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.
I'm quoting from the DPP report. I'm quoting from the Guardian. The alternative is Image.ie - but I'm the one scouring the web for different reports? Eh no. Your post is already self discrediting.
You obviously are ignorant of basic details of the case if you think they weren't home in bed at 10pm that night instead of in the pub after 10 that night.
These are long established, well established basic facts about the case. You have provided exactly zero evidence to contradict the timings, zero, but still jump in with a pointless contribution.
I believe Bailey killed her therefore there no issue with recollection
I also believe Jules doesn't know he killed her
What was the sequence of events re: the change in alibi
Did it start off he never left the bed. Then Jules admitted he did and then Bailey said he left to write the story ?
Have I got that correct so I can try figure out what was really going on there
The facts are Bailey and Jules concocted a false alibi for Bailey on the night of the murder, both their original statements matched perfectly.
Then under questioning by Gardai Jules admitted her previous statement that Bailey was next to her in bed for 8-9 hours on the night of the murder was completely false
What original or previous statement are you referring to in relation to Jules before her arrest?
First, you said it was just some randomer on boards. Now you directly contradict yourself and say it was older sources - so that's an admittance your earlier comment was a bad faith argument. I think that says it all about the credibility of your position here.
It is not a guess. They are timings from the DPP report and the Guardian meanwhile your source is what exactly? Image.IE?
Bailey and Jules were in the pub at 10pm, they were not at home in bed. They were not at home until several hours later. These are well established, long established facts about the case.
You've provided nothing of substance to contradict the timings from the DPP report or Guardian. The timings stand there is something reputable and solid to amend them. Image.IE is not that.
I was looking at Reddit, where a site link was posted with some unpleasant but informative pictures of the unfortunate scene and some of poor Sophie’s injuries. It struck me that she was likely dragged unconscious through the briars and possibly battered against the block rather than the block being lifted up to her. She was a very small woman, about the size of my mother’s sister, and it would have taken only moderate strength to overcome her and have her down on the ground.
You keep scouring around the web looking for different reports that will back up your endless need to argue and debate.
Then under questioning by Gardai Jules admitted her previous statement that Bailey was next to her in bed for 8-9 hours on the night of the murder was completely false. She stated he left the bed and didn't return for 8 hours and when he did return he had a fresh wound on his forehead.
It was only when presented with this new evidence that Bailey (that man that boasted of having a photographic memory) came up with a brand new detailed recollection of where he was on the night of the murder. Which by the way nobody could corroborate.
Again I bow to your greater knowledge of this topic - tracking across fields or the country road is certainly possible, especially as he was possibly fueled by alcohol - but probable? A lot harder to believe.
And what did he think would happen when he got there? There’s no major evidence that they were friendly enough that he’d visit her house at a normal time, no less in the middle of the night. Had there been evidence of an affair then yes, absolutely I’d be willing to agree that he would have been strongly motivated to visit her house- but even if they were “introduced” and knew each other “in passing” , just not a strong enough motivation to visit her house at such an hour - and if greatly pissed, even less likelihood of not leaving vital evidence behind - for this part of the story, it doesn’t add up to me that he visited that house that night.
worth the risk if he could contaminate the scene
So he couldn't contaminate the scene when he hit her with multiple weapons 50 times and he couldn't contaminate the scene when he arrived back.
How did this fúck up evade justice for 27 years?
Would it not be more plausible that there was an extremely rare brutal murder and him being a crime journalist living in the locality went to get the scoop so he could sell it?
Which he did do.
If baileys face was scratched in the course of the murder wouldn't there be DNA evidence.
You are quoting older sources. And absolutely everything that is put to you about Bailey you never conceive plausible whatsoever. You are a contrarian and that’s fine, but I wouldn’t hold any weight off your guesses.
Stating categorically and first time, what you did or didn’t do and the times you did these things at, is actually incredibly difficult sometimes unless you first cross reference your version with others.
I couldn’t tell you what I did say a week ago, with any huge level of detail or accuracy- I’d need to be prompted by others whom I was with before arriving at some version of accurate.
