Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
Have I really? Must have been about ten years ago on a different thread and after a half bottle of Jameson.
You have speculated that we should rely on the account given by Maria Farrell as damning towards Bailey…
I rest my case.
"Oh lord…where to start with this one…"
Yep. You`d have been better off if you hadn`t.
"Because there was not one jot of evidence placing him at the scene, committing the murder or even knowing the gal…."
You`ve said three things in one sentence there that are fundamental denials of factual reality. That`s the best yet.
"Isn`t belief great all the same. You can say anything and no proof is required."
Indeed, You can say Jules and Bailey colluded on their questionairs, without proof it's just your belief.
""Fiona`s" phone call didn`t put Bailey at Kealfada Bridge"But short of naming him it did."
""Fiona`s" phone call didn`t put Bailey at Kealfada Bridge"
But short of naming him it did."
How did that work? " We have a witness who says they saw some man near the scene, so therfore……" What?
" She made her statement and signed it believing he had confessed. There is nothing that suggests it to be any other way."
The Gards may have convinced her he had confessed, different to convincing her he was guilty.
You say they were within their rights to arrest Jules on suspicion of murder. Did she have scratches, or was she seen at Kealfada bridge, or any evidence that she might have murdered Sophie? All you have is "the two of them could have taken a detour over there on the way home from the pub" . Well, so could lots of people.
That trial was a complete and utter train wreck and should never have happened in the way it did- not saying Lucy didn’t cause at least some of these deaths but she may well be innocent of all -the reality is, the complexity of the evidence and the volume of the so called suspicious deaths means that really, some form of three judge court (like the special criminal court) is called for to try these cases- even then they may well throw out the cases at an early stage due to lack of concrete evidence.
Bailey would have been delighted if a trial went ahead in Ireland as the so called evidence just wouldn’t have convicted him - he knew that as we all do. Is that justice? Hell no. As a citizen, I’d much prefer to see no trial than the sh1t show that was the Lucy Lethby trial
Oh Lord…. Where to start with this one?
Fiona (the babe Farrell), did not place Bailey at Kealfada Bridge, that is utter hogwash.
She imagined a man way shorter than Bailey, and gave a description of anyone - bar Bailey…!
It was only after the Keystone Cops had honed in on Bailey as a suspect, that they worked on the fantasist Farrell..
They changed her description to match that of Bailey… And the good Fiona / babe Farrell complied.
Please try to keep up with the very basics of this ramshackle investigation..
But why get Farrell to change her description to one that matched Bailey..??
Answer: Because there was not one jot of evidence placing his at the scene, committing the murder, or even knowing the gal……
"Yes, but we`ll never know for sure"
Isn`t belief great all the same. You can say anything and no proof is required.
But short of naming him it did.
"The DPP statement below states that Jules was only temporarily persuaded that Bailey had confessed, they didn`t send her home convinced he was the murderer."
The DPP doesn`t say when or how she was informed. All you are doing is trying to drop a temporal wedge of your own making into the narrative at a spot that suits your agenda. She made her statement and signed it believing he had confessed. There is nothing that suggests it to be any other way. Maybe it`s only dawning on you now that the fact that she believed he had confessed means that her statement was truthful. Don`t worry, the DPP didn`t address that contradiction that he had highlighted so he clearly couldn`t work that one out either.
"Her detention cannot be legally justified"
They were well within their legal rights to arrest and question her on suspicion of murder based on the information they had at that time. He had the scratches and someone matching his description was seen at Kealfada. He was last seen in Jules company on the night in question. For all the Gardaí knew the two of them could have taken a detour over there on the way home from the pub. It would have been a dereliction of duty not to have arrested her.
You're not wrong. There's a reason they search for fingerprints etc. Insurance companies and accident investigators are as hard-nosed as they come.
In court, witness testimony is more convincing if it is corroborated - by another (impartial) witness, or by verifiable facts like time stamps, photos, or what-have-you.
A simple "Just cos I say that this is what I saw" is very dubious grounds for putting a person behind bars.
