Death of Sophie Toscan du Plantier

[MrBarnett]

Gents,

Thanks for the interesting responses.

Bailey’s got to be guilty, hasn’t he? He’s such a nasty shite. But what real evidence is there against him?

Marie Farrell’s two sightings, one of him apparently following Sophie in Schull a couple of days before her death and the other of him near the murder scene on the night she was killed, were pretty damning - but she retracted her evidence saying the Guards had pressured her to ID Bailey. Perhaps Bailey threatened her or offered her money to change her statement.

I’ve not yet got the timeline fixed in my head, but couldn’t his apparently inexplicable knowledge of the crime/crime scene have been revealed to him by a Guard he knew and had used in the past to provide him with inside info on local crimes? Or through the local grapevine in some other way?

The various references to the long black coat need to be set in precise chronological order:

Marie Farrell’s two sightings.

The sighting of it soaking in a bucket.

The bonfire - Dwyer said the coat had been burnt.

The police report mentioning the confiscation of the coat.

The Christmas swim event when Bailey was filmed wearing the coat.

Of course there could have been more than one long black coat…

I need to watch both films again with a notepad and pen. :-)

[erobitha]

As recently as two months ago he was pushing for a fourth review into the police handling of his case, citing a conspiracy to frame him. The three prior reviews led to the same outcome. Failings in the original investigation but no evidence of framing. He is obsessed with staying front and centre. Two documentaries, two books and a podcast out.

Wonder aside from ego could be his motivation to keep in the news?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crim...rder-1.4572952

Also an interesting interview here:

https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-40333916.html

[MrBarnett]

As recently as two months ago he was pushing for a fourth review into the police handling of his case, citing a conspiracy to frame him. The three prior reviews led to the same outcome. Failings in the original investigation but no evidence of framing. He is obsessed with staying front and centre. Two documentaries, two books and a podcast out.

Wonder aside from ego could be his motivation to keep in the news?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crim...rder-1.4572952

Also an interesting interview here:

https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-40333916.html

Thanks, E.

I have been trawling the net for articles on the case. I’ll probably fork out for one, or both, of the books too.

I stumbled on the case while randomly looking for online info about West Cork for genealogical reasons. It hadn’t received much coverage in the U.K. press prior to the films being promoted - as far as I can remember at least.

I’m finding (or imagining) echoes of Tabram here. The apparently frenzied attack with multiple wounds and the possibility that discussions between the police and medics on the scene might have released details about the crime into the public domain. But that’s for another thread.

[erobitha]

Ian Bailey to me is a classic psychopath with huge narcissistic tendencies.

I was asked by my wife, if he was a psychopath why would he not have killed again? The simple answer is not all psychopaths have bloodlust. He is not a serial killer. He is mostly narcissistic. Over 1% of the world suffer from psychopathy and in most cases it is undetected. The person who has it is most likely unaware of such a fact. Often the mix of intoxicants and the impulsiveness nature of their condition is not a good mix.

I think Bailey truly believed du Plantier would hear or read his poetry and they would start some kind of torrid Anglo-French love affair based on two creative souls colliding in the picturesque surroundings of West Cork. Under the influence of alcohol he believed she would instantly fall in love with him and validate his creativity. She did not do that. She may have even insulted his atrocious attempts at poetry. My guess is that is what set him off.

She was not being what he wanted her to be. She was not bending to his will or falling for his "charm". In fact, the thing he has deluded himself most with, some lost tortured creative genius, she most likely dismissed easily and quickly. Drunk and angry he reacted in a way only a violent narcissist would do. Teach that person a lesson. She had no chance against such rage.

Then ever since, he has courted the limelight and revelled in the fanfare and attention.

Every body language expert out there knows he is guilty too.

His biggest fear is DNA. He knows technology has moved on. If I was challenging him I would focus on that. He is very worried about that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just finished watching the Sheridan series which is well worth watching and I’ve ordered the latest book on the case. I may be in a minority I’m not convinced that he was guilty. A man goes out in the middle of the night and bludgeons to death a woman that there’s no real evidence that he’d actually know then he goes around telling everyone that he’s done it? Then the only witness admits that the police got her to lie about seeing Bailey?

Yes Bailey is an eccentric and was undoubtedly capable of violence when drunk on spirits but even his partner (who has since split with him) appears to believe 100% in his innocence and she didn’t strike me as a lady who would be intimidated. What happened to the coat they asked? It was on the police evidence list. They took it away and found nothing. Not a single piece of evidence against Bailey. He supposedly had scratches on his hands but he had been cutting down a tree which his wife confirmed and a third person witnessed a recently cut tree. Why did the police take no holograph of these scratches?

Surely there has to be, at the very least, enough of a level of doubt here? To me it smacks a little of Colin Stagg and the Rachel Nickell murder. They made their minds up that the ‘weirdo’ must have been guilty. He might have been guilty of course but I’m not convinced.

