Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed. **Threadbans lifted - see OP**

1128129131133134186

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭tomhammer..


    The alternative scenarios to bailey seem limited

    Bjsc states a stranger killer and a french hitman are unlikely

    The neighbours were presumably interviewed and eliminated

    That mostly leaves persons unknown for reasons unknown to paraphrase fish on a bike

    This is a lady thats bludgeoned to death at her gate in a remote location



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭tomhammer..


    Up to 6 persons contradicting his account of not having met her



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,496 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Again and again and again posters come back with "well the DPP......" in relation to Bailey evidence.

    How many times have I said on this thread that I'm well aware that the evidence against Bailey is circumstantial and was never good enough for charges?

    I'll tell you the answer....loads of times.

    But the circumstantial evidence we have against Bailey are facts, and there are no other facts around this case that point to another person as a stronger suspect than Bailey.

    Thus my belief that Bailey is the best suspect.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    And how many times has it been pointed out to you that the facts we have about the case are the function of an incompetent, unsafe, potentially corrupt Garda investigation? That "lost" evidence? Marie Farrell? Logs book deliberately tampered with?

    Evidence that pointed away from Bailey lost or not followed up on.

    If Bailey is your "best" suspect, and this is the flimsy evidence the Guards found by fair means and foul, we need to look elsewhere.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 206 ✭✭Zola1000


    This is excellently posted. It would be where I'm at overall. I mean AGS would get lot more behind them if they admitted some of earlier failings and maybe just maybe they wanted to alleviate some of that pressure on french side and put out the front they had large amount of files and had a suspect. Look it's what lot of people would probably have done in same situation.

    But that has now been found over and over again to be detrimental to investigation techniques and resultant in flawed investigation.

    It's still highly likely no conclusion will be reached but naturally it's what a lot of don't want. We want to hopefully have something to move nearer to reason for this murder at least.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 344 ✭✭bjsc


    Also on the other thread you posted praising the French authorities for exhuming Sophie's body and performing a second post mortem. Rightly so.

    The conclusion of that post mortem was that Sophie suffered a traumatic right frontal skull fracture overlying the orbital area, the edges of which were jagged, and which was caused by a blunt object with uneven edges.

    There were one or two blows to the right side of the head and those on the left were caused by a "contre-coup" with the head resting against a hard surface when the blows to the right side of the head were struck.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,496 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    The Gardai didn't make up his failed alibi.

    The Gardai didn't make up Bailey telling multiple people he did it.

    The Gardai didn't make up his violence.

    The Gardai didn't make up that he was known to walk the roads late at night.

    The Gardai didn't make up his weird premonition that something bad would happen.

    The Gardai didn't make up that he had the physical attributes to inflict such violence against Sophie.

    The Gardai didn't make up that Delia Jackson said Bailey had a bonfire when she was home from England at Christmas.

    All of these are facts, real facts.



  • Registered Users Posts: 169 ✭✭Mackinac


    Of the many theories that have crossed my mind about this case I have wondered if there were two crimes going on in the area that night, one of them being Sophie’s murder . The other crime may have been connected or maybe not but certain people wouldn’t want to explain or let it be known why they were in the area.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    All of these points are debatable and / or circumstantial, none of it is direct evidence.

    The reason for his failed alibi is - wasn't it, in your words, the Guards used a fake witness in Marie Farrell? The Guards made that up. Totally understandable for an innocent person to change their statement as a defensive move when faced with such Garda corruption and wrongdoing.

    One of your 'facts' is that he was physically capable of inflicting the violence?

    You want to give us the a guess at the number of people that applies to, that by that standard that can now be considered a fact against them as suspects in the murder? Hundreds? Thousands?

    In your own time.

    Absolutely desperate stuff.

    Real facts. The Garda log book that showed how Bailey was identified as their suspect were deliberately destroyed. We have multiple pieces of evidence "lost" the implications of which are unknown in terms of pointing to other suspects or exonerating Bailey (but we can be fairly sure if they assisted the Garda case against Bailey they would not have been "lost"). We have the instructions of the State Pathlogist overruled by local Guards with regard to handling of the body.

