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 said rejection. Once again putting words in people's mouths.
Bailey was alleged to have blacked out and attacked his first wife, it was mentioned in one of his court cases - go find it if you could be bothered, although I know you're not.
He blacked out when attacking Thomas.
Its entirely possible he blacked out attacking Du Plantier also.
So no sexual motive, just blind violence that he was known for.
I couldn't be bothered reading or replying to any more of your comments, so say hello to ignore.
This post is such nonsense its barely worth replying to. I outlined why I thought Bailey should be a suspect in reasonable detail, and you're still not happy.
If Bailey is the wrong answer, then it is a positive contribution.
Even if you don't have the right answer to a question, eliminating wrong ones is 'positive' in that sense.
Bailey should have been investigated by the Guards at the outset, the problem was the tunnel vision they engaged in, and when it got to the shenanigans with Marie Farrell that's when someone should have had the sense to shout stop and take a step back.
I think the active focus post the DPP rejection should not have been on Bailey but elsewhere and on forensic advancements (which may point back to Bailey or elsewhere). In that sense I don't think he should have been an 'active' suspect at that point. If he is your only suspect, you need to keep looking.
Come back with them goal posts.
Prime Suspect.
There is absolutely no evidence of a sexual motive in this killing.
So she was killed for pleasure or profit.
That was the starting point of this case and remains it.
Right, so you have no suspect, you are not willing to speculate, but you will have a go at anyone who speculates if Bailey should be a suspect or not.
Not a very positive contribution.
The implication of your original post I quoted was that having looked at a rag tag of potential ruffians, Bailey is our best bet- which is probably not far off the rationale at the time considering all that has happened since.
I never said “ignore him” so please don’t misquote me.
Of course Bailey can remain a suspect forever if the Gardai are not satisfied on his whereabouts that evening - but spending 27 years placing all your investigative eggs into one basket and being no further closer to the truth, does raise the natural question of, did the Gardai actually miss out on catching the real killer as a result?
Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. But at this stage we’ll likely never know- but it’s entirely possible that a number of people who were at least questioned at the time but have since died, could well have been the killer- if a DNA breakthrough happens and IF Gardai have their DNA, which is probably highly unlikely, we might see a different outcome than Bailey.
I don’t have a “prime suspect” BTW- didn’t think I needed one to post in this thread 🤪
Obviously someone or some people did it.
You want me to name a prime suspect, I can't.
There isn't one that any sort of available evidence points to.
It's your theory (nonsense).
Someone had to do it. Who do you think was most likely to have done it based on all you know about the case?
You're playing the utter fool again with this nonsense.
The eastern Europe mistress
There is no prime suspect.
Re: Alfie, neighbours fall out... it was Christmas time, people are often more on edge, if a confrontation over something was to happen it would have to be while she was there. Someone grassed Alfie to the Guards for growing cannabis and that happened not long after Sophie moved in iirc. You could just as easily argue the number of different wounds and objects used in the attack suggest someone who doesn't have major physical strength. If the blocks were being used to prop the gate open, it sounds like Alfie was capable of moving them. And we can't rule out an early morning incident which would make a neighbour type incident more likely.
It is a weak enough \ unusual enough motive for Bailey too ... setting out at 3am as a time to 'latch on' to someone who barely knew you \ knew you at all. You think a long walk on a cold December night would bring someone to their senses if they had a momentary impulse along the lines you suggest. No evidence of any previous of his domestic abuse incidents taking such form. No evidence from any women of him pestering them in such a fashion or reacting badly to a rebuff.
As noted above re: Daniel, there is nothing really pointing to him being involved but I would not have confidence he was actually properly investigated by the Guards given they got nowhere when they went over to interview him. So there is a known unknown there.
There is also Karl Heinz Wolney who committed suicide a few months after the murder, lived a mile away. Some background here from an article originally in the Sunday Mirror, but a lot of the information is based on a 'source':
Any possible theory is a peeping tom, who Sophie went out in a rush to scare off, and recognised. This would need to happen earlier in the night than the timing possible for Bailey (e.g. 3am on), on the assumption Sophie would be asleep in bed by then.
My own feeling is that there is criminal element involved somehow. Person or person(s) unknown went there not with murder in mind but to warn Sophie off, or looking for something. Something either drugs related given the area's reputation for drugs smuggling or connected to those 2 French citizens who were known to Sophie and were hiding out in West Cork. And things things got out of hand.
Oh right, his first wife was from a wealthy family? That's a fact is it?
Did he not know her either but randomly arrived to her door in the middle of a winters night with cock in hand?
She accepted and they married?
Ok so you is your prime suspect and why? I've given you mine!
Ah right, so a person of interest stands out a mile, and ticks all the boxes in terms of lack of alibi, a history of violence towards women, admissions of guilt, and so on.
But lets ignore him and pick up someone else.
Glad you're not a detective!
This thread is becoming a bit daft. No-one on here would ever question a suspect, unless they caught the murderer in the act of the crime. But it doesn't always happen that way and often suspects are only suspects because of circumstantial evidence.
Whose your prime suspect by the way?
Did i say marry? Stop putting words in peoples mouths.
As for the motive of ingratiating himself with her, how on earth is that a new motive? Its been mentioned numerous times as a motive.
