Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

A very good question. I don't know, but I am sure Daniel must have noticed it doesn't come cheap to divorce, no matter how…. I've also read that Sophie was due to be fired and only stayed on, once her relationship with Daniel started. I often think for Sophie it was a marriage of convenience from the start, her career in mind, and a bit more financial stability, etc…. he bought her the cottage in Ireland she always liked.

It's a bit of a hard conversation, I know, as Sophie is victim.

Apparently Bailey verbally confessed, - or maybe it was under the influence of alcohol and in presence of people who didn't like him too much and invented the whole story.

There is no written confession by Bailey.

“I have no issue with anyone questioning the Garda narrative. But that isn`t what you do. What you do is you imagine things to be true without any good evidence and based on what you have imagined”

Every answer you gave was just imagined and made up.

Every piece of evidence is hearsay, it could all have been made up for all you know.

You pick and choose what you want to believe and then criticise others for doing the same, and claim authority based on nothing.

The gardai don’t even have a narrative, it’s all in your mind. Where is this narrative, you got a link?

"The gardai don`t even have a narrative, it`s all your mind."

Go tell odyssey06. They said it and I replied.

"You pick and choose what you want to believe and criticize others for doing the same"

Pot calls kettle black

"Every piece of evidence is hearsay, it could all have been made up for all you know"

A lot of it has been tested under oath and under cross examination.

"Every answer you gave was imagined and made up"

Based on probability. But it`s what you get when you ask unanswerable questions and call someone an ostrich for not bothering to answer them.

GSOC also found no evidence Farrell was intimidated or coerced by gardai, that there was any garda conspiracy against Bailey, stated his arrest was lawful and they could not substantiate allegations that a witness was provided with drugs.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30859657.html

The idea her husband did it is illogical.

For one thing if he was the all powerful and influential person people assume with friends in high places like Chirac, why would he not bump her off in France where he actually had power and influence over an investigation, rather than in Ireland where he had no influence?

Additionally he was one of the people who continually tried to get the case reopened and reinvestigated in Ireland with mixed results. Why would he do this if he was the murderer?

As for him not coming to collect her body he stated he was traumatised. Now if he was actually a cold blooded killer, surely he'd have no issue coming over. If only to tie up loose ends.

Nope, all the evidence points to a local.

Anytime I see a poster doggedly defend the position that Bailey is the only credible suspect and attempt to close down discussion on any other possibilities, I’m reminded of that absolute imbecile Garda, Gerry O’Carroll who couldn’t even bring himself to say that he got it wrong, and to apologise , after years of pushing the line that Joanne Hayes was the mother of both babies- long after most rational people had moved on and accepted that was the case.

I hope such Gardai are long gone from the force, but we won’t know for sure, unless or until, Gardai release their final investigation report and its findings/conclusion.

As every poster here admits- Bailey “could” have done it- -just as many other people “could” have done it-but the evidence against Bailey is so weak, so concocted, that really it’s an insult to intelligence to still hold him up as the only credible suspect - and it’s an insult to the memory and life of Sophie to do so.

“For decades, he persisted in his stance that Joanne Hayes from Abbeydorney was the mother of two babies: her own baby, Shane, and another baby, later named John, who was murdered and whose body was found on a beach in Cathair Saidhbhín in south Kerry in 1984.

Following the emergence of DNA evidence, Mr O'Carroll finally accepted that Ms Hayes could not have been the mother of Baby John.“

https://amp.rte.ie/amp/1424638/

Best of luck to them - I wonder how long before they get any results and if positive for DNA of another person or persons, will the public be told?

Letting the public know there is other DNA there (even if they don’t know who at that point or indeed why(which would necessitate thorough investigation) would show at the very least, that they have other avenues to explore other than Bailey (considering they have Baileys DNA, he is easily ruled in or out at the earliest stage) .

It would reassure the public somewhat they there are still many strands to this investigation to explore outside of what was a very narrow focus originally

Yes, well that's all that GSOC could establish given they have very limited powers and were stonewalled by retired Guards, and evidence has been destroyed that could have shown wrongdoing. Why do you think someone deliberately ripped out pages from the Jobs Book? That's what a cover up looks like. The only question is what they were covering up.

Why do you think original statements from Jules Thomas and Marie Farrell, given the allegations of unsafe conduct by Guards in relation to them, were 'lost'?

At the very least it is incompetence, it could be covering up much worse.

Which is why I brought up this angle originally - it is entirely reasonable to question the Garda investigation, their focus on Bailey, and they do not get the 'benefit of the doubt' when they make dubious claims without real evidence.

It’s not illogical , it’s usually the husband. I agree that I don’t think it was her husband in this case though. They ruled him out without investigating him thoroughly, it’s bad practise. It was purely a political decision to rule him out very early. You can agree with the decision, but you should not agree with the process surely.

What other decisions were made without sufficient due diligence.