    We have Guards on tape discussing altering witness statements. We have related witness statements "lost".

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,496 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    All of these points are debateble and / or circumstantial, none of it is direct evidence

    Him telling people he killed her is not debatable, it's fact.

    Bailey being violent is not debatable, it's fact.

    An ambiguity about the time of the bonfire is not debatable, it's fact.

    Him being strong enough to wield a large block as a murder weapon is not debatable, it's fact.

    Him having a premonition is not debatable it's fact, he said it himself under oath.

    His alibi falling apart is not debatable, it's fact.

    I'd argue that you are the one who is desperate at this stage.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,472 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    You can’t take “likes walking at night” as serious piece of evidence?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Nope. I literally wrote debateable and/or circumstantial. You ignored the or part and responded as if I just wrote debateable. An entirely bad faith argument.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,496 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    It helps support the theory that he walked from The Prairie to Sophie's house.

    As in such a distance to walk and at that time of night would not be out of the ordinary for him.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,774 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    We also have many examples of people who were blamed for crimes by AGS and it turned out they were completely innocent. I've already cited the shocking abuse targeted towards Joanne Hayes by AGS and how bizarrely her family all gave similar statements to AGS (let's ignore the fact that the statements were all false and forced out of the family hy AGS).

    You could also look at other high profile cases crack Garda teams were involved in where they fu**ed up so badly. It would be wrong to presume that they definitely got it right with Sophie's killer



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,496 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    It's circumstantial, I've always admitted that.

    But it's not debatable.

    How do you determine it's debatable ?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,496 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Possibly

    But what we know right now is that there is circumstantial evidence against Bailey that makes him a strong suspect.

    And that's the only point I'm making or have ever tried to make on this thread.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 206 ✭✭Zola1000


    Again none of this would hold weight. Near all instances of Bailey's alleged confessions or confessions of people with him were in drink bring taken scenarios..apart from maybe when he gave the lift to boy of school..yet he still got lifts from him..didn't report it till following day.

    What about other who admitted done terrible thing..

    Was the alleged disagreements with any landowners..any of them I'd say be handy with block work I'm sure you'll agree. It's all doesn't amount to anything with IB.

    The peeping tom I'm sure was walking the roads..

    The guards making up alibis was failing apart...any idea why Jules had get solicitor to confirm that's not what she said...any thoughts on that..sure it's changing how alibis are in interpretation. It's a flawed process. Sure I could have concocted a bizarre alibi for number of witnesses here..place them near the scene.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,496 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    The guards making up alibis was failing apart...any idea why Jules had get solicitor to confirm that's not what she said...any thoughts on that..sure it's changing how alibis are in interpretation. It's a flawed process. Sure I could have concocted a bizarre alibi for number of witnesses here..place them near the scene.

    My understanding is that Jules while being questioned brought Bailey's alibi of being in bed all night into question.

    My understanding is that Jules claims that's not what she said and that the Gardai made it up/took it out of context, whatever.

    So if it wasn't what she said how come Bailey agreed with it and admitted that he did not actually spend the whole night and had indeed mislead the Gardai in his original questionare?

    And if you listen to the West Cork podcast both Bailey and Thomas are adamant that he did indeed leave the bedroom and go downstairs to write.

    But oddly it takes the presenter of the podcast to tell us that he also left The Prairie to go down to The Studio to type it up, a piece of information that neither Bailey or Thomas volunteer when talking about writing the article.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 206 ✭✭Zola1000


    I absolutely agree. But again you have just said AGS made it up or whatever. Like do you think that's good place to be coming from. If that's part of any of investigation techniques, you don't have investigation.

    I agree bailey changed things throughout but with type of character he is , becoming a suspect , the drink..it all leads to nothing. Your quoting a podcast..again..can it be used as evidence. Why didn't guards spot the changes in alibi.??



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    ...

    Post edited by odyssey06 on

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,496 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    But again you have just said AGS made it up or whatever

    That's not what I said.

    I said that Jules claimed that the Gardai made it up or took it out of context or whatever.

