He died earlier from a heart attack, very curious guy whatever you think of him. If he didn’t kill Sophie Toscan du Plantier he certainly didn’t help himself by his attention seeking behaviour.
No conjecture. I`m quoting what`s already in the public domain. It is obvious that much of the statement from her arrest that Jules disowned in court in 2015, was in fact confirmed by her to be correct in her 2017 RTE interview.
Bailey asked for the same, a fresh investigation. Yes or no? So by your logic does that make him innocent?
Was Daniel co-operative with the Guards or not? Yes or no? What I read is that he stonewalled the Guards and was not co-operative. If you have evidence to the contrary do share.
"Talking absolute rubbish" appears to be your deflection response for when your own arguments are turned against you.
Who has said he couldn't have covered it? I think you are mostly arguing against a strawman there.
It is a highly implausible scenario that he would - after a long day of activity and a night's drinking - in the middle of a December night head out on foot to a property several miles away, on country roads or across fields, either on the off chance of a fling OR sustained by some drunken impulse that lasted for an hour at least? That is a long time for a drunken impulse to be sustained, through physical activity.
That's my take on it and the objection to the scenario I see from others on the thread also.
Also have pointed out that when accounting for how long it would take him to do it, to remember he had had a long day \ night, drink taken, it was dark and not base timings on how long it would take you to do it fresh in daylight.
It's always the husband ,🤣
That's not a conspiracy theory. The Bandon tapes are evidence that the conversation about alterting statements occurred. It's an irrefutable fact. Unlike much of the conjecture and nonsense you're posting on here.
He has that area mapped from his trip to Alfie lyons as well. But something in his ego was egging him on if he did act on impulse.
2 separate DPPs in fact. Did they both cherry pick their way through the evidence and come to the same conclusion? These DPPs saved the Gardai's reputation by not allowing the case go to trial. If it had gone to trial the likelihood of Bailey being found not guilty would have been very high. And the likelihood of Garda incompetence and corruption being aired in a very public trial would also have been very high.
It makes more sense that he had it in his mind and had thought about going there, mapped out the area in his mind, even just as a thought experiment. When hammered drunk he acted on the impulse. He did get up and back without being detected anyway so going at that hour had the benefit that nobody would be around.
I can't see anything ruling him out. He couldn't have gone and covered that distance at that time are all BS excuses I've heard. At the same time there are many other scenarios and for that reason I wouldn't be able to find him guilty. The guards and their incompetence plays a big role here and should be the main story. They f*ked up the situation... as I said, intentionally or unintentionally....
Your talking absolute rubbish. Daniel had nothing to do with it.
So there were scratches she did observe the day before the murder. And to read some posts on this thread it is as if the whole story about turkeys and a tree were made up when they are well established facts!
Easy to explain. I have been lightly scratched gardening it only became really noticeable once it started to heal over. It could also come down to how hair fringe was sitting which could obscure it.
I think this statement pretty much sums up where we are. There is nothing new unfortunately as it currently is.m and for family and anytime directly involved it is hard take
No she didn't
He has no alibi
I have no idea. It is contradictory and never added up to me. If he did it, going out at that hour does not suggest any premeditation. If he did it, cant rule out that at some previous point the thought half crossed his mind. But I wouldnt call that 'planning'. More like he finally acted on an impulse.
On a staggering scale.
I asked people earlier did they have faith in the current Garda investigation- I felt there was some hope especially if an all new team were assigned to it- the few that replied were all in doubt - I’m leaning that way myself now on reflection.
I believe it will be a carefully choreographed rehash of all the evidence previously presented- it might look prettier- it might have a long list of explanations and diagrams attached to it - but in essence, it will mutton dressed up as lamb. Maybe a few new hearsay statements leaked to the press to create some drama but nothing that a good defence barrister couldn’t knock for 6.