Had I been questioned, I’d likely have stated that I need to verify certain aspects as a, I had been drinking and b, I had no cause to remember accurately, my movements on the night. I don’t think I would have readily locked in my movements in a Garda statement without first obtaining independent verification - at the very least I would have said it was my current recollection and reserve the right to update that recollection - that in itself shows that I’m not willing to be badgered into making a full and final statement on the matter that “can be used against me”.
Again you have missed the point.
I'll explain what the DPP meant.
Being inconsistent in recollection is perfectly normal. Especially with the passage of time, and that time does not have be long.
If in fact he was guilty he would have made sure his alibi was far more consistent.
Again, as the DPP inferred what he said he was doing was consistent to what he did do.
Now if he said he got up and drive around for a few hours, well then that's different.
I guarantee you if they rounded up 50 couples, arrested them and integrated them like they did Bailey and Jules they would be a comparable level of inconsistencies.
Because people who comment on cases like this forget to park the hindsight.
I'm quoting from the DPP report and reputable outlets such as The Guardian. To deliberately misrepresent that as "some random boards poster" is obviously false and shows you know you haven't a leg to stand on.
If you are as arrogant as he was , then maybe . He probably thought he was being clever using his job as cover for being there. In his mind not being there might look more suspicious. Also from his perspective he may have calculated it was worth the risk if he could contaminate the scene.
It seems very doubtful he used the car... Ginny Thomas returned to the property about 2:30am and didn't notice the car missing afaik.
None of the people in the house heard the car leaving or returning.
There were no signs of blood in the car, noticed either by the residents or when searched for forensics weeks later. And afaik no obvious signs of attempts to clean away evidence.
Or maybe the "confessions" were just Bailey's sarcastic way of trying to get rid of someone annoying him \ trying to wind him up.
One of the confessions he was in tears, very unlikely sarcasm.i think 6 people testified that he confessed. I’d believe the publication over some random boards poster as well.
Incorrect.
If someone living alone was interviewed and gave one alibi, but then decided to change it at a later stage to something else, that potentially would make them a suspect.
Again I am not saying Bailey did it (no-one on here can prove he did or didn't do it unless they have some hard evidence no-one else has which is unlikely). But when you start changing your alibi, you can understand why people start asking questions.
Serves me right for quoting that article but it’s not like it was some random blog so presumed it had obtained accurate information - it’s also an Irish publication - anyway happy to stand corrected either way.
Motivation to visit Sophie’s at that time would have been greatly increased whilst drunk I’d argue- more arousal at the thought of meeting her and less inhibition - however a much more difficult journey back and forth (unless he used a car) and a much greater chance of leaving evidence behind, or appearing very distressed the following day.
His outbursts in the subsequent days and weeks apparently “confessing” the crime does feel like he was trying to tell people the truth and I’d imagine if he did the crime, these outbursts wouldn’t be that unusual - I’m not convinced he was being sarcastic as he claimed - but as for proper legal evidence that a jury could convict him on, way off that level of proof.
Detectives can legally lie about confessions? I'm not sure about that.
Either way you missed the point.
Sure he did confess multiple times after anyways haha
If the detectives didn't put it to her that bailey had confessed
They wouldn't be doing their job
image.ie have the timings wrong is the likeliest explanation, if they are contradicting multiple other accounts including the DPP report.
Here is another article from The Guardian this time, and tallies with reports of Bailey going to bed after one o'clock in the morning.
I think the violence towards Jules, there was drink taken. But also as you note, it seems a stretch to me someone who had been drinking for several hours, after a long active day (and he was even out the night before also at a party and slept on a couch) ... would then get up for a 2 hour cross country hike on a cold December night.
