Ireland Ireland - Sophie Toscan du Plantier, 39, murdered, County Cork, 23 Dec 1996

[Pimlipo]

Did MF definitely see IB on the bridge @ 3:00am in the early morning hours after the crime, when she drove past a pedestrian walking alone? I wonder how she was initially certain it was him

I find it highly unlikely she could positively identify IB in that scenario. Do we know if she knew who IB was before december 1996?? I also find it amazing that MF is at the centre the two most important witness opportunities. The sighting of a possible stalker outside her shop following Sophie AND a totally random 3am sighting right after the crime in the middle of nowhere. And on a night she happens to be with an unknown man that she won’t talk about. What are the chances?

Where did IB get the scratches on his arms/hands & cut on his forehead?

It’s criminal that no photographs of these were taken.

 

[Anxala]

Bailey's journal was entered into evidence during his lawsuit against the newspapers. In it he had written that he intended to kill Jules during one of the beatings. (Oops.) When the "West Cork" podcasters interviewed Bailey about beating Jules, Bailey took total responsibility except that he didn't: they'd been drinking, she started it, it didn't happen all the time--the usual things guys say. But then he said, "It wasn't premeditated." Huh? Later he said it again. Then he said it again. So not first degree, I thought, because where I live "premeditation" is an element of a murder charge. When Jules was interviewed about Bailey's violence toward her, she said, "It wasn't premeditated." Apparently you can do something vicious and indefensible, but if it wasn't premeditated, it's not really that bad. But I think both of them were really talking about Sophie's murder.

I don't think it had anything at all to do with the murder.

^ I would see it more as both of them, Jules in particular since she continued her relationship with Bailey despite the violence, trying to minimise if not actually normalise it so as not to be seen as some helpless victim. Which she really does not come across as being.

It's really hard to get inside other people's relationships and what drives them. And theirs seems to be a very complex one imo.

I was struck very much by what Jules says here about asking Bailey to leave and how it's so much to do with her just getting fed up with all the attendant ongoing publicity and how it was impacting so negatively upon her own family life. No mention whatsoever about violence towards her being at the root of it...

Exclusive: Jules Thomas reveals why she asked ex-partner Ian Bailey to leave

 

[Electric Sheep]

I don't think it had anything at all to do with the murder.

^ I would see it more as both of them, Jules in particular since she continued her relationship with Bailey despite the violence, trying to minimise if not actually normalise it so as not to be seen as some helpless victim. Which she really does not come across as being.

It's really hard to get inside other people's relationships and what drives them. And theirs seems to be a very complex one imo.

I was struck very much by what Jules says here about asking Bailey to leave and how it's so much to do with her just getting fed up with all the attendant ongoing publicity and how it was impacting so negatively upon her own family life. No mention whatsoever about violence towards her being at the root of it...

Exclusive: Jules Thomas reveals why she asked ex-partner Ian Bailey to leave

It's interesting that she mentions that her parents knew Dylan Thomas. He and his wife also had an alcohol fueled marriage with some violence on both sides. Perhaps she thinks that is how marriages of artistic people work.

 

[fr brown]

I don't think it had anything at all to do with the murder.

^ I would see it more as both of them, Jules in particular since she continued her relationship with Bailey despite the violence, trying to minimise if not actually normalise it so as not to be seen as some helpless victim. Which she really does not come across as being....

I was making a point about the language used. Domestic abusers, I've noticed, say things along the lines of "I just wanted to talk" or "Things got out of hand." "Premeditation" is legalese. Lack of premeditation reduces murder from first to second degree. (I don't know about Irish penal codes.)

 

[fr brown]

It’s criminal that no photographs of these [scratches and the cut on forehead] were taken.

The lead detective, Dermot Dwyer, said that it wouldn't be allowed because Bailey wasn't under arrest--or a person of interest or something. It seems like they could've asked nicely.

 

[Sonny Crockett]

I find it highly unlikely she could positively identify IB in that scenario. Do we know if she knew who IB was before december 1996?? I also find it amazing that MF is at the centre the two most important witness opportunities. The sighting of a possible stalker outside her shop following Sophie AND a totally random 3am sighting right after the crime in the middle of nowhere. And on a night she happens to be with an unknown man that she won’t talk about. What are the chances?

