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

Excellent post, and again highlights exactly why we are here nearly 30 years on. At times for us to get past focussing solely on one person we have understand what process was used on determining what suspect list was drawn up and how they were eliminated...and that in itself is what has unravelled..the techniques applied have been flawed..as we are left with no real evidence of any kind to place someone at scene..to piece the elements together.

A "level" of conspiracy? So was there a conspiracy or not?

You are the one claiming a conspiracy as big as any in the history of the state?

I understand perfectly well how you are trying to create a strawman that demands a massive conspiracy while not engaging with the unsafe Garda practices on the case and with witnesses.

Do miscarriages of justice require a "conspiracy"? Yes or no?

You are the making these claims about conspiracy yet unable to answer simple questions about what is and isnt one and the extent of them.

Conspiracy is just a word you trot out without any understanding or definition.

Are two Guards on the Bandon tape involved in a conspiracy? Yes or no? Why not?

No vague nonsense about 'levels'. Yes or no.

Did the pages fall out of the Jobs Book themselves? Why wasnt it a conspiracy? Pages were deliberately removed in secret. What I do acknowledge is your blatant attempts to deflect from the Garda malfeasance in this case by creating a nonsense strawman about a conspiracy as big as any in the history

Did Marie Farrell lie about seeing Bailey at 3am? If she is mistaken it demolishes your claim that a conspiracy against Bailey implies witnesses lying.

If she was pressured to lie then does that then prove there was a conspiracy?

Which is it?

The Guards whipped the locals up into hysteria about Bailey. Witness grown man Bill Fuller reduced to a gibbering wreck cos he thought he saw Bailey across a field. Was that a conspiracy?

Eugene Gilligan contradicted his sworn statement raising items of evidence in a media interview not listed in his statement . His original statement was posted to the thread. Why did he not mention them in his statement at the time but only mentions them years later in the media?

Incompetence? Faulty memories? Or is that a conspiracy? Why not?

How many people and Guards engaged in dubious conduct makes a conspiracy?

"you are trying to create a strawman that demands a massive conspiracy while not engaging with the unsafe Garda practices"

I engaged with each point you raised in your previous post. I`m not creating a strawman. There is a burden of circumstantial evidence that shows Bailey`s guilt and that can only be usurped by a conspiracy that requires the collusion of multiple Gardaí and multiple witnesses.

"Do miscarriages of justice require a conspiracy? Yes or no?"

Not in every case. But in this case absolutely yes. Jules Thomas`s statement would have to have been fabricated. That required conspiring interrogators and clearly did not happen. She signed off on it twice. There are also far too many witnesses who directly contradict various aspects of the suspect`s testimony.

"Are two Guards on the Bandon tape involved in a conspiracy? Yes or no?"

Yes. They are conspiring to stop a colleague from making a poorly judged statement suggesting the truthfulness of a witness who had not been initially truthful.

"Did the pages fall out of the Jobs book themselves? Why wasn`t it a conspiracy."

The burden is with you to say why it was, not with me to say why it wasn`t. I don`t know why those pages were torn out but the reason may be far more innocuous than you like to imagine.

"Did Marie Farrell lie about seeing Bailey at 3 AM?

I don`t know.

"If she was pressured to lie then does that then make it a conspiracy? Which is it?"

If she made it up, I have no doubt that she did it all on her ownsome. No Garda would conspire with her to have Bailey walking away from Kealfada in the direction of Goleen.

"The Guards whipped the locals up into hysteria about Bailey."

The brutality of the murder, the fact that a nutjob could knock on your door in the middle of the night and the fact that the nutjob was probably Bailey was what whipped up the hysteria. The Gardaí had a genuine concern that he could do it again. It would have been irresponsible of them not to warn people.

"Witness grown man Bill Fuller become a gibbering wreck cos he thought he saw Bailey across a field. Was that a conspiracy?"

Absolutely not. Fuller became a gibbering wreck the day Bailey confessed to him.

"Eugene Gilligan….Why did he not mention them in his statement at the time but only mentions them years later in the media?"

Further evidence there was no conspiracy. If he was intent on nailing Bailey, then his statement would have been as specific as his Netflix interview.

Some of the points you raise may require a conspiracy, but many don't. Many of the things that are talked about on here could certainly have required a conspiracy, like the hitman theory or Daniels involvement at all really. In addition some of the more wild ideas around Bailey and his treatment. However this works both ways. It would also be considered a conspiracy theory that Jules and family were involved in protecting him. (I know you don't believe that either)

However, when there is no explanation provided, or no response to a specific allegation, then there can be some reasonable explanations approached that are based on some well-grounded suppositions.

For example with the jobs book, it is the most reasonable explanation that a single individual got his/her hands on it and destroyed the evidence, as it made them, or their pal look bad. Most people don't act in consideration of the law when they believe they will not be punished, this is human nature. Since there is no more reasonable explanation provided it is on you in fact to provide one. You have not done so. (They fell out, or the dog ate them are not more reasonable). No conspiracy.

It is a well grounded fact that the gardai of the era carried out improper practices, and never had any accountability. Where they don't explain their side or respond to the specific accusations (not just assuming they follow idealistic best practices), we only have Jules' explanation to go on. And as you have repeatedly said you don't believe she was involved in a conspiracy. Therefore put those two things together, and it is a well-grounded supposition, not a conspiracy.

If you want to say that the gardai keeping quiet for all these years is a conspiracy, well they have never released any particular explanation to the public. That's just standard practice.

