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.
Then why did he refuse to meet with Garda detectives if he had nothing to hide, and wanted to move the investigation along?
I'm not making any specific allegation against Daniel but given the number of spouses involves in the murder of their wives, as a matter of routine, it is reasonable to expect the police investigating a murder to want to speak to the husband, or even recent ex or separated husband. Even if only purely for elimination purposes, or if the husband had heard of anything that might be useful.
Hitmen make mistakes, they slip up. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many failed, botched hits, or they wouldn't end up in jail afterwards. They are not all cool headed trained experienced types that don't make a mistake. Something that looked like an assassination would immediately point back to the husband. That's not to say it was a hitman necessarily but merely that things can get out of control. Similarly, could be some other criminal sorts who perhaps only went there to threaten Sophie and things escalated.
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121688231/#Comment_121688231
Not making any allegations you say?
Good to see you've abandoned the Daniel could have hired a hitman notion at least.
Shite country? go live in Spain or Germany or France, you think its bad here, they get **** pay over there, they get a **** pension over there, the social welfare system is **** over there, Ireland is actually a pretty decent country to live in, in that regard.
He Viciously beat Jules after a bender that he couldn't remember doing it, but he remembered beating her again when she got home from the hospital.
There is a difference between being a suspect and being convicted in court. Some people seem to struggle with that one and think that because someone is a suspect, it automatically means guilt.
The main people who seem to struggle with that were some of the guards and detectives that were involved in the case.
It was the DPP who had to remind them in stark terms multiples of times.
Also I have yet to see you comment any other potentially motive or suspect without complete dismissal.
Really? Where are these numerous posts where I make such an allegation?
Something other posters reading the thread should consider about the reliability of your claims about the contents of the thread i.e. they are as unreliable as your claims about the case itself.
I merely discussed the hitman theory, and discussed aspects of it, especially points where people have said it wouldn't or couldn't happen like that because of X.
I discussed some of Daniel's behaviour and commented that it was contrary to expectations.
I discussed arguments people put forward in favour of Daniel's innocence, and how much weight they carry.
It was the Guards who wanted to ask Daniel questions, and got nowhere. That is remark worthy, that police investigating a murder were prevented from talking to the husband.
I have said that Bailey may be guilty or innocent.
But I have been clear there are numerous factors about Bailey's character that make him a good fit as a suspect.
There was no criminal trial so we are all only surmising and alleging, nothing more.
As there doesn’t seem to have been a direct sexual motive on the killer’s part, it does look more to being motivated by wanting rid of her or maybe jealousy and loathing. So many potential suspects and such a tangled web there of people living “alternative lifestyles” in West Cork, the picture is very muddy and full of leads that have not gone anywhere.
What he is trying to get through to you, is just because a relationship is toxic and violent that doesn't automatically mean that violence will manifest itself outside that dynamic. Backed up by the fact there is no evidence to suggest it ever did.
How many times I have you heard of shock and disbelief in a community at a murder / suicide involving spouses?
Jules has also admitted being violent in the relationship with drink taken.
That is the sad reality of certain relationships where substance abuse is an issue.
What you are trying to do is scale up a remedial understanding of that dynamic and make the claim that he got up in the middle of the night drunk with a rage horn and marched across fields and hills to offer it to a woman he didn't know and was so surprised and angry she turned him down he beat her with enough force to kill half a dozen people whilst not leaving a trace.
That doesn't really pass the smell test does it?
Be honest.
So after numerous posts alleging Daniel might be responsible, questions to answer and so on, you now say he's probably innocent, something I and others have argued all along.
You also defended Bailey's memory of his alibi, despite him changing the alibi only after he heard Thomas changed hers.
You've said all along that Bailey was not a known hot head despite him being convicted in court for violence towards a defenceless woman. You gave some guff about him not starting fights in the pub, when his violent outbursts have always led to attack women in private.
And you wonder why I think your contributions here seem to be one long wind up?
Says the poster who has repeatedly argued Ian Bailey wasn't a violent hothead! I think anyone reading your posts will make their minds up about you.
It is an absolute fact that Ian Bailey was known for beating up his partner and subjecting her to horrendous violence. Do you accept that, without equivocation?
When you have to resort to this level of disingenuousness, it is just self discrediting.
You know what you were doing, don't pretend otherwise.
Really?
You keep confidently posting on here about how Bailey is guilty and yet couldn't be arsed reading an official perspective on his guilt/innocence
Where did I mention control? Its clear the murderer lost control
And also where did I say in my last post that he was clearly responsible for the murder?
I pointed out that Bailey was known for attacking and beating up defenceless women after a few drinks, that's all. You seem to have drawn a link to the murder yourself there. Funny that!
You're just contradicting yourself now, changing the story but not that you are flinging mud at Bailey. You implied they weren't thinking straight, not in full control. What you are suggesting now shows control.
Agree
Can you answer the question in simple terms ?
I'm not going to be reading all that
My view is that there isn't the evidence to build a solid case against anyone and without compelling new evidence the case is unlikely to ever be solved.
The DPP has reviewed the case in 1997, again in 2001 and again in 2003 and each time has determined there isn't the evidence to support any prosecution.
Have you really not read the DPP file?
As an eample, the DPP stated in relation to the scratches:
It is interesting to note that the Gardaí did not ask Bailey to show the scratches to a medical or any other expert witness in order to obtain an opinion as to causation.
...
