Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

One politically fraught scenario that could be brought about by the cold case review is that new evidence emerges that points to someone other than Bailey being the murderer. It's unlikely to happen but if it were to do so, AGS and the DPP would be under immense political pressure to do the right thing and push that evidence through the correct channels of justice.

The political fallout would be high. The Tánaiste for one, would have to eat a very large slice of humble pie for his recent comments at Senan Moloney's book launch. But most of all, the French justice system would be under immense scrutiny as a result of their trial of Bailey in absentia. A non-jury trial based solely on evidence that was rejected on three occasions by our justice system for not meeting the threshold to charge Bailey with Sophie's murder.

It would take a Damascene type conversion from AGS to follow through with their investigation if evidence ever emerges that points anywhere other than Bailey.....

Alternative evidence has already been suppressed, or not pursued. Unless somebody goes to the press, they may well just continue along this path, but hopefully not.

It is even possible that some of the evidence that has not seen the light of day already, with the right investigation team, could be put together to point at another suspect.

We just don't know as we haven't seen it.

"But if you are maintaining Jules Thomas is honest but duped, it completely undermines your argument to believe her statement."

It certainly does not. We also know that she wasn`t honest when she was first questioned. But I would forgive that because I suspect she believed her man was not a murderer. She thought she was defending an innocent man. But she had been duped.

"it completely undermines your argument to believe her statement, that they saw a light on the hill- that Bailey was going over to a party at Alfie`s, because she repudiated it."

She repudiated the whole Hunt`s Hill episode for nigh on twenty years and then she went on RTE in 2017 and confirmed it did happen. She also confirmed some other parts of her statement that she had long repudiated. So I absolutely believe she said what she said in that statement.

"I believe her"

You`ve allowed yourself to be duped by him too.

"The phraseology of the statement is pure garda speak"

A new imaginary language.

"You said Jules Thomas was "oblivious to the Christmas fire". Untrue, she lit it."

She denies any knowledge of a Christmas fire. So just to be clear, I think she is telling the truth and you think she is lying.

"Brian Jackson…heard crackling and smelt fire "on or about Christmas time" and heard Ian Bailey calling "Saffi", a detail included no doubt to make it seem more likely it was Christmas."

No. It was because it was Christmas. Back to conspiracy then. If Brian Jackson wanted to include some incriminating details he wouldn`t have heard and smelt a fire. He would have looked over the hedge and seen Bailey throwing the coat and boots onto the fire.

"During her interrogation in February Jules was asked about this fire, she said it was an old mattress and other stuff from the studio and she lit the the fire herself."

She claimed later she lit the fire in early December.

"Note when Jules said this, it had not been established by Gardai it was a mattress- so she must have known about the fire, not "oblivious"."

Oh she knew all about a fire by February, whether she was or wasn`t responsible for burning the mattress. One walk past the site in the weeks after Christmas would have confirmed there had been a fire and mattress springs would have been obviously apparent. She just didn`t know that Bailey had been burning there on Stephen`s Day.

"Louise Kennedy made her statement 17/4/97 and she said it was St Stephens Day. She actually saw the bonfire and said it was a horsehair mattress, backing up what Jules Thomas said on 10/2/97."

I`ll take your word for it.

"Since it was four months after the events, she could easily have gotten the date wrong."

Nope. Weren`t there three witnesses who testified to the Christmas fire? Seeing as you seem to have access to the full file can you confirm whether it was Kennedy or the Jackson woman who was home for the few days from London that Christmas?

"and the Gardaí had an uncanny knack for returning to witnesses over and over to get the dates and times they wanted."

Aaah. Conspiracy theory heaven.

"In any case you can`t claim the fire was on St Stephens Day unless you also claim a mattress was burned and if a mattress was burned then Jules Thomas lit the fire."

Let us assume that Jules Thomas did burn the mattress in early December. You are ignoring a glaring issue. The springs of the mattress were still there when Gilligan went in with his spoon in March, meaning they were still there at Christmas time. So when Kennedy saw Bailey`s fire on Stephens Day, she saw the springs, probably saw remnants of horse hair and she naturally assumed that the mattress was part of his bonfire. Jules said that she burned newspapers, some clothes that she used for painting and the mattress in early December. Gilligan found the remnants of boots, a coat and jeans in March. So when did the boots get in there?

"Do you see where I`m going with this?"

Well on your way to Never-never land I`d say.

Regardless of if or when there was a fire - it “proves” what exactly in the furtherance of evidence against Bailey?

There is no such thing as Garda speak and the point I was making is that Jules is articulate and Fitzgerald isn`t, which would suggest that he wasn`t responsible for alleged additions that you highlighted.

No text, forgot quote

Please don't be so naive as to imagine that the Guards don't pressure and harass witnesses. They did and they still do. Both Jules Thomas, her daughter Fenella, and Marie Farrell have given vivid descriptions of being relentlessly pressed to say what the Gardai wanted to hear. The Cops themselves alluded to this in the recorded tapes of their conversations at the station. Forcing false statements from witnesses is a stock in trade.

