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

"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.

As far as my understanding of the legal profession goes, a hearsay confession ain't worth the paper its written on….

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.

You fell at the first hurdle there, there was no "Joint Script"

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…"

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."

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

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.

Its amazing any witness testimony is ever accepted in court in that case. It appears we are all in early stage Alzheimer's

"Yes, but we`ll never know for sure"

Isn`t belief great all the same. You can say anything and no proof is required.

""Fiona`s" phone call didn`t put Bailey at Kealfada Bridge"

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.

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…"

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.

Have I really? Must have been about ten years ago on a different thread and after a half bottle of Jameson.

"Your recent post suggesting we pay credence to the ever changing statements of Marie Farrell"

Nah. In my recent postings I was merely pointing out that back in 97 the Gardaí regarded her testimony as important. Any time I set out the case against Bailey these days I don`t include her at all. I am aware that the mere mention of the babe seems to get a few of ye "no evidence" folk very agitated. She`s no longer worth the effort. The Kealfada water is too muddied.

In 1972, one Finbar Hellen and his father Francis Hellen were summoned for assault and conduct likely to lead to a breach in the peace in a case heard in Schull Court before Justice William F O’Connell.  Finbar Hellen was accused of assaulting Joseph O’Connell, Dunmanus, by driving a bicycle at him on 14 October 1971.  ‘The father said he had hunted the other woman out of the land which witness had the grazing of’ and they would hunt O’Connell and the owner out too.  Justice O’Connell remarked, ‘The Irish people are inclined to become very emotionally concerned about land … one would have to go back in history to find the source of these disputes’ (Southern Star, 11 March 1972, ‘Farmer-Neighbours Must Resolve Their Differences’).  In 1973 Francis Hellen, Dunmanus East, was awarded £50 damages against Michael Goggin of Gloun, Schull for trespass of cattle on Hellen’s land entered via land sold by Goggin to a Dutchman (Southern Star, 7 April 1973).  Finbar Hellen was described as ‘a hot and impetuous person’ who ‘seems to think that anything he says whether true or false will be believed by the court’ in a case heard at Schull Court in December 1975 where he was accused of assaulting Michael Goggin (who lived with his uncle, John O’Driscoll at Dunmanus, Toormore) ‘by striking him with his fist and kicking him’ and causing malicious damage to his car.  The dispute was over a bullock.  John O’Driscoll described Francis and Finbarr Hellen as ‘two lunatics’ when he was confronted by them.  He said, ‘Finbarr’s eyes were like two poles of fire in his head and there was frath (sic) coming from Francis’s mouth … Finbarr said he would kill me and that Goggin would be killed for sure’ (Southern Star, 27 December 1975). 

Bit mad that there is so much emphasis on Baileys record of domestic violence, which was very common in Ireland in the 90s (and as of late, in this thread, on his probable narcissistic personality disorder. As if narcissistic tendencies didn’t go hand in hand with the horrors that have historically been inflicted on women in this country on a daily basis) when there is someone who was close to her who has a record of violence pertaining to land access issues.

Sophie’s murder was not sexually motivated.

She had given Finbarr permission to use her land for grazing.

He was one of the last people to see her alive. He saw her through her kitchen window and said he thought it was odd she hadn’t come out to say hello. His wife Josephine also said it was odd Sophie hasn’t brought Christmas presents for the children like she usually did.

He visited her land every day to check on his sheep.

There is evidence previously discussed that points to a morning murder.

Finbarrs fingerprints were found inside her house.

His wife is the one who said a small kindling axe was missing from the house.

His son is the one who found an unopened bottle of French wine in a ditch.

Edit: he was also the one to identify her body

It also seems apparent that Sophie fully intended to go outside to speak with her eventual murderer as she had laced up her boots. (However a friend of hers said it was common for Sophie to wear the boots in the morning when walking around on the cold tiles.)

much earlier in tbe thread someone also asked what the view from the kitchen window was, where bread that was being cut was found as if Sophie had been interrupted in the middle of it. There is a direct line of sight to the stone barn where Finbarr stored sheep dip.