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

I'm asking you as you are the one presenting Leo Bolger as a reliable witness, with a seemingly superior recall of events than other parties involved. The onus is on you to justify it.

So what time did Leo Bolger get the call from Alfie on the day the body was found?

Did the Bolgers go shopping on the day the body was found?

How can you account for the discrepancies?
Why is Leo "lying"? I use this phrase because whenever you find a discrepancy that suits your argument, you accuse the person of lying. So by your standards - why is Leo lying?

You've been reading the same thread. You've seen the statements from the Bolgers and also the later interview with French police which have the discrepancies. They were only posted recently on the thread.

It is also been pointed out to you repeatedly that Leo Bolger can't even get the year right of when this supposed meeting happened, his description of the works don't tally with the dates.

Yet still you try to present Leo Bolger's testimony of an event, which at the time was entirely inconsequential to him as a bystander, as being reliable.
When he can't even get the details of his own actions on the day the body was found right.

It is an entirely bad faith argument from start to finish.

So I went back and read the statements and there is only one issue. In the early statements he said Lyons rang him at around 4pm and told him about finding the body. 19 years later he said he got the call at 10-30/11am "maybe".

"How do you account for the discrepancies?"

He seems unsure of the time of the call 19 years later. I`m not sure that you can even call that a discrepancy. I see nothing about shopping. I presume you know what you are referring to in that regard.

"Leo Bolger can`t even get the year right when this supposed meeting happened."

He said it was while he was working for Sophie. That was most likely `93. Based on the various statements it is likely that Bolger got the year right and Alfie got it wrong. Alfie associates it with the gardening that Bailey did in a year he "thinks" was 95. He goes on to say that there were other occasions when Bailey was over. Apparently Bailey used to ring Alfie a lot. I wonder why that was?

Noted. You cant explain why Leo lied to the Guards aboit when Alfie called him. You cannot explain his lies. These are all standards for lying you have set in previous posts.

Grand. I will note that for next time you accuse Bailey of lying or try to convict him because of such a 'discrepancy' - response = is that even a discrepancy.

Its patently obvious you apply double stabdards to evidence and witnesses versus Bailey or those whose testimony supports his - and this is another instance.

It's easy from the outside looking in to say oooh 4 pm is no different than 10.30/11 a.m. but in the context of a murder on the day it is massively different. This would have been one of the most major things to happen in both Leo's and Alfie lives, probably top 2 or 3, like 9/11. You don't just get the time wrong like that. It's different than things that may have occurred in the years previously.

Alfie called Leo as one of the first people to inform about the murder, why? Because Leo would have come to the site to feed the horses, as he or Sally did every day. 4 pm would have been way too late to then inform him.

The fact that Leo gives two different times for sure could be a misremembering, but if he misremembers that, it is clear at a minimum his memory isn't as iron clad as you propose. 2 different years proposed for the meeting is a major issue, obviously. The only reason you're choosing 1993, which there is much less evidence for, is because you think it gives a longer window for Bailey to know Sophie. You're transparent, and living in fantasy land again.

Also don't you ever consider the possibility that all three people can be wrong/misremembering, which is the most likely scenario. Something else could have happened altogether. You always just pick whichever suits your agenda best and leave it at that.

"You cannot explain his lies."

It wasn`t a lie and I can explain it. He couldn`t care less what time Alfie rang him at because he didn`t commit the murder and therefore he didn`t spend nigh on two decades before he made the statement dwelling on what was to him an irrelevant timeline.

But he could care less about some random encounter to which he was just a bystander that was of no importance at the time?

But he can't remember when he heard about the actual death or what he did the day the body was discovered?

Read that back to yourself.

If you believe that you'll believe anything.

Yep. You are doing a great job illustrating why you can't explain his lies or how his memory works spectacularly well when it suits you and is conveniently dreadful when it does not.

It also assumed that Leo gave the right time to the Guards of 4pm but then misremembered it later.
More likely is that he lied to the Guards about the time Alfie called, which would explain why he didn't go over to feed the horses.
And forgot about that lie when speaking to the French police, or didn't think he could get away with it.

But here's another explanation duly noted for when you try to try to make a case out of nothing against Bailey:
"Bailey couldn't care less about X because he didn't commit the murder."

the justification was it was used after been cleaned the previous day so it must have been someone close to the house and Alfie had immersion issues.

So if its likely that alfies plods on down and does a bit of breaking and entering for a hot bath in the house of a woman he described a a pain in the hole.

awfully suspicious!! considering Alfies history also

wow some leap your making on me. I said if he used the bath it was trespass (entering etc) not burglary but anyhow.

" Sophie accepted that someone was in and said it must be Alfie, and she accepted it was not my fault."

"

I discussed setting up a trap with Sophie about catching whoever was using the bath but it seemed that the changing of the locks had changed it, or stopped it.

"

i think there is something in it thats all

You're a fantasist what are you talking about. Leo and Alfie knew each other and talked regularly. Like come on, you don't think they would have just had a conversation about when they saw Bailey being introduced outside of the context of a police statement. These guys were on first name basis with the gardai as well. It's like you think it's an episode of CSI or something, luckily everyone has you to put together every bread crumb and make…. (puts on sunglasses) a ham sandwich.

It would have been a huge risk for the murderer to go to the house after the murder if they were not sure it was empty. They would have to be ready to kill everyone in the house. There could have been any number of people there and they could overpower him. It would be a foolish risk to take. Much more plausible that they knew the house was empty.

Jeez you`re in bad old form. I have no doubt the two of them chatted about it. It`s probably one of the reasons why Leo tried to marry his recall of the introduction with Bailey doing the gardening.

Yeh two decades later he tried to do that, instead of at the time the gardai were taking statements after a murder.

I evaluate which statement is most likely to be correct. I choose the one made in the days after the murder over the one made two decades later.