[erobitha]

I just finished watching the Sheridan series which is well worth watching and I’ve ordered the latest book on the case. I may be in a minority I’m not convinced that he was guilty. A man goes out in the middle of the night and bludgeons to death a woman that there’s no real evidence that he’d actually know then he goes around telling everyone that he’s done it? Then the only witness admits that the police got her to lie about seeing Bailey?

Yes Bailey is an eccentric and was undoubtedly capable of violence when drunk on spirits but even his partner (who has since split with him) appears to believe 100% in his innocence and she didn’t strike me as a lady who would be intimidated. What happened to the coat they asked? It was on the police evidence list. They took it away and found nothing. Not a single piece of evidence against Bailey. He supposedly had scratches on his hands but he had been cutting down a tree which his wife confirmed and a third person witnessed a recently cut tree. Why did the police take no holograph of these scratches?

Surely there has to be, at the very least, enough of a level of doubt here? To me it smacks a little of Colin Stagg and the Rachel Nickell murder. They made their minds up that the ‘weirdo’ must have been guilty. He might have been guilty of course but I’m not convinced.

Hi Herlock,

I have been very into this case since I posted on it a while back.

There is only one real suspect and for a very good reason. Bailey is on Twitter and gives much away about himself. He has been assessed by the behaviour panel who believe is he is a narcissist, and a possible psychopath. I have had personal dealings with him. He thinks he is far smarter than he is. He actively seeks and courts attention. Whenever a story about Sophie is released the following day he is in a rival paper talking about how it all affects him. it has been so long ago now he can easily disassociate himself from that drunken night.

Mairead Farrell is an unreliable witness due to the fact she was having an affair at the time and hence why she did not want to be identified originally. Since then she has changed her story more times than Mike Barrett.

The questions properly unanswered by Bailey are as follows:

- Where exactly where you in the early hours of the morning when your then Girlfriend Jules Thomas said you were no longer in bed? He claims he was writing an article for a deadline. What article, what newspaper and what was the deadline?
- How did you acquire scratches on your head and arms when witnesses saw your head and arms scratch-free right up until the night before the murder? They are liars and have it in for you?
- Why were you buying Happy Shopper bleach on Christmas Eve morning?
- Why did a witness staying in your home over the Christmas period report that you were soaking your coat in the bath?
- How did you know the murdered woman was French when Eddie Cassidy contacted you? Eddie did not know and it was not public knowledge at that stage.
- How often did you go to buy weed from Sophie's immediate neighbour Alfie Lyons?
- How did you know Sophie was not sexually assaulted during her attack? You wrote this is an article where you claimed this, prior to the autopsy report being formally filed.
- Why did you have a bonfire on the studio property on the 26th December, what was so urgent that needed to be burned and destroyed?

I have many more questions. The fact is the Gardai failed to do their jobs correctly at the time. There had not been a murder for hundred years in that area, and the local police were simply not upto to the task of collecting evidence or witness statements correctly. Since then the protocols have changed (thankfully) and it is no longer the exclusive responsibility of the local force to solve murder cases.

I have no doubt he killed Sophie in a drunken rage. She spurned his advances and was probably very forthright with him to get off her property. He most likely took the bottle of wine that was on her doorstep, and walked off with it. Sophie was annoyed this rude man would wake her in the middle of the night and have the audacity to steal from her too. She shouted after him as he went back down the path, he got angry as she caught up with him and he hit her across the head with the bottle. She collapsed. Worried she would come round and identify him he took a huge stone nearby and started to smash in her skull with it. Not content that was enough, he went and got a concrete breeze block from the outhouse beside her home. Walked down to gate and dropped it from a great height onto her skull. That is how she died and that is how he killed her.

Bailey thrives on attention. That is not eccentricity, it's pure narcissistic behaviour. If you were innocent you would volunteer at every opportunity to assist the police in order to clear your name. You would not be waxing lyrical on social media or making schoolboy jokes.

Instead, he has created this nonsensical scenario where the world is out to get him and he is the victim of a police and French intelliogence conspiracy. He even recently compared himself to being like the Jews during the holocaust (he did say actually that).

He wants the world to think he is the victim. I don't engage with him anymore since I realised he liked it.

I would recommend: https://www.crime-analyst.com/50-the...s-ctd-part-11/

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I have been very into this case since I posted on it a while back.

There is only one real suspect and for a very good reason. Bailey is on Twitter and gives much away about himself. He has been assessed by the behaviour panel who believe is he is a narcissist, and a possible psychopath. I have had personal dealings with him. He thinks he is far smarter than he is. He actively seeks and courts attention. Whenever a story about Sophie is released the following day he is in a rival paper talking about how it all affects him. it has been so long ago now he can easily disassociate himself from that drunken night.

Mairead Farrell is an unreliable witness due to the fact she was having an affair at the time and hence why she did not want to be identified originally. Since then she has changed her story more times than Mike Barrett.

