They don't prove guilt though and these assaults, violent as they were are pale in comparison with the attack meted on the victim. It was dozens of blows and took significant time to accomplish, much more than necessary to kill and seem to have involved a lengthy chase.
The theory is that if Bailey was indeed the killer, he assaulted Sophie initially and then realised he had to kill her. He couldn't rely on her reacting to the assault by forgiving him and apologising for him the way Jules did.
Bailey's worst assault on Jules was in May 1996. He was banished from the Prairie for a few months because of that. It was only shortly before the murder that Jules allowed him back. (1 or 2 months, I can't remember the exact date... If you have info on when she let him back, I would appreciate it).
Almost every blow was directed towards the head and face. So it can't have been random, it was someone that wanted to kill her specifically and did not relent until he or she was likely exhausted.
During the libel trial, the defence made the point that Bailey's assaults on Jules were directed to the head and face, which they inferred was similar to the assault on Sophie.
Imagine if Bailey did that...
The number of men who violently beat their wives in Ireland is a very small percentage of all men.
A certain section of this small group of men do indeed go on to commit murder. Some of them murder their wives and some murder other people.
Beating your wife is not evidence that you murdered someone. But it is evidence that goes towards character and establishes a pattern of behaviour. It shows you are the type of man who is capable of violently assaulting a woman. It shows you are the type of man who can burst into violence under the influence of alcohol/drugs.
In the background of our killer, we would expect to see some incidents of violence directed towards women. A violent murder like this - beating and overkill - does not come out of nowhere. Our killer has a history.
Note: There are people in this thread insisting that Bailey's violence was only directed against Jules. They are echoing Bailey's own testimony in court where he insisted he was not violent against women because his violence was only against Jules. I believe the point he made was that he was violent against a woman but not against "women plural".
I stand corrected. He only tried to, like he tried to break Shearer's jaw.
It has been pointed out that apart from the incidents with his partner Bailey has no other charges for violent assault. And in these assaults/fights with his partner she testified that their severity had been greatly exaggerated. It is worth exploring her assertion. While people wish to use these incidents as proof of an uncontrollable temper it could very reasonably be argued that in spite of being drunk he was capable of demonstrating great restraint. And we have been told by Jules that she may have provoked the most serious incident by hitting him first. He might have committed to a diary that he felt like murdering Jules but the result of this most serious assault can easily be seen to have fallen much shorter than anything that could be conceived of as attempted murder.
From the most serious assault we are regularly shown pictures of Jules with a bandaged eye. She says that particular injury is exaggerated by others and it may well be. She says that the injury to her lip was due to him having his finger in her mouth. Was she biting him so that the damage was caused as he extricated his finger? When she lost a clump of hair, this could be due to him pulling her off him. Remember that he is 6ft 3 or 4 while she is slight. Were her injuries really consistent with a 'savage' assault or was she 'beaten to a pulp' as many here like to claim? On the contrary her injuries are consistent with pulling and dragging with no punches being thrown by someone who could have done a lot of damage but was able to restrain themselves or simply does not have it in their nature to do something very violent. The only way the Judge in the libel trial could have substantiated the claim that Bailey was a violent monster was by demonstrating the severity of his actions by comparison to the many other recorded cases of domestic abuse the Guards had on record. The most striking thing about that was that the victim didn't agree that he was capable of serious assault, never mind murder. That was something that suited the Guards to plant in the public's imagination.
Keane didn`t break Haalaand`s leg. In fact Haalaand played on after Keane was sent off and unlike Jules he wasn`t hospitalized.
Mamboozle was not able to say how he knows it's not true IB can turn violent quickly. He does not have any proof of that
There are cliques and trolls here thanking each others post
Have you not seen the patter,n?
"Post assault remorse astonishment' Someone who can completely lose it
Maybe he wrote his diaries as a defence know ing of the possibility of them being seized
Bailey is not a suspect for the murder of his spouse \ live in partner though is he? Again you are attempting to draw a linkage which is not relevant. If Jules had been the victim, then of course the domestic abuse would be directly relevant.
But in this case, it's nothing. It is not a sufficiently strong linkage, if one even exists, to draw any conclusions about Bailey's guilt in this crime.
Would it be torn asunder? We don't know, because like the rest of the stuff thrown at Bailey it's not sufficient evidence for him to stand trial. It's just the circumstantial, the invented, the muck, the non existent.
apologies ,the post I was refering to(not yours) questioned the validity of linking domestic violence with murder ,now I don't have a report to hand to suggest there is a linkage although it would be my opinion that a sizeable number of spouses murdered by their partners had previously suffered domestic abuse from that same partner.But I did not state there was linkage ,I questioned Mamboozle's assertion that its accepted there is no linkage.
Its a matter of public record that Bailey is prone to violence.This suggestion that domestic violence is somehow different to any other act of violence
would IMO be torn asunder in a court of law.
Well, if he is so prone to go into violent rages... implying easily provoked... where is the evidence for this? He's drunk in pubs, seems to be an unpopular sort with the locals as an English blow in with 'notions' ... should have a list of incidents with police as long as your arm... but nope. It seems to be one particular person setting him off. His ex-wife reports no incidents. Of course, his conduct with Jules deservedly lead to conviction and is reprehensible. But what's the relevance?
I didn't first make that point, the thread is littered with comments trying to link the assault incidents with Jules as somehow being relevant to the Sophie murder. I'm challenging those peddling that narrative to back it up.
