Neil speaks to director of Netflix documentary on Sophie Toscan du Plantier | Cork's RedFM 104-106
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 авг 2024
- This morning Neil spoke to John Dower, the director of the Netflix documentary 'Sophie - A Murder in West Cork' which is due to be released this Wednesday. It has been reported that Ian Bailey is threatening to sue Netflix over its content.
To hear more great content tune into Cork's Red FM 104-106FM or visit our website www.redfm.ie
As much as Bailey does himself no favours, Ireland cannot extradite him. There’s no way that we can legally recognize a French trial without a defence team or the defendant even being present. And in Ireland, murder suspects must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty.
The French Napoleonic system is bizarre. Conviction based on hearsay and village gossip? I'll take English Common Law!
@@zed351 For the most serious of crimes, there has to be a high burden of proof in my view.
That said, the Gardaí clearly did make a mess of the prosecution. Not the first time…
www.irishtimes.com/news/frank-shortt-seeks-to-increase-his-compensation-1.783029?mode=amp
Spot on, Bailey’s malignant narcissism was sufficient to seduce the Gardaí and that dodgy fat guy who seemed very happy about his decision there wasn’t sufficient evidence to convict him. How many of these Gardaí were investigated or convicted for corruption? Rhetorical question, clearly none of them. Has the Irish legal system never heard of forensic analysis, forensic statement analysis? Scandalous
The interviewer on this is dangerously dismissive and biased. Nauseating
Reasons I believe Ian Bailey did it::
His history of violence towards women, his violence when drinking, visciously beating his wife so she had to go to HOSPITAL 6 months before the murder, him leaving his house the night of the murder and having no alibi, the poems he wrote after the murder saying how he murdered her, the scratches on his hands noticed by many people including gardaí, being spotted by locals following Sophie in the town a few days before her murder, his confessions towards many neighbours where he was crying, being spotted by Marie Farell close to the house that night, that he contacted Sophie in France a few weeks before even though he said he didn't know her at all, the black coat soaked in a bucket in the bathroom on Christmas Day, the bonfire in the back of his studio house on the 26th December, where clothes and boots were burned, him knowing about the murder hours before the rest of the community or before any statement was released. Him knowing exactly what house it was before anyone else knew and driving there in the morning with Jules, where he only stayed at the scene for about 10 minutes and asked no questions then, even tho he was a journalist. His in-depth knowledge of the case and its details from the beginning, such as knowing it it wasn't sexually motivated.
And much more. Unfortunately there was just no physical evidence recovered, such as DNA and thats what the Irish system requires for a person to be charged.
Agree totally except for the part "being spotted by locals following Sophie in town and being spotted by Marie Farell outside her shop and outside his house...Marie Farell should be serving a sentence for converting the course of justice. Not one word out of her mouth has ever been proved to be true and has coloured the way this investigation has played out from the very beginning. How anyone could base any credence on anything she has or might say is incomprehensible. Having read all the books, watched all the series, listened to the podcast, there are other inconsistencies noted in what Ian has said and says. That's the problem with spinning a story. The narrator can be too close. It's a very clever writer who can stop the threads from running away from the main action.
Murderers always go back to the place they murdered the person.
I do not think he did it.
@@Glenrsi neither do I. The evidence is weak at best. And he had no motive.
@@Glenrsi why would he just all of a sudden want to kill his neighbor?? After living there for all of years?? It makes no sense to me.
So did anyone ever wonder if the man Marie was having the affair with was actually the killer? Remember, the man she wouldn't name in court?
@M Or that she invented the whole thing
They should made her to name him. There is not suppose to be secrets/ Its important .
115 Jack Burton Comments.
Great docu however very poor on the most important things: real evidence and motive. Both are missing as the (secret?) personal life of Sophie.
The nature of the crime suggests an emotional (relational)issue as motive.
Marie Farrell is an attention seeker to the n'th degree. I just noticed watching the Jim Sheridan documentary that he points out the road next to Kealfadda bridge (you know, the place that her testimony centred on for years) and he says "You know this road leads to Sophie's house?" "No, Jim". You're telling me that a woman from the area whose life has revolved round this case for decades doedn't know where Sophie's house is or which roads lead there?
Absolute bullshyte, Mrs Farrell, her 'evidence' is of no value whatsoever. She just wanted to steal the limelight from a murder victim.
An eclectic little bunch living down in that corner indeed!
Seriously 😂😂. Like characters in a play.
@@mrsx7944 A colourful cast of characters you might even say.
@@trainedobserver3972 VERY colorful indeed. They remind me of characters in that old board game 'Clue'.
@@mrsx7944 A crafty sounding lot.
