12.15.03
Ian Bailey defames himself
Ian Bailey defames himself
This is hilarious. Remember Sophie Toscan de Plantier. She was murdered in Cork years ago and the hubby is still complaining that the cops botched the investigation so no one was ever done for it. Locals in Cork and those all-knowing dogs in the street did apparently finger someone for it but there was never enough evidence.
Anyway, this Ian Bailey character is suing several newspapers for identifying him as the murderer.
Now, I’d never heard his name until the defamation trial began but wow! most of the evidence against him appear to come from himself! His alibi is being supported by a partner who admits that he has beaten the shit out of her, his own diaries confess to violent episodes and dodgy sexual preferences. He even told one of the journalists that he killed her! Apparently that was a joke! I think this could be a case for the judgment of Albert Reynolds i.e. find for Mr Bailey but award him a cent in damages.
What an idiot.
Billy Boyd said,
July 4, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I must correct you Sarah. Bailey never told a journalist he killed Sophie. A journalist, Eddie Cassidy, whose paper was sued by Bailey claimed at the libel trial the ‘thinks’ he didn’t tell Bailey the case he was asking him (Bailey) to go and report on was a murder. This was crucial because Bailey told another person Caroline Leftwick that he was going to report on a murder. Perhaps Eddie Cassidy did not tell Bailey it was a murder but I find that hard to believe since it had been reported on the radio as a ‘murder’ hours earlier. What do you think?
Bailey made some remarks to some local hippies, who were well ‘placed’ to ‘hear any incriminating comments’ he might make. These people, who have since that time, have continued their careers as drug dealers, while remaining invisible and immune from the police. It could be argued they also had a vested interest in portraying Bailey as guilty and being part of a much acclaimed local group who were ‘saviour of the tourist industry’. After all, everyone assumed he would leave the country and take the guilt, suspicion and threat to the West Cork tourist industry with him.
Marie Farrell .nee Brennan, who placed Bailey two miles from the murder scene, in a perjured statement, has since retracted and herself receive two jail sentences for her criminality, since she turned on the police and her ‘immunity’ ran out.
Anyone who knows the locality should also wonder that a man who had committed a murder would take a four mile round-a-bout walk home via the location where Marie Farrell said she saw ‘a man’ washing his wellingtons, instead of the two mile direct walk home on a quieter road? And why would he wear wellington boots on a dry night to walk on a tar road? Perhaps if the killer lived in the area past where Ms Farrell said she saw ‘a man washing his boots’, then it would be possible he stopped there before continuing the short distance home? Perhaps someone who would have to cross field and/or a beach to get to that point would be wearing wellingtons? But then, why should we consider such things, ‘Bailey did it’ and let us look no further in case we would look very foolish for our years of stupidity.
There is no evidence against Bailey other than in the minds of those ignorant of the facts and those who are persuaded by the group mind set of those wishing to bully through this particular concensus for their own reasons. Many local people will tell you quietly, for fear of incurring the wrath of the vigilante groups ( the dogs in the street), that they do not believe Bailey is guilty.
I am surprised at you Sarah. Do you sometimes work for one of the news agencies sued by Bailey?
Sarah said,
July 4, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Nope. Anyway, Bailey withdrew the entire case perhaps realising that the weight of evidence was not in his favour. Probably shoulda thought of that before launching the suit..
brian thompson said,
September 20, 2008 at 2:04 am
sarah.it always amazes me how flipant people can be “perhaps realising” .this man is innocent.you should stick to east enders and count your blessings that its not you who is being tortured by the powers that be
Pamela said,
April 25, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Sarah and Brian — do either of you actually have all the facts? Brian, how do you know he is innocent? why castigate Sarah for her opinion when all you have is YOUR opinion? Personally, I hope there is some justice for Sophie — that’s what this case is about, eh?
jimmy said,
November 4, 2010 at 12:19 am
ye are all a bunch of idiots!! guilty as sin, shame on ye
Hugh Byrne said,
February 15, 2011 at 11:59 pm
If there is a case against someone then fine go ahead. If there is real evidence against Bailey, fine go ahead. But apart from opinions let us have some real evidence. I have heard nothing so far. I am glad I do not have to appear before a jury. I’m afraid prejudice does cloud the facts.
Claire said,
March 20, 2011 at 12:42 am
I heard that the Irish police were at fault and left the scene of the crime unattended (there was only 2 guards in the region) and when they quickly returned he was already there taking photographs – as a “journalist” supposedly (so he could account for why his footprints were everywhere). During his libel trial against various newspapers he claimed to have heard there was a murder from certain people, however, the people he supposedly heard it from said that it was he who told them about the murder, not the other way around. This leaves the inevitable question as to how he knew there was a murder at all that morning and how can he explain his incredible haste to the scene of the crime. It is also noteworthy that murderers are well known to frequently return to the scene of their crimes. If I was in Sophie’s family, I would certainly like for him to explain how exactly he discovered there was a murder that morning, since his supposed sources of information have categorically denied that they told him.
I think when you add this to the bonfire he burnt in his garden the following day, the scratches on his face and arms which he claimed came from killing a turkey, not forgetting the fact that his partner had been viscously assaulted by him in the past and had attended Cork University Hospital as a result… I think the man has definite questions to answer. The judge in his libel case also pointedly noted that he was clearly a very violent man based on his brutal attacks on his partner, so Billy Boyd, he is no shrinking violet! If he is innocent then let him explain himself in front of the French authorities and if he is not, then I hope to God he pays for what was a brutal murder against a defenseless, beautiful woman who came to our country to find a little bit of peace. If he is innocent then why does he not want to clear his name. If I was being accused of a crime as damnable as murder, I would certainly like to clear my name, as I’m sure would most reasonable people. But then, Billy Boyd, a man who beats the living daylights out of his partner, is hardly reasonable and in my book, as I’m sure in most people’s book (and even the Good Lord’s book) deserves everything that’s coming to him.
Claire said,
March 20, 2011 at 12:50 am
Rest in Peace Sophie.