He died earlier from a heart attack, very curious guy whatever you think of him. If he didn’t kill Sophie Toscan du Plantier he certainly didn’t help himself by his attention seeking behaviour.
This is what you said:
For a "known hothead with such a short, violent temper" there doesn't appear to be any accounts \ incidents of him getting violent in public before the murder. Not in the years he was living in Ireland before the murder.
Then you admitted you don't doubt he beat up his partner.
Its hard to take you seriously.
Here's the post, it was in direct reply to yours.
Your claims about the thread content seemingly are as unreliable as your claims about the case.
I will note you were also asked to explain your claim about Bailey being in Sophie's house before the murder and have provided zero foundation for it.
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121653442/#Comment_121653442
its not really, scared of posting it while alive because its rubbish
I've looked back over the thread and don't see where you pointed out the reasons for doubting the Irish Times article or witness statements. Its hard to rebut something that didn't happen.
Do you doubt the numerous independent witnesses who saw, heard of, or introduced Du Plantier to Bailey
its hard to believe anything that lad said though, so I doubt any of it happened
good read
at the time of the murder he was a functioning alcoholic as demonstrated by the Sunday Tribune using him as a reporter.
Nope but that's not the same thing as your description: "Known hothead with such a short, violent temper"
If he has such a short, violent temper where are the other incidents in the years he was living in Ireland for a "hothead with a short, violent temper"?
Also they engaged in lots of bats hot strategies. Eg the British soldier with hash.
Depends on the brief I suppose.
Sheridan certainly thinks the answers lie in France.
Be interesting to see what that woman who came forward as a witness and admitted lying thinks. She was a headbanger too.
Yes you can. You can make the assumption it is more likely to be someone with a history of violence against females. Of course you can.
So you're saying he didn't assault his partner?
they did yes, it was a joke/rumour which took its own life, just like all the other speculation
lots of people saying the garda made a balls of the scene with nothing to back it up
there's the flakey witness, there was a second person she was riding in the car and she wouldn't name him, i mean ridiculous
and the supposed coercion of other witnesses all in the mix
There is considerable doubt. I pointed the reasons for doubting the claims on the thread, and you offered no rebuttal.
All of the claims or witnesses are dubious or implausible for one reason or another.
You may be persuaded by the claims but that is a long way away from it being a fact.
And what is taken to be the DPP report says that:
The Garda contention that Bailey is being untruthful and evasive regarding his knowledge of Sophie Toscan du Plantier is not supported by convincing evidence.
That probably happened. But again, that's not really the MO of contract killers and assassins. They don't generally hang about the scene and draw the whole thing out. I think we can safely rule out some people's suggestions that someone related to her ordered a hit and tried to frame Bailey.
No course not.
you seem to be an expert on hitmen
poisoning, you just break into the house, poison, leave
you arent going to use a hitman who is going to use a gun, for obvious reasons
no doubt the chances of it being a hit are low
but if you wanted to make it look suspicious use a gun, which you would have to get hold of in the first place
this would be a no go
have you seen most contract killings, a mess, its not a movie
Did you read the Irish Times article I posted earlier?
Multiple independent witnesses who testified to the fact that Du Plantier knew Bailey and his writings, that she had talked to him on a number of occasions, was introduced by a neighbour, and he was seen at a market talking to her and that they would have known each other for a while.
But why believe them, when we can believe Bailey, a known liar?
Its not in any way in doubt.
From what I've read on here, you base a lot of your opinion on Bailey on the word of Bailey.
Pretty sure it doesn't work like that: a hitman is going to use the methods they're comfortable with, not the one you dictate to them.
Poisoning requires getting close to someone, so that they or someone else may be able to identify you. Hitting them with a rock means you're likely to get blood all over you, and therefore be noticeable as you try to make your getaway. As well as probably leaving your own DNA all over the rock.
Not to mention knowing there'll be a suitable rock lying around in the first place.
unless you strangled them or knocked them out first.
Interesting you say that.
Jim Sheridan got another pathologist to look at the evidence, autopsy, case file, photos etc.
He concluded that she was strangled and the blows from the rocks came post mortem.
It was all handed into the cold case review.
Something doesn't add up there.
"And was likely in her house just beforehand".
What evidence do you have to justify that claim? There's no evidence I know of putting Bailey in the house.
There's considerable doubt whether Bailey knew SDP, he knew of her but that's not the same thing.
The scratches have been discussed over and over - no evidence tying the scratches to the crime, zero evidence Bailey was scratched at the scene, and the descriptions of the cuts are consistent with Bailey's account of them (not just my opinion, that is from what is taken to be the DPP report).
Bailey was a known hothead with a short, violent temper. It appears to be one of the reasons he left the UK and ended up Ireland.
Knowing Du Plantier in itself is heavily disputed is the thing. There's a reason why the state didn't choose to pursue the case, there wasn't anything close to a credible case. There's only one thing that can be said for certain and that's the Gardai made a shambles of the case.
Not sure anyone ever said the gardai washed the glasses, more that there was two washed glasses there.
Gardai took the witness at face value. Not a great witness admittedly. But there was more to this case than just her, not least his own admissions to people, an alibi based solely on his word, his lies about knowing her and so on.
Not that straightforward. There's more boxes to tick than just a man with a history of violence.
A man with a history of violence, who knew Du Plantier and was likely in her house just beforehand, who happened to live not far away and who its known was out of his own house at the time of the murder, showed up with scratches soon after and whose alibi is his own word, which being a liar is no alibi.
That's narrows it down I'd say.
Many people commit violence against others but don't commit murder. Many murderers don't have a history of violence against their partners. You cannot make the assumption that there is a link between the two acts especially when looking for a murderer.
Gun most likely. You wouldn't use a rock in a planned murder, because there is actually no guarantee of being able to kill them, unless you strangled them or knocked them out first.
This is not how professional assassins or contract killers work, or even anyone planning a murder.
A rock is a weapon of opportunity, and hardly something you'd bring with you to a potential crime.
As Bailey said himself to Maloney, this wasn't a premeditated murder.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d38dadd4e9049f636f3a15f844846484.svg)
