Was there any blood found in Jules' car?
What are the current theories as to WHY the gate was open when it was usually kept closed?
I don`t think the killer had to be wearing gloves. You are looking back to 1996 but thinking in terms of current evidence gathering techniques. The most likely scenario is that the killer drove to the scene. In Bailey`s case he couldn`t really go home with a bloodstained car interior because he would have explaining to do. Seems to me that the simplest solution was to walk down to the bridge and give himself a good wash.
I think everybody accepts that Bailey's a reasonable suspect but Moonunit is actually, and ironically, showing exactly how the Gards got it so wrong with the same "sure it must have been him" attitude .... things like my point about the scratches: if he had scratches from the murder night, then ergo he didn't wear gloves, which has implications - but Moonunit invents wooly gloves that wipe the briars clean of any DNA - after being pierced to scratch the skin - and leave no wool fibres on said briars... Is this possible? Sure. But it's highly unlikely and you wouldn't want to take it as your base case scenario if you have any balanced interest in trying to figure out what's happened.
No fibres or DNA from either the victim or the perpetrator appear to have been detected on the thorns. Of course, that doesn't mean they weren't there immediately after the murder.
The killer could have worn woollen gloves which would have left no fingerprints while allowing the thorns to scratch the skin. On the other hand, they might not have worn gloves, there would be no prints preserved on the stone or the block and the sharp instrument that caused wounds to the back of her head and hands was entirely missing.
Similarly - if Bailey did it and had to wash himself off, then he most probably didn't wade into the sea in late December 😶 - he went back to "the studio", which is likely plumbed, and cleaned up there before bringing Jules her coffee in the morning - this is far more likely than the swim in the sea - but Moonunit's is weirdly besotted with Marie Farrell's peculiar "sightings" so has to try to fit in with them. Ian Bailey could have committed this crime without ever being seen anywhere by Marie Farrell - just like "the scratches" - she should be ignored.
Why bring bloodstained clothes home though? Both IB and JT's statements say the two eldest daughters had themselves not come home from socialising when they arrived back from the Galley pub. There's the possibility someone arriving back or leaving after dropping someone home could have spotted bloodstained clothes or gone to stay in the studio.
Five or six witnesses saw Ian Bailey playing music with his sleeves rolled up, spoke to him or served him several times at the well lit bar hours before the murder and none of them saw the multiple, obvious scratches up to the elbows that practically everyone who had dealings with him saw after the murder. That's very, very hard to explain away.
I agree with what you are saying that from what we know he is the most likely suspect, but that in itself just proves that we know damn all about the case.
There are so many other suspects just ignored by the investigation.
Bailey Is the only suspect in town here.
Because the investigators didn't even try to do their job.
I think you are probably right about not obtaining a conviction,but the information revealed on here and elsewhere suggests to me IB is far and away the most likely person responsible for the crime.There's just too many aspects that point to his guilt without there being a silver bullet piece of evidence.Theres probably 25 to 30 anomalies around Baileys involvement and for me I dont think they have been explained away.
hardly
That's not quite what's in the report though. GSOC give a general summary regarding all missing items and noted that they requested information on when the items were first noticed to be missing and what steps had been taken to locate them. Then a shortlist of missing items is given which mentions the gate. It does not say what the specific response was regarding the gate.
Maybe that's it but is there anything related to this whole episode which make the Gardai look good? I have no doubt that they have no idea what happened to the gate.
I don't know. That's a question for them. Maybe they didn't speak with the right person and later they did.
Because when GSOC did their investigation in 2018 they were told the Gardai did not know what happened to the gate (and a bunch of other items of evidence) and they also did not know when the gate went missing.
Now the Gardai are saying they offered it back to the family before disposing of it.
Why didn't they say this to GSOC back in 2018?
How did you verify the story was "nonsense"?
Was there any fingerprints on that wine bottle?
That story was nonsense and they only came out with it after their incompetence was highlighted in both TV series. They admitted during the GSOC investigation that the gate was missing and they didn't even know when it had gone missing.
This from July 13, 2021 Independent.ie article by Senan Molony
A five-bar gate to the holiday home of Sophie Toscan du Plantier has not been “lost” by gardaí but was disposed of after it was decided it was of no value to the murder investigation.