Its amazing any witness testimony is ever accepted in court in that case. It appears we are all in early stage Alzheimer's
Memory is unreliable. No matter how sure someone is that they remember correctly.
This is why accident investigators interview as soon as possible, preferably within a few hours; and they make sure that witnesses do not speak to each other. Because there's a natural human wish to make stories match up - it is reassuring if you had (or think you had) the same experience or recollection as someone else.
And insurance companies are the least sentimental of questioners - there's money at stake. And in other accident investigations there is public safety at stake, and sometimes criminal charges, depending what they find in the wreckage or what key witnesses tell. As soon as possible after the accident.
So I'm sceptical of verbal memories reported many days, weeks, months or years after the alleged events took place.
Accuracy deteriorates by something like 20% every 24 hours - (or some such figure) - but it's really, really fast.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8508426/
That's the thing about taking the oath etc., even well meaning honest people can have difficulty recalling things exactly on the stand, and their testimony can be cross-examined effectively by a good lawyer, bringing doubt into the equation. If you're not 100% sure, it can be quite a difficult experience. In a civil trial the bar is much lower. I would imagine that a number of the witnesses (not all mind) would not be called in a criminal trial due to potential shaky testimony. It can be a bad look for a prosecution in the eyes of a jury.
Apologies I thought he gave direct evidence, he did make a statement
well we don’t know that do we. The teenage boy who was one of the witnesses to his confession refused to go to the French trial, his mother went in his stead. Hearsay by definition
The person Bailey said it to gave evidence in the civil case and I've no doubt would have done so again in a criminal case. That's not hearsay, that's direct evidence
"So you believe that they both answered the questionnaire independently…"
Yes, but we'll never know for sure. Bailey's first questionaire was 8 days after the murder, Jules first questionaire is..ahem.. mislaid, mising. Probably during the frantic clean-up in January, Jobs books tidied up etc when it was realised they'd cocked up big time.
" Bailey getting out of his bed became a very hot topic once "Fiona" made her call."
"Fiona's" call didn't put Bailey at Kealfada bridge. That didn't happen until 14th feb, 4 days after the arrests and statements.
The DPP statement below states Jules was only temporarily persuaded that Bailey had confessed, they didn't send her home convinced he was the murderer, but they had her statement by then.
"Statement 10E made by Jules Thomas is the final statement made by her during the course of her detention in February 1997.D/Gda. J. Fitzgerald and D/Gda. W. H. Leahy were the Gardaí taking the statement.This is the statement wherein Jules Thomas was temporarily persuaded by the Gardaí that Ian Bailey had committed the murder.At the time the statement was taken Jules Thomas had been in custody for over ten hours.The detail of her questioning indicates that she was arrested to obtain information which could be used against Bailey. Her detention cannot be legally justified."
"Statement 10E made by Jules Thomas is the final statement made by her during the course of her detention in February 1997.
D/Gda. J. Fitzgerald and D/Gda. W. H. Leahy were the Gardaí taking the statement.
This is the statement wherein Jules Thomas was temporarily persuaded by the Gardaí that Ian Bailey had committed the murder.
At the time the statement was taken Jules Thomas had been in custody for over ten hours.
The detail of her questioning indicates that she was arrested to obtain information which could be used against Bailey. Her detention cannot be legally justified."
The Lucy Letby conviction based on circumstantial evidence and no confession has had a wobble..
Key prosecution witness Dr Dewi Evans has now changed his mind on several cases regarding the cause of death to the infants.
Two other independent medical consultants have also refuted his evidence as flawed..
Letby's appeal is gaining more traction by medical professionals, now stating that the cause of death is several cases could be down to alternative causes not related to Letby.
This is why circumstantial evidence is like a foundation of sand… You can't beat hard unequivocal evidence!
if I was to speculate it would seem likely that Bailey gave an alibi before he was chief suspect, without too much forethought. It is notable that Alfie included that he got up to go to the toilet etc. in his, which is probably not information that would be included without prompting. This lack of detail is likely what then prompted the Gardai to really push Bailey, and Jules, on this aspect. Clearly Bailey locked himself into a situation he couldn’t get out of without changing the story. Whether that is due to him actually going to kill Sophie, or just being nonchalant cannot really be discerned. Would others alibis hold up to such scrutiny?
