Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed (Threadbans in OP)

It is not a conspiracy to point out inconsistency in witness statements, it is in fact what would happen in a court of law. Are barristers conspiracy theorists when they do so?

I have noted your attempts to dismiss such observations as "conspiracy". It is a clear sign of desperation, you can not reply with reason to points being made and resort to diversion instead. You could not be any more transparent.

The "big picture"? It is you that continues to miss the "big picture" due to you dogged refusal to consider anybody else for the crime when shown the dangerously unreliable circumstantial evidence you cling to.

"It is not a conspiracy to point out inconsistency in witness statements"

It is if the inconsistencies are extraneous and you are using them to argue that they usurp a fundamental reality where in this situation all three witnesses remember an occasion where Ian Bailey was in the company of Sophie.

"Are barristers conspiracy theorists when they do so?"

No. Most of the time they are just trying to cast some doubt into the minds of the jurors they hope are easiest led and have spent too much time over the years watching Murder She Wrote. Usually barristers don`t believe a word of what they are saying and know their client is guilty as sin.

"It is a clear sign of desperation"

To suggest Bailey is innocent is deferring reality, ignoring fact and believing that there was a huge conspiracy between multiple gardaí and witnesses.

"It is you that continues to miss the big picture"

What big picture is that then? Go tell the cold case team. They seem to be missing it too.

"You think of yourself as some arbiter of truth."

So does everybody else here including you.

"Your posts are effectively rants at this point."

Here you are now in the middle of a bitch-fest, when you could have used up your time and todays paragraphs setting out your case for why you think Alfie, Leo and Shirley are lying or mistaken about seeing Bailey with Sophie. But you haven`t done that. What should we conclude from that I wonder?

And there is no mention by anyone else who socialised etc with Leo who recall Leo bringing up this supposed meeting e.g. immediately after the murder and Bailey becoming a suspect. It would have been the talk of the town.
Yet we're expected to believe that Leo, a third party to it all, remembers it better than Alfie and Bailey.

It all sounds highly dubious, and even if it did happen, so what. It was a very brief public introduction, which may well have been forgotten by Bailey in the heat of questioning, or may not have met what he considered to the standard of 'to know' someone.

Hahaha. Are you OK seriously. Like I've no clue what your on about.

Anyways.. I've asked a few questions and you still have no answer. Your a waffler.

If so, it would really be an indication that the Guards really messed up the DNA evidence. It's hard to think that a fight took place without any DNA left at the scene.

You said in post #14329…..

"Shirley Foster version; She was in the background and saw the 4 at the door, Sophie, Alfie, Bailey and Leo."

There were additional blood marks on the gate beyond those numbered, there were some on the lower rungs for example with no marker. Also there was some blood splattered on the ground which was posted some time ago by @PolicemanFox which doesn't have a designated location, so it's hard to tell where it is from.

Although said to be prolonged, it is unclear what the duration was, but she can't have been conscious for too long. Imo the bulk of the injuries must have happened in a fairly short space of time, a couple of minutes at most. The murder blows, with the block, or whatever was used to fracture her skull, could have happened immediately thereafter, or perhaps later i.e. a 2-phase attack, maybe even by an accomplice as you say.

It's hard to know for sure, but my feeling is that after the attack, the perpetrator went through Sophie's gate, leaving the drip of blood on the stone, and then the smear on the door. I think the attack all was localized in the gate area.

It's not only bad luck, but it's too late. By now the cavity block and other items have been handled and touched by many, - one can't even be certain by whom. So M-vac would produce something, but too much to point anywhere.

The cold night and wearing warm clothes and gloves would most likely have worked in the favour of the killer. If there was really a fight it would be hard to believe Alfie and Shirley didn't hear anything, but not impossible as well….

I said nothing about versions.

I agree 100%

Definitely have more information today than back in 1996, and yes, more information today than the DPP had back then….

Erm…. But so does the cold case review team today!

Again with the jibe that we're all conspiracy theorists who deny reality.

It's not true. You don't need a "huge conspiracy" - all you need is basic Garda corruption, confirmation bias and suggestible witnesses that are so soft minded that they can remember things that never happened, decades later after having forgotten to mention them. It's beyond a joke when Bill Hogan can wake up after dreaming on his porch and have some memory "bubbled back up from my subconscious". It doesn't matter how many of these weird anecdotes there are - they don't count as evidence.

It all falls apart when you look closely - especially this story about Bailey being introduced to Sophie while working for Alfie. Note it was Bailey himself who first told the Gardai he was there, and saw Sophie at Alfies not Alfie. Alfie lyons said nothing about Bailey being introduced until May 1997 - 4 months after Bailey was arrested - how many times did the Gardai visit him to get this? Alfie went from saying nothing about it to saying he had "a recollection" but couldn't swear to it in his statement. When he was pressed at the Libel trial in 2002 he went to being "90% sure".

In 1997 Leo Bolger made a statement that shows he never personally interacted with Sophie since 1994. The documentary evidence backs this up. His 1997 statement clearly has him working on the roof while Bruno Carbonnet was there - which could only be in 1993. He goes on in same statement to say the following year he fixed the chair and window. This work for the chair and window is referenced in Sophie's papers from 1994. But 5 years later now he claimed he was working on Sophies roof in 1995. In 1997 her statement Shirley Foster said "Sophie never came to our house in my presence". She was at the libel trial and said nothing then despite this introduction being a central point. She continued to say nothing for 29 years until just last year she says "I was in the background". How is that credible? Reading that article again, it seems to me she is just defending Alfie, saying that he wouldn't lie, more than trying to back up the story. Nobody is saying Alfie lied - even Alfie said repeatedly he wasn't sure.

