Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
To be fair, even without listening to the Gardaí it had been reported that he confessed/bragged about murdering her while drunk on multiple occasions and played it off as dark humor. The family thinking it was him is not surprising or even misguided. The prick kept himself in the frame the entire time. He may not have been guilty of the murder but he was far from innocent. People thinking or saying he did it, is seemingly in keeping with what he wanted.
Who actually did converse with the family. Did they have a political handler from the Irish side, or did they meet with an individual Garda handler etc., or was it just a French political intermediary?
Obviously in the very early days, they would have had to get briefings about progress from someone, but once the gards honed in on Bailey, from then on whatever way they got their information, it appeared to be only that which pointed to Bailey.
I don’t know so I’ll bow to your better knowledge of him - but it’s probably immaterial - essentially he’s addressing the killer of his daughter - as a father, he’d obviously be listening carefully to what the official policing body of a European country has to say - - in this case Ireland and the Gardai- I guess we’d do similar if in that position - but speaking personally, no matter how reassured I might be with their words to me, if the evidence didn’t stack up I’d always have some doubt that they had the right person
Most of the letter could be to an unknown killer, but this part would appear to be directed at Bailey-
“And today you live in peace, free, without regrets. There’s an arrogant, contemptuous look in your eyes, the look of a predator looking forward to his next victim. Your whole life has been one of cowardice and perversity."
But it could also be directed at Daniel or Bruno. Georges Bouniol was less vociferous than the rest of the family when it came to Ian Bailey.
But that's what AGS will do. They will only serve their own interests as usual. It's not about justice for them, it's about politics.
I often wonder what conversations the Gardai had with the family that made them 100% convinced it was him. It can't have just been the circumstantial evidence that is in the public domain
And it’s why “it’s probably Bailey” is just not good enough at this stage
This is a hard read,-
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/your-whole-life-has-been-one-of-cowardice-sophie-toscan-du-plantiers-father-once-wrote-open-letter-to-her-killer/a1187252720.html
I would tend to agree it’s a local too - while Bailey should remain a suspect I do think the person who committed suicide a few months later having said he did a “terrible thing” or words to that effect is, in my mind, someone who should have been front and center for investigation. He’s still totally innocent in the eyes of the law and indeed the public, but it’s such a strange thing to happen it has to be properly and fully investigated.
I’m not convinced it was a neighbour and a row over a gate being left open - the level of violence was just too great - an assault yes, but not murder.
whilst it could be some druggie dealer caught rapid, again such people would generally not wish to stick around and I don’t think they would kill a member of the public so viciously -maybe today they would but I don’t think so in this case.
I’ve never gone for the massive conspiracies of a contract killing etc - but the husband not appearing in Ireland to bring home his wife’s remains, especially considering his wealth, does justifiably in my view, leave him open to scrutiny .
What I don’t want to see is a “it was probably Bailey” outcome for this review - I treasure our justice system bad and all as it can be sometimes, but all concerned deserve better than that after nearly 30 years
I am no detective but everything points to it having been a ‘ local job’ for whatever reason. I assume that Sophia’s visiting schedule to her West Cork bolthold has always been unpredictable - including not visiting the place every Christmas . So:-
(1)Her house seems to be very secluded and not easy to find - up a bohereen, windy and longish.
(2) she would have told very, very few people that she was visiting West Cork at that time
(3) it is highly, highly unlikely that it was a botched ‘event’ carried out by someone from Belgium, Belfast Dunlop Dublin, Wexford. Or from wherever - given it wring West Cork, the area being very secluded , away off the byroad serving it, Sophia’ s unannounced and infrequent visits to the house. (4) most opportunists that want to steal from / ransack a house ,steer clear of one that’s occupied/a car outside/ with CCTV,etc
So all of the above points to someone that had all of the above knowledge available to them and they would have to be local to be familiar with all of them OR they may be living away from the area - even from ,eg, France- but they would have to be extremely ‘briefed’ on all of the above and would have spent some time in the area - scouting it
I would have thought such knowledge is very useful in terms of creating a profile of the killer when unknown- but that’s where it ends - neither a psychologist nor psychiatrist can make the leap from a potential psychological profile of a killer to the realm of “the profile matches, ergo Bailey is the killer”- but that’s what appears to be happening here.
I was wondering this earlier - presumably his opinion was based on what details AGS gave him 🙄
Pschology opinions are not evidence and are not used in Irish courts. A psychologist is also NOT a psychiatrist and so cannot diagnose someone as having a pscyhiatric condition. Anyway, how could this guy even give an opinion without ever meeting Bailey?
Paul Dettmann, AKA "The Crime Guy", has done a review of "The Blow-in" by Ger Comisky. I haven't read the book, but it sounds like a fairly balanced view. Bailey is obviously the Blow-in in the title, so needless to say it's mostly about him.
https://www.crimeguy.com/p/review-the-blow-in?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email-restack-comment&r=jud2b&triedRedirect=true
There are many who think that journalism is a squalid trade. They make a living from news, often bad news: people seem to be willing to pay more for gory details!
Then again, if you're a hack journo who finds yourself right next door to the scene of a murder, who could resist writing about it? You'd hurry over there, notebook and camera at the ready.
