I doubt jules is one of the witnesses if she did cover for him she implicated herself as well so can't change now or she goes down too. perhaps she did cover for him.
Still, i can't see a murderer disposing of bloody clothing in a house where a guest would see it. Surely you would put it in a part of the house the guest would not have access to. soak the coat in the bedroom. The guest would be in the shower room
People forget, Jules Thomas was put through the grinder during her interviews with the Guards, they literally threw the kitchen sink at her hoping that she would crack... At one point they even told her that Bailey had confessed to everything, and now was the time to come clean with what she knew... And she still stuck to the same story, never waivered, never changed her timeline .
she did change her story about his not getting up
With regards to Jules Thomas being touted as one of the possible new witnesses...
Anything new that Jules has to offer, has got to implicate her too..
There would be no amnesty given to her, as she would become an accessory to murder by default.
Also, if that was the case, does that also not extend to her daughters too?
Jules Thomas had the perfect 'out' of a bad relationship if she had something on Bailey - She doesn't, and never had.
I think it's a safe bet, that whoever the new witnesses are, Jules Thomas is not on that list.
Not only was Jules the victim of domestic abuse at the hands of Bailey but her life has been totally ruined by the aftermath of this murder. If he done it all she had to do was speak up and she could have went back to a leading a normal life. There were more reasons for her to speak out than to keep quiet.
In the documentary last year it was clear she was only still with Bailey because she felt sorry for him - she didnt have any love for him at all. Whether she is right or wrong I feel she truly believes he is innocent.
Anyone get the sindo?
You're literally accusing the husband with no evidence at all ?
Lots and lots of women stand by their men in abusive relationships and defend them to the hilt. Even lie for them. In fact that would be the status quo for the majority of abusive relationships I would think. Now that she is finally free of him, maybe she has a story to tell. But alas, whatever story she does tell wouldn’t be without bias. Interesting times ahead either way.
Thats not certain
He could be bailed or whatever depending on the info provided
He was very abusive to Jules. He was a horrible partner to her and her daughters hated him. If he did commit the murder she could have got him out of her life for good years ago by speaking up. For this reason I dont think she has any other information - she believes he didnt do it and stood by him.
If it's a new statement from a new witness, why are they only revealing it now?
Surely 26yrs ago would have been the time to come forward?
Any defence lawyer worth his salt would have a field day with such a witness.
I think you are right. They mention its a lady that lives abroad so that rules out Jules. Im not sure how reliable a witness the Italian student is though given that she didnt mention anything out of the ordinary to the Gardai at the time of the murder. She would have had nothing to gain by withholding information at the time.
....
Why you signing off on your username , not like it's gonna be someone else posting ?
Jules Thomas I get , she was under duress , I mean all his drunken rants he must have said stuff
Bailey was very careful at one point in one of the movies and shut up shop, can't remember where now
The Italian guy did they not already get a statement off him ,?
Sunday Independent has a lot of coverage on this today including opinion piece from Gene Kerrigan.
The news piece seemed to imply the 'new' witness statement was from the foreign (Italian?) student lodging with Jules and Ian and washing of blood stained clothes.
Don't know if it was mentioned already or not.... but I think jules Thomas knows a hell of a lot more than she originally indicated in her statements and now that they have split - acrimoniously - she may have spilled the beans on Ian bailey. Just a theory. I always felt like she was covering for him.
Muppet man.
So is this all window dressing then
Major publicity followed by a review
The gardai have a way of manipulating these things to make themselves look rosy
Maybe they withheld it as something only the killer would know. if so what's different now? or maybe just sheridan wanting to be the one to reveal
After hours;
news to me.
What is AH?
Wouldn't the post mortem have shown stab wounds?
Apparently jim sheridan now believes she was stabbed and choked before being killed. Mentioned in a Sophie thread in AH
If you were to take a lie detector test tomorrow, and you were asked about a recent murder in your local area, you would obviously say it wasn't you. And nine time out of ten times, you would pass the test.
But what about the one time you fail it?
Do you think the neighbors down town will be saying 'Kirky boy passed nine out of ten tests, obviously he is innocent'.....?
Not a chance...! 'My God, Kirk failed the lie detector test, I knew there was something weird about him' (The other nine tests won't even be mentioned)
Looking at current statistics, a lie detector test is at best is up to 90% accurate. Or one out of every ten people will be incorrectly accessed.
Those are fairly bad odd's if your next 20yrs are depending on it.
True but it's the dialogue around it that can be interesting
Guilty parties have often proclaimed loudly that they will take any test necessary or will indeed take a test of their own volition
But in fact they never actually do take a test
You seem to be more concerned nit-picking than actually bothered about who killed Sophie. Frankly it is tedious.
I hope there are some DNA advances that crack the case. Of course the "Hang Bailey" mob will never accept it if it exonerates him.
I note Nick Foster seems to have given up the ghost. Presumably realising the Bailey jig is up.
You'd want your head examined taking a lie detector test, innocent or guilty. It's all nonsense if you ask me.
Points taken, I still find the dialogue round taking the test interesting as it always comes up in cases like these where's theres doubt
Your first paragraph is interesting
This is a regular scenario
Perp apparently wants to take the lie detector test but is advised against it
Other scenario is they keep talking about taking a test but never actually do it
A guilty party will always be wary of a test, an innocent person not always
If you mean the blood smear on the back door, it was too small and failed initially.
Advances in the Uk later showed the blood was Sophies.
Calling it 'alien blood' was disingenuous, they either knew it was Sophies or that it was too small to call it, which is not 'alien blood'.
He was all for taking a lie detector test, but his legal team advised him against it.
Their reasoning being:
1) If he passed the test, it means nothing as it's not admissible in court.
2) If he failed it (even by a glitch in the machinery), he would be guilty forever in the eyes of the world.
*Also, they are not reliable to everyone. A nervous twitch, a hot flush, something glympsed in the candidates peripheral vision can cast a false reading - Bailey would gain nothing by doing one.
Out of interest did bailey ever take a detector test
It's always interesting to see if they volunteer to do so even though they've no official standing
Who explains their poetry
Pascal Sheehy says it's not about the botched investigation, but about finding the killer.
"However, sources indicate that the aim of the review just announced will be concerned solely with establishing who murdered Sophie Toscan du Plantier."
Couple of interesting posts so far...
Lets say they find a DNA match to Bailey on the block:
1) Bailey was all over the scene, did he touch / move any objects (the block)? How does this hold up in court?
2) If his DNA has sinister implications - How do we explain sitting on the evidence for nearly 30yrs?
Some other possibilities:
A confession? Of course it's a possibility, but why wait so long? And who can say the author isn't of the Maria Farrell school of Unicorns and Faries??? Any good defence Lawyer would tear the new witness to shreads..
A newly discovered diary? I like this point.. There was a suggestion that Sophie carried her diary with her everywhere she went, yet no such journal was discovered at her holiday home? However, if somebody had taken the diary (the killer), would that not be an inexplicable link to the crime scene?
Is the cold case review just a front to throw Bailey under the bus? If the Irish can't find enough to try him in Ireland, maybe find a loophole to send him to France to face the French legal system (thus appeasing Macron & keeping the Gards laundry from being washed in public)?
As a previous poster stated.. If they plan to arrest Bailey for a third time for this murder, they better have their facts straight.
The more I think about it... The best outcome for the Irish Government is to pack Bailey off to France. Watch this space!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