Definitely agree. Anyone who is driving late at night where the visibility is poor would be hard-pressed to definitively identify a pedestrian walking on the side of the road, especially if they only got a glimpse of them. Did she mention whether or not her head-lights briefly shined on him?! Were there street-lights on the side of the road to aid visibility?! - I suspect there weren't any. And, AFAIK, none of this was addressed in her interviews.

I have driven on back roads at night without street-lights, and I can tell you that you can barely see two feet in front of you. Your car's head-lights & the moon (if it's full) are your only light source(s). And, even with these it's very difficult to see much of anything on the side(s) of the car - unless it's another car coming towards you from the opposite direction.

The lead detective, Dermot Dwyer, said that it wouldn't be allowed because Bailey wasn't under arrest--or a person of interest or something. It seems like they could've asked nicely.

If IB was guilty, he wouldn't have wanted the scratches on his arms/hands/face photographed because it could have incriminated him. However, if he was innocent he may have also refused pictures due to being worried that he could be falsely accused of the crime - due to the scratches.

I'm still on the fence as to whether or not he committed the crime. IMHO they definitely didn't have enough evidence to arrest him, but that doesn't mean he's innocent.

 

[fr brown]

....I'm still on the fence as to whether or not he committed the crime. IMHO they definitely didn't have enough evidence to arrest him, but that doesn't mean he's innocent.

In "West Cork," a representative of the DPP said that Jules Thomas was arrested for murder, but was not questioned about participation in murder, only about her observations of Bailey's behavior and appearance around that time. That meant her statement couldn't be used in criminal court against either her or Bailey. "Fruit of the poisonous tree" was mentioned.

 

[altojack]

I watched both NF and Sky. Now I can't remember which version it was, but near the end a friend of ST in France said that someone phoned ST talking about a project he was thinking she may want to do with him. (Could it have been IB)

IMO IB came across as guilty from the start. He wrote in his report for papers information that only police knew.

Apart from his attack on his partner, which told me me he has anger issues when drinking. He told 4 or 5 people "I did it". " I went too far".

He denied knowing ST but her neighbour clearly stated he introduced them.

I'm not sure what to think about his coat soaking, or burnt. I'm still working on that one.

 

[gribb0]

I watched Netflix and thought he was guilty then Sky and changed my mind!! In the Sky one there is a statement stating that a black overcoat was removed from his house - Jules talks about it and says it was tested. So why are the cops convinced he burned it? Also in the video of him on the day of the swim, boxing day I think, his hands don't appear covered in scratches but it's hard to tell with the quality of the film. I guess it could easily be him but equally the cops could have got tunnel vision as we have seen so many times before. I hope for the familys sake they have a definitive answer one day.

 

[Anxala]

I was making a point about the language used. Domestic abusers, I've noticed, say things along the lines of "I just wanted to talk" or "Things got out of hand." "Premeditation" is legalese. Lack of premeditation reduces murder from first to second degree. (I don't know about Irish penal codes.)

I appreciate that (and agree with it), all I was disagreeing with was your thought that it related somehow to Sophie's murder rather than it just being their way of trying to minimise their at times abusive and violent relationship. But jmo of course.

 

[Anxala]

I watched both NF and Sky. Now I can't remember which version it was, but near the end a friend of ST in France said that someone phoned ST talking about a project he was thinking she may want to do with him. (Could it have been IB)

IMO IB came across as guilty from the start. He wrote in his report for papers information that only police knew.

Do we know what this info was? Was it ever detailed what IB reported that pointed the finger of suspicion at him? And is there a possibility that he had an in with one of the local guards or someone close to the action? Small town Ireland, close-knit community, news/gossip travels fast.

I really don't know what to think of IB at this stage. It's almost like he's too guilty...

 

[altojack]

Do we know what this info was? Was it ever detailed what IB reported that pointed the finger of suspicion at him? And is there a possibility that he had an in with one of the local guards or someone close to the action? Small town Ireland, close-knit community, news/gossip travels fast.

I really don't know what to think of IB at this stage. It's almost like he's too guilty...

No, the police just said that IB was reporting details that hadn't yet been released.

I did wonder if he had an in with one of the local guards, but the morning ST was found, the guards attended and the next person to attend was IB.

 

[Sonny Crockett]

I find it puzzling that IB 'inserted himself' into this case re: the reporting, etc.

If you think he's innocent, you could say he's doing this because he's a reporter & wants to pursue all of the leads re: the story, etc. If you think he's guilty, you could say he's drawn to the case because he wants to find out how much the authorities know, etc. However, whether he's guilty or innocent - you would think he would want to distance himself from the case due to not wanting to draw suspicion on himself, etc.