    The only person claiming that it was not what she said is Jules.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 206 ✭✭Zola1000


    There is lots more the Jules as well we know in tempering of statements be it aiding bailey or not aiding him. So you can justify accurate or inaccurate alibis when it is known they had tried to influence other alibis in case



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,496 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 206 ✭✭Zola1000


    Ok. So Marie Farrell..placing IB at kilfadda bridge. Making up he was taller individual than the individual she had already placed on Saturday in town. Trying to influence statement to be IB. When she had said he was smaller individual.

    Cohersing another witness in trying to implicate bailey by passing the guy drugs , and maybe trying to get bailey under influence to build a statement in that way.

    Just two simple examples but destroy the case on evidence gathering



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 206 ✭✭Zola1000


    You cannot justify examing and scrutinizing IB alibis without examing all others.

    I totally agree with you..IB merits further review and we can only turn to Jules family..but risk of that now is still all but lost considering they tampered with some of her original statements. So weather they did or didn't it's flawed process



  • Posts: 0 Evie Fat Pointer


    From now on zero tolerance on discussing other posters. Threadban on sight.

    BSJC or anyone else’s identity is not the thread topic and it’s borderline bullying at this stage.

    The topic is very straightforward. Thats the final warning on the subject.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭Technophobe


    No I am not.

    I am merely asking the question and/or pointing out that if he had a cut on his head, then why are you ( correct me if I'm wrong) and certainly tobefrank so sure that Bailey only offered DNA because he was sure he had left none?

    In a supposedly drunken state in a strange place during a struggle, how could anyone be even confident of that. Never mind sure!!

    But this point has been made numerous times and yet continues to them be conveniently forgotten again..

    I'm not sure if Bailey did or didn't do it,but above point is totally valid and pretty extraordinary if he did so..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,472 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    And pray tell, where is the evidence that he went on “walk about” on the night in question? He went to his office annex yes a few metres up from the main house - but “walk about? “ Tell me, who saw him out walking that night?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,472 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    I’m certainly not trusting the 1997 investigation that’s for sure - while it was after some rather seedy Gardai ways of investigation there were still a lot of bad eggs hanging around - the incompetence of leaving the body in situ given the directions of the state pathologist office , potential contamination of the crime scene and the unprofessionalism of the data and evidence gathering - WTF were they smoking back then?



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,774 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    It does not make him a strong suspect. It doesn't give him motive. It doesn't give him opportunity especially if you consider the possibility of a morning murder.

    All you have is something that reaffirms your belief that he is a serious contender on the suspect list but think it through (without bias) and you have absolutely nothing on him.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,496 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    There is none.

    I never claimed there was.

    If there was them we'd have a completely narrative around here.

    Yes we know that Bailey went down the road from the main house, about 200 meters.

    And we also know that's not what he originally told Gardai.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,472 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    Great so let’s stick to the facts here considering that whenever I elect to say that other avenues also need exploring, I get shot down by you and others -if you allow yourself to add 2+2 to get 5, then I’m more entitled to also - you can’t have it all your own way- if you want to extend out to “possibilities” so can I - so if I say there are other avenues not properly explored which there are, you’re just going to have to accept that .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,496 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,472 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    I’ve already referenced a number of them but as I’ve said many times it’s not up to me to explore them - that was the duty of the Gardai back in 1997- and instead they developed a groupthink approach to Bailey and that put paid to that - chances now long gone. But that doesn’t mean because Bailey is the only game in town, that he’s the killer - far from it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,472 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    Can we just keep quoting this post - because it’s rather good and it makes complete sense.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,481 ✭✭✭robbiezero


    What is the walking at night thing?

    Did he walk home from the pub often or did he used to go for strolls around the roads after midnight?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,472 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    Apparently he howled at the moon - so the story goes



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 206 ✭✭Zola1000




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,949 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    That's interesting, I didn't know what  "contre-coup" meant.

    Dr Harbison's report said when the body was moved he noted :

    ". I was able to look at the ground when the body had been moved to note that there was a slight depression with blood on it where the head had lain. This indicated to me that the body bad been in that position when the blows were struck. Beside the cavity block nearer the gate was a navy blue garment, which I subsequently learned was a dressing gown. It is of note that the cavity block rested upon this garment"

    So, if I'reading Dr. Harbison's report right it's saying that she was struck on the head on soft ground. The French report says she was struck on the right side against a hard surface.