Roy Keane broke someone's leg quite deliberately all captured on camera. Ian Bailey didn't break any bones so does that make Keane the more likely to commit murder?
I don't know if I go with the defence ,"I only beat those I am in a relationship with ,regularly."Also you first made the point there was no linkage between
domestic violence and murder,wheres your evidence for that.
Well maybe he astonished himself one more time.Post assault remorse and astonishment suggest to me someone who has an uncontrollable temper.
If he can't control his temper at all why does he only seem to lose it living with Jules? His ex wife reported no issues, where's his charge sheet for assault and GBH in pubs when drunk?
What study shows that domestic abuse is an indicator of being more likely to murder someone? It's your conjecture, therefore it's up to you to prove it. Even if is an association, given the number of convictions for domestic abuse relative to murder (of someone not in a domestic situation) where the accused has no other convictions for assault... it's such a weak association it is neither necessary nor sufficient for a case against Bailey.
This mud slinging serves no purpose.
Bailey's diaries show remorse and astonishment that he could have done what he did, they were very serious assaults.
They don't prove guilt though and these assaults, violent as they were are pale in comparison with the attack meted on the victim. It was dozens of blows and took significant time to accomplish, much more than necessary to kill and seem to have involved a lengthy chase. Almost every blow was directed towards the head and face. So it can't have been random, it was someone that wanted to kill her specifically and did not relent until he or she was likely exhausted.
eh,this doesnt stand up ,he savagely beat his partner on 3 occasions(was it?) to the extent hospitalisation and stiches were required.To suggest these are the violent actions of a person who can control his temper is laughable ,also what study shows that people who inflict savage beatings on the partners are no more likely to murder than those that don't .I would have have thought the opposite was the case.
Unless you're talking about someone going into the house and cleaning up, this crime scene was uncleanable. All the same unless the killer was injured, or spat or sexually assaulted her there would be none of his DNA left behind, or if there was, it would be small amounts and easily missed. You don't need to create a scenario where the killer has to return to clean up.
I also don't believe killer would necessarily have to have been scratched. He or she used up to 3 weapons all of which with some reach, (though I am doubtful one was a hachet). So the killer could strike her without injuring him or herself. In his book Foster says the lower field was full of briars but it wasn't, it was grass and some rocks down to the gate, with a hedge around the perimeter and a gate at the bottom. My guess is that Sophie struggled along the gate and attempted to flee through the hedge being scratched in the process. At this stage she was struck multiple times on the head from behind. Thus incapacitated, the killer reached in and pulled her backwards, spinning her around to her right tearing open the leggings caught on the wire as she fell onto her back.
"Essentially he is saying Gardai are pretending not to know Ian Bailey was at the scene because it would be embarrassing to them whilst Ian Bailey is pretending he wasn't at the scene because it would be incriminating."
He doesn't mention Ian Bailey by name but it's easy to see why some would assume it's Bailey he's talking about.
But I think he's hedging his bets now.
The way he sees it now is the Gardaí are not pretending, they don't actually know that Baily was at the scene because they did not see him.
What they do know is they allowed, or even invited a n other into the scene, who may have compromised it.
Foster has pored over a Guard's statement again and again until he convinced himself of this version of events.
That's the only way I can see it making any sense.
You are confident in his diary entries as being truthful 100%? Good;
"The gardai seized the diaries in February 1997, believing they might shed light on the killing of Sophie Toscan du Plantier (39).
They did no such thing. One of the few references to the killing suggests Bailey feared he might be framed.
He repeatedly wrote that he was innocent and that he couldn't understand why he was a suspect."
For people with big mouth who don't understand how they work
https://www.webmd.com/oral-health/what-is-lip-tie
You're talking gibberish now Souly!
He any his thanks love only see what they want to see. St ians halo.jules may say something different today.she was defending him in the court as they were together.
If you want tire some look into the mirror
Why shouldn't i say youy last para.have you no answers. Just like you cannot answer Just like you cannot answer the questions how you know he would not turn suddenly violent
Your a bigger idiot that you cannot recall i said i do not care what you think. Does not bother me in the slightest so won't be responding you your teenage insults again
If you think your lip is attached to your gum you are an idiot.
This thread is NOT about Ian Bailey. It is about the Sky TV show Murder At The Cottage.
Two minutes is all it takes unfortunately. If you are going to quote from court cases perhaps you should consider Bailey`s diary entries that were read to the court where he admitted to having a desire to murder Jules as he assaulted her.
"It may disappoint you, but Ireland is seen as a hub of superior education by the Brits (both north and south)"
Yes I'm terribly disappointed, there's me thinking that not having an Irish University in the top 100 in the world when England has 4 in the top 10 would have implications.
You can be tiresome. "Jules might disagree"? She did. With people like you.
This is what she said in court in 2003. You can see her in the Jim Sheridan documentary making similar comments
"Ms Thomas, a Welsh-born artist, said there had been three incidents of violence with Mr Bailey. "The devil drink was the cause of it," she told Judge Patrick Moran. "It's like a temper flash," she said. "It's not something that goes on. It's always like it's two minutes and that's it."
She hit out at the way that domestic violence had been depicted. "I'm not sure why everything has to be blown out of proportion. There was a vast exaggeration of my eye," she said."
Now please don't do what others like to and suggest that the poor demented woman is inadvertently saying that he could in those moments of rage murder someone.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
