I think that he may have went up to Sophie's cottage around 2am, drunk and started reciting his awful poetry outside her door and was a nuisance. When yelling out the window at him didn't work, she came downstsirs, put on her boots and opened the door and told him bluntly what she thought of him and his poetry. He then atracked and killed her. Strange that on his first meeting with Jules Thomas she asked him if he had a "black sole". Interviewer did a great job by winning his trust and letting him talk away, he said so much that even now after his death we might pick up something that incriminates him.
Ok I am going to disagree with all of this. Sophie and her family ate the victims. Ian has made a living about being a victim. He is a narcissist misogynist remember the violence he perpetrated against jules. He is a big ego.covers his real self with all thst bullshit about poetry and Cohen. They need to reopen the case and finally convict him. Because ye want an interview so badly so u listen to his bs
You don't convict people based on their personality, you do it with *EVIDENCE* of which the Irish DPP have made it clear several times there is none of any worth. The cold case is ongoing with detectives travelling to France to investigate the friend of Sophie's husband who was identified as being the man following her in town. You do agree that convicting the wrong person for murder is not useful to Sophie's memory or her family, yes?
There is no physical evidence tying Ian Bailey to the crime scene, due to police incompetence, not police corruption - BUT that doesn't mean he didnt kill Sophie. Personally, I think he´s guilty of the crime BUT there is reasonble doubt. My understading is, that he didnt give the Gardia sufficient DNA evidence, but why would anyone decline giving the Gardia a supplementary DNA sample, using mordern techniques, if they asked for it? Why not agree to a lie detector test and clear your name, once and for all? One thing is for sure: The Police did an awful job and tainted the investigation. Without adequate exploring alternative suspects, there is no way to know, if Ian Bailey is truely guilty. This is what I think happend: Ian Bailey did not get along with the community. He was described as self-aggrandizing, self-centered, arrogant, overly confident, annoying and attention-seeking. I think he was all those things, but he had also been deeply hurt in the past. He drank excessively to compensate for the rejections and would become violent on occasions. I think he walked to Sophie's house on december 22. Maybe he wanted to discuss a poetry project, they had talked about previously. Maybe Sophie rejected his advances or had ridiculed his poetry. Maybe he knew who she was through Ungerer, who was french. Its possible that he wanted to talk advantage of her intellectual capacity and notoriety, as a springboard to fame. He wanted to be an Irish poet and Sophie could help him achieve this ambition. But she wasnt interested and tried to avoid him. He doesn't handle rejection well. He walks to her house and knocks on her door. Sophie immediately or upon realizing he was dangerous, fled out of the back door and ran down the drive way. He caught up with her at the gate, picks up a concrete block, and beats her to death. He returns to his residence ans destroys the evidence. The next day he starts writing articles but he conflates what he should know as a reporter, to what he does know as killer. He´s not cautious and confesses when he is drunk. When he is sober he accuses newspapers and the police of being corrupt. Now its possible, that I am wrong. But I think thats what happend.
@@acb5245 "BUT that doesn't mean he didnt kill Sophie." Using that argument *anybody* could have killed her. Such as George Pecout and Karl Heinz Wolney. "My understading is, that he didnt give the Gardia sufficient DNA evidence," Your understanding is incorrect. He *VOLUNTARILY* gave blood and hair samples, knowing that the crime scene was awash with blood. That is not the actions of a guilty man. "The next day he starts writing articles but he conflates what he should know as a reporter, to what he does know as killer." There is nothing he wrote that suggests he knew anything more than the police were already leaking to the press. This was proved by the secret recordings of the police telephone lines. "and confesses when he is drunk" He didn't. The Irish prosecutors make it clear in their report that he was using sarcasm in the face of ridiculous allegations people made to him. When even the prosecution says there is nowhere near a level of evidence to even charge him, then you should be taking note. Their 2001 report is very revealing and highly critical regarding the circumstantial evidence, it changed my mind.
Thank you for the interview - thought it was managed v well. It's such a mystery and there was no doubt an effort from the Guards to pin it all on this man. However, there are many unanswered questions. One of Jules' daughters said that they left the house on the morning of the murder. She was pressured to change this by Jules Thomas but refused and stuck to her story. Jules was also placed in the morning of the murder saying to a shopkeeper that Ian was investigating a murder. That contradicts Ian saying he only found out about it at 1330 There's also Sophie's hire car. Driving from Cork airport she filled up at a petrol station. An attendant confirmed this but also said she was in the car with a large man who was Irish / English looking. The seat of the passenger car was set right back as to accommodate a large person. That person in the car has never come forward or been identified which suggests it was most likely the person that killed her
Jules claimed that the it was a different day she said he was investigating a murder. "That person in the car has never come forward or been identified which suggests it was most likely the person that killed her" No it doesn't. All it suggests is that it may have been Sophie that was seen, that there may have been a large man, who may have been Irish/English looking (whatever that means). Weeks or months later witnesses are terrible at recollecting names, faces, places, times etc. They tend to exaggerate or simply make stuff up to "help" after being told about an incident.
