Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
So there are these other possibilities and probabilities that you won't even mention here.
Why bring it up in the first place?
Why not tell us about these?
Or is the reality that there are none that can't be debunked in the space of a few minutes?
Bjsc has stated the French hitman and random stranger theory are unlikely (open to correction bjsc)
Alfi has been debunked somewhat
Bantry Garda theory . Did that originate from bailey ?
A few random neighbours, no evidence or motive afaik
A drugs connection. As likely a theory as any of Another theories imo
Thanks pretty sure that’s the article I read - ok so it’s just a Bailey gig then - hmmm interesting - a lot of pressure on Gardai so to not only dot the “I”s etc they also need to show that 27 years of Bailey being the prime suspect has been justified
You’re badgering me now. I’ve been very clear on my view and what I wish to talk about and what I’m bored to death about at this stage - respect that please as per moderation warning above
Alternative narratives...
A former forensics investigator with the British police force, who has studied the garda file on the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier, says she has identified “alternative narratives” in the case that point to suspects other than Ian Bailey.
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/forensic-investigator-identifies-suspects-other-than-ian-bailey-in-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-murder-case/a1086126060.html
I just don't like posters here.or on other threads who claim things and then run away from it.
I have my own ideas about potential suspects - people I could make a better case for than AGS ever made against Bailey. In my experience ( and also according to statistics) stranger murders are the exception rather than the rule. With most murders the facts speak for themselves and in opinion the same holds true for this one.
Now , I don't believe that for a moment
Don't believe what????
Better case for other suspects
Simply not true
How so?
mod
okay you made you’re point now drop it.
There's a case file on Bailey allegedly being strengthened according to reports
Up to 6 witnesses say he met Sophie etc. etc.
Nothing comparable to link anyone else
We might therefore reasonably suppose that anyone who met Sophie more than six times and has a record of violence, must be a suspect.
Quite a few men around Schull and Goleen would fit that profile; I've always wondered, in all seriousness, why no other aggressive men have been named. Because I can GUARANTEE that there are more; spousal abuse is far commoner than murder. And it is particularly common among Gardaí; (ask any Guard, especially a bean-Garda)
They are often high-testosterone guys in a high-test job. With the natural consequences of that, among a few.
It seems like they picked on Bailey about a month after the murder - because they had no other suspects, hardly any forensic evidence, and he was an annoying person with a track record. And if you poke around long enough, you can always find "circumstantial" factors that can be added up to pointing at someone. At almost anyone. Those famous scratches that were invisible in the film from Christmas morning? (The charity swim) -- and so on.
its too late for weak circumstantial evidence like “knowing her”..
No you wouldn't reasonably suppose that
The 6 meetings(?) are disputed hence the suspicion
The lie ( presumably) is the issue here
This is a typical example of people who don't know what happened in the Garda investigation thinking things didn't happen because we the public didn't hear anything about them.
Who is to say the Gardai didn't look into other men who knew Sophie who had a record of violence or were aggressive as you put it ?
Just because we didn't hear about them doesn't mean they were not considered.
Remember there were 50 odd people originally thought to be suspects.
Some of them may have been the people you are suggesting, but in the end all were ruled out for one reason or another.
All of course except the 6 foot plus man who told people he did it, who had scratches the following days, who had a bonfire the following days, who misinformed the Gardai about his whereabouts, who was ambiguous about whether he knew her, who was known to walk the roads late at night and who had a history of violence towards his partner.
This is a fair comment; but it was not enough to convince the DPP (twice)
And since it is specifically described as a "Cold Case Review" - it definitely merits another good hard look at the other 49.
If Bailey wasn't enough for the DPP then the other potential early suspects were obviously not.
I'm sure the cold case review will look at everything, but I would not be one bit surprised if at the end of the day all roads continued to point in the direction of Bailey.
In a properly run and above board investigation all of this would be noted in the Jobs Book and the process by which Bailey became the prime suspect would be documented.
But somebody tampered with it and destroyed those pages.
Doesnt inspire confidence in what was and was not done in this case.
The very fact that tampering took place would be cause enough for no prosecution -it completely undermines all other pieces of evidence documented - not that this evidence even comes close to meriting a trial.
Unless there’s new forensic evidence via new technologies this investigation is dead in the water - even then, there will always be the question of evidence tampering -the Gardai have themselves to blame- it feels like 27 years on they’re only focused on one person because anyone else that may have been involved are now dead - it’s a complete waste of time and resources . We’ve seen with the Kerry babies episode, how Gardai were like a dog with a bone, even when the science showed otherwise.
Where does this information come from re the new witnesses? I'd be interested to see it.
It isn't new afaik ?
Been discussed at length here that persons contradict baileys account of not meeting her
Was 6 at last count afaik
Most of the '6' are not really new, they were either mentioned in the DPP report or French trial.
There was this.
https://watchers.ie/2022/01/11/this-case-will-be-solved-in-time-people-out-there-have-information-question-now-is-did-bailey-meet-sophie-de-plantier-on-that-ferry-to-cape-clear-island/
This is the newest.
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/ian-bailey-secret-recordings-cork-32043688
I find it hard to believe that AGS have only just come across this as Mark McCarthy's statements in relation to Cape Clear were included in the file that they sent to France ahead of the trial in Paris.
Also, according to her diary, over the 1st weekend in September 1995 which I believe is when the festival was held Sophie visited Blarney on the Saturday and returned to France on the Sunday.
I was skeptical about such memories being reported years later and now more so when it contradicts her diary account.
Indeed - there’s no credible evidence anywhere that Bailey met Sophie - what’s being posted now here in the thread around new evidence and 1/2 dozen witnesses of Bailey meeting Sophie is complete and utter codswallop
Where's the evidence all 6 are codswallop
Anything to support a statement like that
All of them are either not sure or only mentioned it years later or it seems dubious they would have a basis to recall a trivial thing.... sometimes all three!
I dont find them credible accordingly.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e68aa2b0e039b12ade8384a2f42841c6.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/925678a10b2fdb0546d802550390a10f.svg)