I was in bed all night, is similar to I didn’t see nothing, and I didn’t hear nothing, in terms of credibility imo
So you believe that they both answered the questionnaire independently, not knowing what the other had said or was going to say i.e. we were in bed all night and they continued in that independent vein for weeks before the arrest, even though Bailey getting out of his bed became a very hot topic once "Fiona" made her call. Then after they were both arrested they continued with the sham we were in bed all night until Jules was told that Bailey was seen down at Kealfada or that he had confessed or both and she came out with some truths. Actually, he did get of bed for a number of hours and he was on about going over to Alfie`s beforehand.
Then it`s put to Bailey what Jules has said and he confirms he got up, went out into the darkness, just that he didn`t do what he said he wanted to do and actually go to Alfie`s. It`s not in dispute that he got up and left the house that night and it`s not in dispute that they initially said he never got out of bed. But no joint script. Okey dokey.
You fell at the first hurdle there, there was no "Joint Script"
But if she is/was an unreliable witness, then why believe ANYTHING she said? Why believe that comment about whatever time Bailey got up in the night or brought her tea the next morning? Either she was truthful to the best of her ability, or she was mendacious.
We can't pick and choose — as if she was truthful when saying something that we wanted to hear, but she must be lying when her statement is unwelcome.
My own opinion is that she was truthful but yielded to pressure from police to say what they wanted to hear.
I base this on my own very small experience of giving a statement when I'd witnessed an incident. a fight in a public place between two lads, let us call them Bill and Harry. I saw them walking towards me, i saw then vaguely scrapping, I looked away for a second and when I looked back they were in a clinch on the floor.
The guards took my statement and kept asking who threw the first punch; who attacked the other; had I seen Bill punch Harry? etc etc
It was pretty clear that Bill was a seasoned troublemaker who almost certainly HAD punched Harry. But in all truth I had not actually SEEN this. They wrote down that I had seen Bill punching Harry and I looked them in the eye and said, No, I can't sign this. I saw the tussling, then I saw them in a clinch on the floor, both fighting. I did not actually see who attacked first. They were disappointed and tried to come around it a few more ways but I stood my ground.
See, I'm tough, I can resist pressure. But a lot of people can't; they are impressed by the large, tough, important police officers.
See the infamous Kerry Babies case, where a whole family ended up signing statements that were not true!
The cops really wanted Jules to incriminate Bailey. They SAID this on the Bandon tape! I mean, they needed that, to make the case. But in the end, they just revealed her as an unreliable witness - very much an "own goal"
If we judge by the same standard of the rest of the people in this case, the upshot is that Jules is an unreliable witness. Similar to that of Marie Farrell.
"His statement, where he said he felt Jules was being truthful, had to get "chopped f**king up""
He was wrong to say she was truthful though wasn`t he. She stuck to the joint script for a while until she found out Bailey was seen out and about at Kealfada. That joint script was that Bailey had been in bed all night. Clearly he wasn`t.
"there was only Leahy and Fitzgerald involved in the statement"
"Involved " is such an ambiguous word in that scenario. These were notorious arrests that made headline national news for days afterwards. Do you really think that Jules Thomas was interviewed by the two boys only and nobody else had access to her, to what she was asked and what her replies were or indeed that there was no cross referencing with Bailey`s own interrogation? Then after 14 hours the two boys came out of the torture chamber, all smiles and waving a signed statement? Will you get real.
"Jules had been lied to and told Bailey had confessed."
So what? If she was convinced that he had confessed wasn`t it then in her own interest to be truthful assuming she had no hand act or part in the murder?
"The one (statement) she repudiated"
But she got home and discovered that her man hadn`t confessed at all. He no doubt convinced her that he hadn`t been down at Kealfada either (might be the truth anyway) and that it was all a set up. Her truthful statement that she thought had little consequence because she believed Bailey had confessed was now actually going to be a really important part of a state case going forward because he actually hadn`t confessed. Why would anyone believe her repudiation when she was prepared to lie to cover for her man when they were first arrested? Wtf was the DPP actually dreaming about when he gave weight to that repudiation given that it was obvious she had been prepared to lie initially and she was the partner of the main suspect. Absolute madness.
