The very same. It's about the Sophie Du Plantier murder.Wait, west Cork.. as in.. Ireland cork?
13 episodes. Each one 30-40 minutes long.Sounds interesting. About how long is the entire series?
Cheers. I’ve yet to get into podcasts/audiobooks as I prefer reading myself but I might give this a lash as it’s a genre I love and it’s a case known to practically Irish person.13 episodes. Each one 30-40 minutes long.
Did you listen to season 2 of Serial?Anyone else listened to/listening to this?
I took a while to get round to it despite all the hype (Louis Theroux is a big fan) but think it might actually surpass expectations. If you liked Serial, you will love this.
I can't recommend it highly enough. I got so hooked I've been sitting beside my missus on the couch wearing headphones, while she watches Love Island. Peak autistic behaviour. Bit of a faff to get hold of. You have to create an Audible account (they have a free 30 day trial period, which is plenty of time to listen to it all)Cheers. I’ve yet to get into podcasts/audiobooks as I prefer reading myself but I might give this a lash as it’s a genre I love and it’s a case known to practically Irish person.
Yeah. I thought it was pants. Loved season 1 though.Did you listen to season 2 of Serial?
Oh cool, will definitely give it a go then.The very same. It's about the Sophie Du Plantier murder.
13 episodes. Each one 30-40 minutes long.
I knew about the case beforehand. Partly because everyone in Ireland knew about the case beforehand but mainly because my mum lives in West Cork and takes great pleasure in pointing out Bailey to me whenever we visit the local market. FWIW, she is absolutely convinced he did it. Although she hasn’t (yet) listened to the podcast!The podcast is fantastic. I knew nothing about the case. Whilst the first episode didn't hook me in the same way that Serial did, by episode 4 once we got access to the key player I was hooked. Binged it in 2 days.
I was looking forward to coming in here and seeing everyones thoughts but seems there are none. Particularly interested to hear from those who knew of the case well before the podcast, and what effect it had (if any) on your thoughts.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
If there's one person in all of this I don't have pity for, it's Marie Farrell. The refusal to name the man she was with is unconscionable.
I feel like the husband probably hired a pro in France. It’ll never be solved.Has anybody watched either of the above mentioned documentaries which have recently been aired (the Sheridan one on Sky and the Chinn one on Netflix)? I have binged both in the space of a few days, in addition to previously listening to the podcast in the thread title, and gone down the murder rabbit hole once more. It’s a truly fascinating case with many complex features, all of which indicate that we may never know the truth of what happened to that poor woman.
Spoilering the rest as I don’t want to ruin the documentaries for anyone interested in watching for themselves but a few things I’d like to add:
- having initially thinking Bailey did it - all the way back to the 1990s when I first read about the case - I now find it difficult to reconcile the idea of him being the culprit based on the evidence we have
- Marie Farrell has ballsed-up the investigation completely with her flip-flopping testimony. Her not revealing the identity of her companion on the night she claims to have seen someone on Kealfadda Bridge is also deeply unhelpful and only helps add fuel to the rumours that this individual could himself have been involved
- The apparent Kealfadda Bridge sighting of Bailey is also perplexing as it’s completely in the wrong direction of where he’d be going if he was heading home after visiting Sophie’s house, not to mention it’s a ~90-minute walk for him in the middle of the night in the depths of winter. It simply doesn’t add up
- Bailey was/is a deeply flawed man with many irredeemable qualities (several documented attacks on his partner Jules Thomas, some of which requires hospital treatment) but does that make him a murderer? He’s certainly a valid suspect based on his violence towards women, his lack of an alibi on the night in question and him knowing Sophie lived alone up there but all the evidence is circumstantial and nothing of note concretely links him to the crime scene. Could he really have been so forensically-aware in his drunken state that he could remove all trace of himself at the crime scene in the middle of night? Judging by the horror at the scene - and the overkill nature to the crime - the murderer would surely have been covered in blood themselves as well as leaving evidence behind in the chaos that took place
- The Gardaí’s incompetence should be highlighted more than it actually has been, IMO. Losing vital evidence, not following up on various leads, disregarding other leads to focus on ‘their man’ despite no concrete evidence, ‘bribing’ witnesses with drugs etc. to make certain statements, not preserving the crime scene adequately… there is a litany of discretions at play which lead to no charges being brought to any suspect. It’s incredible incompetence at best and nefarious cover-up at worst (many believe a Garda from the locality was involved somehow, hence Marie Farrell refusing to name her companion on the night in question and a whole host of convenient actions which destroyed/lost evidence and ensured the investigation had little to go on
It’s an intriguing, desperately sad case all told and one which will probably never be solved.
I’m torn between the French angle, the local Garda theory and Bailey himself. They say that often it’s the simplest explanation which ends up being true but this killing is so strange that all options are on the table, IMO. All carry equal absurdity but equal merit, as bizarre as that sounds.I feel like the husband probably hired a pro in France. It’ll never be solved.
I can’t see that lad walking that far there and back and doing that and getting away with it. Everyone in area would have been only delighted to rat him out. On the back of the podcast i thought it was Bailey but I really don’t think it’s him anymore. No motive. No transport.I’m torn between the French angle, the local Garda theory and Bailey himself. They say that often it’s the simplest explanation which ends up being true but this killing is so strange that all options are on the table, IMO. All carry equal absurdity but equal merit, as bizarre as that sounds.
I’m the same. He’s definitely a person of interest but there’s so many holes in the case against him that I now believe it’s highly unlikely it’s him. There’s no doubt he loved the publicity and attention the case has afforded him but he looks a shell of a man now, a quarter of a century later.I can’t see that lad walking that far there and back and doing that and getting away with it. Everyone in area would have been only delighted to rat him out. On the back of the podcast i thought it was Bailey but I really don’t think it’s him anymore. No motive. No transport.
