Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

Ok, I'll break it down.

Hogan was writing the report for the DPP but realized that "What have I got, I have threads and I'm trying to make a **** jumper." (call with Jim Fitzgerald).

He tells Detective Chief Supt Sean Camon

SEAN CAMON: They are going to have a long, long hard look at that report when they get it?

LIAM HOGAN: Absolutely. I tell you now unless we break Jules, who I think must have **** something for us, we need her broken and we need to have it because if you stand back from it it is a very arguable, it is a 50/50.

Basically Hogan is saying we don't have a case unless we haul Jules Thomas in, and psychologically break her so she will break down and give up Ian Bailey. However, Jules Thomas had already been arrested and released and what she had given just wasn't enough. In Ireland you can't just go arresting someone again for the same offence after they have been released, you need to apply for Section 10 rearrest. This means you have to go in front of a judge and ask for permission, giving your reasons. The Gardai hoped to do this, saying that Jules Thomas was shielding Ian Bailey, on the basis that she was lying in her statements. However, Garda Leahy's observation that she was doing her best to recall and seemed truthful threw a massive spanner in this plan. If a judge saw Leahy's comment he would deny the Section 10.

Hence Hogan said it needs to be "chopped up"

LIAM HOGAN : Yeah, he has to get f***ing that statement has to get f***ing chopped up anyway.

JIM FITZGERALD: Yeah.

LIAM HOGAN : He'll get chopped in the box on it like.

JIM FITZGERALD: He would of course, yeah, but the only thing about it is this.

LIAM HOGAN : It f**ks up, it f**ks up.

JIM FITZGERALD: I mean, Section 10, you know, I mean, f**k it, if she was brought in on a Section 10 and, that statement is there, the thing about is this like...

LIAM HOGAN : How would you justify it?

Hogan was pretty explicit what he meant with Sean Camon, he wanted Leahy's comments removed.

LIAM HOGAN: But you see there are statements here that I have to go back to fill it in, I have to talk to them, one man put in here: “I believe she was attempting to tell me the truth and trying to recall”, you know yer man interviewing her like, when the evidence clearly shows and everything we were doing that she is anything but, she has been out there working, conniving, twisting.

SEAN CAMON: That is not f**king evidence.

LIAM HOGAN: I know but it is in the statement it has to be taken, f**king out of it.

SEAN CAMON: It is not up to him to comment it.

LIAM HOGAN: Then you have to go, to handle these fellas they get indignant, you have to be careful with them, and so you better get it taken out without hurting feelings type of thing.

You have to understand the Garda wanted confessions. This is how they operated. They weren't used to making actual cases from forensic evidence. 99% of murder cases are total no-brainers - they know who did it, they just need a confession. There will still be a trial, but once you have a confession, the jury will likely convict.

Eventually in September 2000 the Gardai were able to re-arrest Jules Thomas, and they absolutely went to town and threw everything at her to break her. First they raided the Prairie and searched everywhere for incriminating items, photos, diaries etc. Jules said the place was "ransacked", the Gardai denied this. When the search was over they told her "by the way we have arrested Fenella in Cork". The following day they arrested Jules herself. After 12 hours Fenella was released and in fact she had said nothing, made no statement and refused to sign any of the memos taken during the arrest. However they didn't tell Jules that. The implication during her arrest was clear - give us what we want or we will charge your 17-year old daughter with withholding information of a murder. Jules didn't break, or if she did she didn't reveal anything.This arrest is hardly mentioned in any of the books or documentaries but the effect on her family was devastating, Saffron described how they were in tears for weeks afterwards.

Yes,

Some very interesting parallels with the interrogation of the Hayes family in 1984.

"No, they took it in turns. There`s no conspiracy needed."

Absolute nonsense. Multiple interrogators who when they weren`t in the room were unquestionably comparing notes of her answers outside of it and at the end of it all you want to us to believe that one weasel invented and inserted passages into her statement and not only managed to get her to sign off on it but got it by the rest of the questioners without any of them noticing it. I`d say you`d be better off sticking to either the duress or the all out conspiracy because this is utterly ridiculous.