 

[kemo]

What a conundrum. Under Common Law evidentiary standards, the burden of proof would probably not be met. Still, there are plenty of reasons for the townspeople to cast a suspicion on Bailey. I am particularly puzzled by some of the statements he made to other people. However, if he is innocent, he wouldn’t be the first to have been reported to have made incriminating statements. The documentary only had an interview with one person who claims to have heard Ian “confess” and he did not offer up much context. ( that was Jules’ son). It seems strange that he would stand up well to a long police interrogation but then confess to casual acquaintances. I don’t know what to think.

 

[Anxala]

I find it puzzling that IB 'inserted himself' into this case re: the reporting, etc.

If you think he's innocent, you could say he's doing this because he's a reporter & wants to pursue all of the leads re: the story, etc. If you think he's guilty, you could say he's drawn to the case because he wants to find out how much the authorities know, etc. However, whether he's guilty or innocent - you would think he would want to distance himself from the case due to not wanting to draw suspicion on himself, etc.

An interesting point.

Before these two most recent docs, my impression (from what I'd read over the years) of Bailey was that he was boorish, violent, entitled, drunk & unruly (according to some locals) and very much a bit of a law onto himself. Which I suppose, if actually guilty of this murder, would fit with him arrogantly inserting himself into a 'catch me if you can' position?

But now, after watching both docs, I think there's definite room for just seeing him as someone who is all the above but also someone who just happened to fit a convenient bill.

So much to query here, so many glaring red flags as regards the quality of the investigation -

Latest: Report says no evidence to suggest Ian Bailey was framed

 

[jslk]

I'm now watching the Netflix doc and am finding it much more straightforward, the Sky one I found ponderous and difficult to follow. I think the interviews with Sophie's wider circle of relatives and friends sheds much more light on things.

 

[Anxala]

A couple of recent news links -

Garda need DPP approval to request help from French police in west Cork case

Sophie Toscan du Plantier: 10 questions that could hold the key to one of State’s most notorious unsolved crimes

 

[dotr]

Sophie Toscan du Plantier: Family of Sophie Toscan du Plantier asked for interviews in Sky documentary to be removed as ‘everything is focused on Ian Bailey’
July 10 2021
''Family of Sophie Toscan du Plantier asked for interviews in Sky documentary to be removed as ‘everything is focused on Ian Bailey’

''Sophie’s brother, Bertrand Bouniol, said he has watched both documentaries that have come out about his sister in the past few weeks: Netflix’s Sophie: A Murder in West Cork and Sky’s Murder at the Cottage: The search for justice for Sophie.

The French documentary filmmaker was 39 when she was beaten to death at her isolated holiday home near Schull in West Cork on December 23, 1996.

In a case that shook the world, no one has ever been found guilty in Irish courts of her murder''

"Justice is given by the police, I have not decided that this man was guilty and that’s important.

“But, at the same time, we need to decide and define who is guilty or not.”

 

[Anxala]

An interesting and very balanced radio interview with Jim Sheridan today -

Jim Sheridan admits 'sympathy' for Ian Bailey as he defends documentary

 

[Lady Shylock]

I watched both NF and Sky. Now I can't remember which version it was, but near the end a friend of ST in France said that someone phoned ST talking about a project he was thinking she may want to do with him. (Could it have been IB)

IMO IB came across as guilty from the start. He wrote in his report for papers information that only police knew.

Apart from his attack on his partner, which told me me he has anger issues when drinking. He told 4 or 5 people "I did it". " I went too far".

He denied knowing ST but her neighbour clearly stated he introduced them.

I'm not sure what to think about his coat soaking, or burnt. I'm still working on that one.

Assuming it wasn't Bailey, does it have to be a man? Maybe Sophie was faced with a somewhat bigger woman, one armed with an axe. A woman could lift a 55 lb block--not over her head maybe, but a foot or two off the ground, enough to drop on the head of someone lying on the ground.

It could certainly explain Marie Farrell’s obsession with Sophie! How likely was it that she saw Sophie in the Shop on Saturday and then is the person who puts IB at Kealfadda Bridge? Her husband has a history of violence… was she protecting him & inventing the ‘affair’? People who were in her ‘circle’ when she was in the relationship with the ex could easily have identified him!