@@random6809 the garage attendant was / is adamant it was Sophie in the car and the car's passenger seat was right back when recovered. Jules did say it was a different day. However another witness also places her in her car on that morning. The issue is Jules and Ian accuse dozens of witnesses of getting things wrong all the time. There's nobody other than those two who have a similar recollection of events.
@@seanyd9921 You really must stop relying on witness reliability. For example, you mention Jules and the shopkeeper. That statement is mentioned by the DPP here: "The evidence of James Camier and his wife is highly suspect. Their statements were taken some *TWO YEARS* after the murder."
@@brianmcginley2743 "There is also the garage attendant..." Who's statement was dismissed by police as she was elsewhere buying firewood at the time. "Then there is a witness, who says they saw bailey talking to Sophie a year before she died at an island festival. " Mark McCarthy did not know Sophie. In his statement *two years after the festival* he said, "“I did not know Sophie du Plantier at the time but I recognised her afterwards when I saw her pictures in the papers and on the television." "There is also 2 witnesses that say Jules said she destroyed blood stained clothing the day after the murder." You'll have to be specific, who? Not exactly a credible list you've given there.
@@brianmcginley2743 "The garage attendant was interviewed by foster in his book. He was male." I know, *read my reply properly* please. "Then there is the witness who saw bailey developing photos..." You mean Paddy Lowney who later withdrew part of his statement as he never identified him to police as being Bailey? He said: *I didn't actually say it was him* "Who buys a Christmas tree on December 23rd". He didn't. He topped a tree. Do you know even the basics of this case? No idea why you keep referring to common law when all you have been doing is copy and pasting witness statements that would be clearly unreliable under simple cross examination?
Seventeen complaints Marie Farrell made to the Gardaí about intimidation from Bailey, and she had a witness to back it up. I'm reluctant to say too much now because of where the case is at but I'll come back at some point down the road and explain how Bailey acquired the information on MF, that same information he used against her as a form of intimidation.
@@supernova101010 but there are other witnesses who corroborate what MF said about being threatened (noose and gun gestures to her) which makes it difficult to just say the police put her up to it
There is no physical evidence tying Ian Bailey to the crime scene, due to police incompetence, not police corruption - but that doesn't mean he didnt kill Sophie. Personally, I think he´s guilty of the crime BUT there is reasonble doubt. My understading is, that he didnt give the Gardia sufficient DNA evidence, but why would anyone decline giving the Gardia a supplementary DNA sample, using mordern techniques, if they asked for it? Why not agree to a lie detector test and clear your name, once and for all? One thing is for sure: The Police did an awful job and tainted the investigation. Without adequate exploring alternative suspects, there is no way to know, if Ian Bailey is truely guilty. This is what I think happend: Ian Bailey did not get along with the community. He was described as self-aggrandizing, self-centered, arrogant, overly confident, annoying and attention-seeking. I think he was all those things, but he had also been deeply hurt in the past. He drank excessively to compensate for the rejections and would become violent on occasions. I think he walked to Sophie's house on december 22. Maybe he wanted to discuss a poetry project, they had talked about previously. Maybe Sophie rejected his advances or had ridiculed his poetry. Maybe he knew who she was through Ungerer, who was french. Its possible that he wanted to talk advantage of her intellectual capacity and notoriety, as a springboard to fame. He wanted to be an Irish poet and Sophie could help him achieve this ambition. But she wasnt interested and tried to avoid him. He doesn't handle rejection well. He walks to her house and knocks on her door. Sophie immediately or upon realizing he was dangerous, fled out of the back door and ran down the drive way. He caught up with her at the gate, picks up a concrete block, and beats her to death. He returns to his residence ans destroys the evidence. The next day he starts writing articles but he conflates what he should know as a reporter, to what he does know as killer. He´s not cautious and confesses when he is drunk. When he is sober he accuses newspapers and the police of being corrupt. Now its possible, that I am wrong. But I think thats what happend.
Nice interview you let him talk away , the way he said spirits were the problem the problem that led to what exactly viciously beating up his partner jules who should have written the book battered partners for dummies took her 27 years to boot him out ,,, going out on that faithful night when he left her bed and went up to Sophie’s house ?
still a shame the witness pointing at red landrover while knowing the owner looks guilty of pointing 2 people but owner of landrover was in hospital still a clue but baily didnt like him
