Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
Typical Mirror reporting, Bailey's article was in the Daily Star on Wed 26th. Irish Times and Independent and Daily Telegraph had it on the 25'th. Post mortem was on the 24'th.
These are facts Tommy, don't bother asking for links etc. do your own research.
If you want to argue about the obvious fact that almost everyone in proximity to the case was at home in bed in west cork with their close family members as their alibi, that's fine.
Bailey had a confirmed alibi too…. until he didn't, and that is about the only tangible thing that people are willing to stand behind other than hearsay and fires without smoke.
Who else's alibi would hold up to the same scrutiny.
Bailey changed his story and so did Jules
All highly sus.
He had arrived back to Jules bedroom the morning of the murder and would have had a busy day that day, but he misremembered he had been gone for the nite
Jules also misremembered
Been discussed to death
Highly sus, lock him up so
Who else would have changed story if the Guards had presented a fake witness like Marie Farrell?
Who else would have had their claimed alibi fall apart if the Guards had properly dug into it?
What was Marie Farrell's alibi?
What was her husband's?
What was the alibi of the 'man' Farrell was with?
That's on a level of 'sus' leagues above Bailey.
No
You're talking rambling nonsense
Farrell's husband and ANother man are leagues above Bailey in the suspicion stakes ?
Rambling nonsense? Read some of your posts back to yourself.
The whole situation with the Guards and the Farrells and this 'phantom' in the car is multiple times more suspicious than anything to do with Ian Bailey.
You seem very focused on claimed alibis.
So what was Marie Farrells and do you believe it?
Whats the alibi for the rest of the night for the man MF claimed to be with for a period of it?
What is her husbands for the time MF claims to have been out and about?
@drury.. are you interested in justice? This usually involves the pursuit of people who are unknown? There are at least 3 people who have a higher amount of suspicion than Bailey, and it could be the same person in fact.
Then you may get to mystery men, of which Marie Farrell's driver is one, and a bunch of others etc.
It could all be inconsequential, and Bailey could be the perpetrator, but you will always have reasonable doubt before the above are answered. If you don't believe those questions should be answered, or dismiss them with speculation, then you are not interested in justice. Are you an anti-justice warrior?
Can you outline your reasons for claiming MFs husband and lover are multiple times more suspicious than bailey
Aside from the fact that you're querying their alibis for the night
Otherwise it's just wild speculation and should be stated as such with a disclaimer
BTW . I don't know what all these persons alibis are and haven't claimed to
I don't know what these 2 mens alibis are for the nite or whether these alibis are confirmed
An unconfirmed alibi is no indicator of suspicion whatsoever. It happens
(My dispute was that almost all 50 have questionable alibis which I don't believe is the case)
So it is a giant leap to suggest these 2 men are leagues above bailey in suspicion without further reason
It belongs in the realm of wild speculation
Jean Pierre Gazeau, Ms Toscan du Plantier’s uncle and president of ASSOPH, said Chappuis was invited to join the group as part of its quest for the truth.“We listen to her. She has interesting arguments, and of course we listen to all those arguments,” he said.“We want to have different points of view because it is absolutely fundamental to get the truth. What happened that day? In which circumstances did she lose her life?”
Looks like Sophie's family have realised they were fed a load of bullshít by the Gardaí.
Bridget Chappuis (@bjsc on here) has joined forces with the family's campaigne for justice for Sophie.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/crime/forensic-expert-joins-family-in-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-murder-quest/a896853482.html
So you can't answer the questions that were put to you about their alibis. Do suspects \ persons of interest have questionable alibis or not? And from the point of the view of the early stages of the investigation, all alibis are questionable. The point is how thoroughly they were 'questioned' and whether their declared alibis probed.
Let's take one example, is Alfie's alibi "questionable"? If Shirley and Alfie didn't hear the murder as they claim, which happened next door, it is hardly a solid alibi as to each of them being able to account for the other's whereabouts during the night in question.