The Playboys (and girls) of the Western World…
there is also the strand of the ford fiesta on the road that morning, which ib comments on
So IB was drinking in the Courtyard until circa 00:30, drove from the pub, stopped to look at the moon with Jules Thomas, observed Alfie's house in the distance, continues home, goes to bed, gets up, walks to Toormore (either cross country for 1mile) or by road (circa 3miles), murders Sophie, then walks 1mile to Kilfeada bridge in time to be spotted by Marie Farrell at 3am.
How fast a walker is he?
Is it not possible he drove to Sophie's?
I’ll bet he had the hots for her and got rejected.
So he drove to Sophie's house committed the murder, drove to Kilfeada bridge, parked the car in a place Marie Farrell didn't see, exited the car & was seen on foot by Marie Farrell at 3sm.
Why didn't he just continue home by car if he was going home? Seems strange that he would exit the car at Kilfeada Bridge just so he could be observed / implicated.
@@raymondgilbourne112 sorry I should restart, I read your first comment and thought 'thats a good point' doesn't fit very well, given that a three mile walk takes around 30 minutes, and a mile cross country would depend a lot on the terrain. So you make a great point. It's then I thought, is it possible he drove? Couldn't remember if it was ruled out but if not maybe he drove then stopped near the bridge (car maybe parked somewhere out of sight) perhaps throw some evidence? This was all just a thought. I suppose given that Marie Farrell's testimony is flawed it's possible he was never at the bridge at 3am in which case he had plenty of time to get too and from his house.
All of that but delete Marie Farrell at the bridge. She came across as a nut job in the doc. I'd disregard everything she said.
The state prosecutor took a view that the totality of the evidence against Bailey meant that there was no reasonable prospect of a murder conviction. So he binned it. Then a prosecutor in France took a different view. Then…three judges in a Paris court felt that the evidence presented to them justified a conviction. If the judges had felt that there was anything unsatisfactory about the evidence, they would have been reluctant to convict. That is how judges work. Anywhere. One man chose not to prosecute in Ireland, and it is fair to suggest that he got it wrong. It was obviously massively embarrassing for him that the French judicial system decided to run with it.
The French court used Marie Farrell's statement that she had witnessed Bailey following Sophie and then again near the scene. It was a lie, she admits it was a lie and has repeatedly stated it was a lie.
That is the difference between Common Law as practised in Ireland, UK, USA etc., and Napoleonic Law in France. In France you can be convicted of murder using nothing more than village gossip, innuendo and of course judges knowingly accepting lies. The bar is low in comparison to Common Law.
So that begs the question, why did these judges you speak so highly of use a lie to convict a person of murder?
You may also then ask, how did it get to trial in the first place?
Why was the French President involved in making it happen?
What was the pressure that was put on the Irish government over EU agreements at the time?
What involvement did the previous President have, the one that was friends with Sophie's husband?
Personally I prefer a system that does not use biased judges put under political pressure to get a conviction by using a known lie.
Perhaps your view of the experienced Barristers at the Irish DPP has now changed since they too would have been under enormous pressure to charge but stood their ground in the name of justice when others did not?
Hopefully having learnt this you are now outraged, because you should be.
'Evidence about whether Ian Bailey knew Sophie'? What's that got to do with it? Was there any evidence he killed her? No. Therefore, he didn't kill her. It's that simple.
My buddy, Fred Bloggs & I (Jack Burton) have been giving everyone a hard time (commenting hundreds of times on multiple videos, having no life). We have decided to finally admit we are idiots who were wrong to fall in love with Ian Bailey. We also have came to terms that he is guilty of murdering Sophie. Sorry everyone.
Hi Adam Hardcourt, keep harassing and stalking me and I'll reply to your every comment revealing your real name.
Enjoy!
The police dropped so many balls during this investigation....the lack of evidence at the scene seems very suspicious to me.
A whimsical / opportunistic killer would surely leave evidence everywhere. It makes me feel like it was either a professional job or the Garda covered this up.
Not only that but the Gardai "lost" hundreds of witness statements and evidence, plus they disposed of the farm gate with multiple blood prints. How convenient that they have "lost" all the things that modern forensics could re-test. The suspicious could accuse the Gardai of "losing" evidence that pointed away from their suspect.
@@zed351 that’s just obscene, no1 could be that incompetent. It affirms my belief that the victim was involved with a high ranking officer or official of some kind and thus had to be covered up….I mean the coroner didn’t even show up for 24 hours after the body was found…,the whole thing stinks!!
@@The-nn6kr was there a high ranking garda woman batterer who changed their whereabouts on the day lied about an alib then changed that too and now has none. Bought bleach burned clothes had who's arms and head were covered in cuts? Any garda cover up should have delighted in the opertunity to stich up baily by photoing these wounds but they didn't think of it??? Any garda confes while crying and drunk...?
@@The-nn6kr Umm Ireland doesn't have many state coroners for murders. At the time it was only one based in Dublin.
