Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

Because she thinks he didn`t do it.

Suppose Bailey hiked totally unnoticed and full of blood on his clothes home and with all sorts of luck wasn't seen by anybody? He would have gone to the studio first. He would have showered there, changed clothes, and disposed of all the bloody clothes. It's possible he could have burnt the clothes behind the studio. It is unclear when the fire really was, maybe there was one in early December and he lit a 2nd one later on which was unnoticed? Later on he would have gone to Jule's and her daughters pretending nothing happened.

In fact, Detective Inspector Liam Hogan did suggest precisely this scenario to the DPP.

Quote

"If he had killed Sophie Toscan du Plantier while wearing this coat his arms and elbows would have been protected from the briars by the coat and other clothes. (Although the more recent report from D/Inspector Hogan speculates that he might have been naked when he killed her, no evidence to support this view is submitted (Report of March 2001, p.60))."

DPP's report section 10 "Scratches"

Jaypers - unrelated case - 2020- but like, what’s being alleged here is not at all a good reflection of the Gardai in the 2020s when it comes to the investigation of deaths.

Let’s hope family get some sort of answers soon.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/extensive-evidence-of-blood-discovered-near-where-leitrim-farmer-liam-farrell-was-found-dead-in-2020-after-family-hire-own-forensic-team/a439910797.html

This approach by the Guards clearly failed in the murder case of Sophie Toscan du Plantier.

The methods the Guards applied are a bit more like down the line of one would have come to expect in Nazi Germany.

Putting somebody under pressure, and trying to get a confession, then put it in front of a judge in hopes to get a conviction, even if key evidence connecting killer to victim and murder site is missing.

It is likely that after the first assault Bailey apologized and promised he`d never do it again. Jules obviously believed him and let it slide. He assaulted her again and would have eventually said sorry and she believed him and let that one slide. There was another assault in 1993 after which she kicked him out of her house. As it happens, this was also the year that a bathtub bandit was breaking into Sophie`s house to avail of her bathroom facilities. Anyway, no doubt he expressed his remorse and she believed him and allowed him back. There was another assault in 1996 about six months before Sophie was murdered. He obviously convinced her once more and she believed him again. Then in 2000 he assaulted her again, hightailed it to Cork airport but got arrested before he got on a plane, did some jail time and she clearly believed him when he said he`d never do it again and allowed him back into her home. The difference between me and Jules is that I wouldn`t have believed him after the first assault.

Jules`s opinion that he didn`t do it is based firmly on belief. It is a fundamental fact that she has no clue where Bailey was for approximately seven to nine hours on the night/morning that Sophie was murdered. As far as I can see she was also oblivious to the Christmas bonfire and refused to accept it ever happened in spite of a number of witnesses seeing it. In her mind it cannot have happened because in her own words Bailey was "a hoarder who never got rid of anything". She ignores the obvious evidence that he lit the bonfire because her understanding is that it wouldn`t have been in his nature so therefore it couldn`t have happened. She uses the same flawed logic to deny he murdered Sophie, even though it was very much in his nature to be violent.

He had the time(7 to 9 hours) to commit the murder and the opportunity to hide and later dispose of the incriminating evidence (the studio). He told her he wanted to go Alf Lyons`s place before they went to bed (it`s in her statement), he got up about an hour later (also in her statement) and disappeared for up to nine hours. We know that he exited the house in darkness ( it`s in his statement). The violent woman beater who expressed a desire at around 1 AM to go up Sophie`s laneway, got out of his bed and walked out into the darkness. But Jules and a collection of ye here actually believe that in an incredible coincidental turn of events, that Bailey didn`t actually go where he said he wanted to go, but that a different violent headcase made his way up that isolated lane in the middle of nowhere that night and murdered Sophie.

This is all valid reasoning, except for one thing; you appear to believe Bailey's statement when it points to guilt, but not when it points to innocence!

Either he's believable, or he's not. If you think he was lying at any point, then anything else he said may also be untrue, unless confirmed by an external fact or witness. And NONE of it has been confirmed. Verification fail.

"My name is Louise Kennedy. I live in Liscaha. I went for a walk on the 26th of December, St. Stephen`s Day and I saw a fire burning behind the studio."

Quoted from Episode 2 of "Sophie A Murder In West Cork"

I don`t think Jules had any hand, act or part in the murder, nor in any clean up afterwards. I would very much agree that she was a victim in it all.

And yet she signed that statement with her legal representation present.

You contradicted yourself in your first line there. You cannot definitively say she didn`t sign her statement on the one hand and then say we can`t be certain that what she signed was what the Gardaí went with on the other. In any event, the original may be lost, but it was photographed.

Also West Cork Podcast confirmed that you can see Alfie`s house from Hunt`s Hill. Not that it particularly matters that much because she confirmed to RTE in 2017 that they went up there and Bailey had his premonition, something which she denied happened in the court case against the state a few years earlier.

But sure work away there on the conspiracy theory.

Do you have anything from anywhere close to the the time of the murder itself rather than 22 years later in a paid program. Why did Louise lie in her original statement neglecting to say she saw a fire? How could Jules ignore something if it didn’t exist for 25 years? Your relying on people who are changing statements, that’s hypocritical, but you seem to be fine with others chopping and changing information, and bending the truth as long as it fits your narrative

For a conspiracy theory to exist, there would have to be an original theory that is fact based and officially supported by all parties. The judicial system does not have such a theory, therefore you are as much of a conspiracy theorist as anyone else on here

It is a perjorative ad hominem attack designed to paint you as an authority on the subject, and betrays that you are likely not acting in good faith.