On the night of 22 December, Ian and Jules went to the Galley Inn, in Schull. It was just before Christmas and the village was glittering with lights and with the restive energy of the holiday, as distant family members came home from the Bronx or north London, cargoed with duty-free booze and cigarettes. They stayed at the pub until around midnight. (The gardaí are more lenient about closing times over the holidays.) When they left, Bailey bought a Guinness to take with him. It was a splendid night, frosty and clear, with a winter-solstice moon overhead, lighting that numinous landscape of ocean and stone. Their old car bounced home towards the Prairie. When they arrived, Bailey, a little drunk and inspired by the hallucinatory beauty of the winter stars, decided to walk over to his studio cottage, some 200 yards away, and write, while Jules went to bed. This much Bailey told police during the course of his first questioning, in February 1997. But the gardaí have had to struggle to figure out what happened next, and why. There are no witnesses. According to Bailey, when he finished writing, at one o'clock in the morning, he went home to bed.
https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2000/mar/12/life1.lifemagazine11
I’m assuming that his outbursts and violence towards women mainly happened when drunk?3
Exclusively when he drank whiskey, according to Jules.
It's also worth noting, the physical violence wasn't just one way, Jules could be violent when drinking too.
It may be uncomfortable for some people to hear, but couples often have substance abuse issues, not just one. Dysfunctional Violent relationships are not always just one way either.
You missed the DPPs point. If they were canvassing for the murderer with questionnaires, Bailey would have got his story straight with Jules. The arrests happen 7 weeks after the murder.
Just because Jules wasn't sitting beside him in the kitchen or the studio doesn't mean he doesn't have an alibi.
Anyways if lack of what you think an alibi is makes you a prime suspect everyone who lived alone at least in West Cork should have been arrested.
Correct?
I don't and like I said only going on what I’m reading- considering that article was only published since Ian’s death you’d think they’d get the facts right.
Im not up on the official timelines of the night in question so happy to be corrected.
If they were indeed out in a pub getting pissed and only back at 1am , it’s much harder to believe that Ian was capable of making his way over and back from Sophie’s house without creating huge suspicion - I’m assuming that his outbursts and violence towards women mainly happened when drunk? So he was likely in a state that night where he had a strong propensity to be violent. But if the timeline is now is greatly reduced I’m less likely to believe his involvement
Very common occurrence for who?
What matters here is the changing alibis, not what Bailey said he did (which is largely irrelevant).
Alibis depend on proof and witnesses, not the word of a suspect. Just look at some of the phony alibies in recent years based on the word of the chief suspect. All of the alibis proved to be nonsense. Eg the Satchwell case.
Essentially if you don't have anyone to back up your alibi, you don't have an alibi.
I'm fairly sure all the neighbours etc had alibis which didn't change over time.
That leaves Bailey with a very weak alibi which he and his partner changed.
She changed her statements and challenged some of what AGS had recorded. Remember one of her witness statements could not be found by GSOC and some of the tampered pages in the Jobs Book related to it.
But she did not change those timings afaik.
So I think I'd trust the timings from the DPP report over that article. Have you got anything more definitive as to the 10pm comment?
By some accounts they only got to the pub at 9pm e.g. this timeline collated by "Crime Guy"
For most of this evening, starting at around 9pm, Jules Thomas and Ian Bailey are out in one of the Schull pubs, The Galley bar. According to them, they arrive home at around 01:30.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/6LO3XX7RV5W3/519310568-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-timeline.pdf
Jules never changed her story about the time they went to bed.
It's also worth noting her arrest was unlawful and during the 10 hour "grilling" she was told Bailey had confessed.
They were arrested on the same day and interviewed separately.
As the DPP put it.
To suggest that Bailey’s completion of the questionnaires demonstrate an intention to lie and mislead may be unfair unless one proceeds from the assumption that he is in fact guilty, in which case he would have reason to remember every detail of his movements with great particularity.
It's another red herring.
Bailey getting up in the middle of night to work (drink) was not out of the ordinary and very common occurrence.
She changed her statement later though I thought? Maybe I’m mistaken but just going with what was written in the above link I quoted
When your own partner doesn’t back you up, it says it all really - changing the story of where you were on the night in question is pretty bloody dodgy.
It certainly brings more attention on you at the very least
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1751471ae521095b085946f3afd00e1d.svg)
