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

@tibruit

"To make a case you need at least one thing that is solid.

"He confessed to Malachy Reed and he confessed to Bill Fuller. That`s how I
know "he was busy killing the French lady down the road".

Confessions do NOT count as solid evidence. People walk into police stations and claim that they shot JR.

One fellow wrote letters to the West Yorkshire police claiming to be the Yorkshire Ripper.

I could announce that I'm the Zodiac Killer - and so what? Can you prove I'm not?

If there isn't a single scrap of real evidence to confirm or deny this, then it's just warm air and verbal fluff.

Confessions don't count, and constantly-changing stories don't count. Talk isn't evidence.

"the jibe that we`re all conspiracy theorists who deny reality."

It`s not meant to be a jibe, it`s a statement of fact.

Sigh.

"Bill Hogan"

Why is this directed at me? I don`t think I`ve ever mentioned Bill Hogan. You`re back with your usual nonsense of implying I said something and criticizing me for that something I never spoke about to begin with.

It's an example of how you say it must be a conspiracy for all these witnesses to be wrong - I am giving one example, among many, of false memories. Therefore there is no need for a conspiracy - they all just think this way, they all wrack their brains to find memories, and they find them. None of these witnesses are lying - they believe their memories, but the early statements show how they remembered it differently nearer in time to the event. Leo Bolger working on the roof is another example, perhaps more relevant. So that is what I am saying you are incorrect that it requires a conspiracy or lies for all three of them to agree on the wrong recollection of an event. They all want it to be true.

Here you are now, you have access to the file and you`re engaging in selective leaking that is all intended to benefit Ian Bailey. Paraphrasing is selective leaking. Putting your own spin on what witnesses said instead of quoting them directly.

All the statements here are available online for anyone to read- the difference is I have put the work in to really read them and look at the timeline. Go read them for yourself.

The little band of conspiracy theorists who congregate on this thread may jump for joy and clap enthusiastically for your contribution but my past encounters with you have shown me that you act in bad faith when you paraphrase and you`re purpose here is to spin for Bailey.

Whatever.

Three witnesses who saw Bailey with Sophie. When he said he never met her, he was lying. If he told you he never met her, he lied to you. Why would he lie to you?

See what I said above - nobody is lying - their memories disagree, but the earlier statements and the documentary evidence agree with Bailey's account, not Alfies or Leo's. Yes, Bailey could be lying that he never met her, but Leo's account makes no sense, Alfie was never certain and as for Shirley, I am not sure she really confirmed or made any account at all. I haven't seen her latest statement only newspaper accounts. If she had really seen this introduction, she had many opportunities to say so. She made six statements, was a witness in the libel trial, and appears in three documentaries. She also spoke to Michael Sheridan, Nick Foster among others, who surely would have jumped at the chance of including her account in their gushing true crime books.

Nah, no conspiracy required at all. I`ve said before that I think Jules Thomas was oblivious to what her man was up to for several hours on the night Sophie was murdered. With regard to scratches, there may have been light marking on his hands on the evening of the 22nd, but it can only have been light. It wasn`t noticed by the punters when he played the bodhrán in the pub that night. Only the barman remembers a mark on his hand. Whatever marks he had on his hands then were nothing compared to what was clearly evident in the days after the murder. It`s interesting though that you added Farrell`s name to that list.

If so, then you are a minority of one, among those who believe Bailey is guilty. She would have to have known. It's not plausible for Jules not to know - which is why the Gardai were determined to "break her". She supported his explanation for having scratches, his alibi of writing an article for the Tribune and for having a fire. If, as you think, Bailey was going around telling everyone he was a murderer, how are we supposed to believe he didn't tell Jules? Regarding the scratches, it was a musician, not the barman - Richard Tisdall - who saw scratches on the night before. He gave a really vivid description of Bailey's demeanour and clothing, so I think it's credible. But not just him, Saffron said he had scratches, Jules said he got the scratch on his head from a turkey spur while stringing it up. Farrell because without her statement he isn't anywhere near the crime scene. You can't argue that the scratches were light before and heavy afterwards, there's no definition of light and heavy. The description among the Gardai differs between light and heavy too, so it's pointless. If there were scratches on or before 22nd then the scratches evidence is gone.

"The trouble was Fitz`s partner Leahy wrote that he thought Jules was "doing her best to be honest and truthful"."

He was wrong about that though wasn`t he. He was also entitled to correct his statement if he so wished.

