Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

Suppose she was shot? It would stronger point to Daniel. And an experienced professional could easily make it look unprofessional and a rage killing. Leaving her so clearly at the roadside, would have also meant he felt safe with his getaway, wanted her to be found soon, - so he'd gotten "his money worth".

It's not that as you wrote "I have a motive", it's that we know that there is a motive. In absence of any evidence we've got to look at motives and Daniel's is by far the strongest.

Who had the biggest bank account? Who stood to lose the most? Who knew where she was exactly and that she was alone that night? Whose finances were never investigated? Which husband didn't go to Ireland when his lawfully wed wife passes away? And which widower gets married and has a child very soon after? Who gotten the life insurance payout? And the cottage?

It's a bit obvious, eh? But as said, it's just a motive, but a very strong one.

Another strong motive could have been Leo Bolger. He would also have known that Sophie was at her cottage and alone. If doing something illegal he'd certainly go to jail this time, and he wouldn't want that. The judge wouldn't have been light a 2nd time around. Financially there would have been less on the line for Bolger than for Daniel but Bolger could easily have faced 10 years for some drug related racket. If Sophie gotten in the way she had "to be dealt with".

Why would Bailey's only motive always be sexual?

That "old story" he hiked over to her house at 3 am in the morning with an expensive bottle of French wine and recite his poetry? He never even cheated on Jules? He never raped another woman. He wasn't in the habit of chasing after women at all.

If it was Bailey, we'd have to come up with another motive, other than sexual. There is also no real material gain for Bailey from Sophie's death.

The only sexual motive I could think of is that Guard from Bantry who also wasn't shy to using force, blackmail, rustling farm animals, a corrupt and bent man. His motive would have been a lot more than Bailey, in position of power, and known interest for foreign women, known to be cheating.

And then least likely Tomy Ungerer was known to have rather odd sexual interests, but I don't think there was even ever a consideration between him and her and his jealous wife was probably always after him….

So Bailey's only priors involved a history of violence against women, and he didn't have any history of taking drugs apart from alcohol, which as we all know is harmless.

He certainly smoked hash but for how long before these cases (b low link) who knows - I would guess he was an occasional user before the murder

https://www.southernstar.ie/news/bailey-tells-court-that-box-with-cannabis-was-a-gift-4256583

How many women were attacked or sexually attacked, atempted rape or rape? As far as I know this was non existent in West Cork. There was probably a lot of consentual casual sex after a few drinks in the pub.

My gut feeling is this crime was about Sophie. She gotten somebody in the way or seen too much, couldn't be reasoned with, and had to be dealt with.

Either it's down to her husband Daniel, or it's something regarding drugs and bent Guards in West Cork.

Those blow ins who moved to West Cork had made their money somewhere else, were looking for a quiet life, often an alternative, some of them were misfits, hippies and total losers as well. The big money isn't there, except maybe in drugs but those who were in it didn't seem to show it in a big lifestyle. Bent Guards were probably only muscling in.

@jesuisjuste

You clearly don't understand who GSOC are. They are not an internal department of the gardai. In investigating this case they found many aspects in favour and against Bailey, but ultimately did not uphold his accusation of a garda conspiracy to frame him. They found his arrest to be lawful, not my words, theirs.

Jules book, if it ever gets finished/published will make for interesting reading - she’ll need to ensure though that the chronology on the night in question and the morning after is very clearly documented - it has to address areas such as just when did Bailey bring her a coffee in bed, when did Bailey first learn of the murder and by whom.

Documenting the Gardai interviews will also be very closely read - what did she say first and when and why did she amend original statements - these are the aspects discussed again and again on this thread- it would be good to get her version, albeit 30 years later, so certainly it will be open to challenge in terms of what is recollected - but she’ll also have a lot of documentation to back it up

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/i-would-have-liked-closure-for-ian-that-his-name-was-cleared-over-sophies-murder-ian-baileys-ex-partner-jules-thomas-on-writing-book-about-their-life/a235887811.html

This is what you said in post #11419 and I reproduce it full and exactly as you said it, errors and all….

"You`re right! Sure what`s the point in considering other possible scenarios when you`ve already made your mind up based on hearsay and circumstantial evidence that? Discussion of facts should have no involvement!"

Point out to me the bit where you said that circumstantial evidence can apply to anyone.

We're talking about the integrity and credibility of the gardai, and you're comparing them to a drunken alcoholic wife-beating buffoon as if that is the standard they need to achieve, come on? Regardless of why the GSOC got involved it is the negative findings regarding the gardai in this case that matters, as it is one of the only assessments of the gardai that we have.

The Garda have a responsibility to treat all suspects and all cases with the utmost integrity, and they didn't, they were far from it, to the point that evidence was destroyed and senior Garda would have been recommended for prosecution.

When it comes to this case, their integrity was undermined, their credibility was undermined. Their investigation could not be trusted. That's it.

There was a flimsy case against others but it's not apples to apples comparison, it's only as far as we can tell, we don't have the Garda files, and some of them now have been purposely destroyed. There has never been anything released about any other suspects, aside from some Bailey adjacent information.

