Posted by 
IN HIS OWN WORDS: The lies that point to Bailey’s guilt
IN HIS OWN WORDS: The lies that point to Bailey’s guilt
In the insipid first episode of his podcast Ian Bailey shows us that he lies and then lies about his lies. He has spend almost a year insisting his podcast will tell the truth. However, as soon as he starts to speak about the early hours of December 23rd 1996 his contempt for the truth and for his listeners becomes all to clear. He says:
27.10mins
“Anyway I went down to the cottage…..and the Sunday Tribune told me on the Monday morning that I could phone the story through on the Tuesday so the pressure was off me.”
People unfamiliar with the case may take these comments at face value. However, this is not what Bailey told the AGS days after the murder nor when he was first interviewed under caution on February 10th 1997.
The focus was on what Bailey claimed to be doing between 01.00 and 11.00 on the day of Sophie Toscan du Plantier’s murder.
In the early statements, the first when Bailey was not a suspect, his story was:
1996 – Bailey says he was in bed with Thomas all night from 01.30 to 09.00. Made some coffee around 9am and he and Thomas drank it in bed until 10am. Then Bailey says he pottered around. He and Thomas planned to visit Skibbereen in the early afternoon.
Just six weeks later:
1997 – Bailey said he and Thomas went to bed around 1.30 and he was there all night. Adding “Got up early, made coffee for Jules and brought it to bed. It was about 9.30a.m.- 10a.m. went back to bed listened to the Radio. Spoke about what had to be done and we were going to Skibbereen, Co. Cork together, to deliver a turkey and do some shopping.”
His alibi is clear and consistent. He was in bed with Thomas all night. Then he got up made coffee and went back to bed where he and Thomas chatted and listened to the radio. He could not have been in Dreenane murdering Sophie that morning. Jules Thomas supported Bailey’s statements almost to the word.
All this is on the record but Bailey chooses not to mention it in his podcast.
Bailey is avoiding and omitting the truth. Why would an honest man do such a thing?
Then something very strange happens when Bailey is questioned later the same day in 1997. By this time Jules Thomas had withdrawn her statements claiming Bailey was in bed with her all night. Instead she says he got up in the night and she did not recollect him returning to bed. The next time she saw him he was bringing her coffee at 09.00. This meant that at the time of the murder Ian Bailey had no alibi. His original alibi had collapsed.
If you want to know why the AGS thought Bailey the prime suspect. Look no further. Bailey chooses not to mention this in his podcast. Why?
The response of Ian Bailey to discovering that his alibi was no longer supported by Thomas was alarming. If his original statements were true he could have re affirmed them. Afterall Thomas was sleepy, she had been drinking and she had taken tablets before going to bed. However, Ian Bailey chose to jettison his original statements and tell a completely new and different story.
In his podcast Bailey fails to explain his change of mind.
It is in the second story there are references to an article being prepared for the Sunday Tribune. There were no references to the article in the earliest statements.
FACTS SO FAR
· Bailey said he was in bed with Thomas all night 01.30 – 09.00 on 23.12.96
· Bailey said he then made coffee and returned to bed until 10.00
· Bailey repeated his this story for six weeks
· Jules Thomas confirmed this alibi for six weeks and then withdrew it. She said she no longer knew where Bailey was between approximately 1.30 and 09.00
· Only after the withdrawal by Thomas does Bailey concede he had given a false alibi by replacing it with a new story
· He was not compelled to change his version of events. He chose to do so.
We will have to see if Bailey comes clean in episode 2. I doubt it.
On Feb 10th1997 Bailey gave irreconcilable versions of events.
Jules Thomas supports the original alibi Jules Thomas withdraws support from the original alibi and Bailey makes significant changes 1997 Got up early, made coffee for Jules and brought it to bed. It was about 9.30a.m.-10a.m. went back to bed listened to the Radio. Spoke about what had to be done and we were going to Skibbereen, Co. Cork together, to deliver a turkey and do some shopping. [In bed all night 01.30 to 09.00 when Sophie was murdered]
1. In bed all night2. Got up to make coffee 9am3. Returned to bed with JT4. Listened to the radio5, Planned the day ahead 6. No contact with the Tribune7. No writing in kitchen8. No writing in the Studio[No mention of Tribune at all]1997 Some time after going to bed I got up – Did a bit of writing – the kitchen I then went down to the studio I am not sure what time it was but it was dark.I have no watch.I had a story to write for Tribune and was told it was okay that Tuesday would do. It was a story about the Internet.I went back to Jules house at about 11a.m.
