Although I find myself with cynical views about the possible discovery of DNA evidence, and the length of time the cold case review is taking, there is dramatic new information.
It might be added that the chance of an unconnected bystander discovering Sophie's body at 6am in the dark in the middle of nowhere is virtually inconceivable.
The article does not exonerate Ian Bailey, quite the opposite if you're aware of the alleged facts. The phone call in question is said to have originated from the Prairie by Fenella Thomas to her father Chris Thomas. At 6am approx on the day Sophies body was found it is believed Fenella rang her father to collect her from the house as something dreadful had happened. Chris Thomas was apparently "too sick" to collect her. For those who might not be aware, Chris Thomas lived in Clonakilty when Sophie was murdered. Clonakilty phone operations transitioned from analog to digital in the mid 80s, meaning from the mid 80s there would be a record of any call made or received to or from a landline there. When the Gardaí say they know where the call came from, I'm sure they don't say it lightly. It was the digital system that was able to pinpoint the exact time Ian Bailey recieved a phone call from Eddie Cassidy on the 23rd. While the Prairie phone was analog, the number was picked up and on record at Eddie Cassidys end. As for the man "long dead", it's not Bailey they're referring to. The witness in question apparently also corroborated a vital piece of evidence which, if true, I have no doubt will strengthen the case for An Garda Síochana. It isn't public, and likely won't be until the cold case team is finally ready to come forward. As for your opinion on Michael Sheridan, he's a well respected and reputable journalist, he only ever goes on facts. He's respected as a journalist for a reason. What you say about him coming from a platform of Ian Bailey being guilty is essentially double standards. You grasp at straws to get any inkling of potential innocence. I've followed your blogs on Sophies case to date, you're working from very few facts, your blogs are heavily opinionated and tend to repeat what others say who are also equally ignorant of the facts of this case.
Thanks for this reply! My views have become less objective over the years, no doubt. It is irritating that the original investigation was so poor. Michael's updated books on the case are indeed full of his opinions. Unfortunately for the millions of people following this case, we can only go on what other people say, or do not say. I have a number of detailed documents, including contemporaneous witness statements, and as none of them were recorded and they have all been typed up by third parties, I still find them untrustworthy. Your most interesting point is obviously the names of the people in question - Sheridan did not name anybody. How sure are you that these are the people involved? I have long understood that the Thomas daughters and Jules exonerated Bailey in all their statements.
You would be incorrect in saying Jules and her daughters exonerated him in their statements. Saffron Thomas in fact puts her mother and Bailey at the crimescene before lunchtime, hours before they state they heard of the murder from Eddie Cassidy. She made a statement to the Gardaí stating this, and to the French in which case the interview with the French was recorded with her permission. In the French statement she also retracts being a witness to Bailey killing the turkeys. It's amazing how things change when one knows they're being held accountable, on camera, for their statements.
Fenella Thomas refused to retract her statement that Jules and Bailey left the house that morning at around 10.30-11am. Even when pressured by her mother and Bailey to do so. Her husband wrote to the French and explained the intimidation coming from them. She just wanted to be left alone.
As for how sure I am, the information came from a very strong and reliable source but I still used the term alleged. Only time will tell if it's correct or not.
I have a considerable amount of files on the case, which ironically came indirectly from Bailey himself.
Thank you. Please do keep on commenting. This site works best as a debate. Nobody has so far presented any evidence that Ian Bailey was anywhere near Sophie's that night, or any night. If anything Crime Guy a very rare resource for the few who are not convinced of Bailey's guilt. But that does not mean I think he is innocent, I just don't know. All I know is that he has never been charged or tried for murder and that there must be reasons for that.
He should have been tried at the very least. The DPP, for reasons unknown, did not look at the facts objectively in this case. They picked and chose the evidence that suited their own narrative. I believe it's something they will be criticised for down the road, and rightly so imo. Can I recommend the book Case Closed: The murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier by Paul Morgan. The author presents the facts and arguments in an unbiased logical way, and a good portion of the book dissects the DPP report. Yes, the author concludes that Bailey is guilty but every point he makes is backed up by evidence, something you're looking for. If you're genuinely looking for evidence, and if you're willing to keep an open mind then I think you will at least respect the book and the author. I'm not here to plug a book, but this book is as close you're going to get to dealing with the case and specifically the DPP report.