Much, if not most in fact, of the Bailey circumstantial evidence came out weeks and years after he was already named in the press and arrested, so at that point it was a one horse race. When it comes to other suspects, if you don't look you won't find.

Also people tend to say 'evidence' only when it matches the Garda proposed story, and Bailey being the perpetrator. There was other evidence, just wasn't deemed valid as it didn't match the story.

Grand so, you implicitly admit the Garda conducted an unsafe investigation then as they relied on an unreliable witness as a central plank of their case, and their handling of that witness was unsafe.
Detective Fitzgerald meeting Marie Farrell alone in a Dublin hotel - unsafe conduct.
The same detective cursing out and berating Marie Farrell over the phone because she gave a statement to a different detective - unsafe handling of a witness.

And between the Guards and Jules Thomas, I in the main believe Jules Thomas.
That's because we have Guards on record talking about chopping up her statement.
We have her original statement being conveniently lost by the Guards.

We have pages deliberately removed from the Jobs Book without any valid explanation.

We have Guards stonewalling GSOC when they attempted to get answers. Clearly not the conduct of citizens concerned about truth and justice, just covering for dodgy behaviour.

This was clearly an unsafe investigation.

There are multiple instances of unsafe conduct both documented and alleged, as noted in the DPP report:

On 29 September 1998 Garda Kevin Kelleher advised that D/Garda Leahy was the sole officer assigned to dealing with Bill Fuller. Superintendent Twomey confirmed this to be the case. Such an investigative practice is unsafe.

It should be remembered that at this time many people in the local community were convinced that Bailey had murdered Sophie Toscan Du Plantier and the community had been exhorted to obtain incriminating evidence in the matter…Once Ian Bailey was believed by the public particularly in the local area to be responsible for the murder the fear thereby engendered was bound to create a climate in which witnesses became suggestible.

A private conversation outside the car for a couple of minutes then takes place between D/Garda Jim Fitzgerald and Martin Graham. This is not recorded and is therefore not in the transcript. Based on the above conversation and on the allegation by Martin Graham that he was given Hash by the Gardaí, despite D/Gda. Fitzgerald’s denial, the balance of evidence suggests that Graham is telling the truth. Such investigative practices are clearly unsafe to say the least.

The reason we don't have more evidence of the dodgy conduct is because it was covered up, or because as above with Martin Graham, 'chats' were had 'off the record'. Implicitly this is unsafe conduct - regardless of whether Graham's specific allegation is true, which it likely is.

An awful lot of unsafe conduct traces back to the same detective.

Fennelly report:

The report said an unnamed detective sergeant considered doctoring a written statement prepared by another officer and removing detail in a second statement.

One involved a statement on an assault being "pre-dated".

Judge Fennelly described it as "improper conduct".

The judge also found "improper and inappropriate disclosures" by investigating gardaí.

And remember, that's only what could be found on the snippets that were recorded and preserved.

Judge Fennelly said he could not make general conclusions about the Du Plantier investigation based on the Bandon tapes. He described them as "fractional, fragmented and essentially random" and "often unclear or ambiguous"… “Although it is possible to say that, in general, no abuse of this system occurred, it is not possible absolutely to rule out improper use in any specific case.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30784789.html

As has been remarked on reddit:
It is incredibly ironic to think that at the time the Gardai were taping every phone line they never bothered to record suspect interviews on tape, instead using this ridiculous longhand which is clearly inadequate or worse, easy to change or falsify.

The art of getting a suspect to sign an incriminating statement is known as “verballing” and it can be done in various ways. One simple way is to read out the statement aloud to the suspect but alter the text somewhat as you read it. The statement is in the Garda’s handwriting after all. The Bandon tapes recorded Gardai explictly discussing verballing Ian Bailey. Here is an excerpt from Bandon Tape 48 recorded on 26 June 1997 between D/Sgt Liam Hogan and Supt Sean Camon. They are talking about the file they are sending to the DPP.

LIAM HOGAN: I think I suppose, the file won't be going into anybody though.

SEAN CAMON: Will it not?

LIAM HOGAN: No. That is the other thing I need to talk to you about, how receptive will they be in that office?

SEAN CAMON: If we are to do that?

LIAM HOGAN: Yeah. If you take it, if you were sitting in his desk and you get in this file and you say: You are very near it, lads, but you are not quite... It is almost saying like, now go and get your pen and verbal him or something **** thing, you know. It is a position, you are putting them in a bit of a position I wonder. I just wonder how you approach it that is all.

SEAN CAMON: Who did you deal with before, was it Robert Sheehan?

LIAM HOGAN: Robert and...

SEAN CAMON: You're **** going nowhere with him.

Other tapes talk about “pre-dating” statements “chopping up” statements they didn’t like. Garda corruption and tampering with evidence is not an outlandish possibility – it is very real.

You made a very specific allegation about Gardaí talking about "chopping up" up Jules Thomas`s statement. I`m asking you where you are getting that specific information from because it isn`t anywhere in that reply you`ve just given.