[Got out of bed for an extended period, when Sophie was murdered]
1. Not in bed all night2. Didn’t get up to make coffee3. Did not return to bed4. Did not listen to the radio5. no plans made in bed6. Contacted the Tribune7. Wrote in the kitchen8 Wrote in the Studio[Tribune the central issue]In the new version he leaves the bed and then later leaves the cottage in the early hours of a winter morning. He walks to a cold Studio 200 yards away. Nobody sees him. No one can vouch for him.
Can any rational person believe that all these things in version 2 took place on December 23rd and Bailey forgot about every one of them on the 31st?
Bailey first gave a false alibi, then when that was exposed he serves up a completely new story. He needed to come up with a ‘plausible’ explanation why he was not in bed when he said he was. This leads to the ‘ Sunday Tribune excuse’. Once Jules Thomas has called out his false alibi Bailey has no way of corroborating that he did not leave the Thomas cottage and go to Sophie’s home.
With the Sunday Tribune excuse Bailey is attempting damage limitation re his lie of staying in bed. He knows in a murder trial his alibi will be exposed. His lies will be used to demonstrate his ongoing dishonesty.
The second story
Under caution Ian Bailey offers three variants of his Sunday Tribune excuse for getting out of bed early on 23.12.96
1997 v2 1998 v1 1998 v2 Some after going to bed I got up – Did a bit of writing -the kitchen. I then went down to the studio I am not sure what time it was but it was dark. I have no watch. I had a story to write for Tribune and was told it was okay that Tuesday would do. It was a story about the Internet. I went back to Jules house at about 11a.m. In his statement he says he got out of bed and did some writing in the kitchen adding that he went to the Studio at 9am. He said he had an article to deliver on the 23rd, He stated: “I had arranged with Tom McSweeney to have the copy of my report delivered to the Tribune before lunch on the 23rd December. I rang Mr. Bob Curran, Business Editor Tribune around 10 a.m. – 10.30 a.m. on Monday and he said that the article didn’t have to be in until Tuesday. He stated “I went to bed about 1.30a.m. – 2 a.m. Up at 4 a.m. to write -30/35 minutes writing – then back to bed. Got up at 9 a.m. and went down to Studio to finish the article. In these three statements Bailey contradicts himself repeatedly and makes errors. Did he go straight from the kitchen to the Studio or did he go from the kitchen to bed and then go to the studio? Did Bailey go in the dark or at 9am when it would not be dark? Was he unsure about timings because he did not have a watch or was he able to be extremely specific on timings ( to bed 1.30 to 2.00 am, up at 4am writing for 30-35 minutes then back to bed and then out at 9am). So many contradictions. This is not idol knit picking. This shows us a man who cannot keep up with his own lies. He creates false stories and cannot recall exactly what he has said. If that were not bad enough he provides incorrect names for both of the Sunday Tribune journalists.
For a moment it appeared the days of Bailey making coffee and returning to the bedroom were gone for ever. We no longer heard about Ian and Jules lying in bed listening to the radio and making plans for the day ahead. However, in typical infantile Bailey fashion this fiction makes a partial comeback in episode 1. In this version Ian takes Jules some coffee hoping for some ‘early morning nooky’. He actually said that, he would.
Bailey wants people to believe that at approximately 10.15 on the Monday he spoke to Richard Curran asking for an extension in his deadline. Given his commitments that day, which were few, he implied that he could not finish the article by the deadline and would get it to the Sunday Tribune on the Tuesday. In this fabrication Bailey never spells out the ‘new deadline’. Nor is their ever any description of the work he was doing on the article after the 10.15. Nothing at all.
Ian Bailey elaborates on his Tribune excuse every time. He thinks this will give it greater gravitas. More and more specifics such as timings are added. What the fool fails to understand is that with more and more detail the question becomes –
With so much extra detail re the Sunday Tribune how could he have possibly forgotten it all in his 31.12.1996 statement?
It makes both the ‘in bed all night’ and the ‘Sunday Tribune excuse’ totally unbelievable. These are fictions created by Bailey and corroborated by no one. He was not in bed with Jules that night but it was not due drunken Bailey wanting to write an article.
1998 – statements re the morning of 23.12.96
At 13.40 that day Bailey claims he knew about the suspicious death for the first time. After that call he telephones several people – though never Alfie Lyons or Shirley Foster. Then he and Jules make a bee line for Dreenane, the scene of the death. That is followed by a visit to the Post Office and a return journey to the Prairie. There are further calls and research to be done. He was called by freelance photographer Mike Brown and gave Brown directions to where he lived, the Prairie in Lissacaha . Bailey says that at around 4pm Brown picked him up and they went to the scene of crime. There they met several people including Eddie Cassidy and Superintendent Twomey. He returns home and by 5pm on the 23rd he has submitted his completed article and been put through to Tom McEnaney.