Who knows, maybe Bailey met Sophie some other time - but we have no evidence of that.

In contrast it's the case against Bailey that really requires a conspiracy, a conspiracy between Ian Bailey, Jules Thomas, Saffron Thomas, Fenella Thomas, Virginia Thomas and Marie Farrell. That's would be difficult to keep a lid on. So if you believe in Bailey's guilt you're believing in a conspiracy theory.

But of course sometimes conspiracy theory is conspiracy fact, we have plenty of that in the Bandon Tapes, combined with world-class stupidity, because we have recorded phone calls of gardai conspiring with each other and with witnesses. We have the receipts, and you can read them all online. I have linked them here, because it's rather entertaining:

Bandon Tape 91 shows is D/Garda Jim Fitzgerald conspiring with Liam Hogan, recommending that a specific statement to be "chopped up", because it undermines their ability to get a Section 10 rearrest warrant on Jules Thomas. The trouble was Fitz's partner Leahy wrote that he thought Jules was "doing her best to be honest and truthful". This was a disaster, a judge would deny Section 10 rearrest with that statement.

Bandon Tape 48 shows the same Liam Hogan telling Superintendent Sean Camon that the Gardai need to "**** break Jules Thomas" and considering whether the DPP wants them to "verbal" Ian Bailey. Verballing is the art of getting suspects to unwittingly incriminate themselves, sign false statements.

Bandon Tape 98 records D/Garda Jim Fitzgerald musing with Garda Billy Byrne whether to write a false statement to get Chris Farrell out of hot water after he beat up Niall Flynn. Byrne suggests "pre-dating" it. See, if the record showed Chris filed a statement before Niall saying that Niall threw the first punch, any civil action taken by Niall against Chris will be dead on arrival. Because of this, and because we have images of the hand written statements, we know it was an established practice to fill in the dates of statements after the fact. We can't trust the dates on any the statements the Gardai took.

Here is a photo of Martin Graham holding drugs. He was photographed with the drugs shortly after meeting D/Garda Jim Fitzgerald. Photographer Billy McGill testified in the High Court under oath that he searched Graham thoroughly beforehand, watched Graham get into a garda car with Jim Fitzgerald and later get out, whereupon McGill picked him up and Graham showed him a packet of drugs he claimed to have received, the idea being that he would smoke it with Bailey to try to get a confession out of him.

Bailey spilled the beans on this to his neighbours, who promptly told Gardai about it. There was then a panic, Graham was arrested - he claimed it was Fitzgerald and Leahy demanding the tape from him. Graham was so traumatized he left West Cork and disappeared for 15 years. Fitzgerald also recorded a conversation with Graham secretly, where Graham (who didn't know he was being recorded) asked Fitzgerald if he had any hash for him. In the words of the DPP:

"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."

Bandon Tape 109 records Jim Fitzgerald suggesting to Marie Farrell that she make a false statement against an unnamed baby sitter, again to get the Farrells out of hot water, in case the baby sitter makes a complaint against them. He suggests that they make a false claim that the baby sitter assaulted her child Michael. He is literally suggesting Marie Farrell falsely accuse someone of child abuse. This is something that actually happened to Maurice McCabe.

There is lots more in this tape - Fitzgerald seems very relieved she didn't call him while he was at home. Farrell calls him a "**** pervert", but unfortunately the context for this comment is redacted.

Also look at Bandon Tape 115 which gives more insight into the relationship between a Fitzgerald and Farrell - he goes on a huge tirade so tell her how he feels personally hurt by a statement she made, because she gave it to Maurice Walsh. Whatever the nature of this relationship, we can see it is wildly inappropriate for a police officer and a witness.

[EDIT -removed]

This is the same Garda Fitzgerald that wrote out Jules Thomas statement in longhand when she was arrested, shoved it in front of her and asked her to sign. She repudiated this statement as soon as she got out of the station. This is the same Gardai Fitzgerald that managed Marie Farrell - who also repudiated her statements. This is the same Garda Fitzgerald you think we should believe before we believe Jules Thomas.

So far from this being conspiracy theory - this is conspiracy fact. I supposed in their defence, just like with the Kerry Babies, the Gardai seem to have honestly thought they were stitching up the right people. My guess is that the Gardai thought they were "gilding the lily", which is precisely the same term Justice Kevin Lynch gave the to the Garda behaviour in Kerry Babies case when they somehow managed to get 5 members of Joanne Hayes family to sign confessions to a murder science proved they couldn't have committed.

Interestingly, the reason Jules Thomas gave for signing her statement during her arrest, was very similar to what Joanne Hayes said when she signed a false statement confessing to murder. She said she was worried for her daughters. Joanne Hayes was told that if she didn't sign, her baby Yvonne would be put into an orphanage - not an idle threat in 1985. There are many connections between these two cases. The Gardai clearly knew the right pressure points to "**** break Jules Thomas". They tried the same trick in 2000 when they first arrested Fenella (still a child) and then went to talk to Jules. They believed like you that it was a conspiracy between them and if they got them isolated into two different police stations they would be broken. It didn't work.

But this belief in a conspiracy persists. The belief is founded on a "no-smoke-without-fire", that even though individually none of the pieces against Bailey stand up by themselves, you think it is OK can add them all the suspiciousy stuff together to make something bigger. It's the gish-gash-gallop of guilt. To make a case you need at least one thing that is solid, and there's nothing, certainly since Marie Farrell and Jules Thomas repudiated their statements. For these two retractions there is a single common factor - Garda corruption combined with immense stupidity on behalf of those Gardai that worked with them.