Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

I can`t tell you because I`m not aware of what you are talking about. It`s you that made the allegation.

It is in relation to that statement, but its scope may not be limited to that.

Regardless it is unsafe and improper conduct.

Also on the recording:

"There are statements here that I have to go back to fill it in."

"I tell you now, unless we break Jules, who I think must have **** something for us, we need her broken and we need to have it because if you stand back from it, it is a very arguable, it is fifty-fifty."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/gardai-wanted-to-break-jules-and-chop-statements/30852863.html

"Breaking" witnesses is what occurred in the Kerry Babies case and generated false statements and false confessions. Conduct for which you still have no answer, even though there is an overlap in the personnel in the case.

This was an unsafe investigation engaging in improper conduct.

It is a definite possibility that Guards on this case, unable to get that they wanted from Jules, falsified statements - as is alleged.

I think AGS thought they would either get Jules to incriminate Bailey, or Bailey to confess.
That seemed to be their only strategy, except where had someone 'bang to rights' eg seen or caught with the smoking gun.

All the heavy handed dodgy interrogation tactics, threatening family members, rolling out dodgy witnesses like Marie Farrell etc etc generating the so called circumstantial evidence … was all part of that psychological pressure to get a confession.

When that failed, groupthink had set in and instead of going back to basics, and wondering if they had the right guy - they continued with the charade with a 'poor hand' (i.e. the weak circumstantial evidence) until the DPP called stop.

From the snippets we have of recordings, even the Guards themselves are saying things like it's 50-50, weak circumstantial evidence… it's never been explained why they fixated on Bailey and so sure it was him and given the pages in the Jobs Book covering that phase were deliberately destroyed in breach of protocol, we are unlikely to.

I don't think the other Guards would consciously protect an officer implicated in the murder. But it is possible the implicated officer interfered with the investigation at its outset, steered it in the direction of Bailey and then relied on the sort of improper conduct and groupthink similar to the Kerry Babies which then gave it momentum of its own.

It’s possible one of the Garda did steer the investigation, maybe the one that the GSOC thought should be charged…. He didn’t necessarily have to be coving for himself or even another guard. He could have been covering for a relation or friend, or even just was so bull headed that he thought he was right from the get go, not covering for anyone but his own fragile ego. Speculation of course but it would explain a lot

You tell me? What was meant by this:

"There are statements here that I have to go back to fill it in."

Or talk of pre dating statements?

They talked about chopping up a statement, and then we have comments like that.

So yes thats Guards fully prepared to alter any and all statements relating to the Jules on the case as far as Im concerened ie chopping up.

How about some answers to the Kerry Babies questions? Its not a deflection - the same questions have already been put to you on the thread.

Its entirely relevant given some of the same personnel were involved. Heavy handed psychological pressure applied. Generating false statements and confessions.

Was that a conspiracy? Was that a fit up?

That you have no answer shows up your shouts of conspiracy on this thread as complete and utter nonsense. And further demonstrates the legitimate basis for questioning the conduct of AGS on this case with witnesses.

He was entitled to shred his own statement if he so wished.

I`m not talking about Kerry at all. The game on this thread is in Cork where you find it hard to score, so you want to move it to Kerry where the goal posts are much wider apart. Sorry, I`m only playing in Cork.

I said yesterday on this thread that what happened in the Kerry Babies case was indefensible. You want to bring me there because for some reason you think I am going to try to defend Garda behaviour even though it is something that I have never done and never will do for that case.

You also go there because your claims about conspiracies in the Du Plantier case have been shown time and again to be unfounded and in at least three examples were based on clear misapprehensions you appear to have held for years.

Whenever I talk about investigators asking tough questions I am specifically talking about the Du Plantier investigation. Surprise surprise but that is what this thread is about. So I would appreciate if you would refrain from trying to attach any comments I make to the Kerry Babies case or any other case for that matter.

I do understand that today was a bad day for you and now you are flapping around all over the place trying to score some sort of a retaliatory hit. But the fact is you f**ked up big time on that JT statement allegation you made today and you should show a bit of class and acknowledge it.

You literally just defended the tactics in the Kerry Babies case when you said of the heavy handed psychological pressure tactics deployed by AGS in that case and this case as:

"The questions can get tough when you get arrested on suspicion of murder."

The innocent victim of that miscarriage of justice was only exonerated thanks to DNA advances. Prior to that we had similar arguments being used to shut down questioning as are used by you and others in this thread... shouts of conspiracy, demands for evidence which would be impossible to meet.

Im sure you would appreciate it if the parallels between the cases and the consequences of such improper and unsafe conduct with witnesses was not brought up - as it undermines your entire position relating to witnesses in this case.

And you were running away from the questions about the Kerry case before today.

Patterns of unsafe Garda conduct with witnesses is therefore entirely relevant to this thread - no matter what paper walls you try to put up between them.

The more you attempt to shut down discussion of those parallels... the more posts noting those parallels will be generated in response. So how is that working out as a tactic? Not well it seems.

And willingness to provide any DNA samples in aftermath of murder and upon being arrested...what would you conclude that to be..pure luck that he knew he left no DNA, after load of alcohol in middle of night...like the more this is messaged here the more laughable it becomes.

@Zola1000 I am unable to quote your post.

No one would have known better than the murderer whether their DNA was shed at the crime scene or not.

For Bailey this was a no brainer, he knew the likelihood of his DNA being found at the scene was slim to none.

Despite analysis no DNA from the perpetrator was ever found at the scene. It was a safe bet for Bailey to provide samples.

Did breaking witnesses in the Kerry Babies case get to the truth?

So is that another post in defence of the sort of heavy handed improper and unsafe police tactics that lead to miscarriages of justice?

Or for that alone should those Guards have faced criminal prosecution up to and including prison?

What about the Guard who deliberately removed pages from the Jobs Book? Do you agree charges were warranted had the person responsible been still alive?

Faced with such tactics, it is not surprising that innocents accused of involvement were defensive and stuck to a simplified story. Especially when the Guards brought out a false witness conducting perjury to try to implicate them.

Does this sound like safe conduct with witnesses to you?

Det Gda Jim Fitzgerald and Sgt Hogan discussed the Farrells, and how it would be "**** brilliant "to tape Ian Bailey. "And the Farrells are in the equation so much at this stage, Liam. I know they're **** this and that and the other thing but at the same **** time we need them to use them as well

..." said Gda Fitzgerald.

Can you stop trying to muddy the waters?

This thread is about the specifics of the Du Plantier case, not the Kerry babies case.