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.
Regarding Jules, for her own sake she wants to avoid any question of culpability in potentially covering h over a very serious crime. She’s been through a lot, and likely under the influence of “Stockholm Syndrome” aka surviving strategy. She did also participate in some degree of violence onto Ian, but obviously she is the way weaker person here. I don’t think she used or threatened weapons.
I’m no eejit about how women can confront their men. I have a relative who was confronted with a knife by his wife on account of discussion of moderating family finances. He backed off to diffuse the situation, eventually left the marriage.
Of course in the horrible physical interactions between Ian and Jules, we don’t know who started what, but one way or another drink etc was obviously the usual trigger, whoever was the initiator or grievance.
Nope, I did not implicate her. Nice try. I'm not the one continually trying to implicate Alfie. Another poster alleged his wife was potentially bringing evidence away, deliberately. When I asked why would she bring some evidence but not the block, your specific response was:
They wouldn't know how much time they had. Sophie had arranged to meet Josephine Hellen at noon that day, for example. It could be reasonably expected that Josephine Hellen, or a family member, would call around to Sophie as this seems to be a frequent occurrence when Sophie was in the cottage.
So one of your new theories is Alfie was pushing her to go to the dump? I suppose he also told her to pick up the block on the way? And ignore the body!
You have listed off a whole collection of peripheral fluff and tried to package it all up as a conspiracy, but you haven`t produced a single specific detail at all that shows Gardaí went after a man they knew to be innocent and tried to pin a murder on him. Hours and hours of conversations recorded secretly and nowhere did a garda indicate a belief that Bailey did not commit this murder.
The DPP report and reviews that cast doubt on witness testimony were produced before those same witnesses all marched into courtrooms and repeated under oath before a judge what they had said in their statements. The weight given to Jules Thomas recanting her statement has also since been shown to have been poor judgement by the DPP. There should have been an immediate review carried out after that RTE interview in 2017.
Even if she is being truthful today, something which I seriously doubt, all Marie Farrell alleges is that she was pressurized to name Ian Bailey as the man she saw in her three sightings and she still maintains that it was the same man in all three. But the fact is the Gardaí knew that this man was Bailey from corroborating evidence that put him across the street in sighting No.1 and on the Airhill Road in sighting No.2. Nowhere does she allege that Gardaí had any hand, act or part in coercing her to invent her sightings. Martin Graham has never alleged that he was encouraged to produce false evidence to stitch up Bailey.
Just because the DPP accused the Gardaí of whipping up hysteria doesn`t make it so. The DPP never spoke to a single local. There were plenty of gibbering wrecks in the area and a number of them moved away, such was their fear of Bailey. It is referred to in the documentaries. Everybody knew Bailey was a violent, angry car crash. People were right to fear him and Jules Thomas was lucky he didn`t kill her afterwards.
You were the one who implicated her. I was responding to your line of reasoning.
I made no specific allegation. There could have been stuff placed in the rubbish by the murderer. Alfie could have pushed her to go to the dump.
I have seen many insinuations made on this thread about what Jules knew. Can you find me the post where you expressed similar concern?
You cant can you? Proof this is an obviously bad faith argument.
When it was stated that it made no sense that Sophies neighbours would bring one murder weapon to the dump but leave behind the ultimate murder weapon which was the block, you said the following:
Do you?
Which living person did I name today as a suspect and make a specific allegation against in relation to murder?
I’m not a Bailey fanboy just someone with an open mind
Its outrageous that the son was allowed on the LLS and unchallenged, spout inaccuracies
The French police ran the Irish police when they tried to make enquiries over there. The French system convicts on hearsay and the trial they did was a complete ready up
The husband should have been questioned….that is basic stuff
Or read this?
I doubt Sophie knew where the water through her tap came from, let alone go and investigate. She would just call the Hellens.
I have often thought there may have been more than one person involved. There appeared to be two types blood at the scene, the older darker blood on and around the gate, and the newer fresher wet blood on the upper body attested by the Gardaí first on the scene at 10:40 , and also the local doctor at 11 o'clock. Is it possible someone came back to finish the job, a family member perhaps?
