Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
Anything of interest that she knew, came out when she was arrested. Basically he had expressed an interest to go up by Sophie`s house and even asked her to come with him. She noticed a scratch on his head in the morning that she had never seen before. It`s in her statement. What else does she know after that? She was in bed all night so she doesn`t know what he was up to. If he had blood on his clothes, I don`t believe for a minute that he went straight back to the cottage or that she was part of any clean up. The game would have been up for him then and she was the roof over his head. She was the last person he would have confessed to.
I thought there was at least a couple of things made me suspect bailey from one of the documentaries
It was when he refused to talk to the director about part of his story
Their changed account of the nights events
The turkeys too not buying all that
Just the way I seen it anyway, all a hunch obviously
I would assume so as he's the big fish the gardai always wanted to nail .Shed have no incentive to talk without immunity save for a guilty conscience driving a decision like that
They wouldn't be interested in withholding information or even destroying evidence if they got him
I always wonder if she knows something and has chosen to leave the matter.Who knows only her
@kirk.: Surely Jules would have some type of immunity if she has useful information on Bailey ?
I would take it for granted that the gardai offered this on almost every occasion that they spoke with her and still she hasn't made any kind of accusations about Bailey and stood by him for years despite all else.
Ys they do the same with athlete samples at major games
London samples from 2012 all just tested with latest technology and there's new positives
Woul have to think it needs someone closely connected to talk .
Bailey seems to be a narcissist who enjoys the publicity guilty or otherwise , he won't ever talk except maybe on his deathbed for one final laugh
Surely Jules would have some type of immunity if she has useful information on Bailey ?
It wouldn't take an Einstein in 1996 to understand there was huge advancements being made in the area of forensics, DNA analysis and so forth & that one of the key items in this investigation was the blood soaked gate right beside where the murder likely occurred. Even if it wasnt of evidential value at the time it should have absolutely been kept and disposing of it is negligent at best & deliberate at worst.
I thought it was traditional in cold cases to seal up all items forensics keep them on ice to be used at later times.
From a chain of evidence perspective, it should have been recorded as sent to the Forensics lab. That wasn't even done.
GSOC didn't exist in 1996? What on earth you mean by that I have no idea.
GSOC didn't invent some new standards, and retrospectively apply them. They were assessing what should have been done at the time.
Doubt any exist. Didn't they state no finger prints detected too?
The disposal of the gate could not be classified as evidential if the gate itself turned out to be of no evidential value whatsoever, as was the case. It's difficult to understand what GSOC finds so remarkable about this. As I already pointed out the killing of Sophie occurred in 1996. Forensics were what they were and GSOC didn't exist. Nobody envisaged the case would remain unsolved almost thirty years later.
Swabs of materials on the gate.
Swabs of what?
I wonder is it possible that whoever killed her was so high that they don't remember it?
Yes swabs and pictures.
I have been unfortunate enough to run into Bailey while visiting that neck of the woods.. He was dancing in the street! No music, trying to involve passers by..
He comes across as an extreme attention seeker, if not a bit deranged and not somebody you would want to meet on a dark night, whether he could have killed Mme Du Plaintier or not.
Mind you if that was the level of evidence needed to convict someone our jails would be overflowing even more than they are already.
Shame for her and her family that this case was so badly handled by the Gardaí.
....
I read that swabs were taken at the time. They are probably still there?
If the gate was lost and then found, any evidence gathered from it would be useless (inadmissible)as the Gardai wouldn't have a proper chain of custody. Anyway, that's not the case as, if the Gardai are correct, the gate was disposed of by them years ago.
There were no prints. How does one discern whether DNA was deposited before, during or after the deposit of a liquid?
Were the clothes Sophie wore that night kept? If so, probably the best for DNA testing.
For DNA or finger marks from the gate to be of any use, they would have had to be deposited there during or after the murder, ie with, or on top of Sophie’s.
That`s the best you can come up with?
GSOC must be conspiracy theorists then.
What possible evidential value does the gate have after all this time? None, unless you don`t believe what investigators said at the time i.e. that the blood was the victims and there were no prints. Are people seriously suggesting that a forensics team came down from Dublin and let`s say found a print in the blood, but covered that up because from the get go, there was a plan in place to nail a local patsy? Otherwise what are you expecting to find? DNA?
Even if DNA was recoverable at this stage, how many people might have opened and closed that gate over the years? Sophie, a number of other French visitors, the Richardsons, Alfie, Shirley, anyone who came there while Sophie was there (she liked to keep the gate closed). So that includes Bailey, Bolger, the Hellens and also those who attended at least one gathering at Alfie`s get togethers. Face it, the gate is a peripheral titbit that conspiracy theorists thrive on. Right up there with the missing 10% of Alfie`s certainty.
Then why did GSOC find it so remarkable?
You are saying as a matter of procedure they would delete some evidence re a murder case but not others? What procedure and why would this record be destroyed?
They wouldnt even record a line as to the gates eventual fate?
I dont find your statement credible here.
Not all records are retained by AGS after a certain time period. The record in relation to this may have been destroyed in the normal course of events.
They should have been thinking that way.
Ultimately it was not lost but it was "lost" by AGS. When GSOC conducted review of the case and evidence there was no record of what had happened to it ie they lost track of it.
They were not thinking about what advances in forensics might occur in thirty years time . The gate was examined using the techniques they had available at the time (1996-7). Nothing evidential was discovered. The gate - being rather large - was taking up too much storage space so was disposed of which means either sold for scrap or smelted. It was never "lost".
So nothing then.
Yes they have destroyed / tampered with other evidence. So I consider it a possibility with any evidence not fully accounted for / available.
They are hiding something the only question is what.
You suggested that the Guards have destroyed the gate to hide something. Again, anything to back that up?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
