Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

Like the senior detective suggesting a coat was in the fire when he knew they had taken it as evidence? A blatantly dishonest statement that the viewer would believe because he was a police officer.

The problem being that the documentary didn't question these statements made years later, it did not challenge these people's version of events said now with the statements that they had made to the guards at the time. Oh wait, it was happy to question the validity of Bailey's statements though, wasn't it! But not the rest of the people on it. Why is that I wonder? How could that bias creep into the documentary? Who was a producer for example, do you know?

So if the viewer is not given ALL the facts, how can they possibly "make up their own minds" about the person saying it?

If your point is just poking holes in other people's arguments but not drawing any specific conclusions about how you got to Bailey did it, beyond that then that's fine, you're entitled to that, but I'm lost otherwise.

As far as I can tell your whole argument seems to just be the classic he said, she said.

How is it that you cannot grasp the reality that Bailey had more than one coat? It`s obvious one went into the Christmas fire, one was taken into evidence, he was also seen out and about in a tan jacket after the murder.

because he was naked at the time of the attack- in a freezing cold December morning 🤪

But why would a man of so many coats be naked? 😆 I find it really odd that people have to make up multiple mysterious coats to fit their theory, but then can't figure out that coat means little chance of scratches. Oh and Jules would realise that a coat was missing.

"Why is it "obvious one went into the Christmas fire"?

Based on Jules Thomas`s statement, Bailey`s history of violence and his confessions, it is obvious to me that he went over there and murdered Sophie. Based on the crime scene he would have had clothes and footwear contaminated with blood that he needed to disappear. He bought bleach on the 24th and eventually burned the clothes over Christmas, which is supported by witness testimony and forensics finding remnants of boots, a coat and jeans in the fire.

So now we’re been asked to believe that on one hand, Bailey soaked his black coat in either a shower or bath tub, that was soaked in bleach, in a house where up to 8 people were staying that Christmas and then…..wait for it…..on Stephen’s day he set fire to this saturated coat😀😀😀🤪😜

“Other testimony supporting the fact that the coat was never soiled or burned? Garda Kevin Kelleher saw Ian Bailey carrying a bottle of wine in the small hours of New Year's Eve, 31st December 1996. At that time, Bailey was wearing the coat again.”

Hard to beat an aulde Garda statement isn’t it😀

https://www.crimeguy.com/p/the-magic-disappearing-coat

And here is the crux, when challenged, all you have is speculation and supposition. Walking the same line that the gardai did. He said, she said.

And when it comes to what she said, nobody connected to the case but the gardai have even said he did it as far as I can see. Even though he's now dead, and there is no libel on the line, everyone else just speaks to what they claim to have seen (or heard/smelled). I haven't seen a statement from anyone claiming that he did it, except from people on an anonymous forum. I wonder why that is…..

That is ia very insightful comment.

And he got to Sophie’s and back on his hoverboard travelling at 88 miles an hour 🤪

No, read what I quoted. Louise Kennedy said the mattress was burning on the ground when she saw it. Not remnants, a good third of it still there. It wasn't left over from a previous fire, it was burning. In fact that is all she saw burning.

So if there was a Christmas fire a mattress was burning in it and therefore Jules Thomas was aware of it, because it was she who burned the mattress. Now if you want to say Thomas saw the bedsprings in the ashed sometime in January and knew about it that way, then she is not being honest.

If she is being honest about burning the mattress then the fire was in early December.

Therefore you cannot simultaneously say she is honest but duped, and Bailey burned bloody clothes on St Stephen's Day.

Gilligan made a formal statement in 1997. Here it is:

Statement of Evidence of Eugene Gilligan Detective Garda, 17151D of Ballistics Section, Technical Bureau, Garda Headquarters, Phoenix Park, Dublin 8.

I hereby declare that this statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence I will be liable to prosecution if I state in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.

In regard to the examination of the fire scene at the Studio House, Lissacaha, Schull, Cork on the 10th of February 1997, I carried out an examination of fire debris at the above fire scene at the rear of the Studio House, Schull. During my examination I noted in the debris charred remains of paper, fabric/clothing, a bed mattress, and footwear eyelets.

SIGNED: EUGENE GILLIGAN, DETECTIVE GARDA, 17151D.

That's the entire statement on the matter. If he found jeans, coat and especially boots, he would certainly have said so. The Gardai would certainly have sent that to the French. This is a formal statement, not a casual conversation with podcasters taken from memory for a documentary 20 years later. It's interesting to hear that's where you got the jeans and coat, boot. Do I think he is lying? - Of course not! It's yet another perfect example of how people's imaginations add detail to their memories over time. This case is full of people "remembering" important details they made no mention of decades earlier when asked by the police.

I tracked down the Delia Jackson reference - it's also in the West Cork Podcast. She said she was with her mother at the time. The problem with this is that neither her nor her mother mentioned the fire in the six statements they gave to the Gardai, but now, 20 years later she remembers a fire while walking with her mother and they discussed it? Note this conflicts with Brian Jackson's testimony in 2003 at the libel trial - he said

Q. You made mention in a statement, I take it the Gardai interviewed you?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you bring it to their attention or did they bring
it to your attention, can you recollect?
A. Do you mean the fire?
Q. Yes. How did it come about?
A. I can't swear to this, but as I recall the Gardai
came around to us and said there had been a fire and
asked if we had seen it. My wife said she hadn't seen it because she hadn't and I hadn't mentioned it to her.

Again as this is 13 years earlier than the West Cork Podcast it must be considered to be more reliable. Unfortunately his wife Ursula in hospital during the libel trial and could not testify and Delia was not called.

Yeah absolutely - and with Gardai going back again and again until they get the statement to fit the circumstance they have in mind, even the witnesses can’t be certain of anything by the end of that- but Gardai have their signed statement- job done.

It was Delia Jackson who came home from London that Christmas. So she didn`t see the fire and Brian said he hadn`t told her about it. But she had smelled it. She told West Cork Podcast that she knew there had been a fire because she could smell it around Christmas Day….."I would have no problem swearing on any book to say that there was a fire in his back garden at the studio in the Christmas period. No doubt about that whatsoever."

Delia Jackson was in London when Jules burned the mattress, if she burned the mattress. It is beyond doubt that there was a fire over Christmas.