If you accept that MF was out with a mystery man that night, well what were they actually up to? What is the mystery man's alibi for the rest of the night? He was in the vicinity of the murder. So that is levels beyond a 'questionable alibi', that is a man in the vicinity of the murder on the night, out and about, with his whereabouts unaccounted for for most of the night. A man whose identity is unknown. And remember the Guards at least publicly presented MF's evidence as credible, so they have a man placed near the scene, identity unknown, no alibi. And all they did was sent a Guard on a wild goose chase after a dead man.
What was Marie Farrell's husband doing? MF can't alibi him if she was out and about, whether alone or with mystery man. Now, I doubt MF was out with a mystery man that night, but if she was out, I'm sure that the name she gave the Guards was nonsense. And any competent police force would likewise.
Any competent police force conducting an investigation of integrity, rather than one engaged in tunnel vision and a fit up job. Is the Guards conduct in this case suspicious? Remember we also have documented evidence of tampering with evidence trail, with lost pieces of evidence, with some very dubious remarks captured on tape.
If you don't accept that MF was out that night, and made up 'mystery man', that leads to more questions. Well what is the alibis for the Farrell's that night? Because the husband can't alibi MF, if she is claiming to have been out and about and officially the Guards accepted that. And MF can't alibi her husband either.
So the entire situation with the Guards interactions with the Farrells is far more suspicious to me than anything on Ian Bailey. This was not a safe investigation, as the DPP office called attention to.
Can you clarify what specific aspects of those questions are "wild speculation"? So no, I'm not going to add a disclaimer to what are entirely valid questions and reasoning about the situation.
"What was Marie Farrell's alibi?
That's on a level of 'sus' leagues above Bailey."
Odyssey puts 2+2 together and gets 10
No explanation whatsoever as to why these persons are leagues sus above bailey aside from he's querying the alibis
And no I don't know what their alibis are and have never claimed to
Anyway this is the level here it appears
I think that M Farrell's statements should be discarded as she is not reliable.
”Bridget Chappuis believes Ian Bailey was singled out as the prime suspect to the detriment of other potential suspects”
I think this is the root of why we are where we are today.
A number of potential suspects died in the months and year or so following Sophie’s death - all listed previously in this thread. They may well be completely free from any responsibility for this crime- but it would have been good if Gardai hadn’t added one plus one and got 3.
Would Sophie’s family have rights to request any original files on the case that were not handed over to Bailey for the French trial I wonder. It’s believed these were cherry-picked and did not include any statements etc. that may have pointed away from Bailey, and towards other suspects.
Many of those here who were convinced of Bailey's guilt were of the belief because the family also held that belief.
Given that the family now seem to not believe what AGS have told them, I wonder where this now leaves those on here who assumed it was Bailey (simply because AGS said it was so).
I’m afraid I’m not up on what access rights they have- but I bet they have no”rights” per se - the Gardai supposedly gave “everything” to the French prosecutors - I am personally dubious about that but even if they did, a lot would have got lost in translation I imagine - maybe the family might have better chance getting the “French” version?
I think Bailey said as much back in the day -ie that if he were Sophie’s family, he’d be doing what they were doing and believing the Gardai - I guess most of us would if we were family and living in France - who else could we trust? I hope one day the family read a synopsis of all the facts all the so called evidence and really start to question just how clear this evidence really is- I don’t know how he was found guilty in France I just don’t/ I know they have a different system that you nearly need to prove innocence vs prove guilt, but still , to any normal legal mind, the evidence couldn’t possibly stack up to a guilty verdict
It is logical to assume that Sophie’s temperament and character, as perceived and described by locals, are an important aspect to consider in relation to this murder.
But we don’t have to work backwards from an imagined scenario, ie a late night caller or intruder who lost the plot when confronted by someone of her temperament, in order to make sense of the case. We should be starting with what we DO know and moving forward from there. What do we know? We know something of Sophie’s character. We know relations with her neighbours were somewhat tense with regard to access issues at the very least. We know that there was no evidence of sexual assault. We know that is is not uncommon for people in Ireland to commit brutal crimes of passion over land and access issues. One of our most famous plays is about this. And only three years ago, in the same county in which Sophie was killed, a man was killed by his father and brother over inheritance to land before they killed themselves.