As far as my understanding of the legal profession goes, a hearsay confession ain't worth the paper its written on….
@tibruit "Anyway only one individual confessed to this one." ??? As far as I know, nobody confessed to this one.
"You can`t go by confessions. Every murder attracts weirdos who earnestly claim to have committed it"
I don`t understand how any logical thinker could say such a thing. Every murder? Patent nonsense. Anyway only one individual confessed to this one. He lived up the road and had the incredible misfortune of disappearing from his bed on the night in question and for several hours after saying he wanted to go over there. What are the odds?
"Having assessed what evidence they had…"
It`s ok….you can say it…."circumstantial"….that was the word you left out. I remember reading the Letby thread and being surprised that some of the "no evidence" brigade who frequent this place didn`t turn up over there to plead poor old Lucy`s innocence.
In addition it's also pretty common for people to say they saw someone commit a crime, and even pick them out in a line up. Eyewitness testimony, and yet they still get it wrong regularly enough that it has become something of a trope in movies. Yet some people just take testimony as gospel, as long as it points to Bailey.
There is literally nothing to show he did it. You can't go by confessions - every murder attracts weirdos who earnestly claim to have committed it.
Lucy Letby did NOT confess - this is true; yet a jury found her guilty. Having assessed what evidence they had. "Beyond reasonable doubt"
Other men have spent decades in jail only to be exonerated years later - convicted on circumstance and hearsay alone. Look up the trial of Steven Truscott. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/steven-truscott-case
Now, I do not know who killed Sophie Toscan du Plantier! A violent person, surely; a man, most probably. A description that fits Ian Bailey. (And also fits others)
The Gárdai seem to have felt that they had to choose a suspect from among those they could see. And really tried very hard to establish one solid connection between him and the crime scene. Not successfully! Though, of course, they did not successfully rule him out, either.
So of course it is a dilemma: what to believe? A hash of hearsay and contradictory statements, (too much of) or the forensic evidence (not enough of)
Cos, like, he still could have done it. Or maybe someone else did. #dilemma
Fabricating her statement then required an organized conspiracy of minimally six gardaí. Then she signed it and came back and signed it again three years later. It was either a conspiracy or it wasn`t. Take your pick.
Well one copper stepped out of line and was soon put back in his box, Leahy I believe. His statement, where he said he felt Jules was being truthful, had to get "chopped f**king up". I don't know where you got the six from, there was only Leahy and Fitzgerald involved in the statement, written in Fitzgeralds hand after 14 hours questioning. Jules had been lied to and told that Bailey had confessed. Is this the same statement you are saying she signed again three years later?The one she repudiated on the PK show two days later and the one her solicitor formally withdrew?
These comparisons are not the same, the point is not all opinions carry equal weight. Consensus usually drives the acceptance of facts. Compare the theory of gravity to people who believe in a flat earth.
Psychiatry/psychology almost never have consensus, and in particular it further requires meeting the person who you are diagnosing, much like any other medical ailment or disease someone may have. Just the way it is.
It is pretty much impossible to predict whether someone will have committed murder or not without other evidence. That is effectively what these people are trying to do. Sure there can be some marginal increases in statistical likelihood, but overall it is evident, whether Bailey or not, that the person who killed Sophie was violent, and likely had a very hot temper, we don't need a psychiatrist to tell us that.
Indeed we could all jump on the theory bandwagon and really make this thread a sh1t show- why not look at incidents of femicide during the divorce process and what might set off a spouse to do or facilitate such an act -that could really bring us down a few rabbit holes
-in the absence of studying Bailey closely including interview,all these brain shrinkers can do is spout theories -“experts” will be found to say anything you wish them to say in return for for a nice hotel stay and expenses - it doesn’t bring us any closer to an answer to the question who killed Sophie?
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/3497852
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