So you admit Guards are conspiring on the Bandon Tapes. By the standard you have set in your posts that means you are spreading conspiracy theories. Seems like it is only a bad word when you want to use it to describe someone else's theory.

No the burden of proof is on you, because this is your original claim:
"requires a conspiracy as big as any seen in the history of the state."

You are doing a great job of discrediting it.

Is Marie Farrell lying part of this conspiracy?
If Marie Farrell can lie, if Eugene Gilligan's recollections can differ, if pages can be deliberately removed from Garda records… Is that a conspiracy or not? Or just a cover-up of a botched Garda investigations, where witnesses were pressured and guided towards answers Guards wanted, where unreliable testimony if given years later… and where the Jobs Book was deliberately tampered with and no innocent explanation could be provided by the Guards to GSOC for why such a thing may have been done. In fact GSOC would have pressed charges only conveniently the "responsible" Guard was deceased.

As for the comment about Bill Fuller. This is him reduced to a gibbering wreck by the hysteria the Guards whipped up.
But according to you that was all ok.
And remember readers, this is one of the thirty witnesses tibruit cites as contradicting Bailey.
Otherwise there is "a conspiracy as big as any seen in the history of the state."
Evidence gathered from people deliberately whipped up by the Guards into such a state of apprehension about Bailey cannot be considered as reliable:

P.164 and 165 of the initial Garda report provide evidence of the hysteria in relation to Bailey which existed following his portrayal as a ruthless and unrestrained killer. On the 20 February 1997 Bill Fuller, his partner and child had gone to the causeway at Kealfadda Bridge in order to pursue his own investigation of the murder. He was with his wife and child. He saw a man whom he thought to be Bailey and this caused them to run away in blind panic believing the man had seen them. They ran a considerable distance until they reached Toormore Beach where they ran along a lane way which led out onto the roadway to Goleen. Screaming and roaring they ran in front of the first car to approach them. It was being driven by a Ms. Breda O’Reilly. Her initial reaction was not to stop, but when she saw that Bill Fuller was carrying a three-year-old child under his arm she thought the child was sick. When Ms. O’Reilly lowered the car window both Bill and Kerri Fuller screamed at her that the murderer Ian Bailey was down the road, pointing towards Kealfadda Bridge. Ms. O’Reilly drove them directly to Goleen where Ms. O’Reilly contacted the Gardaí. In her statement Ms. O’Reilly describes the terrible state of shock and fear that the Fullers were in and she stated that they feared for their own safety. It transpires that a local farmer was working near their van that day and they had mistaken him for Ian Bailey in their high state of apprehension.

https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/30/

Dumb & Dumber - "So you're telling me there's a chance"

Hope this helps.

Mod: Warned trolling

We're making the same point. A conspiracy does not require Bailey to be guilty or innocent. In fact I agree that your example of a Garda giving guarantees could be the case also. However giving these guarantees capturing them in the jobs book, and then destroying that evidence would also be an example of a conspiracy, according to your criteria. Just not one that framed Bailey.

Depending on Bailey's actual guilt or innocence, different things may have occurred. The likelihood of his guilt or innocence dictates the likelihood of what occurred in each example.

If Bailey is guilty, the most likely outcome could be your proposal above.

If Bailey is innocent, the outcome of destruction of evidence is much more likely, but yours couldn't be ruled out either.

Either way the gardai should have investigated what happened and be able to provide an honest explanation. That they have not done so, provides us the opportunity to come up with our own ideas, of what likely occurred.

Both examples are illegal practices, neither have been disclosed by the gardai. I can't think of a non-conspiratorial answer for what happened to the jobs book, can you?

So tibruit ..just a question..so after all you believe..where are you going get evidence to place IanB at scene ..any ideas..like that's all we need...it's like 99% of what we need..given that we know your 100% believe he is killer. It's just we need hard evidence. You have some fantastic theories though that might bring it closer. Let us know how it goes if you find any more clues

GSOC know of course.

"A number of witnesses were identified who it was felt might have information that would assist the GSOC enquiry. When seeking to speak to these people, they then declined to cooperate fully with the enquiry in some form or other. This ranged from not wishing to speak to GSOC, to providing GSOC with a statement which they then refused to sign…."

"These witnesses included serving and retired gardaí, journalists and members of the public."

and

"It should be noted that whilst all the senior garda members who were involved in the murder investigation co-operated with GSOC, there were a number of garda members, principally those of detective rank, who did not and thus it was not possible to fully establish some details pertaining to the arrests of Ian Bailey and Jules Thomas which had been the subject of complaint."

Make what you will of why serving and retired officers would not cooperate.

Bailey volunteered his dna to the Guards without hesitation.

Now, considering he was under the influence of drink during the hours before the murder, and given the brutality of the killing, how could he be certain that there was none of his dna left behind at the scene?

It was either still dark or at best pre dawn… You couldn't possibly be sure the scene was free from all dna or material fibers of clothing etc..

Its really good post and one I've seen written here few times. To add further...what about the days after for someone if had been bailey...surely the drinking continued and fear factor would develop the pararnoia and everything else in between...yet he still is there for provide DNA samples..whilst wouldn't the last number of weeks have mentally taken a toll on anyone to commit such act..and surely would have hesitation at that very point of providing DNA..given the so called festive period late nights, the lack of sleep..his overall frustration..his character..would he not have broken at that very moment..

A sociopath is unlikely to display the emotions and behavioural traits that you describe and may even disassociate themselves from criminal acts they have committed.