Hit the nail on the head
Agreed.
In my opinion it makes it more likely that it was Sophie that went to the Gardaí and they are trying to cover it.
Do you realize the source for that quote is "A source".
Are you that dense or deliberately trying to mislead people?
I think this is very important. For the first time we have confirmation (beyond dumb internet forums like this) Sophie was so upset about a neighbour she considered going to the Gardai. This is far bigger than rows over a fence or a cat.
Very interesting, since this has only been discussed on forums such as this one.
Is easily the most credible offender. Hope he's rotting in hell the odious cretin. You think his family would give closure to the family only trying to save face while half the locality are talking of them.
The important takeaways from this Irish Times article:
"However, the Garda has said that Ms Toscan du Plantier never made a complaint about anyone."
“We have found nothing to suggest the officer in question was involved with or ever had any dealings with Sophie.”
I doubt that can happen. The Irish courts have already ruled on the legality of the French extradition request.
Extradition was refused on grounds of the legal principles regarding extradition. The same offense has to exist in both countries.
As Ireland does not claim extra-terratorial juristiction over an offence committed against an Irish citizen in France, Ireland could not try a UK citizen for an offence committed against an Irish citizen in France or request their extradition therefore, under Irish law, France cannot do the opposite.
" Alfie owned the shed beside Sophie's which annoyed her because she thought it came with the house. This was poor communication by the Real Estate agent. So he had a right of way to that shed. I believe her son eventually bought the shed."
Looking at the overhead of the area it's hardly surprising Sophie thought the shed belonged to her.
Alfie had no access to the shed without passing along the rear wall of Sophie's house,
and I can find no right-of-way for him to do this.
I had a call from a friend who lives in Clonakilty last night who follows all this saga with great interest. He told me there's a story going around a few people in Bandon about the Michael Collins memorial in Beal na Blath. The short of it is that there are a few locals who make it their business to hang around there, in summertime mainly. Don't ask. There is always one person in this little vantage point behind and above the memorial where they can see all the comings and goings. Anyway sometime this year the story goes that things were very quiet when a black SUV pulled up right at the steps up to the memorial, which was surprising in itself. So three men get out and there's a woman who stays in the driving seat. They come up the steps to read the memorial as people do. Two of these guys have beer bottles but it's the third one that is of most interest. Our man looking on from his hiding spot recognises the third guy as Nick Foster, because he's seen his picture enough. He said one of the lads with the beer was very loud and sounded 'cockney' but they were all definitely English. He said this guy was going on with 'takin the piss this and takin the piss that' when isn't that what it turns out they had stopped for. Definitely one and possibly two start having a piss and there's a lot of laughing with the woman shouting at them saying they're a bunch of wa*kers and "get back in the fu*kin caar". So anyway they leave. But get this. There are meant to be photos to back it up.
Wasn't Finbarr Hellen already in the area by noon, and approached the crime scene when he noticed the Garda activity?
If his visit with his son on the previous Saturday took them close enough to Sophie's house to be able to see her inside
it's a fair bet his Monday morning visit would have taken the same route.
And what's all this about passing this "information" to Sophie's family and not to the Gardaí?
Is he hoping the French will press for extradition again after Macron's visit?
Was Macron promised a case review and if any new evidence should come to light extradition would be considered?
Interesting.
They fail to mention that a friend of the nurses family became very vocal on social media about the confession, and told numerous people, which is how this all started up again in the summer.
Also, he didn't retire in 94, there's a photo of all the bantry gardai in 95 with him in it.
The Bantry guard confession has not gone away
Exactly. This is exactly what he's doing, and the reason people are rightly getting so annoyed by him.
Not only that, but he drops one fantasy theory for the next one. There was a notable silence when prendeville asked him about the wine and watch theories, followed by a half assed backtrack about the wine, like he suddenly remembered it was significant or something.
Irish media needs to stop giving him airtime. It's an embarrassment to this country.
Agree with most of this.
Sophie wasn't dressed tho, except in nightwear and boots.
We don't know if sex was attempted, because the pathology report was rather vague on this, but swabs were taken for semen etc and nothing showed up.
But it's not just thinking out loud is it, he's reporting things as fact that he couldn't possibly know are facts. It's dangerous, irresponsible and terrible journalist ethics.
For example, he tweeted:
"The murder of #sophietoscanduplantier was, I believe, precipitated by an argument over a bottle of wine. Sophie's assailant knocked on her door in the early hours of 23/12/96. She opened it, and he saw a bottle in her porch. He picked it up, and refused to give it back."
"#sophietoscanduplantier called out "Monsieur, Monsieur!" after the man. This is not a way a French person would address a prowler or indeed a 'hitman'. It rather suggests Sophie knew her attacker. She was angry with the man for taking the bottle. He then struck her with it."
In these two tweets alone he is stating as fact that Sophie's murderer took a bottle of wine from her porch when she opened the door and beat her with it after she followed him, how could he possibly know this as fact unless the murderer told him or he witnessed it himself. He also states as fact that Sophie called out "Monsieur!" to her murderer, again he couldn't possibly know this as fact unless he was there on the night or the murderer or witness to the murder told him.
If a source told him this info, Foster should state clearly that a witness or source said this happened. Rather than him stating it as fact that this is what happened that night.
What he is doing is crossing the line from factual reporting into fantasist stuff. He is confusing his role as a journalist/author with a joining the dots armchair detective IMO. If a poster in here put those tweets as a comment they would be quite rightly called out and asked how the F*ck could you possibly know that.
She was interviewed by police by herself on a couple of occasions I think, at least one after being arrested. If she really knew Ian did it and was terrified of the consequences if she informed the police, she could have put Ian behind bars for life and never had to have seen or dealt with him again for the rest of her life. I'm pretty sure the cops even told her during questioning that they had Ian by the balls and that he had maybe even confessed, so if she really was aware that he did it you'd imagine she would have broke there and then.