I don’t think the errors of the past can be undone. Since the Gardai commenced this latest review articles in the paper appeared stating they were exploring a lot of different avenues and people- I honestly now think this is purely for show- it’s like saying we looked here, here and here and found nothing- so now we’re back to Bailey as he’s our prime suspect.
I’ve no interest in waiting for the DPP’s response once the file is submitted but hopefully they won’t hold back in their criticism and call it out without softening the message.
Poor Sophie- RIP- you deserve better.
She also conceded in that RTE interview that there was a scratch on his head that morning that she hadn`t seen the day before.
So if he did do it, you think that he was just sitting around and the thought to go up to her house occurred to him for the first time? I know you don't think he did do it but imagine he did for a second.
Bailey asked for the same ie fresh investigation.
And from what I have read when the Guards wanted to speak to Daniel they were stonewalled.
Ah so those nasty Gardaí (multiples of them) made it all up. The premonition on Hunts Hill too. When that part of her statement was raised in 2015 she told the court....."No. He didn`t say he had a bad feeling about anything about to happen."
Then two years later she told RTE
"He said at some stage he had a funny feeling that something was going on. It was very strange....something is going on somewhere."
So they didn`t make it up then did they?
I think you can 100% rule him out.
When the DPP decided not to bring charges the case hit a dead end around the turn of the millenium.
Bailey was very publicly named and identified as a suspect. And with the case being closed, you'd imagine Daniel would be very happy with this turn of events if he was responsible and would get off scot-free.
But nope he insisted the case be reopened and questioned everything about the case and garda failures.
Now why would a man allegedly responsible for her murder seek a new investigation and improved forensic techniques if he was guilty?
Because clearly he had nothing to with it, and despite remarrying, was always determined to solve the case. So when people try to accuse him its an appalling slight on one of the few good characters in this whole saga.
The gardai were incompetent at best. Wouldnt believe what they say.
That isnt even what the Guards speculated as a motive.
It wasnt sexuslly motivated. Bailey murdered Sophie because he had massive anger issues and was a wife beater. He done it for control.
There are Guards on tape discussing tampering with Jules statement.
Her original witness statement was 'lost'.
The Jobs Book page corresponding with the statement was deliberately destroyed.
These are established facts.
The only conspiracy theory is denying that and pretending the Garda conduct on this case was on the level.
So we`re back to conspiracy theory territory. Right so. It was all a big set up.
I wonder was her husband ever a suspect?
Is that the statement she disowned?
Or the one the Guards are on record planning to tamper with?
Unsafe evidence which is why we have a DPP.
That settles it
Segments of Jules`s statement were read back to her in the 2015 case against the state. So he turned up with the coffee....
"I saw a scratch on his forehead. I am sure and I have no recollection of seeing this scratch on his forehead on the Sunday. The scratch was raw and I asked him what happened as it was fresh and a bit bloodied and he said he got it from a stick."
Were you in the room?
You have no idea.
Jules statements fron the Guards are on tape being discussed for chopping and filling in later. Original witness statements 'lost,' and the corresponding Jobs Book pages deliberately tampered with.
I will stick to the independent DPP report and not speculative fantasies contradicted by multiple points of evidence.
Even when Jules Thomas had been turned against Bailey while she was in detention on 10 February 1997 she did not retract from her previous explanation as to him being scratched as a result of cutting the tree. Bailey cut the tree on Sunday 22 December 1996. On the same date prior to cutting it he asserts that he had killed turkeys and became slightly marked in the process. His memo at 9.45 a.m. on 10 February 1997 specifically refers. He is supported by Jules Thomas and her daughters directly in the matter.
Oh no.There was a very specific conversation between Jules and Bailey about the fresh scratch that was visible on his forehead when he turned up with the coffee on the morning after the murder. Jules hadn`t noticed it before and she said that Bailey said he got it from a stick. That was clearly the narrative originally. The turkey only got blamed later. The thing about the gotchas in this case is that they really are gotchas. It`s a gotcha that the DPP didn`t want to deal with.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d38dadd4e9049f636f3a15f844846484.svg)
