stage since that date and that no complaint was made by either party to their solicitor at the time of their arrest or detention.
Isn't this a bit like when a four year old comes in with chocolate all over their face and denies they ate any? The 'premonition' was in the statements, the 'getting out of bed an hour later', 'suggesting he might go over to Alfie's' were in there too, therefore if you want to claim they signed blank statements you have to explain why they are still talking about what they said in those statements that you claim were blank.
JT has not said she signed blank statements from anything I've read on the case. She had a solicitor there with her, do you really believe a solicitor advised their client to sign blank statements? Really?? She should have tried to sue the solicitor and not the state if that were even remotely true. She said they were 'additions' and also there were some 'omissions' from her statements. But they were read over and signed. GSOC found no evidence of tampering or additions to any of their statements.
Never put what's "normal" to you into the context of someone else.
Many people despise Christmas and all the socialising.
Sophie picked this location because of the remoteness and because she could get away. She had also all but separated from her husband who already had a new girlfriend (who he moved in with 3 months later and had a baby with in 1997 too)
So Christmas jolliness would not have been on her list that year
I really can't be arsed checking back on your posts.
Someone just said that you were outed as a journalist that had written on the case. I just threw a guess out.
But you are very much in his style of believing the garda version and refusing to contemplate any other scenario despite so many facts that would make it very very difficult for it to be IB.
I never mentioned anything about Bailey's premonition?? Why are you churning that out? Go back and re-read the post.
JT has stated that she was asked to sign blank sheets of paper (quite strange you will agree..) She was arrested for murder although not interrogated for murder (again, rather strange you will agree?)
She has consistently stated that she felt pressured by the Gards during the illegal interrogation, they were putting words in her mouth, on top of telling her that Bailey had already confessed to the murder next door...
Fearing that she was going to be stitched up (like Bailey), and the real possibility of looking at a life changing prison sentence, maybe she wasn't prepared to call out the corrupt keystone cops right away....?
Put yourself in her shoes, she was illegally detained, lied to, manipulated and pressganged into believing her life was over. Its not rocket science.
I regard the arrest of Jules Thomas as proof that the Gardai investigation had turned into a manhunt. They knew Jules had nothing to do with the murder so her arrest was illegal. They bullied her for many hours to get the statement although they knew it would never be accepted by the court. At that stage, the Gardai were desperate for anything to link IB to the murder yet they failed to link him to the victim, the most elementary element in any murder investigation.
But let’s suppose IB did hike over to Alfie Lyons place in the mistaken belief there was a party going on. What was his motive in that case: “oh, well, they’ve gone to bed, I bet that French woman next door would fancy the company of a total stranger at this hour of the morning and shure, if not. I can always just smash her brains in and Alfie can clear up the mess tomorrow”
there is no credible evidence that he knew Sophie. There are a couple of people claiming he admitted long after the murder to have known her but this is unreliable hearsay and it doesn’t answer my point - why would a loudmouth like IB tell no one before the murder that he knew this fascinating French woman. If he had mentioned this to anyone the Gardai would have heard about it and we know of at least two people to whom he would have certainly boasted about it.
I quoted it in my post here on 28 July. (Sorry, the new site doesn’t show post numbers 🤨)
Does anyone know where hunts Hill actually is?
I am beginning to see a pattern here, you read something that contradicts your opinion and random words of denial start to form on the keyboard. There’s no evidence the gardai did any of that, the statements were signed and neither made any complaints about their questioning either at the time or through their solicitors until years later. Ian discussed having this ‘premonition’ in the West Cork podcast and he mentioned it himself in his own Garda statements. In one of the more comical sections of the DPP ‘report’ they even seem to suggest he might have some way of tuning in to canine senses. Dogs in the wider Mizen area were reported to be barking, therefore his admission of having a premonition after apparently mentioning a light on at Alfie’s is in in no way incriminating. He was just sensing whatever the dogs were sensing, even though no one else ever said they felt **** was going down in a very specific place miles away because a dog was barking 😂
Jules Thomas has repeatedly said her statements were written under duress. With added paragraphs that she knows nothing about.
The Gards lied, falsified, and later destroyed sections of her statement(s)
Sadly, due to a corrupt Garda interrogation, JT statement(s) are as reliable as the Babe Farrell's.
Her statement(s) are not worth the paper they are wrote on - Dismiss them, and move on.
*Incidentally, the Babe Farrell reported similar corrupt interrogation methods used by the Gards to help refresh her memory too..... Just saying.
If the light being on signalled that something bad or unusual was happening, its not a 'premonition'.
Or much of a pretext.
Like what was Ian going to do?
Why not just mention a party?
Its utter nonsense compltely lacking in believability.
So we come back to word games that obscure that there is zero motive, or credible evidence of anything other than a fleeting introduction between Bailey and Sophie.
Could you find the post with the detailed account of the conversation at a party?
In the West Cork podcast Jules says he wouldn’t have had a bonfire, he tended to hoard things. Yet they both told the gardai they had a bonfire a few weeks earlier.
It’s in the statements. I don’t think anyone claims IB ‘predicted’ the murder, I expect the gardai probably considereded it a pretext to go over to ‘Alfie’s’ ie. something’s not right, I better go over there and see if they are ok… There were no lights on at Alfie’s but there was a light on at Sophie’s.
No he'd already killed the turkeys and cut down the tree in a pre-murder pagan ritual at that point.
He examined the entrails and that's what gave him his premonition.
He still had to complete the ritual with the bonfire though.
Case solved.
Yes, or I wouldn't be on here trashing nonsense that deserves to be ridiculed.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bd89cdce15309a6ec2dff928c865017a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c2d01dc58c93157b55e4469cba109cf9.svg)