Contrary to a flurry of social media claims alleging Garda incompetence in mislaying the item, it can now be revealed the gate was discarded intentionally.
This was done by the National Forensic Laboratory (now Forensic Science Ireland or FSI), based at Garda headquarters in Phoenix Park, Dublin, and not by local gardaí in Cork.
The gate was quickly established to be of no evidential value into the investigation into the December 1996 murder of the French filmmaker at Toormore, Goleen, Co Cork.
Senior sources said the gate was initially “offered back” to be returned to the property but was not wanted. It is understood it may have been offered to Georges and Marguerite Bouniol, Mrs Toscan du Plantier’s parents.
“I had never news of the gate from the Garda. They never gave it back to me,” her son, Pierre-Louis Baudey Vignaud, who inherited the west Cork property, told the Irish Independent.
The gate had a number of bloodstains or smears on three of its bars. These were Mrs Toscan du Plantier’s blood.
Further tests were carried out on the gate for up to six months, and it was then retained for six years at the laboratory in Dublin.
It was later decided to dispose of the gate because of its large size and because it was deemed to be of no value to the murder investigation.
“In the various discovery processes when people were seeking material, a query was raised about the gate and it was stated in writing that the gate was no longer available,” said a senior source.
“That has now turned into a claim that the gate has been lost or stolen, which is not the case. It is being used as a stick with which to beat the force but the truth is very different.”
Asked for details as to how and when the gate was disposed of by, the Garda Press Office said: “An Garda Síochána does not comment on the specifics of any ongoing investigation. Queries in relation to Forensic Science Ireland should be directed towards FSI.”
A FSI spokesperson said: “We can confirm that FSI staff swabbed the gate and that the swabs were then assessed within FSI. The gate remained in the possession of the Garda Technical Bureau during this process.”
Bailey is innocent until proven guilty so the onus is on the prosecution to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the person who murdered Sophie.
What do you think would be the cornerstone of the prosecutions evidence?
The scratches on his hands that no one can prove he didn't get from the Christmas tree and which a dermatologist said she saw no significant sign of?
The confessions that no one is really certain were confessions, not even the people who heard them first hand are sure?
Marie Farrells evidence?
The lack of a bulletproof alibi, before the morning, even though the time of death is quite likely to be in the morning?
A local journalist nowing things early about a crime commited in a very local community?
The fact that he assaulted his partner and yet she would likely be the strongest witness for the defence.
There is just no way a jury would be able to convict him on that circumstantial mess of evidence and that's even before the defence barristers get to work on some of the Gaurds and witnesses testimony.
And yet, as I've said before, it was IB and his team that were torn to shreds at both the libel trial and the action against the state, not the witnesses that would be used in any prosecution. The witnesses in the garda file were named in the judges remarks and he said he accepted their evidence was truthful. IB's legal team had the opportunity to cross-examine them.
About that gate, GSOC noted that any of the 'missing' items or pages seem to have gone astray sometime post 2002, after the DPP had repeatedly rejected the prospect of charges. These items would therefore have been available at a previous trial if the DPP had accepted the garda file as it was presented.
Sorry @MacDanger I missed this when you posted it originally. Yes, the DPP's opinion was that Jules Thomas' arrest might be unlawful because it seemed to him she wasn't questioned about the murder directly. They argued that this indicated she was arrested under suspicion of murder but was really only there to get information on Ian.
Firstly, this notion is wrong because the gardai took hair samples from both Ian and Jules, which clearly demonstrates their belief of the possible involvement of both of them. This, along with the information and statements at that point in the garda file shows that the arrest and detention 'was necessary for the proper investigation of the offence for which she had been arrested'. GSOC's report said they are unaware of any information, either in the DPP report or elsewhere, that indicated any different.
'... Judge Hedigan said in his remarks it is still unknown why IB has never been charged by the DPP.'
He was not charged because the evidence against him could not amount to a conviction in any genuine legal trial. No forensic evidence.
Just imagine those witnesses in the documentaries on the stand being cross examined by trained barristers. They would be torn to shreds.
' so you only remembered this 3 years after the murder?'