I’m very conscious few on this thread know the origins of that picture or remember the TV series it came from 😀
I always veered just a bit more to the innocent side than the guilty side when it came to Ian Bailey's involvement.
Sure, he relished the limelight, he may even have wanted to come to Gardaí attention in the hope of cashing in later.
He didn't move away from the area until quite recently I think, and it appears no admission of guilt was left in written form to be discovered after his death. I think a man like him would have enjoyed one last dig at the Gardaí if he actually was guilty.
Reading about the concrete block from the pump house made me wonder if someone may have turned off the water to lure Ms. Toscan du Planter out. This would have timing implications though, as a person might not necessarily miss their water supply during the depths of the night. It's obviously easier to monitor the proliferation of evidential material in daylight too. I guess I'm entertaining the idea that it wasn't spontaneous.
Furthermore, the use of 2 implements, block AND stone, may suggest the POSSIBILITY of a second person being present. Descriptions of her injuries lead me to think that a "second attack' (frenzied) was "superimposed" over the first (strangulation). A further hint at the involvement of a second person.
You might have to explain that to some on here who couldn't be bothered doing a bit of their own research.
@tomhammer.. banned from CA
Oh stop with your factually correct statements will you - you’re derailing the thread 🤪
I sat on a jury a while ago- a better bunch of normal ordinary people you couldn’t get - I’ve actually great faith in the Irish jury system right now
Two guards talking about altering a witness statement is a conspiracy.
Guard(s) destroying evidence is a conspiracy.
Unsafe conduct with witnesses is a conspiracy. The shenanigans with Marie Farrell and Martin Graham was a conspiracy.
There are multiple witnesses supporting Baileys version of events, witnesses from inside and outside the household.
Over time, witness recollections become ever more unreliable, including statements made by people involved in the case such as Bailey and Jules. Witnesses who have actually witnessed crimes can get details wrong. Multiple that effect by years and years of time.
The Guards in the area whipped the locals up into a hysteria with smears about Bailey, that's a conspiracy.
Witness the humiliating conduct of a grown man like Bill Fuller reduced to a gibbering wreck when he thought he spotted Bailey in a field!
The trial you refer to was not a murder trial. It was a libel case on specific questions.
And it wasn't just one DPP who didn't proceed with prosecution versus Bailey, but multiple ones, including after a Garda review of the evidence in 2002 which did re-interview witnesses:
2002, January: Commissioner Pat Byrne appoints a review team under Chief Supt Austin McNally to examine the Garda investigation into the murder of Ms Toscan du Planter following Mr Sheehan’s highly critical analysis of the original investigation.
2003, March: A new file is submitted to the DPP following the McNally review but the DPP, James Hamilton, again decides against a prosecution due to lack of evidence but says that the matter will be reviewed if any new evidence comes to light.
https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/2024/01/21/ian-baileys-three-decades-in-ireland-accusations-assaults-legal-battles-media-scrutiny/
That same review is described also in The Irish Independent:
The DPP's report angered the garda team that investigated Ms Du Plantier's murder. On the strength of it, the Garda Commissioner dispatched two chief superintendents to review the murder inquiry, Austin McNally and Joe McGarty. They took a team to West Cork and reviewed the evidence. Suspects were revisited, statements analysed, and witnesses re-interviewed. Their inquiry revealed similar shortcomings as the DPP's review but produced no fresh suspects.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/the-complex-and-secret-private-life-of-fragile-sophie/26805384.html
But sure, your point has already been totally discredited above, let's hand over the legal process to the keystone armchair detectives and lawyers in the West Cork Podcast over that of multiple DPPs.
The only conspiracies that have been established in this case all relate to Garda misconduct.
"It doesn`t have to "require" a conspiracy."