    Dr. Harbison again;

    There appeared to be abrasion and not mere blood staining of the right cheek. Beneath the lacerations on the right side of the forehead I could see tissue and noted that there was depression of the skull extending from the right eyebrow back as far as the temporal bone. My attention was drawn by Det. Garda Gilligan to laceration over the left eyebrow which was on the "down" side of the head.

    So I'm confused, help me out here.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 344 ✭✭bjsc


    I'm almost to scared to express an opinion but here goes.

    Harbison's conclusion was that she was battered with the flat stone initially and then the breeze block was dropped onthe right sidebof her head. This is, to my mind, contradicted by the position of the breeze block and the blood distribution on it.

    The French pathologists conclusion was that she was hit on right said of the head with a blunt object (presumably the stone) and that when this happened the left side of her head was against a hard flat surface.

    The abrasions Harbison describes on the right side of her face, could have been caused by the breeze block.but not necessarily by it having been dropped on her head. As she was skeletonised by the time of the Franch post mortem they did not comment on this. In fact they did not comment at all on Harbison's findings.

    Hope that helps.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,496 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    The only people saying that the Gardai made out that the person Farrell saw was taller than what Farrell said was Farrell herself.

    Are we supposed to start believing what she said now, or do we only believe her when it's convenient ?

    The only person saying that Martin Graham was offered drugs was Martin Graham, and strangely enough the day of his big reveal his recording system failed and there was no story for The Sunday World. And it's never been confirmed if that was hash in the bag in the photo.

    And remember it was Graham who approached the Gardai, not the other way round.

    Now that being said one DPP did thend to believe Graham.

    But in the civil case Bailey took the jury found that the Gardai didn't coerce Farrell.

    This is where the Bandon tapes became such a disappointment for Bailey.

    There is isn't a word on the tapes about using Farrell or Graham to setup Bailey.

    Since the Gardai had no idea the calls were being recorded you would think that there would be something pointing that way in the hours of phone conversations, but there was nothing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 598 ✭✭✭GNWoodd


    What is the issue with the bonfire ?

    If we assume the worst and he was trying to get rid of clothes/ boots etc then why not burn them inside or alternatively burn them outside and leave no trace of a fire that could later be photographed ?

    or have I missed something ?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,949 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    No, he was really stupid like that.

    He murdered Sophie and didn’t think to sort out an alibi.

    He burned the evidence in a bonfire out in the open, and just left it like that.

    He never thought to hide the scratches he got when killing her in the following days.

    He went around confessing he’d killed her to anyone who’d listen.

    And him an investigative journalist and all?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,496 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    It's the time of the bonfire that was in question.

    Bailey claims it was usually October, November or the very latest early December that he had a bonfire.

    But Delia Jackson the neighbour claims there one when she was at home on holidays from England that Christmas time.

    The problem with Bailey is that there is always ambiguity, nothing is definitive.

    There is ambiguity about how well he did or didn't know Sophie.

    There is ambiguity about his movements the night of the murder.

    Hell there's even ambiguity about what he did the night before the murder.

    His movements the night before the murder should be of no relevance, but Bailey managed to mislead the Gardai on that as well.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 598 ✭✭✭GNWoodd


    But if nothing was found in the remnants of the fire ??, what relevance has the timing ? Why should anyone care when it occurred ? What relevance has the statement of the woman home on holidays ?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,949 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    You’re grand, work away.

    If the hard flat surface was the block, how did it end up where it was found and resting on Sophie’s clothes?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 344 ✭✭bjsc


    I think it may fave been there all along. Perhaps used to hold the gate. And it's only on the dge of the dressing gown si may have shifted or tipped during the struggle



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 344 ✭✭bjsc




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,496 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Evidence of clothing were found in the remains of the fire, but obviously nothing to connect Bailey with the murder.

    If there was there would be a completely different narrative on this thread, if the thread even existed at all.

    So we have Bailey burning clothes, in the days after the murder according to a witness, a timeline which is disputed by Bailey.

    Like all the other bits and pieces it just adds suspicion to Bailey, not remove it.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement