Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

1899092949597

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 199 ✭✭Ms Robini


    The act was a sexual assault - taking off of his clothes and getting into bed beside a sleeping woman who didn’t know him and then putting his hands on her prior to being interrupted by his partner entering the bedroom was a violent act in that it put the victim in fear for her safety and he touched her under the bed clothes without her consent or being in a position to consent.

    It put the victim of the assault in fear. It was committed at a time when she was most vulnerable in that she was asleep and unable to defend herself. That assault came to an end not when Bailey ‘accepted a rejection’ - as you’ve described it - but when he was interrupted in what he was doing by Jules Thomas coming into the room.

    This is evidence of Bailey having committed a sexually motivated crime prior to the fatal attack on Sophie Toscan du Plantier. He had a long history of violent assault and he had a history of sexual assault. To say he had no history of sexual assault is factually inaccurate and to seek to describe his behaviour in relation to that sexual assault as indicative of an individual that accepted rejection or that handled rejection well is misleading.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 199 ✭✭Ms Robini


    One meaning of ‘would be’ is ‘having the potential to be’, and that is the sense in which it was being used here. The point is it is a viable hypothesis and where that motive is backed up with evidence that Bailey was at the scene on the night, then taking that together with the other supporting evidence, there ‘would be’ sufficient evidence to ground a conviction.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,561 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    If somebody did the research then one would have had a good guess that Harbison would be late.

    His birthday would probably not have been a secret, albeit hard to research, same as his drinking habits or how he would have celebrated his birthday. If somebody wanted to find out and know he would have.....

    If one was planning this then one could have considered this just on the off chance.

    But also the murderer didn't make any attempt to hide the body, thus time and buying time, getting away and waiting for the body to be discovered wasn't his main objective. The fact that no DNA was securely collected from the scene of the crime would further support this thought as well. This thought leaves the consideration that the murderer had some secure feeling about his crime and didn't care how quickly the murder would have been discovered. ( It would not have been too hard to throw the body over the briars and brambles, not visible in the road, just to gain a bit of time).

    However in mind on how fast Harbison would have arrived, would have been more of a coincidence, as Sophie's trip was probably more upon impulse and short notice decision, plus she rarely came just days before Christmas.

    If the murder was well planned ahead, it wasn't planned with a lot of time ahead, or the murderer had the plans and was only waiting for the right time.

    All highly speculative of course, but worth giving a thought, just for the exercise.



  • Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Plus several witnessed him researching the story before he claims to know of it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,504 ✭✭✭tibruit




  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭Gussie Scrotch




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,504 ✭✭✭tibruit


    "Time has proved him to be spot on."

    Twenty witnesses who presented themselves for cross examination by Bailey`s counsel and directly contradicted Bailey`s testimony under oath at the libel trial say no.

    "I repeat, there is no credible evidence of an association between Bailey and Sophie."

    According to the Epistle of Saint Iano to the Gullible Minions.

    "Both Daniel and Sophie had lovers."

    They appear to have had an open marriage. You have provided no evidence of an upcoming divorce. I have provided evidence that indicates there was no upcoming divorce.

    "If Bailey`s assault on Jules puts him under suspicion, then Bruno`s attack on Sophie is even more concerning".

    Except that Bailey was up the road and Bruno was in France.

    "They were known to be in dispute over the gate."

    Can you provide evidence for this? As far as I am aware, there is no evidence of an altercation, either physical or verbal, between Alfie and Sophie about the gate.

    "There is no evidence that he knew her."

    Yes there is. You choose to believe the liar.

    "He didn`t take a concrete block to Jules`s head"

    She is very lucky there wasn`t one at hand.

    "Nor did he kill her".

    He thought about it though, didn`t he. The diary..."One act of whiskey induced madness and in an act of awful violence I severely damaged you and made you feel that death was near." Two weeks after an assault in May `96..."I actually tried to kill her."

    "Fine detail, trivia, minutiae"

    It was Albert Reynolds who said that it was the little things that get you in the end. When Bailey rang Caroline Leftwick before 12-30 and told her he couldn`t come over because he had to report on the death of a local woman, he never thought that he would have to explain how he knew about Sophie`s death over an hour before he was actually told about it, nor for that matter how Jules was able to tell James Camier about it in Goleen at 11-30.

