Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
She was still a rich Parisienne, and part of the Cannes scene, under any surname.
I doubt there was anyone as wealthy and connected in Schull in 96, or probably since.
She wasn't Tuscan du Plantier in Schull, she was just plain Bouniol, daughter of a dentist in Paris.
Edit,
As @Rooks pointed out.
Sure, just ignore everything I said. 👍
And she went by her maiden name while in Ireland.
Seems odd really that they never got a private investigator to look into things. Someone who could give them unfiltered information. Maybe they couldn’t afford it, or maybe that’s just an old Hollywood trope?
Yes she was indeed the wife of a film producer. He was an ambassor for the French film industry too. He was part of the Cannes scene, would have known many famous people, that was his circle, and she was his wife.
In Schull terms it doesn't get fancier than that.
Even if the Garda Commissioner spoke with the family, all he knew was what he had been told by those involved with the case and we know that the details they had were (for wasn't of a better description) compromised.
So what you had was our senior garda telling the family compromised details. It's no different to the French court believing what they had been given by our police force. Should they have assumed that there were mistakes made whe the "evidence" was gathered?
Bailey was investigated thoroughly, doesn’t mean he didn’t do it, but it can be assured that almost no stone was left unturned in his pursuit.
Sophie was pretty much the opposite of high profile, she was very much low profile and had no social status in Ireland.
I recall reading somewhere that a recently enough former Gardai commissioner liaised with the family and French authorities at the time, I think I also read he kept assuring them that they knew who the murderer was and they were building a case against him.
Can anyone confirm this?
"the victim was of high profile, high social status."
She was the wife of a French film producer. She made a few documentaries herself. It was the 90s. It was rural Ireland.
Even if it was 2025 most people wouldn't know who she is. She wasn't famous in Ireland.
people with npd have an increased proclivity for violence and rage. and the disorder is founded on deep insecurity and inadequacy.
a rage killing happened within a convenient distance of one such individual with this disorder, in a small population, and the victim was of high profile, high social status.
Its not evidence of anything, but it may be a worthy avenue of investigation.
The many other types of west Cork may also be worth looking at, and I'd welcome any interesting information. 😎
The total length of the Irish public road network is approx. 99,830km. Just information, not necessarily evidence.
this would be relevant if all homicides we’re committed by people with NPD.
In addition west cork is a Mecca for these types in Ireland, oddballs and weirdos by the dozen
You can take it as just information then.
Edit: as per your previous post re: percentage of population with npd. just information. it informs.
Like population stats for Schull. The population would have been around 600 at the time.
So going by the 1% there would have been 6 people with the same disorder as Ian locally. And 3 of them would have been women (statistically speaking). Leaving 3 males with the condition in the locality. Ian and 2 others. Going by available stats. Just information, not necessarily evidence.
Understood. It’s easy to go down the list of suspect too and recognise there are a lot of unanswered questions about many of them. In the shambles of the first few weeks the Gardai half assed everything and now we’re stuck with it unfortunately.
In a true cold case review perhaps we can hope a proper investigation could be pursued, but it feels unlikely.
If that's what passes for evidence, I don't think anyone is going to solve the case.
I wouldn't pronounce anyone guilty who hasn't been convicted by the courts. I believe in due process.
Im allowed to have suspicions though. I also find Alfie to be an interesting person in this case, his later death and what he is supposed to have said seems suspicious too. Unfortunately there seems to be little out there about him.
I dont think anyone on an internet forum is going to actually solve the case.
Yes Ian was that 1%. And Sophie was just the sort to trigger his kind.
I find that interesting.
Im sure this all makes sense to you, but it’s really hard to understand what point you’re actually trying to make. Seems like you’re stopping short of saying he’s guilty, for reasons unknown
A trait shared with approx. 1% of the population, that contributes nothing to solving the case
Studies have found that approximately one percent of the population meets the criteria, with six percent displaying narcissistic traits, such as a need for admiration and a lack of empathy. While they often wreak havoc in professional and personal relationships, few of these one percent will ever murder anyone.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-human-equation/202301/the-hidden-danger-of-the-homicidal-narcissist
of how certain truths could form a pattern. certain things fit together.
For example. Sophie was of a certain social background/status which would be VERY aggitating to a typical malignant narcissist. From what I know of that disorder any (even perceived) rejection from someone like sophie would be overwhelming.
ok.
This sort of psychological profiling boils down to "Bailey murdered her, now let's work backwards to make it fit".
Whatever you do in life, don't go on trial in France.
If not guilt, what are you saying all this stuff is an indicator of then?
Sure, there's no need for the CCR now 🙄
no, ive never used the word "guilt" in any connection to anyone in the case.
indeed you don't need a psychologist to understand he was an essentially violent abusive man.
but if you have a basic understanding of narcissistic disorder you will see things in bailey which may not be immediately apparent. Certain signs of that disorder, and knowing that disorder you'll know that it is dangerous, and that it appears often in murders, that it is associated with increased proclivity to violence, and rage.
and when professionals confirm that disorder you may see the case differently. You can call him a prick, but why not question what kind of prick.
certain parts of bailey fit well with malignant narcissism, and certain parts of sophie fit very well with the profile of a victim of a malignant narcissist.
none of this is proof, its not meant to be, its just facts which you can take or leave. for me they illustrate very well what could have happened. they show an interesting pattern. and they clarify what could well have happened.
edit: had bailey kept his head rightly hung in shame for his prior violence towards his wife he wouldn't have peaked my interest even half as much as he did.
interesting that you use his private diaries as some sort of indication of guilt, when it would have been the perfect opportunity for him to actually just have written about the crime itself.
We don’t need a certified psychologist/psychiatrist to get an understanding of his nature. He was arrested for beating the crap out of Jules, even before the murder, he could have killed her if a punch landed in the wrong place, or she fell awkward etc. This is the reality of the prick that was Ian Bailey. This is the reality that one needs to consider when looking at the case as a whole.
It may come as a shock but you're not actually going to get conclusive proof for this famous unsolved case in a forum.
What you can do is keep going around in circles, bringing up this or that, and then having someone chime in with 'but its not proof'. Of course its not proof. If we had actual proof there would be no thread, or we'd have details about how gardai had closed the case.
Rather than go around in a circle you can just go deeper into relevant aspects, without thinking you're going to solve anything (because youre not going to), and simply discuss the known facts. Maybe bring up any facts which others havent yet mentioned. That is at least informative, entertaining. Which is the best youre going to get.
This is a place for speculation, is it not?
Who cares what a couple of people playing speculative psychology think? It gets us no closer to answering the question who who killed Sophie. It's a load of speculative nonsense.
We're not in court. We're on a website.
Of course a psychologist is not a psychiatrist, thats already obvious, thats why they have 2 different titles.
A psychologist may diagnose a mental disorder.
A psychiatrist may also diagnose a mental disorder.
If two psychologists and a psychiatrist, working in two separate teams, on two separate occasions reach a similar conclusion then its probably going to be a good indicator of whats going on.
If the individual in question displays classic symptoms of that same condition its also an indicator.
Baileys rather graphic diaries (including references to his bisexuality, drug use and prior desire to kill his wife) along with his criminal history and police records and his public interviews were used.
And yes I know, this is not conclusive proof of anything other than the fact itself, and its not meant to be.
Its not meant to be taken as conclusive proof. Its meant to put some focus on a pertinent fact, which was a bit neglected til now. In psychological terms Bailey was a rare individual and an incredibly good fit for a crime like this. Thats a fact. Anyone who considers themselves logical will either have good reason to dispute this fact, or will simply accept it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