It might be added that the chance of an unconnected bystander discovering Sophie's body at 6am in the dark in the middle of nowhere is virtually inconceivable.
The article does not exonerate Ian Bailey, quite the opposite if you're aware of the alleged facts. The phone call in question is said to have originated from the Prairie by Fenella Thomas to her father Chris Thomas. At 6am approx on the day Sophies body was found it is believed Fenella rang her father to collect her from the house as something dreadful had happened. Chris Thomas was apparently "too sick" to collect her. For those who might not be aware, Chris Thomas lived in Clonakilty when Sophie was murdered. Clonakilty phone operations transitioned from analog to digital in the mid 80s, meaning from the mid 80s there would be a record of any call made or received to or from a landline there. When the Gardaí say they know where the call came from, I'm sure they don't say it lightly. It was the digital system that was able to pinpoint the exact time Ian Bailey recieved a phone call from Eddie Cassidy on the 23rd. While the Prairie phone was analog, the number was picked up and on record at Eddie Cassidys end. As for the man "long dead", it's not Bailey they're referring to. The witness in question apparently also corroborated a vital piece of evidence which, if true, I have no doubt will strengthen the case for An Garda Síochana. It isn't public, and likely won't be until the cold case team is finally ready to come forward. As for your opinion on Michael Sheridan, he's a well respected and reputable journalist, he only ever goes on facts. He's respected as a journalist for a reason. What you say about him coming from a platform of Ian Bailey being guilty is essentially double standards. You grasp at straws to get any inkling of potential innocence. I've followed your blogs on Sophies case to date, you're working from very few facts, your blogs are heavily opinionated and tend to repeat what others say who are also equally ignorant of the facts of this case.
Thanks for this reply! My views have become less objective over the years, no doubt. It is irritating that the original investigation was so poor. Michael's updated books on the case are indeed full of his opinions. Unfortunately for the millions of people following this case, we can only go on what other people say, or do not say. I have a number of detailed documents, including contemporaneous witness statements, and as none of them were recorded and they have all been typed up by third parties, I still find them untrustworthy. Your most interesting point is obviously the names of the people in question - Sheridan did not name anybody. How sure are you that these are the people involved? I have long understood that the Thomas daughters and Jules exonerated Bailey in all their statements.
You would be incorrect in saying Jules and her daughters exonerated him in their statements. Saffron Thomas in fact puts her mother and Bailey at the crimescene before lunchtime, hours before they state they heard of the murder from Eddie Cassidy. She made a statement to the Gardaí stating this, and to the French in which case the interview with the French was recorded with her permission. In the French statement she also retracts being a witness to Bailey killing the turkeys. It's amazing how things change when one knows they're being held accountable, on camera, for their statements.
Fenella Thomas refused to retract her statement that Jules and Bailey left the house that morning at around 10.30-11am. Even when pressured by her mother and Bailey to do so. Her husband wrote to the French and explained the intimidation coming from them. She just wanted to be left alone.
As for how sure I am, the information came from a very strong and reliable source but I still used the term alleged. Only time will tell if it's correct or not.
I have a considerable amount of files on the case, which ironically came indirectly from Bailey himself.
Thank you. Please do keep on commenting. This site works best as a debate. Nobody has so far presented any evidence that Ian Bailey was anywhere near Sophie's that night, or any night. If anything Crime Guy a very rare resource for the few who are not convinced of Bailey's guilt. But that does not mean I think he is innocent, I just don't know. All I know is that he has never been charged or tried for murder and that there must be reasons for that.
He should have been tried at the very least. The DPP, for reasons unknown, did not look at the facts objectively in this case. They picked and chose the evidence that suited their own narrative. I believe it's something they will be criticised for down the road, and rightly so imo. Can I recommend the book Case Closed: The murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier by Paul Morgan. The author presents the facts and arguments in an unbiased logical way, and a good portion of the book dissects the DPP report. Yes, the author concludes that Bailey is guilty but every point he makes is backed up by evidence, something you're looking for. If you're genuinely looking for evidence, and if you're willing to keep an open mind then I think you will at least respect the book and the author. I'm not here to plug a book, but this book is as close you're going to get to dealing with the case and specifically the DPP report.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Case-Closed-Bailey-Murder-Plantier/dp/B0DGX42GDV
Very intriguing.