"Our man on the spot"…it was a sweet spot indeed, for a few short weeks.
Good, insightful post. Thanks.
Bailey couldn't resist the limelight.
Assuming that he was innocent of the crime, and knew 100% there was nothing ever going to link him to the crime sceme.. I suggest that Bailey played on this gift from the Gods, and milked it for every last drop he could get..
Bailey was a nasty piece of work. i suggest that he felt a lot of self hatred towards himself? He seen himself as a rising journalist that was going places, instead he was doing mundane jobs for the locals for some beer money.
However, Bailey was clever, he wasn't going to miss an opportunity like this. At the time of the murder, Detective Dyer was the main man, a man not blessed with brains by any standard.. And I have no doubt Bailey could play him like a violin, and did so accordingly.
Bailey stayed around because he could smell the money. And being a nasty piece of work, it didn't matter if it was made off the back of a dead french mother.
I went down the rabbit hole with that sub Reddit. The more I look into it, the less plausible it seems that Bailey did it, despite how suspicious his behaviour was. If he just kept his head down and his mouth shut during the whole thing it would have just blown over for him. He only has himself to blame for that.
A test will be administered later today - 75% pass mark 😀
Yeah it was good alright - maybe I missed it but is there anyway for them to determine more about the “male” sample - potential nationality for example?
Now that was a very fascinating and relevant read. Thank you @Seth Brundle!
I don't think anyone is saying that it's a smoking gun but it still remains a key piece of evidence that needs explanation.
As it remains the only non-Sophie DNA found at a crime scene, it would be criminal not to follow up on it. It may, as you say, be an innocent trace but then again it may be the only actual clue to identifying the murderer that exists.
I'd also suggest that given how well worn the boots are, it would be surprising if that sample (circled below) was an old one...
Edit: including a link to Phil Mathers article on the testing of the DNA sample
https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderAtTheCottage/comments/vraf9q/forensic_tests_on_the_body_exhibits_and_crime/
Given the vast databases of DNA- this persons distant relatives at least are known at this stage
It would be criminally irresponsible to rule out the importance of unidentified male DNA found on the clothing of a murder victim.
DNA on a shoe?
I'm looking at my old runners right now, and trying to imagine how any male fluid of any kind could have got onto them.
Lying beside my husband's shoes inside the back door? Possibly at the gym where somebody's sweat might have….no, I'm sure that never happened, I'm never that near to a sweaty exerciser.
On the plane and the passenger beside her coughed all over them?
But these were Sophie's old shoes that were left at the cottage and used as impromptu casual footwear, according to someone who stayed there, if I recall. Not likely to have been coughed or sneezed on by anyone. Her husband, boyfriend and family have been ruled out - this DNA is unidentified.
Possibly someone who was AT the cottage had reason to handle them - say, a fellow mending the pipes might have had to pick them up to move them out of the way (imagining wildly here)
Oh yes. This DNA really does need to be amplified and if at all possible, identified.
Irrelevant? I think not.
If you bothered to read my replies you would have already got your answer, including the one you are responding to:
"I'm not 100% convinced it's from the perpetrator, but I'm more than 50% convinced."
Give me a break - it was obvious the so called “expert” was assuming they knew each other - the scenario you’re describing there is a complete loner who will have very obvious psychological issues that will prevent them from interacting in normal day to day life - Bailey got a law degree post Sophie’s murder - you don’t get one of those being a complete loo-lah
Yep-If we go on that basis then odyssey06 is a shoe-in for this murder based on their deflection posts - oscar_madison too 😀
We're back to the question I asked you before. Do you think it's possible the DNA on the boots could have been transferred at another occasion apart from the night of the murder?
You may not answer that but I can tell you that of course it could have transferred at another time and it could have been transferred by a large number of people. In all probability, it was incidental.
It's not the smoking gun you think it is, no matter how much you repeat it.
If it was incidental that would be easily established by the gardai.
The indisputable fact (not circumstantial, not speculation) of which there are few in this case is that this is the only DNA found at the scene of the crime not coming from the victim. There is no other incidental DNA, anywhere else, there is no perpatrator DNA found anywhere else. Your argument may be logical if there was other DNA found, but there is not. This is an extremely important piece of evidence, until it can be explained, as it would be in any other murder case if looked at objectively.
The only two people at the scene that are known to have touched Sophie, were herself and the perpetrator. There were only 2 pieces of DNA found. It's logical to conclude that the DNA likely came from the perpetrator. I agree it is possible that it is incidental. I'm not 100% convinced it's from the perpetrator, but I'm more than 50% convinced. I think it is more damning than the circumstantial evidence against Bailey, continue to dismiss it all you like.
I also think more DNA would be found if they looked.
Mod: highpitcheric can't come to the thread right now, please don't quote them and try to move on in a civil manner.
They read his diary and concluded:
"there was ‘no reason why Bailey could not have committed a criminal act.""
Which means absolutely nothing and is impossible to prove in a justice system that values things like reasonable doubt. What country did this assessment take place in again? Oh. 🤔
How could anyone look at this analysis and take it seriously?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