Leahy wasn't entitled to correct it, he had made a statement and that is a legal document. You can't just remove a statement, he could make another and say it was false, but but that would make him look stupid, and the judge would see the statement anyway. This is why Hogan is so annoyed. Fitzgerald was not suggesting that Leahy make another statement, he is saying that it needs to be "chopped up" - he clearly offering to disappear it. There is clear evidence that statements have gone missing, as you know. An obvious example is the statement of the auctioneer Dermot Sheehan. For some inexplicable reason, his first statement begins with the words "Further statement". The DPP pointed this out.

"break Jules Thomas"

Garda speak for "We believe the witness is holding back information" not "We need to break J T in half".

It's not Garda speak for anything - they are just saying the quiet part out loud. They want to psychologically destroy her so she signs the statements they want. This is exactly how witnesses end up signing false confessions. The fact that the Gardai believed this was a valid way of interrogation is very telling, and it shows how we can't believe the statements that were signed. It backs up Jules Thomas when she explains why she signed the statement that Fitzgerald wrote.

"the DPP wants them to "verbal" Ian Bailey."

Jeez. Do you think the DPP was in on the conspiracy too?

No, it's a joke on the DPP in this case, but it's clear they know what it means. It shows "verballing" is part of their everyday vocabulary. It was how they worked - still work. Gardai write the statements longhand and witnesses sign them. The assumption here is that this is the same as a witness writing his or her own statement without "help". It is of course, not the same at all.

"Bandon Tape 98"

Different case.

Doesn't matter - it shows Byrne and Fitzgerald are prepared to fabricate evidence and mess with the recorded timeline of events. If they are prepared to do it in this case, they would do it in others. And it is connected - because they need to protect the Farrells, because of their help in the STdP case.

"photo of Martin Graham holding drugs"

I used to think Martin Graham was telling the truth. I`m actually not so sure anymore.

The evidence stacks up. It's hard to argue with what Billy McGill said and photographed, and he's a Bailey guilter. Graham tried to trap Fitzgerald and Leahy because it had happened before, he had received cash, alcohol and clothes from Fitzgerald - that

"This is the same Garda Fitzgerald who wrote out Jules Thomas statement in longhand when she was arrested, shoved it in front of her and asked her to sign."

I can`t remember now, but off the top of my head, was it six different individuals who questioned Jules Thomas? I stand to be corrected. Anyway, that you would suggest that Fitzgerald was somehow solely responsible for the content of that statement is nothing short of ridiculous. That you would come on here and say that, is just absurd.

I never said he was "solely responsible" - but he wrote out the all-important final statement, it's in his hand. He made no corrections and there are no memos of the questioning of Jules Thomas for the previous 5 hours. You can check for yourself. The other Gardai took memos, asked questions and recorded Q & A in memos. Fitzgerald didn't. He just wrote out a statement and the key details don't appear in any memos before the statement. The detail in the last statement is radically different.

"Kerry Babies…"

Here we go…

"the reason Jules Thomas gave for signing her statement during her arrest, was very similar to what Joanna Hayes said when she signed a false statement confessing to murder."

Different scenarios. Jules Thomas wasn`t incriminating herself. Joanna Hayes was.

It's exactly the same, it's pressuring a woman to make a statement under the implied or spoken threat to her children.

"To make a case you need at least one thing that is solid."

He confessed to Malachy Reed and he confessed to Bill Fuller. That`s how I know "he was busy killing the French lady down the road".

No, he didn't. According to his mother he was fine the day of the lift. Malachy Reed only made a statement the following day after the big scary Gardai visited him and he got hauled into the principals office. And he admitted on the stand that he took more lifts from Bailey afterwards. As for Billy Fuller - what you're referring to is not a confession or an admission. Bailey accused him in a joking fashion, "You did it, didn't you?" In any case neither of these are a solid piece of evidence. All the supposed confessions are wishy-washy accounts which could be interpreted one way or another. The best example of this is when Nick Foster claimed his colleague had heard Bailey confess, but unfortunately the tape wasn't running. Then we got to hear from Jim Sheridan that in fact the whole conversation was recorded and it wasn't anything of the sort. This is exactly how "confessions" get manufactured. None of these things are solid - this is what I mean - what's the one thing that could build a case around - all there is, is fluff.

"Bandon Tapes 109 and 115"

Peripheral fluff of no consequence to Baileys guilt or innocence.

It's not. We have Garda Fitzgerald literally on tape suggesting Marie Farrell make a false accusation of child abuse against a babysitter. If he is prepared to do that, we can't trust him. He wrote out Jules Thomas' statement for her and she claimed she only signed because she feared the consequences for her daughters. I believe her. He also managed Marie Farrell - therefore we can't trust any of the details in these statements. Without Marie Farrell, without Jules Thomas statement saying he was going to Alfies - there is nothing solid to build a case on.

