Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

Even more incredible when that they are up to about half a dozen "Don't knows" when asked about potentially unsafe Garda conduct on the case, and we are in the main relying on Garda information for Bailey being the "only credible suspect".

Was Joanne Hayes the "only credible suspect" in the Kerry Babies case?

Why was that?

@tibruit here is one of the opportunities for you to shout from the rooftops, they are doing the most advanced forensic DNA possible on the plethora of samples from one of the bloodiest crime scenes in Ireland. The are coming to Ireland to carry it out. It is likely the greatest possible opportunity since the murder happened to categorically identify Bailey as the perpetrator. It is the best possible outcome that people who are interested in justice and identifying Bailey as the perpetrator could ask for.

I have to be careful with libel, but my guess is there was a single rogue garda, possibly in a compromised relationship, and was trying to remove their name from the jobs book.

Not sure if jobs books are used anymore. These days a rogue garda would probably delete a section from an online document or possibly PULSE.

I am not for one minute saying there wasn't a rogue garda involved in this case, but GSOC didn't discover evidence of a widespread conspiracy which is what Bailey was looking for, and they had access to substantial evidence.

Regards missing statements of Farrell and Thomas, Farrell was a self confessed perjurer so any statement she made was likely to be of questionable value. While Thomas provided Bailey with a false alibi, usually a very serious offence in murder cases, and again any early statements she made were likely questionable.

Bailey wasn't the sole suspect, there were at least 50 more. And I fully understand why detectives need to identify a prime suspect quickly, to prevent the destruction of evidence by the suspect for example.

So when a suspect allegedly has a bonfire a couple days after a murder, this should always raise suspicions about them and require further investigation.

I pretty much agree with everything you say here. All I would add is that with the focus being solely on Bailey it in fact could have allowed another suspect to take their time and dispose of their own evidence too with no scrutiny.

I think these days an electronic system would have traces of which Garda deleted or remove portions etc. so probably easier to track. It could have been one rogue corrupt Garda, or even just one who felt embarrassed about the early investigation, or a few in collaboration, we can't really tell. Removing the earliest information and references to evidence is a really bad look though and certainly would have very negatively impacted the search for any non-Bailey perpetrator, that is a guarantee.

This is true, and part of the issue with Touch DNA is that it can pull in too much, I expect it could find multiple people's samples, all but one (or possibly two) of which would be innocent of course.

However forensics these days is very scientific. It appears they will be testing upwards of a dozen samples, probably much more. If there was the same person, and only that person showing across most of the samples, and perhaps has their DNA mixed up in the blood, or on the surface rather than underneath, these types of things can be identified. If for example they could show samples from the block, the pyjamas, the boot, the briars and the fence, then they could bring that person in for questioning.

The other thing it can do is identify a hit on an item, and then they do further study to determine whether there is any blood in that sample too (not just skin cells etc). This would then be a slam dunk of course.

Statistically there is far higher likelihood of circumstantial/accidental for some people than others too of course, so they will have to be very careful, however these guys are going to be the best in the world at this. Luckily nothing seems to be leaking out about this, as we don't want another witch hunt. If we do see samples from various people on various items, and still Bailey doesn't show up, then I think it pretty much rules him out at that point.

Not the only plausible motive regarding Bailey. More complex. He was an egotistical narcissist. His motive was that Sophie would accept him as her equal in intellectual terms - bloody awful poetry and all - and there would occur a meeting of minds and lasting friendship. Any sex would have been incidental but Sophie was unwilling to indulge Ian in any way whatsoever and probably would have called him a boring buffoon to his face.

Many of the allegations of unsafe conduct came from proven perjurers with axes to grind or other motives. Many of the allegations were found to be false by gsoc based on evidence such as recorded station phonecalls. Many of the allegations were also unprovable due to a lack of evidence.

@tinytobe

And this somebody who knows how to get the job done, uses a rock as their primary weapon?

And how do you account for the fact that with Bailey clearly and publicly fingered as the prime suspect, but the case hitting a dead end, the husband offers a reward for information to solve the case and demands it be reopened?

All you have is an alleged motive, nothing more. There are many people with stronger motives than him.

I think you'd agree you are grasing at straws.

They investigated themselves and found nothing wrong is becoming a trope these days. In fairness they had 'grave concerns' and 'serious concerns' which is about as bad as a concern can be from them, and they would have sent a file to the DPP if the main Garda were still alive.

Personally I see a 'code of silence' and non-cooperation in this enquiry as equivalent to perjury in as grave a situation as this, more so in fact when the integrity of the gardai is supposed to be way higher than the average punter. It is categorically bad.

Except for the fact he never met Sophie

It's been mentioned a few times up-thread but what exactly is the circumstantial evidence against Bailey?

You said that I had made my mind up "based on hearsay and circumstantial evidence".