Schull is extremely remote to get to from the capital and definitely so 25 years ago.
I recommend reading Murder at Roaringwater by Nick Foster. After watching the Netflix doc, the Sky doc and listening to the West Cork podcast this book has the most detail and gives the most complete picture with more evidence.
Nick Foster is clearly biased. His big reveal in that book is laughably bad.
Goddess Kali FFS what a load of nonsense.
Niel, Ian's previous life before moving to west cork was not highlighted for the first time, as you said, in this Netflix series. Michael Sheridan wrote a book 'Death in December' in 2002. Micheal contributes to this Netflix series. so a lot of these facts were out there already. Having said that, this series is terrific. As was Jim Sheridan's documentary, Murder at the Cottage, a hauntingly, beautiful, visual version of the podcast West Cork by Jennifer Forde and Sam Bungey. whether Jim and the West Cork creators collaborated together or not, the information from both was the same so no new facts from the sky series were highlighted despite the hype. I did find it interesting that two documentary makers called Sheridan took part individually in both series. From what I can glean no connection :)
Michael Sheridan is a writer, Jim Sheridan is a world reknowed film maker. Michael Sheridan's book was very biased and contains many errors. For instance in the first chapter he describes how Bailey lied in his newspaper articles about there being two wine glasses by the sink in Sophies house. 10 years later we learned that Bailey was correct and the details he supplied could only have come from the investigation. Then he has a ridiculous lurid "Fictionalized Reconstruction"
To be honest I find the True Crime bullshit hard to take. Bailey is accused of murdering Mme du Plantier for profit, to resurrect his journalism career but in fact a raft of people are making a killing from this murder. This includes both Sheridans, Nick Foster, Sky and of course Netflix. All the usual tropes are there e.g."the hills cry out for justice" or the endless harping on about a Yeats poem she is supposed to be reading. "A Dream of Death" It's all pulpy bullshit, designed to sell books and movies. You can see the forensic photos online. There is one book propped open and it's clearly not poetry. You can see the two wine glasses and two coffee cups, two plates, two knives and two forks pans etc washed up by the sink. She had dinner with someone unknown on the Friday or Saturday.
What about the blue ford fiesta with the red number plates!
This sighting provided by....:)
@@menaoneill2865
A witness. So?
And the farm gate? Did his jacket go missing too?
@@DRUM19
Jules said that the coat was never returned. The Gardai files show it has samples taken from the arms.
What's Marie Farrell's deal? I can't get a read on her. Is she a liar? A narcissist? Actually afraid for her life? No one gives a damn about her sex life, they just want to see justice done, so I don't get why she won't say who she was near the bridge with.
She came out of the Netflix doc looking very bad. At this point I don't believe a word out of her mouth. She seems to like the attention most of all.
"No one gives a damn about her sex"
She does as does the man she protected. Whether you agree with her decision or not, it is not difficult to understand that she would not want to destroy her lovers reputation.
@@mrsx7944 We dont care about her sex life, but this was rural catholic ireland in the 90s. Still, I don't believe anything she says
married man probably her love affair
probably cos there never was a man with her , as whole thing probably is a fabrication.
Neil seems to be quite the Ian Bailey groupie.
Having watched both documentaries, I think Bailey comes out worse from the "objective" Jim Sheridan's series than from the biased Netflix one At least in the Netflix series he is well presented, shaven, answers all the questions put to him clearly and cogently. In Sheridan's series he is shown completely drunk and unable to answer basic questions about his alibi. Sheridan does show the Garda incompetence and determination to nail Bailey come what may. Dower's doc leaves this ou. Despite this Sheridan includes an interview with Barry Roche who points out that even if the Gardai were corrupt and incompetent it didn't mean they had the wrong man.
Well to be fair it wasn't Jim Sheridans fault that Ian decided to get drunk or that he struggled 3 times with his alibi ... when he knew he was being filmed for this huge documentary
Film producer husband was getting divorced by Sophie.....
They were still friends but she was lonely and vulnerable and might have hanged out with Bailey.
@@margot9887
Latest is that Marie Farrell has said Sophie was hanging out with the guy she saw outside her shop which she previously thought was Bailey. He has been identified by photograph as being a Frenchman. Of course Marie is unreliable, but still it could be interesting.
@@zed351 Identified by photograph, what do you mean? Yes Marie is an enigma.
@@margot9887 Marie is a liar.
@@zed351 how can she mess up her story again ffs.....she is a looper
Would Sky have any interest in making a documentary on Neil's infamous plane ride?
Don’t be a wanker, fly Ryanair ;)
Superb interview by Neil as always; he's very underated.
Nobody will ever know the truth except the person who killed her.
More than the one person knows what happened to her
Who shot JR pales into insignificance compared to this case!
Agree. It's a real life Agatha Christie novel.
I hooe there is a part 2 , since Bailey is now dead, a lot of questions still left un answered.