    "No associations, no links"

    You`re just a broken record who believes a liar.

    "No forensics"

    Nothing to run away from, there are no forensics. In fact, the absence of forensic evidence is either due to sheer dumb luck or a killer who knew how to leave a clean crime scene. Now which local violent headcase knew quite a lot about forensic evidence?

    "No motive"

    A question. What motive did Bailey have to assault Jules, to almost take her eye out, rip the hair from her scalp, detach her lip from her jaw?Answer. Sweet feck all motive. He was a dangerously violent and angry man who needed little provocation to make him lose the plot.

    Another question. Why didn`t he kill Jules? What was it that made him repel those murderous urges that he clearly had? Answer. He knew that he couldn`t get away with it and there were witnesses to at least some of the assaults. The only witness to Sophie`s assault was Sophie.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 199 ✭✭Ms Robini


    Logical



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,575 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    There’s far too much sense in this post altogether, it’s not fair on the amateur psychiatrist’s, fantasists and crime scene analysts.

    You’ll be lucky if the resident stalker doesn’t invite you to pm him so he can arrange to fight you and break you in two.

    "Very soon we are going to Mars. You wouldn't have been going to Mars if my opponent won, that I can tell you. You wouldn't even be thinking about it."

    Donald Trump, March 13th 2018.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,618 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    "The point is it is a viable hypothesis and where that motive is backed up with evidence that Bailey was at the scene on the night, then taking that together with the other supporting evidence, there ‘would be’ sufficient evidence to ground a conviction."

    So, supposing rage at being rejected was a motive for the killing, and supposing there was evidence that Bailey was at the murder scene, and some other evidence, there could be (or would be) grounds for a conviction. Is that it?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 199 ✭✭Ms Robini


    Rhetorical question, innit!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,060 ✭✭✭csirl


    West Cork has 3-4 active courthouses. More than most rural areas. All sitting regularly on criminal matters. A typical days District Court criminal list is 60-100 cases.

    This isnt an idyllic crime free area. There must have been dozens of people in the area with histories of assault. You cant single out Bailey based on his history - there are dozens of others in the area with worse histories.



  • Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Little things like researching the story before he knew about it. Several witnessed



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,504 ✭✭✭tibruit




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭Gussie Scrotch


     

    repeat, there is no credible evidence of an association between Bailey and Sophie."

    According to the Epistle of Saint Iano to the Gullible Minions.

    There is no evidence of any association between Sophie and Bailey. If you believe there is, please enlighten me.


    They appear to have had an open marriage. You have provided no evidence of an upcoming divorce. I have provided evidence that indicates there was no upcoming divorce.

    You could not possibly know whether a divorce was in the offing. Nor have you provided any evidence. He married his pregnant girlfriend shortly after Sophie's demise. Most curioius of all, he refused to come to Ireland with the rest of the family. I contend that there was a motive for DTDP.


    "If Bailey`s assault on Jules puts him under suspicion, then Bruno`s attack on Sophie is even more concerning".

    Except that Bailey was up the road and Bruno was in France.

    Yes, but I'm not saying he killed her. I'm saying he had motive and he had form for attacking her in a fit of jealousy. So he knew her well, he had previous and he had motive. As distinct from Bailey, who didn't know her and had no motive.



  • Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    "[Caroline Leftwick]spoke to the investigators on the 15 May 1997 and told them that

    Bailey had ordered some garlic from them before Christmas and was

    due to collect it on the 23 December. However, sometime between 11.30

    a.m. and 12.30 p.m. on that Monday morning Bailey rang her in a very

    excited state. He told her that there had been a murder at Toormore.

    As she knew some people there she asked him who the victim was.

    He said it was a French woman, someone on holiday. He went on to say

    that he was covering the story and he would not be able to come over to

    collect the garlic. But how would Ian Bailey know about the murder when

    he wasn’t told about it until one to two hours later?"

    above is from Killing Sophie

    ---

    Jules was seen driving near the crime scene around 10 a.m

    Jules told James Camier and his wife at their stall in Goleen at 11 am on 23 Dec IB was going to report on the murder

    Bailey mentioned the murder to Paul O’Colmain, an occupational teacher, between 11 and 11.30 a.m 23 December

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,095 ✭✭✭Deeec


    News like this travels like wild fire. Its highly probable Alfie and Shirley was on the phone telling all the locals and friends what had just happened immediately after contacting the gardai. It is possible for Bailey to have heard the news by 11am. This was big news and would have spread rapidly in the local area. I dont think the fact that Bailey knew about it at 11 means anything. He was a journalist - of course he was going to cover the story.

