Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

For the third time.

Have you read their (the DPP) notes on why they refused to do so?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

ALL the evidence is circumstantial.

As for the French trial:

Do you find it acceptable that a person is convicted of murder based on circumstantial evidence when the prosecutor of the country where the crime was committed specifically stated that the evidence did not warrant even a charge?

Do you find it acceptable that a court of law used Marie Farrell's lies, knowing it was lies, to convict a person of murder?

Of course in addition, there was no defence to challenge the circumstantial "evidence".

Do you believe that is a fair and just trial and would you accept the verdict if it was YOU?

There is no point discussing this with Peter Flynt.

I've raised the issue before, like what if the situation was reversed, what if it was Peter Flynt wo gotten accused and convicted without evidence, and he still doesn't get it.

They used some of the earlier Marie Farrell statements in that trial, the same statements she says were untrue.

That's all you need to know regarding the French trial.

A great example of hearsay. Further proof that the French court was indeed a Kangaroo one.

It's sadly that some minds think that way, even down to the police. The latter makes it even worse in unprofessionalism.

Bailey "was seen that night" at Kealfadda bridge, - quite some kilometers away from the murder site.( He could have been there all night, and all day, and still it doesn't prove murder plus the Guards still found it worth coercing a witness for that one )

Bailey knew Sophie and was introduced to her, also travelled with her to some island for some poetry festival or phoned her office in France. ( Even if he did all these things, it still doesn't prove murder )

Bailey hat scratches on his hand and face, stating he was killing turkeys or chopping down a tree.( Since his DNA wasn't found at the murder site, he couldn't have gotten the scratches then and there…)

Bailey verbally "confessed" to some people that he "did it and went to far".( Just hearsay possibly by those who didn't like him, also doesn't prove murder )

Bailey was burning something behind the studio. ( He could have burnt down the whole house and still it didn't prove murder)

All evidence is circumstantial - even DNA evidence left at the scene.

Bailey does not have an alibi for that night, has a history of assault on women (including his own mother) and the next day he had a gash to his forehead and scrapes all over his hands with explanations that were not believable as he's a compulsive liar whose story changes with the wind. He also admitted to the crime but we're all supposed to laugh and say "Good oul Ian" at that.

That would be up to a jury to decide if the judge directed them to consider "on the balance of probabilities" if they thought IB was the murderer and if I, and others, were on that jury IB would definitely have been sent down and there is overwhelming evidence against Bailey to the point that my conscience would be clear.

A person can be found guilty of murder without evidence placing them at the scene of the crime.

For a start I never stated that I respected any "verdict" from the DPP. The DPP is not judge and jury. Indeed the DPP himself may instinctively feel that IB is guilty but won't go ahead with the trial because if he did, and IB got off, then IB couldn't be tried again for the same crime. Therefore any further evidence which might emerge would be useless.

The DPP seemed to explain away some bizarre stuff. For example when IB stated that he felt something awful was going to happen that night (to Jules at Hunt's Hill) the DPP explained it all away by stating there was something of the night going on as a lot of dogs were barking in the area. I don't consider that to be a judgment of a professional standard.

Nevertheless the DPP made the decision that he made. I disagree as I think the evidence is there to convict Bailey.

IB himself was anxious for a trial. He felt he could win it. Perhaps in the end there should have been one…..well there was in France where IB refused to turn up.

You posted this in a post #11408:

I respect the view of the DPP and others that a conviction was not possible due to incompetence from AGS.

You also posted: it is understandable that the DPP did not proceed with a case.

So do you respect the view of the DPP or not?

There is absolutely nothing to suggest as you do that this was out of some fear of double jeopardy.

In fact, the opposite. The DPP based their decision on points where they accepted Bailey's version of events, or found them indicative of his innocence. I have already replied to you with those points and you could offer no response to them.

Instead, you try to discredit the DPP on a very flimsy basis.
You don't know anyone who has gotten an eerie feeling from hearing howls while outside in the dark?
Nobody?
Your claim is completely without foundation or standing.

Bailey was with Jules Thomas overlooking the scene from a distance and he says he got a bad feeling. This was during the time the dogs were unusually alarmed. Such a sense of foreboding is not considered incriminating. Bailey may have sensed the activity below him which also alarmed the dogs. If he had intended to contact Sophie it is unlikely that he would have invited Jules Thomas to go over to that area with him. Unfortunately, the forensic evidence is unable to pinpoint the time of Sophie Toscan du Plantier’s death. It is not, therefore, possible to say whether she was killed around the time that the dogs were acting strangely, or at a later time in the night or early morning.

Seems like sound reasoning of points of information that are not even real direct evidence of crime, as the DPP notes not even considered incriminating. Shows how flimsy the Garda case was that this was even included by them.