Except Bailey would have been returning to a house full of people staying there that day.

As far as I can see there were only two witnesses. Unless you are thinking of Ursula Jackson. She made a statement about her own fire, where she found an old axe-head that she didn't recognize - it was discounted by Gardai. Seems people were always burning rubbish around there. As the DPP's said, "a fire in a country area is not unusual".

Brian Jackson's was the first statement on the fire and according to his testimony in the libel trial, it was the Gardai who brought it to his attention, i.e. it was not a spontaneous statement.

Louise Kennedy was quite clear in her statement. "I saw an old horse hair mattress burning on the ground a short distance from the back door of the house one third of the mattress was left unburned at this stage." - so an actively burning mattress, not remnants.

The photos make it clear the entire mattress was gone by the time the Gardai arrested Ian Bailey & Jules Thomas. So if Louise Kennedy saw a fire, it was a mattress that she saw was being burned.

But you shift the goalposts again, saying Jules Thomas would have known of the fire by February - except she said it was she who lit it, and she said it was early December. Are you telling us Jules Thomas picked through the ashes herself and found bedsprings? No, the mattress was burned by Jules, according to Jules.

I suppose now you will say oh there must have been two fires - moving the goalposts again. By the way it's quite hard to relight a damp mattress left outside for a month. By the picture quite a lot of material was burned, and if there were shoes in there, so what?

Gilligan said nothing about a coat and jeans. He said there were "remains of fabric/clothing, a bed mattress and footwear eyelets". He never said boots. Lots of different shoes have metal eyelets. Runners, deck shoes also handbags and belts. Perhaps if Gilligan had done his job and preserved them we would know, but the Gardai seem to prefer to keep things vague which is why his and many other Garda statements are undated.

A lot of people lived there you know, three girls grew up, that's a lot of shoes, handbags and belts. We know his black coat was not burned, surely that would be the first thing he'd burn don't you think? Now you'll tell us he had two black coats, and so it goes, moving the goalposts.

You are totally incorrect to say that Jules Thomas "repudiated the whole Hunt's Hill epsiode." She did not, she always said they stopped there but she said there was no mention of a light on the hill, no mention of Alfie's or going over to Alfie's, and no mention of a "premonition", just a "bad feeling". She is on record saying this in 1998. These are exactly her words in 2017.

By the way, you haven't responded to the obvious verballing when she re-signed her 1997 statement in 2000, adding a correction to something which was not in the original statement, proving she was read a different statement.

Am I peddling "conspiracy theories", living in "never-never land"? Well, I hope you never end up on a jury. It seems to me that you're so trusting of the Gardai and their statements, god forbid if Joanne Hayes had gone to trial, you would have convicted her - sure didn't she sign her statements, and all her family did too? Dick Donnelly, Martin Conmey, Marty Kerrigan you would have voted them guilty too, they all signed their statements? Dean Lyons, Frank McBrearty, Nicky Kelly, all guilty right? It's only a conspiracy theory to say the Gardai might lie, right?

There absolutely is. The words in that statement are not from a member of the public.

I don't know any 'civilian' who speaks like that and to claim otherwise is absurd hoop jumping.

Ah now. If the mattress was burned by Jules in early December, the remains of it were clearly visible on Stephens Day. It would have been natural for Kennedy to think that the mattress was part of the fire that she saw after Christmas.

Gilligan specifically said boots, coat and jeans in episode two of the Netflix doc. Look it up, get a sense of the man. See if you think he would happily lie to get his man.

The other witness I am referring to was Delia Jackson? Perhaps she gave a joint statement with Brian? Anyway, one of those female witnesses worked in London and was only in Ireland for a few days over the Christmas. There`s no getting away from the fact that there was a Christmas fire.

Why did Gilligan 'happily' in the line of duty submit sworn statement of evidence that did not mention the things he is mentioning now that he is playing trial by media?

Why didn't he mention them at the proper time?

Was he derelict in his duty first time round?

Or is he lying or mis-remembering now?

None of them is a good look. Is that enough of a sense of the man?

Rather telling you are unable to answer straightforward questions:
Why didn't he mention them at the proper time? Was he derelict in his duty first time round? Or is he lying or mis-remembering now?

And in the documentary, was he questioned or scrutinised on the discrepancy?
So how can we make any such judgment in the absence of such essential available information?

Sure why bother getting court causes to rely on sworn statements of evidence, and let us rely instead on who comes across as more believable when recounting events years later. They can make it up as they go along if they cannot be anchored to statements given at the time or independent fact checked.

So not only is that not a "good thing", it is a recipe for miscarriages of justice.

It`s not telling at all. I`m not Eugene Gilligan and I can`t speak on his behalf.