What claim being true? That he latched onto women from influential backgrounds? His first wife came from a wealthy family but he was ran out of that family because of causing "psychological cruelty". Thomas's father was also renouned as was Thomas. She ran him or one of her daughters did likely also because of cruelty.
Du plantier also came from a wealthy and connected background. The idea he'd simply ignore her just doesn't hold water. He was exactly the type of woman he went for.
And as for believing a word out of his mouth, that's a mistake many many people have made over the years.
No point digging now.
The correct time to dig was when they sent an investigation team over to France, but were told fúck off.
That closed that thread of investigation.
Whether they asked her to lie or not, doesn't mean she shouldn't at some stage have faced a charge because of it, as well as any garda involved. This is where the weakness was. You'd still be hopeful something comes out of this and they end up in court, but you wouldn't hold your breadth.
I still see Bailey as the main suspect though.
“No-one stands out like Bailey”
Ergo- let’s get Bailey
It sort of sums up the approach to this whole case from nearly day 1.
Do you mean Du Plantier's background? They did some digging and continue to do it, such as trying to find evidence that she and Bailey were somehow connected and I would imagine any other suspect in the case. A lot of it is hearsay though.
So Bailey wanted to marry her, or start a sexual relationship with her or at least latch on to her?
That's certainly a new motive.
If your claim is true that he was experienced of latching onto rich women surely this would have been done at least in the past by grace and charm?
And not showing up with his dick in his hand in the middle of a winters night?
For me Bailey is the most likely suspect, although at this stage its unlikely it can be proved definitively he (or any other suspect) did it...because of a lack of definitive hard evidence.
Regards his alibi, I'd question if Thomas knew anything about him getting in or out of bed as she had taken painkillers which combined with alcohol probably meant she fell into a deep sleep. So there was quite a significant window of time there where Bailey had no alibi aside from supposedly writing an article.
Regards his motive, probably multiple reasons. He had a history of latching onto women from wealthy backgrounds and acting as a parasite and he may have viewed Du PLantier as his next victim in that regard and was frustrated when she told him where to go. Bailey gravitated to women like Du Plantier since his earlier 20s, women who were well-connected and influential. A french woman living in a large holiday home, its without question Bailey would have been intrigued about who she was and what her background was. Also his history of attacking women when drunk and apparently blacking out when doing so to the point he was unable to stop himself.
Re other suspects, there are some but almost all are unlikely.
Alfie Lyons - there was talk he fell out with her, but how often was she around for them to fall out - she came occasionally. its not like they came across each other every day. Others say they were friends. The motive is weak imo. Plus he hardly had the build to carry out such a sustained attack.
Daniel Du Planier - completely ruling him out for reasons i mentioned previously
Intruder/burgular - unlikely as nothing was stolen, and why would they bother kililng her if she didnt see or recognise them? Also the house was vacant most of the year, they would likely come when vacant. Its more a case of someone waiting until she was there in the case of this murder.
Others -possibly but no-one stands out like Bailey.
The weakness in the investigation was stark.
When a murder like this happens the normal evolution of an investigation is a deep dig into the persons background.
That was not allowed happen.
Therefore straight away the investigation is limited and flawed.
The pressure comes savage on the Investigating team so you end up with junk motives and theories and then bending or manufacturing evidence.
erm, Farrell didn't waste police time - they asked her to lie (and she wasn't the only one!)
One of big weaknesses in the entire investigation was the unwillingness to prosecute and potentially imprison anyone who was found to be wasting police time.
Several witnesses were able to say what they wanted and incriminate or not others and then recant it and chop and change their story several times over and this made a complete mockery of the investigation to the point everyone was confused and the whole thing lacked credibility.
Farrell for example cried wolf so many times that even if she came forward now with the absolute truth no-one would believe her and rightly so.
What exactly has changed that now makes the DPP analysis not read well now?
I think it is stronger then ever.
For example years before Marie Farrell recanted her evidence the DPP in detail and line by line called her out correctly as a complete bullshít artist.
She would have been their main witness.
The reality is even the Guards weren't convinced by their evidence.
The investigation was so flawed, prejudiced and limited they punted up a load of nonsense to the DPP who they then blamed for justice not being served.
'Well we did our job'. Typical circle the wagons culture that existed at the time and has done since.
The DPP report, with the hindsight of testimony at court cases and public interviews by Jules and Bailey in the intervening years, does not read well now.
Gardai and police forces across the world have documented enough crime scenes in their day, and have an awful lot of data around causation of injuries and indeed motivation of the killer based on such injuries- I wonder does their assessment now of such data still point clearly to Bailey or are there aspects of the crime scene, the victim etc that just don’t fit the narrative of Bailey carrying out this crime.
If there are, then they need to step back and look closely at what this data is saying to them - if the data still matches a strong profile to Bailey then I guess we all need to listen too.
I also wonder how brave the current investigation team is admitting past mistakes - they’re not under trial here but we certainly expect clarity and transparency this time around - it’s all down to them at this stage.
Telling us that unless someone comes forward with information they can’t progress the case for Bailey, won’t be good enough- that will look and feel like their sticking to their guns of the original investigation without explaining why.
They need to justify clearly why they believe someone still has that information that will implicate Bailey- otherwise they risk sounding like any other poster here putting forward their theories- absolutely fine for a discussion forum but just not good enough at this stage.
The Guards try to carry the investigation to France but were blocked by the French