It absolutely does. Do you really think that one garda might have been responsible for changing Jules Thomas`s statement that she signed in the presence of her legal representative and all the others turned a blind eye? Bailey said at one point he was questioned by 10 or 12 different interrogators. The DPP gave far to much weight at the time to the fact that Jules was telling the media that she didn`t say a lot of the content of her statement. Do you think that the DPP would have held that same opinion if he was aware of what Jules would tell Philip Boucher Hayes in that RTE interview in 2017?
"Witnesses can be mistaken"
Of course they can, but there comes a tipping point when you have to conclude that they can`t all be mistaken or making it up. That point clearly came in the `04 libel case when over 20 witnesses gave testimony under oath that directly contradicted what Bailey told the court and Bailey`s legal team got the opportunity to cross examine them all. Bailey lost. It`s as simple as that. Again the DPP actually gave weight to Bailey`s testimony that was contradicted by multiple witnesses. Do you think Delia Jackson for example, who was home from London for 4 days that Christmas imagined the bonfire?
I don`t dispute that there were elements of this investigation that were "unsafe" or "illegal". But they don`t amount to a conspiracy and it certainly doesn`t make Bailey innocent.
Daniel or those associated with him was never ruled in as a suspect because the guards were precluded from investigating him.
At least the podcast and documentaries got out there and interviewed witnesses. The DPP was only reading statements.
It doesn't have to "require" a conspiracy. Statement without foundation.
Witnesses can be mistaken. Over time, memories play tricks on people. Even eye witnesses of actual crimes can get facts wrong. And we have no eye witnesses here to the crime, just observations of indirect things.
But as it happens we have multiple instances of Gardai conspiring on this case in unsafe and illegal conduct, also including witnesses. And tampering with evidence.
But strangely that's a "conspiracy" that doesn't bother you. Proof positive this is a bad faith argument.
In the days after the murder Alfie was an obvious suspect. Daniel less so, but a suspect nonetheless. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then and a significant burden of evidence hangs it on Bailey. If you still at this stage believe it was somebody else, then you require a conspiracy that involves multiple Gardaí and multiple witnesses.
Thankfully when people actually get onto juries they tend to become way more objective.
Indeed, stored next to their standard issue Colt 45
Hoof Cuffs or spancils, it’s part of the kit in the boot of the Garda cars.
Maybe we should just disband the DPP and replace them with people in their bedrooms making podcasts?
Can you put hand cuffs on a horse?
Why West Pork? Was it because it’s a pigs ear of a programme? 🤪
" I find it quite funny that people still fall back on a DPP report that has been shown to be shambolic by the passage of time".
Maybe the DPP should fall back on your West Pork Codcast.
Nope you’re not a conspiracy theorist- these are clear leads that should have been investigated - those and others too. The couple of men who died at their own hand may well have held the truth too- but that ship has long sailed.
Obviously all these people remain innocent in the eyes of the law- as I know you agree too.
Theres a huge difference between highlighting a clear and obvious line of investigation that wasn’t properly followed up or even investigated in the first place and a conspiracy theory.
Jesus you’re scaring me now given some of the claptrap people are posting here as their opinion 😀
Obvious suspect?
Daniel is an obvious suspect. All set to divorce his unfaithful wife and shack up with his new (pregnant IIRC?) squeeze. Stands to gain financially. Never interviewed by the Gardai and doesn't even come to Ireland. Somewhat eyebrow raising story about being all pally with his soon to be divorced wife, and how he's arranged to collect her from an Aer Lingus flight that doesn't exist.
Alfie is an obvious suspect. Known to have had beefs with Sophie re land and the gate. Lives next door. Involved with drugs. 'Didn't hear nuttin' the night of a vicious murder.
Now before I get attacked as a conspiracy theorist, I'm not saying either of them killed her - I have no idea who did, but I'd be reasonably confident Alfie didn't - but surely either of them is a hell of a lot more of an obvious suspect than the chap who has no known connection with her and whose involvement in the killing requires belief in quite a fanciful timeline - and against whom not a scrap of solid evidence exists.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1751471ae521095b085946f3afd00e1d.svg)