'so you can't say for certain if he was serious or not?'
'so this drawing of the scratches on the hands....'
'about that gate..'
It would be a comedy show and a complete waste of court time.
Well there is, in France. IB tried to argue that the DPP report everyone here is so fond of quoting showed he had no case to answer but this was rejected by the Irish courts as it is only an opinion with no legal standing. There's also illogical and incorrect assertions in it. Judge Hedigan said in his remarks it is still unknown why IB has never been charged by the DPP.
Harry and Meghan who? We are a Republic.
Except there is no "prosecution".
Sorry I should have said that if Marie Farrell did see someone, regardless of who it was, the question has always been raised as to why Ian Bailey would have taken that route. The hatchet being missing, and confirmed to be in the house days prior by Sophie's cleaner, and cited as a possible cause of the blunt trauma to the back of Sophie's head, likely as she fled from the house. That would be one logical reason I could think of why he would go that way to dispose of the hatchet where it wouldn't be found rather than the more direct route back to his house.
As the GSOC report states, Jules was arrested because the gardai believed they had strong evidence that Ian Bailey was not where he said he was either on the night of the murder or the previous night. Jules had corroborated Ian's prior account in her own statements. Therefore, GSOC ruled that her arrest was legitimate as she appeared to have given information on the movements of a suspect, and herself, that she knew to be wrong and may therefore be involved herself or was likely to be shielding the suspect.
In his case, as I understand it, Ian Bailey said both of their arrests were unlawful because gardai had 'manufactured' Marie Farrells statements that he was elsewhere. The jury in his high court case was allowed rule on this and decided that the evidence supported the garda arrest based on MF statements. They did not believe MF that gardai had pressured or forced her to make statements against IB or to identify IB.
GSOC's report was actually after both cases had been ruled on. There is nothing to suggest either arrest was unlawful unless it could be proven MF was lying about seeing IB at the request of the gardai. The evidence shows this wasn't the case:
3.12 Nothing was noted in the documentary review conducted by GSOC that undermined the decision to arrest either Ian Bailey or Jules Thomas in any way and there is no information available to suggest that either constituted an unlawful arrest. It is further noted that the legality of this arrest has never been successfully challenged by either Mr. Bailey or Ms. Thomas at any stage since that date and that no complaint was made by either party to their solicitor at the time of their arrest or detention
Do you not understand the case was statute barred. Didn't happen.
you say he won? we are talking about Jules arrest
"The judge
later noted gardaí would have been in dereliction of their duty if they
had not arrested and questioned Mr Bailey. He had been arrested twice
and questioned at Bandon Garda Station on suspicion of involvement, but
was never charged and continually denies any involvement in the unsolved
killing
Refers to Bailey. it is Jules arrest we are talking about
Thank you. I assume it was their holiday home. I havent read anything about this house at all. Its strange that there has been so much said about Alfie and Shirley but nothing about the Richardsons - Im not saying by the way that they were involved - but what if someone broke in and was squatting there and Sophie found and challenged them.
you are wrong again to say it failed in civil court as you did yesterday
So he won then?
There was much legal argument over whether it was statue barred or not, that's part of the reason the case was so long. The judge therefore felt it deserved comment in his judgement and said the wrongful arrest case would have failed on its own merits.
"The judge later noted gardaí would have been in dereliction of their duty if they had not arrested and questioned Mr Bailey. He had been arrested twice and questioned at Bandon Garda Station on suspicion of involvement, but was never charged and continually denies any involvement in the unsolved killing."
https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-20436242.html
The wrongful arrest case did not fail then on legal terms it was statute barred, so was not even argued in a civil court. So you are wrong again to say it failed in civil court as you did yesterday. GSOC can interview who they like they are not a court. The arrest was never put to a criminal trial because there was not one because the DPP did not bring case because the DPP did not think they could get a conviction
you keep making the same points as if they were fact they are only your opinion
Yes, it was empty.
Moving on I have asked this question before here and dont think anyone was able to answer. Alfie lived in the cottage to the left of Sophies house and the house to the right was owned by the Richardsons. Was the Richardsons house empty at the time of the murder?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bd89cdce15309a6ec2dff928c865017a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