105 Jack Burton comments.
Please Adam Hardcourt, I am not interested in having a relationship with you. I am straight.
@@zed351 89
@@cowboygarfield7085
Adam Hardcourt I am not interested in your naked selfies, I am straight. Stop sending them.
@@zed351 91
@@cowboygarfield7085
You are clearly a mental stalker.
Another fit up job on IB, only this time made for the masses.
Why are all the theory's not looked at in any of these documentarys, it's very ian bailey driven which is totally unfair
The only theory looked at is it was IB. There is going to be a lot of oeuf on face when the French suspect is protected by the French State.
@@docastrov9013 wonder who it is
@@sineadmargaretlooby9015 I don't know but for sure the French won't allow him to be interviewed.
In a murder trial the proof has to be "beyond reasonable doubt". There are bucketloads of reasonable doubt
around Bailey. It is trial by innuendo and character assassination.
Because he’s obviously guilty🤦🏼♂️
@@margot9887 hardly that's ridiculous
Jack Burton & Random Task are Ian Bailey.
Except Bailey is dead and I am not, you clown.
113 Jack Burton Comments.
After watching the documentary and reading independently about the case I'm not convinced Ian is guilty. The evidence is so flimsy. And one thing I never hear anyone discuss is MOTIVE! WHY would he kill her??? Like someone in the documentary said he's being convicted strictly on his odd personality. He's that one weird kid in school everybody likes to pick on for no reason. Leave the man alone ffs!
And how does one country convict a man of a crime that wasn't even committed in that country?? And he's not even a citizen of France! Come on. That's lunacy.
@Nuby so you're saying his motive is that she rebuked his advances that night and he snapped? But there's no evidence that he was interested in her or pursued her romantically. Your theory is possible but it still seems so random.
@Nuby All possible scenarios, yes. But is it logical he would go to her house in the middle of the night to . .what? Ask for a date? Ask to come in? Another thing, no one came fwd and said he had a history of stalking women. Men like that usually are serial offenders.
I'm also surprised neither of Jules three daughters were in the doc. They would know his behavior patterns as much as anyone.
@Nuby
How can he leave the scene of a bloody crime and not have left a single shred of forensic evidence that matches to him? Not even something as basic as footprint match? Really?
@Nuby in another documentary it was said that the bootprint came from someone wearing Doc Martens.
@Nuby I think is obsession over being taken seriously as a poet is key. He knew that Sophie was well connected in the arts and that she greatly appreciated great poetry. I think he approached her and she told him it was rubbish. He obviously fancies himself as a great poet.
When was the coat soaking in the bucket reported?
yeah we dont know
The Italian staying with Jules and Bailey at the time of the murder said on Netflix the coat was in a bucket. However in her statement to Gardai she actually said *clothes* were being washed in the *bath*
Jules said that after killing the turkeys, Baileys shorts had blood on them so were in a bucket outside, was it this that the Italian saw and she is confused?
Also on Christmas day, Bailey is on video wearing his coat.
It is yet another example of how shoddy the Netflix makers research was. His bias is obvious!
John Dower is clearly biased and this is shown by his attitude towards Ian Bailey in the interview. His documentary reeks of Dower's bias.
Ian Bailey is commenting here under the guises of Mrs X, Jack Burton and at least 2 more accounts, poor chap
Yeah sure, l00n. Of course it's nothing at all with you being French and losing arguments....
Ian Bailey uses his *REAL NAME* on Twitter you spaz!
@@zed351 this person is a complete dunce. He's basically saying EVERYBODY who believes Ian is innocent is Ian posing. He literally just told me I'm not a woman. I' m not black. and I'm not in the US 😂😂😂
@@zed351 oh he's french??? Now it makes sense why he's such a jerk.
I'm not even French, it's obvious that you're Ian because your account is one month old and you commented 500 times on videos about the case.
@@pepesilvia1924 my name on FB is Troy Michelle Rawlins. Send me a friend request detective clueless.
He sounds a bit crestfallen. Massive worldwide damages.
I’m Ian Bailey & I’m guilty.
I’m also an idiot who writes the worst poetry. I have a few other accounts Fred Bloggs, Adam Hardcourt, & a couple others.
John Dower, You did a grand job. As an Aussie American who visited in Ireland in 2000, I had heard of this story.
If you want to look into another story that few people know about look into the story of Clarence Roberts. Clarence Roberts was declared dead twice in two separate fires that happened 10 years apart(!!!) There are actually 2 death certificates for him.
Some people believe he died in the first fire. Some people believe he died in the second fire. Some people believe he faked both. There were 2 bodies. Though. Second death happened in Nashville Indiana in 1980. It was covered on an American Television program called Unsolved Mysteries, but it was such an interesting story, it could easily make a great Netflix Documentary... Cheers