The questions properly unanswered by Bailey are as follows:

- Where exactly where you in the early hours of the morning when your then Girlfriend Jules Thomas said you were no longer in bed? He claims he was writing an article for a deadline. What article, what newspaper and what was the deadline?
- How did you acquire scratches on your head and arms when witnesses saw your head and arms scratch-free right up until the night before the murder? They are liars and have it in for you?
- Why were you buying Happy Shopper bleach on Christmas Eve morning?
- Why did a witness staying in your home over the Christmas period report that you were soaking your coat in the bath?
- How did you know the murdered woman was French when Eddie Cassidy contacted you? Eddie did not know and it was not public knowledge at that stage.
- How often did you go to buy weed from Sophie's immediate neighbour Alfie Lyons?
- How did you know Sophie was not sexually assaulted during her attack? You wrote this is an article where you claimed this, prior to the autopsy report being formally filed.
- Why did you have a bonfire on the studio property on the 26th December, what was so urgent that needed to be burned and destroyed?

I have many more questions. The fact is the Gardai failed to do their jobs correctly at the time. There had not been a murder for hundred years in that area, and the local police were simply not upto to the task of collecting evidence or witness statements correctly. Since then the protocols have changed (thankfully) and it is no longer the exclusive responsibility of the local force to solve murder cases.

I have no doubt he killed Sophie in a drunken rage. She spurned his advances and was probably very forthright with him to get off her property. He most likely took the bottle of wine that was on her doorstep, and walked off with it. Sophie was annoyed this rude man would wake her in the middle of the night and have the audacity to steal from her too. She shouted after him as he went back down the path, he got angry as she caught up with him and he hit her across the head with the bottle. She collapsed. Worried she would come round and identify him he took a huge stone nearby and started to smash in her skull with it. Not content that was enough, he went and got a concrete breeze block from the outhouse beside her home. Walked down to gate and dropped it from a great height onto her skull. That is how she died and that is how he killed her.

Bailey thrives on attention. That is not eccentricity, it's pure narcissistic behaviour. If you were innocent you would volunteer at every opportunity to assist the police in order to clear your name. You would not be waxing lyrical on social media or making schoolboy jokes.

Instead, he has created this nonsensical scenario where the world is out to get him and he is the victim of a police and French intelliogence conspiracy. He even recently compared himself to being like the Jews during the holocaust (he did say actually that).

He wants the world to think he is the victim. I don't engage with him anymore since I realised he liked it.

I would recommend: https://www.crime-analyst.com/50-the...s-ctd-part-11/

Thanks for that Erobitha. Interesting to hear more background on this thanks. I’ve ordered the book by Nick Foster which has had mixed reviews on Amazon but I’ll give it a go. Initial impressions can certainly be wrong so mine might well have been.

[Abby Normal]

just on first perusal i would say he did it. multiple confessions, scratches, getting rid of evidence, insider knowledge.

how did he first become a suspect?

[erobitha]

just on first perusal i would say he did it. multiple confessions, scratches, getting rid of evidence, insider knowledge.

how did he first become a suspect?

It was a police officer who first raised suspicions based on his behaviour at the crime scene.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/garda-told-why-he-felt-bailey-was-a-suspect-30201357.html

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just received my copy of Murder At Roaringwater by Nick Foster today which I’m hoping to make a start on this evening.

[MrBarnett]

I just received my copy of Murder At Roaringwater by Nick Foster today which I’m hoping to make a start on this evening.

Let us know what you think, Mike.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let us know what you think, Mike.

Will do Gary

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just read that Schull, the village where the murder occurred, is on the Mizen Peninsular.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I finished the book and recommend it highly to anyone. It’s a fascinating case and a well written book. Is he guilty? There’s certainly a lot in favour of his guilt but I’m not 100% convinced. I could put it this way - the odds probably favour his guilt but would I be totally comfortable sending someone to prison for the rest of their lives on this, no I don’t think that I would. I certainly could be giving too much of the benefit of doubt though. Lots of lies told (including a witness against Bailey) lots of things that can be explained 2 ways (nothing new in that of course) which leave me with doubts. If I read it again along with other stuff on the case I might change my mind. Who knows? Erobitha obvious feels that he was guilty and he knows more about the case than I do.

Definitely a book for the shopping list though and it would be interesting to hear other opinions.

[erobitha]

I finished the book and recommend it highly to anyone. It’s a fascinating case and a well written book. Is he guilty? There’s certainly a lot in favour of his guilt but I’m not 100% convinced. I could put it this way - the odds probably favour his guilt but would I be totally comfortable sending someone to prison for the rest of their lives on this, no I don’t think that I would. I certainly could be giving too much of the benefit of doubt though. Lots of lies told (including a witness against Bailey) lots of things that can be explained 2 ways (nothing new in that of course) which leave me with doubts. If I read it again along with other stuff on the case I might change my mind. Who knows? Erobitha obvious feels that he was guilty and he knows more about the case than I do.

Definitely a book for the shopping list though and it would be interesting to hear other opinions.

I totally understand how some people would be uncomfortable to convict based on the physical evidence available, so I hope that advancements in DNA technology can finally put this to rest once and for all.

I have had dealings with him. I know the type of man he is. I know he did it. He knows he did it.