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.
That's not backing up what you said, her being arrested twice
You said she knew and was involved
That's well documented afaik
Begs the question why he didn't head up to the daughters room if he was in a sexual rage.
Far better than plodding across fields píssed out of his head no?
Below is exactly what I said, then I outlined her 2 arrests, gave you the literal legal definition for the 2nd one, I assume you don't need the legal text for murder?
I also believe Jules doesn't know he killed her
That would be contrary to guards theory who arrested her twice.
Not only did Jules know about it she was involved in it.
Not sure why murderers do what they do. Maybe he didn’t want to kill his partners daughter. I don’t know.
seems odd someone who is sure of his innocence wouldn’t know that.
She was arrested twice , presumably released without charge
Therefore she knew and was involved
Is that your contention ?
Because in a debate about something I can admit to not know a 100% of everything that has been reported in 27 years?
Well aren't you mighty.
Murder was secondary to the motive.
The motive was sexual.
According to the Guards.
Maybe he didn’t want to rape his partners daughter? She had already turned him down . Who do you think did it out of interest? Oh yes and citation please.
No, Jesus Christ I didn't arrest her.
Your claim is she doesn't know he killed her, the guards claim is she was involved in covering it up.
How is this so hard to understand?
Give us an ol' citation for that there boggles.
Eh far from an “expert” I’ve put myself, on this thread. I’m having a discussion with fellow posters, most of whom have been respectful to me, even when I’ve relied on information that may not be entirely accurate and I’ve been more than willing to stand corrected
It was interesting Jules said he could never keep a secret, this might explain some of his drunken confessions. Was he so desperate for attention he would confess to killing someone for the laugh? Was his defense that he was engaging in black humour?
Sorry, unlike the internet brains trust that knows exactly what happened and how based on hearsay and loose talk.
I don't.
Much like the guards in West Cork I have no idea who killed her.
It could have been anyone, including Bailey.
Yeah you have no idea, you have definitely displayed that.
So you're saying now the Gards claim she was covering up the murder ?
Can you back that up ?
Why hasn't she been charged ?
No idea what the rest of your post is about
"You didn't arrest her , how is this so hard to understand "
Wtf like
Forgive me, unlike you I didn't have access to his diary where he wrote about killing her.
He wrote about killing Jules which is what I said , I have posted the source:) something that you don’t seem to bother doing.
That’s what came to my mind too when I heard her say that the other night - his outburst “confessions” post murder could well have been taken as the actions of a guilty mind
It could be Boggles, we don't know. I, unlike you, am not convinced of his innocence. Unless there is a dramatic unforseen development we are probably never going to know if he was in fact guilty of murdering her
The contrarian conduct is in disputing long established, well established facts about the case based on a single internet article, of unknown fact checked provenance, against multiple sources such as the DPP report and the Guardian. They are not guesses. They are facts.
Tell you what, you go onto another internet forum and state that Bailey and Jules were in bed by 10pm on the night of the murder, and weren't in the pub. You'll be laughed out the door.
Well primarily because the DPP stated multiple times that the guards were a bunch of corrupt time wasting pricks. Would be my guess.
How about you?
Lol I am stating that on an internet forum. Why the defense of absolutely everything with regard to him? Any likeness?
Rest in piss I think you meant. Horrid man.
The alleged sexual angle as on the Garda theory as to why Bailey would have gone there to is well documented eg from the DPP report:
The Gardaí attribute a sexual motive to Bailey allegedly going to Sophie Toscan du Plantier’s house in the early hours of the morning before she was murdered. They say that he killed her because she rebutted his sexual advance.
PS And let's remember there were no signs at the scene suggesting sexual assault
What about me boggles ?
The question was was can you backup your claim that Jules was involved
You're posting nonsense above to back it up
I don’t believe Jules was actively involved in Sophie’s murder but I do think she knows more than she lets on. At the very least I think she would be able to break Bailey’s alibi if she were honest.
I think fear probably kept her quiet all these years but maybe now he’s gone she’ll find it in herself to tell the whole truth.
I'm not 100% clear on the alibi events but my current working theory would be something like below based on my belief that he killed her and she doesn't know
-Bailey leaves house kills Sophie
-Writes up a bit of an article and leaves on table to explain his absence to jules
-Bailey doesn't confide in Jules ,knows the sh1t could hit the fan anytime if she knows
-Bailey asks Jules to provide alibi cos leaving the house to write article won't be believed by gards
-jules goes along with it initially but capitulates and admits bailey left house to write article
I'm not 100% sure he is innocent either. How could I possibly know.
My opinions are best on what I know about the case, which whilst not 100% would be fairly considerable.
The reality is though there is no plausible motive, no physical evidence and the circumstantial evidence is flimsy at best.
In fact I think the guards could have arrested dozens of people and if the village fantasist had lied and put them in the vicinity at the time of the murder this thread would probably be about them and not Ian Bailey.