When did he finish the article? Will he explain this to us in his podcast?
The self incriminating contradictions by Bailey are compounded when the statements of the Sunday Tribune journalists are considered. This is what they said.
December 23rd 1996 The Sunday Tribune
Richard Curran on 24/2/97
Business Editor with The Sunday Tribune Newspaper
“The deadline was in fact 12 noon on Monday the 23rd December, 1996.”
“He did not phone through his story by the deadline (12 noon). The report was eventually phoned through at about 4p.m. on Monday 23/12/96. I remember it because I was worried about it not arriving and I would have to come up with a replacement article if it didn’t arrive at all.”
Tom McEnaney on 03/04/97
The property correspondent with The Sunday Tribune Newspaper.
“On or before Thursday the 19.12.1996 I spoke to him and told him that the Monday morning was fine to file the copy. I was reasonably relaxed about it but I said to him get it in by Monday morning. When Monday (23.12.1996) morning came and went and the copy had not arrived I began to get nervous.”
“To my recollection I attempted to contact Eoin Bailey on the Monday unsuccessfully. He filed his copy over the phone to a copytaker at about 5p.m. on Monday the 23rd December 1996. I can confirm that it was Eoin Bailey who filed the copy as I had the call transferred to my line as I wished to enquire about the photograph.”
Both of these experienced journalists could not be clearer. The deadline was set at Monday morning / noon on the 23rd. Both make reference to Bailey missing his deadline and both say he delivered the copy hours later between 4pm and 5pm. Neither of the journalists make reference to the deadline being moved to an unspecified time on December 24th. Richard Curran makes no reference to a morning call of any kind from Bailey. Tom McEnaney states that he spoke to Bailey around 5pm. A conversation that is never mentioned by Bailey.
Who would a jury believe? On the one hand is a guy who gave a false alibi. He only updated his statement when caught in lies. The same guy who repeatedly contradicts himself and gets basic facts wrong in his second version of what happened that morning. On the other hand there are two journalists who provide detail and corroborate each other’s statements? I think we know the answer.
Let me speculate a little. Ian Bailey knew the deadline for the article and would want to hit it. He had likely done most of the work on the article prior to the weekend. This is why he had two nights of hard drinking on the 21st and 22nd. He had time to wonder around Schull on Saturday afternoon (the 21st), He was happy to get drunk and sleep at a friend’s house that night. Bailey had time to kill and prep turkeys and lop down part of a tree. He reasoned that he could tweak the column on Monday morning and then ring it in before noon.
That all changed. We know from the French trial in 2019, Bailey brutally murdered Sophie in the early hours of Monday morning. All previous plans were negated. In the hours immediately after the murder Bailey had to get home. He needed to dispose of murder weapons and bloodied clothes. Bailey would have to come up with a version of events that would get Jules on his side. He probably minimised the extent of the violence, denied any sexual motive and claimed it was an accident. Jules would later discover the depravity of Bailey’s attack. By which time it was too late, she had been drawn into a cover up.
Bailey was incapable of devising a cover up alone. Jules Thomas said so in a recent newspaper article:
‘The former partner of Ian Bailey has declared there is no way he could have murdered French TV producer Sophie Toscan Du Plantier because “he is so hopeless at covering his own tracks.” ‘
The murder of Sophie did not require any planning or covering of tracks. It was a disorganised attack by a large man on a small woman. The murder weapons were weapons of convenience for the enraged Bailey. You did not have to be a coverer of tracks to murder Sophie in that way. To do that you needed to be a violent, woman hating psychopath who cannot control himself. Bailey ticks all those boxes.
The cover up would require a cooler more detached person than Bailey. Compromising items would have to disappear. Bailey would need a false alibi for the time of the murder and an impression of normality would have to be presented to the outside world.
The false alibi presented by Bailey and Thomas lasted six weeks. The second version offered by Bailey is a sad and desperate concoction that does not stand up to scrutiny. It is evident that the Sunday Tribune excuse told by Ian Bailey cannot stand up to scrutiny.
Episode 1 of the podcast is guilty of important lies of omission re 01.00 to 11.00 on 23.12,96
Until Ian Bailey explains why he and Jules Thomas both gave exactly the same false alibi for Bailey, nothing he says about this murder can be believed.
JP
Who Watches the Watchers? 