I believe that Sophie was killed by someone known to her, who either lived very close to her or who had reason to be up by her property (someone she would expect to see, in other words) and that this was a crime of passion with motivations pertaining to what I have discussed above.
I don’t know how he was found guilty in France I just don’t/ I know they have a different system that you nearly need to prove innocence vs prove guilt, but still , to any normal legal mind, the evidence couldn’t possibly stack up to a guilty verdict
My understanding is that the Judge running that investigation and trial was given the garda file which was largely based on the same rubbish that they sent to the DPP (and was subsequently, not just rejected but had the unprecedented disgrace of having a critique of the "evidence" made public). The French authorities didn't count on an incompetent Garda investigation and assumed that the "facts" provided in the garda file were genuine and the evidence pointing towards Bailey could be relied upon.
Whilst all theories relating to this case are speculative to a high degree, the "broad brush" theory you have outlined does seem more plausible than that advanced by the gardai.
And depends on fewer assumptions.
Yes, in France the DPP process we have here, happens during the investigation, with an investigating \ examining magistrate working closely with the police from the outset of the case. They would be assessing the evidence as it is gathered to ensure it was 'safe' and robust, or should do so. They are the one who makes the decision as to whether it goes to trial.
This is what we are trying to achieve at the moment. Particularly anything from the 2 previous reviews.
Hi @bjsc, do you know did ASSOPH have access to the files you have?
Welcome back btw.
Yes they did. But they always believed that the file that was sent to France contained all the evidence that the Garda had, not just that against Bailey. They are only now starting to understand how much was withheld. Effectively France was sent the same evidence that was submitted 3 times to the DPP and rejected 3 times.
It's possible, but also speculative.
I don't think that this was over land and access issues or inheritance matters. Her husband Daniel would hardly have cared about a house in the South West of Ireland, it wouldn't have made him neither richer nor poorer. At best the house would have fetched 130 K in Irish pounds back in the days.
The question of "temprament" and "character" as well as someone "known to her" is by far more speculative. A woman, not all too ugly, marriage broken, affairs besides her husband, and herself ( most likely ) alone at her house, could have gotten the interest of many men.
However I doubt Bailey would have had a serious interest in her, - in the sexual sense.
The house being so remote and not often lived in, the killer must have gone only there on purpose as he knew that she was staying there. This would by some logic imply some previous connection between Sophie or the killer. - that is if her husband didn't send anybody on instructions.
I wasn’t referring to her husband I was talking about neighbours and people who are known to have had access to the land.
I only stated facts:
these are facts that have led me to state an opinion as to what happened.
But everything you state in your own post is speculative.
Attractive woman alone for a few days at a remote house attracting the attention of many men—speculation (to say nothing of the fact that barely anyone other than a handful of her acquaintances would have known she was around at all)
Doubting that Bailey would have had any interest in her—also speculation
the killer must have only gone there on purpose because it was so remote—speculation (even if this was the case, where is there an indication that they were at the house specifically because Sophie was there?)
This implying some connection between Sophie and the killer—we can’t make that assumption based on the speculations you provided above
her husband sending a hired killer—speculation
Just reviewing some of comments here. As per usual Odyssey06 your posts are always very well written and taught out
@drury. You might seriously like to consider proof reading some of yours as they add very little but that's just my opinion.
Basically there is many possibilities theories suspects persons of interest . gate missing pages from books missing fires clothes possibly burned ..evidence lost etc etc etc.
The only facts I know is
Someone committed the crime
We don't have any real evidence to prove anything in terms of individual DNA
We may never find the perpetrator.
Lastly @Bscj and people of that level potentially can narrow the avenues for us more..in time maybe with increased DNA we could near a nationality ...but a result towards a conviction is long way off. I'd like be proven wrong..and what do I know really.
The case I see at times is just myriad of unfortunately unstructured evidence theories possibilities but nothing to ultimately prove anything of who may have committed this.
The fresh eyes fresh approach and hopefully fresh angles if they exist is where we hope go in future..if that seems reasonable.
I trust in new approach more now , it's really the only realistic purpose remaining to follow.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