They should have kept the gate but used the collected evidence with caution. With caution for the very reason that the gate could be opened and closed by anybody at anytime, thus anybody's fingerprints and DNA could be on there. Thus DNA and fingerprints on the gate wouldn't necessarily have been from the murder.

What they should have done is taken a closer look at the pumphouse regarding DNA. Don't know if it was done? The killer took that cavity block by force, he must have touched the roof and ripped part of it off with force, - chances are a lot higher he left his DNA then and there when he was murdering Sophie. Not 100% as well, but far more likely than the gate which anybody would open and close whilst coming and going.

"Anytime I see a poster doggedly defend the position that Bailey is the only credible suspect and attempt to close down discussion on any other possibilities…"

I`m not trying to close down anything. But I call out bullshit when I see it. Did you find the source of the Wolney "I did a terrible thing" myth yet?

"…I`m reminded of that absolute imbecile Garda, Gerry O`Carroll…"

So I remind you of an imbecile then do I? Now that you`ve resorted to lowest form of debate, I will accept your insult as an acknowledgement on your part that you have lost the argument.

"You just skip every point made, you tried to ignore the points which undermined your position."

I addressed every point you raised last night. They don`t undermine my position. You act in bad faith by asking me questions that we both know can`t be definitively answered and then you call me an ostrich because I didn`t originally answer them. Life is too short. You however imagine the worst possible scenario as the answer to each question even though none of it is supported by actual evidence. The one place where you should be finding evidence to support your allegations is on the Bandon tapes. But your conclusion there is that they must have had the recorders turned off every time the boyos were scheming and conspiring.

I`ve always acknowledged that there was improper behaviour by investigating Gardaí in this case. It doesn`t mean that Bailey is innocent and it certainly doesn`t mean that witnesses were in cahoots with Gardaí to frame him.

The Bandon Tapes were recordings of phone calls to and from Garda stations. That is all that was recorded and even then, not all calls were recorded from all locations and of those, we can't be confident all of them were preserved.

So you know, maybe the "boyos" were just "conspiring" in person?
And maybe even then had the sense not to say anything too incriminating over the phone even if they didn't know what was going on.

You only "addressed" them after several times of asking. They do undermine your position when you can only respond with "I don't knows" followed by guesswork.

It's not bad faith to ask questions that demonstrates you don't have the answers, when you act as a gatekeeper on the thread as if you do and that only certain explanations are acceptable.
It is entirely reasonable to question witness testimony in this case and to list several possible causes as to why the testimony is dubious.
And we have accusations of unsafe conduct towards witnesses by Guards from multiple sources, witness statements 'lost', Jobs Book tampered with, detective meeting alone in a hotel with a key witness, witness statements being 'refined' to suit the Garda narrative years after multiple rounds of 'questioning'.
So there is more than sufficient evidence to doubt witness testimony and to list among them, doubtful memories, witnesses being guided by questioning especially in the hysterical environment created by Guards in the community, personal animosity, attempts to curry favour \ witnesses involved in crime being dragooned by Guards into giving testimony favourable to their case.
I stand over that, and you have provided no evidence that such conduct could not have occurred. The Guards engaged in improper conduct on the case, so

We see in the Kerry Babies case, Gardai went to such lengths in their tunnel vision on the case they ended up with false confessions. Was the family "in cahoots" with those Gardai? Was Joanne Hayes framed?
How did the Guards get a false confession? Was that a conspiracy?
What evidence do you think the Guards left behind in that case?
It was only when DNA evidence demonstrated that the Guards got it completely wrong, did we see an attempt to get real answers.

You're the one shouting conspiracy at every turn on this thread, so come on, answer up.
Conspiracy or not? Frame up or not?

There was even a sham of a tribunal by a judge into that case which predictably protected the Guards.
It took over 35 years for those findings to be overturned and for the Hayes family to be finally vindicated.

I fully believe the Guards on this case - which documented engaged in improper conduct - were more than capable of generating false\inaccurate witness testimony whether through their conscious or subconscious actions and in how they conducted themselves with witnesses. Whether they genuinely thought Bailey was guilty or innocent I don't know, regardless some sort of unquestioning groupthink set in that they had to get Bailey.
They are on record as stating that their case against Bailey was flimsy and circumstantial, and that was when they were relying on Marie Farrell's nonsense testimony about seeing Bailey at 3am. So we don't know why they were so sure Bailey was the culprit.
But they were determined to get him by fair means and foul. Their conduct with witnesses was unsafe. It is a recipe for a miscarriage of justice and it is therefore entirely valid to question the basis for witness testimony.

So the Guards do not get the benefit of the doubt on this investigation, nor do witnesses who surface years later and\or with changing stories that further incriminate Bailey.

No not after cases like this. Not after the Maurice McCabe case.

https://www.rte.ie/culture/2022/0121/1274913-the-kerry-babies-case-justice-delayed-is-justice-denied/