Bailey’s explanation for the scratches is plausible, consistent and is supported by other direct and credible evidence.
...and in relation to the fire that Bailey allegedly used to destroy evidence (unlike AGS who did destroy evidence)...
The Gardaí that describe Bailey and Jules as lying in relation to the fire. This Office is not persuaded that is the case.
In any event the most that this evidence could possibly establish is that Bailey could have burnt bloodstained clothes, not that he did so.
...and finally in terms of the sexual motive...
Carly Leftwick (Wright) has alleged that during the course of a party she went to the toilet and met Bailey in the corridor. He allegedly picked her up and said "wrap your legs around me".
She told him to put her down, which he did at once.
The Gardaí have described this as a sexual assault.
No complaint was ever made.
The evidence relating to this is consistent with the view that it was not a sexual assault, but was a flirtatious act on the part of Bailey. When his approach was not welcomed he immediately desisted therefrom.
One witness on file who lived with Bailey for a time says "Ian liked the ladies and the ladies liked Ian".
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.
However, he does not appear to have been remotely upset by Carly Wright peremptorily dismissing his advance.
This is not consistent with the scenario envisaged by the Gardaí in relation to Sophie.
In fact there is no evidence of a sexual motive in this case. References in the Garda Report to a sexual motive are pure speculation.
At the time Sophie was murdered she was in her night clothes, but had her boots on which were laced and tied.
Ian Bailey is 6' 2" tall and powerfully built. Sophie was 5' 4" tall and petite.
There is no evidence of sexual interference with her.
Bailey is in his forties. Prior to his recent conviction this year he had no previous convictions for violent crime. The recent conviction relates to an incident which is trivial by comparison with the du Plantier murder.
Sarah Limbrick, Bailey's former wife who has known him since the 1970's has asserted that he never used violence towards her person. When angry he would strike the wall.
She appears to loathe him as a person having endured difficult divorce proceedings and a dispute over property with him.
The final line of the DPP analysis is:
A prosecution against Bailey is not warranted by the evidence
Honestly, given how much you are commenting on this case, it is surprising that you haven't educated yourself on the basic facts!
Bailey was like a lot of "wife-beaters" a coward. Perfectly willing with a few drinks taken to beat up his petite defenceless partner, but unwilling to stand up to a man his own size.
So no he wasn't a hot heat in public because that would mean a level of bravery he wasn't capable of. Beating up defenceless women in private with few if any witnesses around was what he was more known for.
What's your view I'm not much the wiser there
Interesting.
We've heard from Jules in the last week in various interviews and articles.
To me, she came across as articulate- and indeed honest in what she said .
Might you be saying that she currently genuinely believes what she says, comes across as credible but all motivated from a syndrome?
I’d challenge that on the basis that she (eventually) dumped Bailey unceremoniously back in 2021 and had blanked him ever since. That to me are the actions of a strong woman who finally found her voice - apparently she had some assistance from one of her daughters friends who is a psychologist (I read that in an article last week)
She obviously and wrongly convinced herself for many years that standing by Bailey was the right thing to do- but to me, she still comes across as articulate and honest in what she says. I guess none of us know, but I’d be very surprised, as I think many would, if she did a complete 180 turn on her current stance on his involvement with the murder and/or the degree to what she knew about that.
Did they rule out the circumstancial evidence or not?
You said bits of circumstancial stuff was ruled out by the DPP
I can only go on the media reports as the autopsy hasn't been made public.
Can you show that it is incorrect?
He better be a dead associate for his sake otherwise he can expect a serious libel suit. Even still the Du Plantier family might choose to sue, if he implies they had something to do with it, without providing rock solid evidence. To me its risky from Sheridan.
But then again no-one will watch a documentary unless there is something controversial in it.
It’s human nature to misremember things. Having one story that you never deviate from seems more like something you’ve concocted in your head, and are sticking to, rather than actually telling the truth.
we all have false memories.
https://new.nsf.gov/news/true-or-false-when-memories-play-tricks#:~:text=These%20distortions%2C%20or%20false%20memories,criminal%20carried%20a%20gun%20rather
It depends on which evidence you are specifically referring to but the DPP didn't have much time for the "evidence" regarding scratches, his "confessions", and so on.
Have you not read the DPP's report?
Observation and memory are highly flawed.
One person is likely to give slightly different accounts of an event, especially in details, if asked to describe it at different times over a time period.
Two people are likely to give slightly different accounts of the same event, accounts which are too similar might point to collusion.
In either case a lack of variation, either over time or between two people might point to a well rehearsed and remembered story.
Can you or the other posters that have peddled this line that she was pregnant show any credible source for this rubbish?
The examiner quoting an unnamed person in France in ONE article from 2004 (20 years ago) is NOT a credible source especially as there is not one single other shred of evidence and not reported anywhere else.
Her husband's new girlfriend was pregnant. Sophie was not pregnant.
Did the DPP rule out the circumstantial evidence ?
As I see it, a violent hot head isn't one that only loses the head, get easily angered but in private. That doesn't mean they can't be violent, or don't have anger issues, but it suggests a significant level of control and that's not a hot head to me.
Remember this was your phrasing:
Whoever killed SDP was an animal. They were likely high on something, not thinking straight with some long standing mental issues including an inability to take rejection, were sociopathic, hot-headed
To me I would expect such an individual to have had violent encounters in public too, outside just the "hot house" of a domestic environment.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1751471ae521095b085946f3afd00e1d.svg)