Foster`s biggest problem is that he is thinking out loud in the media and as far as I can see some people are attributing things to him that he hasn`t said at all and then criticizing him for saying them. He should shut up and write his book and people can then decide if he has something worthwhile to reveal or not.
I don't tweet... I read
Your mind doesn't stretch too far if you link everything back to only bailey..
Sophie knew her killer/s..... I wouldn't open a rural door to anyone without asking who was there..would you?..
If someone traveled a long way for sex I think they would have got it, consent or not..
Rape is an act of violence, and this person obviously had a violent streak...
No this was a dispute... pent up anger, rage & loss of control .........with no mind-state for scene clean-up.
She was dressed and had eaten .... this was a morning killing.
There's a massive blind spot in the mirror when looking back on this case....
Curious that Foster often challenges Bailey and Jim Sheridan to a TV debate, is his goal to solve the crime or to become famous and piggyback off of other peoples fame. Why does something have to be done on TV, why publicly at all if your goal is to actually bring peace and comfort to a heartbroken and mourning family.
Sheridan is a world renowned oscar nominated movie director, why would he arsed to do a live TV debate with a little known author with a pendant for joining the dots in a borderline fantasist way. There's only one person who would benefit from that, it's not Sheridan and it's certainly not Sophie's family. Who Foster claims to care so much for.
In his latest interview with Neil Prendeville, Neil asks Nick if it's the bravery of the people of West Cork that will eventually solve the crime. Nick responds by practically saying actually it will be my info.
The man comes across as desperate for fame and desperate for book sales IMO.
“was floating the idea with Colm, with the cameras unfortunately switched off, that he could say to the French that, yes, he did it, he killed Sophie, but it was a crime of passion. “
Exact quote from the book.
I don't see how this could be seen as anything other than a blatant exaggeration of what was actually said. People can argue that this quote was passed on to Foster from another source rather than said to him directly, but then should Foster really be writing unconfirmed second hand info into his book reported as fact, and what does that say about his handling of other information.
But he does state that in the book, he clearly states that Bailey said "I did it, I killed sophie..." when on the tape he clearly doesn't say that. It's Bailey theorising that if the French police are convinced he was the murderer AND that he previously knew Sophie, why don't they charge him with a crime of passion.
It's a pretty blatant difference in what Foster wrote and what Bailey said, I don't see how anybody could see that differently.
People who think Nick Foster didn't exaggerate that part are basically accusing Jim Sheridan of lying when he played the tape on Blindboy's podcast.
Why would Sheridan call out Foster if Foster didn't make that part up.
Given what we know about the nature of their relationship it seems likely that Thomas could well have felt intimidated, threatened or downright terrified enough to keep that deep,dark secret for all this time and take it with her to the grave.
That's what I'm saying, it sounds as though he's talking about someone who has been given the watch.
From what he says about the person wanting to know when the watch was taken, I don't think the person he's talking about knew the body had a watch on it and then saw photos without it. It sounds to me that it's either someone who was gifted the watch, or someone from Sophies life (perhaps family) that knew she had that watch. If he's hinting that the garda purposefully didn't solve the crime because of embarrassment that a watch went missing from the body then that's incredibly farfetched.
He talks about sending the person a letter confirming to them that the watch was taken at the time of the murder rather than after sophie's body was discovered. How he knows that I don't know and it would seem like guesswork to me, I'm not sure how he could confirm the watch wasn't on her body at the time Sophie was discovered. If he's working off of crime scene photos, the watch could have easily been taken by someone before the photos were taken, rather than at the time of the murder by her murderer. It's also in doubt whether the watch was ever even taken, a poster on twitter has said the watch is visible in crime scene photos in the house.
I would also doubt that her family are directing all questions about the murder to Nick Foster, but who knows.
If they moved the body just over the ditch from the lane and concealed it, then threw a few buckets of water over the scene of the fatal attack they would have had plenty of time to make it go away before anyone raised the alarm that Sophie was missing. No attempt was made whatsoever.
I think what's happening with the Nick Foster thing is people who support Bailey are claiming Foster said things he didn't say.
For instance, there was a big deal made out of Foster saying Bailey confessed to a crime of passion. Jim SHeridan even played a tape on the Blindboy podcast triumphantly claiming he had disproved something. Bailey's supporters rejoiced and said Nick FOster lied!!
Then, I read Nick FOster's book and came to the relevant part. Foster interviews Bailey over the phone while a crew films Bailey in Ireland. Foster says he got a call after the interview from one of the crew - Sheridan's crew - who were filming Bailey and the crew member told him Bailey continued talking after the cameras were off and was talking about a crime of passion. Then Foster starts musing about the possibility of the murder being a crime of passion. At no point does he claim in the book that Bailey confessed anything.
Must be the photographer took it,
Ian's brother David.
But it could easily be someone who was given a watch shortly after the murder and only now is starting to wonder where the watch came from...
Or someone who saw the body had a watch on the wrist and then saw crime scene photos in which there was no watch.
"Maybe it's a good excuse to brush up school French, no?"
Too late for that for me now, I'm afraid.
I responded to an earlier post of yours and asked a few questions, but it may have gotten lost in the Soul writer Glossie Box spat.
You said Alfie had a row with Finbarr Hellen about fencing.
Was this row anything to do with the fence erected where Sophie parked her car, which by the way, was on Richardson's land?
Or was it to do with the fencing and new gate down at the bottom of Sophie's lawn, do you know?
(both of which were removed in later photos of the area)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/37b29390e71419ead582d06229ae30a3.svg)