There was a kangaroo court in France, and you have advocated in previous post for normal standards of criminal cases to not apply in a trial of Bailey here. There are sound reasons for "beyond reasonable doubt" to be the standard in criminal cases. Miscarriages of justice occur. You are advocating for a potential miscarriage of justice given that the DPP multiple times refused to proceed with a prosecution.

There is no sound basis for a prosecution. It is simply false to state there is overwhelming evidence against Bailey. All the Guards had was flimsy circumstantial evidence (they are on tape admitting that) and that was trying to present Marie Farrell's evidence with a straight face.

In June 25, 1997, Det Sgt Liam Hogan and Chief Superintendent Sean Camon discuss preparing the book of evidence for the Director of Public Prosecutions in the du Plantier murder case. In their recorded conversation about Ian Bailey, Sgt Hogan says all they have is "very weak circumstantial evidence"…
He tells his superior "unless we break Jules" it is "a 50/50...we need her broken", in what appears to be a clear reference to Mr Bailey's partner Jules Thomas. Liam Hogan, now deceased, also talks about going back to "fill in" statements.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30655254.html

I would gladly accept for Bailey to be convicted and sentenced, and rotting in some jail somewhere, if there was any actual credible evidence against Bailey. By evidence, I mean something that can't be explained away and could only be left at the time of and during the murder and not before. His DNA all over Sophie's body, his fingerprints at the scene of the crime, or on the weapon used. Then it'll be pretty watertight.

However there is nothing these likes. Nobody seen him doing it, no DNA, no fingerprints, nothing, not even a motive is known. Just a lot of bad talk behind his back, and people claiming he said something and must have done it.

You stated you respect the view of the DPP and then when it suits you you turn around and accuse them of:
"I don't consider that to be a judgment of a professional standard."

Completely unconvincing, the claim is totally discrediting and you could not support it with anything.

Scratches become more visible when they are healing. The nick on his forehead could easily have been covered by his hairline \ fringe.

Strange you claim that Bailey was severely scratched and this was only seen after the date of the murder when that does not tally with what these witnesses say:

Denis O’Callaghan saw Bailey on 24 December 1996 (the day after the murder) and he noticed multiple light scratches on Bailey’s arms.
Such light scratches are not consistent with cuts by razor like thorns.
Richard Tisdall in his statement 190B recalls seeing scratch marks on one of Bailey’s hands on Sunday night 22 December 1996 (prior to the murder but after the cutting of the tree and the killing of the turkeys)…
On 28 December 1996 Gda. O’Leary asked Bailey how he cut his hands and Bailey explained while cutting the top off a tree to make a Christmas tree. Bailey then took off his jacket and Gda. O’Leary noticed that the scratches were on the backs of both hands and up as far as both his elbows. Bailey’s willingness to assist the Gardaí is indicative of innocence. He made no attempt to conceal the scratch marks. As distinct from his observation the previous day Gda. O’Leary says that they were not cuts only scratches and they were healing up…
Bailey’s explanation for the scratches is plausible, consistent and is supported by other direct and credible evidence.

As to claims made by a Mr Roger Brooke in 2014, I've no idea what you think that is meant to signify. The DPP report was prepared many years before that and in it the scratches are discussed in relation to both the cutting down of trees and killing turkeys. Bailey had had a hectic day the day before, with the trees and turkeys. Did he know exactly what action lead to what minor scratch? Did it really matter passing smalltalk with an acquaintance? He didn't know it would be taken down and used in evidence against him.

And why didn't Brooke make this statement at the time?
“I did not make a statement to gardaí regarding the wounds to Bailey’s hand/s in 1996 or 1997 due to personal reasons.”

So we have someone crawling out of the woodwork, making a statement decades later, contradicting multiple other witnesses who made statements soon after the event. Simply not evidence of anything, other than the vagaries of human memory.

I think that is bottom of the barrel levels when something like this is brought up to try to discredit the DPP's decision. It's not direct evidence of anything. We are getting further and further removed from real, credible, positive evidence of Bailey's guilt. Which to me is indicative of his innocence.

[QUOTE]"And why didn't Brooke make this statement at the time?
“I did not make a statement to gardaí regarding the wounds to Bailey’s hand/s in 1996 or 1997 due to personal reasons.”

So we have someone crawling out of the woodwork, making a statement decades later, contradicting multiple other witnesses who made statements soon after the event. Simply not evidence of anything, other than the vagaries of human memory."[/QUOTE]

I had to laugh at this as Bailey's own story changed so regularly that he couldn't keep up with his own lies. It's amazing the standards you expect of other witnesses that you don't apply to your psychopath hero IB himself.

Anyway we can agree to disagree. You find him innocent. I find him guilty as sin.