"Maybe there`s a mix of her words and Fitzgeralds but there is certainly some of Fitzgeralds in there from the Garda language."

So you want us to believe that the fella who says things like….."I mean, f**k it, if she was brought in on a Section 10 and that statement is there, the thing about is this like…." inserted sentences into Jules`s statement that only he could articulate because the articulate woman could not. Sentences like…"I don`t recall his absence during my further sleep." or "I was privy to the conversation". How do you even come up with this nonsense?

""I got the impression he was going over to Alfie`s, but I wasn`t sure if it was that night or not." This is a lot like someone trying to cooperate, without being specific."

She said that and more. There`s no in between with it. Either she said it or she didn`t.

"Now the Gardaí did get Jules to sign this statement again at her arrest in 2000…"

I wasn`t aware of this. So she signed it again three years later. That seals the deal then.

Fitzgerald wrote the statement, that's a fact, it's in his handwriting! Jules Thomas said it wasn't her words, her daughters were read the statement and said it was not the way her mother talks. This is obvious Garda speak, it wasn't because she wasn't able to articulate, that's disingenuous, it was he that physically wrote it and you can see the legalistic phraseology, which ordinary people do not use. She was absolutely broken, they had lied to her to tell her that Ian had confessed.

Where are the notes for the last six hours of her interrogation - conveniently missing? The previous six were all minuted in q & a format.

And by the way read my last comment about when she was read and signed the statement the second time at her arrest - she made a comment on it that proves she was read a different statement - it's obvious!

Again I stress the Gardai did this because they genuinely believed Ian was the culprit, they just thought it was OK to play these games if it got a conviction. So it is not a conspiracy, it's more akin to groupthink, built on a bit of witness coercion, witness bribery, verballing, and tampering with statements. Sure there's no harm if we get the bad guy - right?

Maybe you can't believe the Gardai would play such stupid and corrupt games. If so, I urge you to read Mick Clifford's book on the Una Lynskey murder. I would also urge you to read My Story by Joanne Hayes, if you can find it.

What I can’t understand is that Gardai are apparently going to submit a report to the DPP all focused on Bailey as the killer - can’t get my head around that at all

Whatever about the fire, you seem to be making Jules' mentality as very black and white. She was a victim of abuse at the hands of Bailey. Some people in abusive relationships don't necessarily see the forest from the trees or make decisions that seem logical and clear to others outside of their relationship and home. Inferring she wouldn't have done x or acted y applies logic that may not apply.

Will be a fairly hollow victory if that is the outcome from the CCR. A conclusion that there was evidence to point to the likelihood of Bailey being the murderer. No justice for Sophie or in fact Bailey in that outcome. Sophie's family denied justice and Bailey denied the chance to defend his innocence in court. Would allow the government to begin the hand washing process though and it seems that's all that's important now.

What's need most is an independent inquest into the handling of the murder investigation by AGS. Once the cold case review is over that is of paramount importance. Hopefully with a view to making sure a shambles of an investigation like this is never again allowed to happen.

Would seem rather pointless. There's established precent of dismissing a trial even when a defendent dies mid trial as a fair trial would be considered impossible against a dead person.

The papers back in January were saying (articles above) that the DPP “could” if they deemed it appropriate, to indicate that based on the file, they would have progressed with a case.

Now that’s all fine and dandy if the case is relatively clear cut and that there’s compelling evidence - but this sh1t show has been presented twice so far and in both instances has been laughed out of court so to speak - I don’t see the next attempt being any better if there’s no new compelling evidence

New evidence would be a nice at this stage

Wouldn’t dispute that for a second - absolutely - and it may well involve or point to Bailey too- wouldn’t dispute that either - we’re in a strange position here - all the discussion on Bailey is based on years old so called evidence - my only point really is that so called “evidence” is a pile of poo - new evidence may not be but we can only discuss here what we know .

Agreed, the other possibility is that people came to the gardai with information back then and they were summarily dismissed as it didn't point to Bailey, or didn't fit the story as such. They may be inclined to reach back out (assuming that the gardai have opened back up to other suspects though….. ).