EDIT:

Perhaps I should explain why I am going on about Fitzgerald, Jules Thomas, Marie Farrell etc. For Bailey to have murdered Sophie, he had to know she was there, and he had have the opportunity that night, and know she was up. Marie Farrell's statements were key to establishing Bailey knew Sophie was in Schull and was alone. Jules Thomas statement was key to establishing he knew or thought she was still up at 1:30am in the morning or that he was going over to Alfies. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to march over in the middle of the night to a house which is hardly ever occupied. Take away those statements and there is no opportunity.

Ah the "confessions". The DPP stated:

"His so called informal admissions appear to be sarcastic responses to questions put to him by people who were aware that he was working to discover the identity of the person who killed Sophie."

PhilMathers made a couple of claims about Malachi Reed.

"He testified in the Libel trial, but this was only weeks after he had been arrested possession for cannabis by Garda William Byrne. He never testified again. He also took several more lifts from Bailey after that time."

I do remember that it was Malachi Reed's mother that continues to make the claim, not her son! Here we have another witness being arrested for drugs. If the claim is true that Malachi continued to accept lifts from Bailey, doesn't it strike you as odd that he, at 14 years old, was getting into a car with Bailey?

The DPP had this to say about Malachi Reed's statement, a Reed that was only 14 years old.

"It is abundantly clear that Malachi Reed was not upset by Ian Bailey on 4 February 1997, however, following his conversation with Gda. Kelleher he became upset and turned a conversation which had not apparently up until then alarmed him into something sinister."

As for the Bill Fuller statement, you appear to be confused. It was Bailey saying to Fuller: "No you did it. You saw her in the Spar on Saturday; you saw her walking up the aisle with her tight arse. You fancied her and went up there to see what you could get. She ran away screaming and you chased her ... you went too far. You had to finish her off."

This was absolutely, clearly, sarcasm used by Bailey against Fuller.

It should be noted that Fuller made his statement on the same day that he hallucinated seeing Bailey and ran away in terror, only to be told it was a local farmer. Fuller had apparently abandoned his van, ran down the beach with his family until they reached a road to flag down a motorist to drive them to a police station! Fuller clearly has it in for Bailey, he likely wouldn't even be called to the witness stand in a criminal court case, that is how unreliable he is.

That's it? That's all you hang your belief on? The statement of a 14 year old being told that Bailey is a murderer and the statement of a clearly mentally unstable Fuller who has it in for Bailey?

"We had no callers to the house." Alfie Lyons statement 24/12/96.

Who is lying, Alfie or Shirley?

Replying to someone claiming they know “Bailey did it” is just a complete waste of your time and entertaining a troll - the whole of bloody Ireland knows there isn’t a credible shred of evidence against Bailey

If this is in reference to Bailey`s distinctive knock then the answer is neither. Shirley said there was no knock on her door that night.

The return of my troll.

So is Moloney peddling misinformation? Should we not believe hearsay then when it comes to this case? Why believe anything he writes?

You so casually allow people to make up their own minds in this scenario (both of which point to Bailey's guilt) but when there is a scenario which points to additional evidence against Bailey vs not suddenly we're all conspiracy theorists.

The point I'm making is that when Bailey/Jules has an alternative story and someone gives weight to it then it's a conspiracy theory across the board, when it's anyone else with two versions of events, then it's allowed.

It's simple, when you tell someone to make up their own mind in one scenario, and then call them a conspiracy theorist in another scenario, when both situations are he said/she said, its hypocritical, and biased, but anyway.

Titbruit,

Funny enough, I don't find much sense in your assertions of there being any concrete evidence to point the finger so firmly at Bailey.

I'm glad you are taking a break.

This bothered me about the case from day one.

Even more, since Bailey's DNA wasn't found neither on the victim nor at the murder site or around the house, he couldn't have gotten the scratches then and there.

So the scratches on his hands, arms or on the face are proof of precisely nothing.

The other aspect is of course his coat- the mad hatters shouting “Bailey is a murderer” want us to believe that he took his coat off to kill Sophie - in fact not only did he take his coat and likely his jumper off (because it was a cold night afterall so he must have had a jumper 😀) , he then proceeded to roll up his sleeves just so he could get his arms nicely scratched in the briars- all on an ice cold winters night or early morning.

It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. And now Gardai are going on a worldwide hunt for this unaccounted for DNA. I presume they know the main likely country of origin and possibly even distant relatives have been identified - I wonder will the search arrive at the doorstep of the few alternative foreigners mentioned many times in this thread who have since passed away and who had dealings with Sophie of one kind or another.