    Also it is possible that these 'witness's' got their times confused and it was actually later than they thought.

    Post edited by Deeec on


  • Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    then why does Bailey deny it and say he did not know till cassidy told him. I do not believe all these witnesses, and there are others, are wrong



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,618 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    Caroline Leftwick remembered the date and time after nearly 5 months. Her husband said the call was between 12 and 2pm.

    It took James Camier 2 years to remember the date and time. Camier's wife who was working with him on 23rd said there was no such interaction with Jules that day, 3 months later she was to change this for some reason.

    Bill Fuller I believe is another witness, we know about Bill and his relationship with Bailey, so 'nuff said.

    O'Colmain I believe was expecting Bailey to deliver a turkey that morning, but Bailey called him while he was still asleep, so could have been ant time.

    I don't know when Bailey delivered a turkey to the butcher in Ballydehob, but it was supposed to be that morning, about an hours round trip I'd say.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,561 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    I'd say this is what has happened. Any or nearly every small community is the same in that way. People know people if the community is closely knit, thus news does indeed travel fast. Bailey would have learned about the murder early on.

    For a conviction you need to match killer to victim and scene of the crime. Either convincing evidence or a credible witness ( not Marie Farrell ). This would be it.

    At this point neither Bailey nor anybody else does qualify to be convicted.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,504 ✭✭✭tibruit


    Ah right. I thought you might have been implying something else.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,504 ✭✭✭tibruit


    Bailey has always maintained that Eddie Cassidy was the first person to tell him. But this later became a big problem for him because phone records show that the call was made at 1-40pm. Cassidy also maintains that at the time he rang Bailey, he wasn`t aware that the dead woman was French.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,504 ✭✭✭tibruit



    "Caroline Leftwick remembered the date and time after nearly 5 months."

    I`m sure she still remembers it today after 26 years.

    "It took James Camier 2 years to remember the date and time"

    Not true. You are phrasing this to imply these witnesses had an epiphany of recovered lost memories which just is not the case at all.

    "Bailey called him while he was still asleep"

    A man who was not a shift worker who would have had to be still sleeping after 1-40 pm.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,504 ✭✭✭tibruit


    "OK I`ll grant you that"

    "I`ll grant you that too"

    You see, you`ve just acknowledged that you have been spinning false narratives in an attempt to undermine the case against Bailey.

    "The only thing I`m defending here is justice"

    Nah. You`re a Bailey spinner. Go forth my minions and spread my gospel and do my bidding in the province of Media (Social that is). It is no coincidence that you have got busy spinning here at the same time that Scoobie has returned under an old handle.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,618 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    ..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,618 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    Bailey is a liar alright, but Cassidy in a different league.

    Post edited by chooseusername on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,504 ✭✭✭tibruit


    Well Bailey likes to highlight Cassidy`s memory difficulties and make him a liar but the reality was that Cassidy had a busy day on his phone that day and couldn`t realistically be expected to recall what exactly he said to whom and at what exact time. It is a very different scenario to what the people Bailey called had to remember which was a singular event. He may well have told Bailey that the dead woman was French in that first call, but there is no getting away from the fact that the first contact was 1-40 pm. Maybe you`re referring to something else. I don`t what you mean about Twomey.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,618 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    I’ve taken out the bit about Twomey.

    But he failed to mention Cassidy’s phone call before 1:30 in his March statement, and in his May statement he had “forgotten” the details of the call.

    If Cassidy had said he didn’t mention she was French to Bailey it might be more believable than saying he was unaware she was French.

    I don’t know why you put so much importance on the fact the call was at 1:40.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]



    There is also photographer Michael McSweeney's claim that Bailey told him photos of the crime scene were taken at 11 a.m . And Jules, also a photographer, was seen in the area around that time.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement