Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed. **Threadbans in OP**

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747220#Comment_121747220

Its very relevant when a main plank of the Garda case against Bailey is that he was scratched at the scene in a frenzied attack.

FrankN1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747244#Comment_121747244

Those cuts may not have happened during the attack. It's possible he could have done it and got the cuts from the briars. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747220#Comment_121747220

People are innocent until proven guilty. This is a problem with this case - people seem to expect Bailey to have proven his innocence and it seems like AGS belong in this group. This isn't how our justice system is supposed to operate.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747303#Comment_121747303

This is exactly where the Guards went wrong. And this is also why I think that there is a lot of evidence pointing towards that it was a Guard, and the Guards tried to protect one of their own.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747301#Comment_121747301

Its possible he did it and the scratches were obtained exactly as he says... but it leaves exactly zero real evidence against Bailey.

And remember they checked the briars. You are contradicting yourself now.

Therefore I will stick with the assessment of the DPP as to the relevance.

FrankN1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747303#Comment_121747303

In this thread, I find people are jumping over themselves to say he is innocent. It's nice to bring some balance to the conversation. He may or may not be guilty.

FrankN1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747367#Comment_121747367

Where is the contradiction? Please tell

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747372#Comment_121747372

So he may not be guilty... which is another way of saying he is innocent.

Guess that makes you one of these posters jumping oved themselves to say he is innocent?

Or are you jumping over yourself to say he is guilty?

Careful now there might be splinters from jumping over that fence.

This is your phrasing btw not mine.

FrankN1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747404#Comment_121747404

Yes it's possible to have an objective view. Do you know what that means?

It means he may be guilty, and also he may not. The whole point of the thread is to discuss evidence on both sides.

Just because they didn't find his DNA doesn't mean he is innocent. Lack of evidence means they can't prove guilt but still doesn't mean he didn't do it.

tinytobe

Suppose the killer wasn't alone? Had help and the little helper cleaned up?

Suppose the killer was a woman?

My gut feeling: Sophie knew the killer, she opened the door either before bedtime, or early morning. The killer left no traces because there was most likely no struggle and the hit on Sophie's head came unexpected to her.

Suppose Bailey arrived at 2am in the morning ? ( He would not have made it there earlier according to every fact we do know ) By 2am Sophie would have been in bed, lights off. Would Sophie have opened Bailey the door at 2am? ( there was no sign of forced entry as well)

And if it was Bailey he didn't do it at 7am in the morning, that would not have worked in any time frame, - hike back to the studio, get back to Jule's house, etc....

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747416#Comment_121747416

Do you?

Declaring you have an objective view is an entirely prejudicial bad faith argument, casting aspersions on other posters objectivity. Statement without foundation and therefore without merit. Therefore objectively it is irrelvent and meaningless as a justification. See how easy it is to abuse the word?

Theres hundreds, thousands of people for which we can say we cant prove they didnt do it. Its just writing a blank cheque.

You claimed there's lots of posts stating Bailey is innocent. Grand so - where are all these posts who state that without reservation or caveat.

FrankN1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747509#Comment_121747509

I know you went off on tangent there for a while. With regard to objectivity, it is simply related to the fact that I'm not saying categorically that he did it. I'm saying there seems to be a cohort who are looking for reasons why he is innocent and then proclaiming that people are doing the same thing when anything suggests his guilt. Check the thread for those posts you want to see.

Green Peter

Sure, he admitted to locals he did it a number of times, I'd take that quicker than no blood on the briars in an exposed out door location at a time when forensics were not advanced as they are now. It's amazing how selective some of the keyboard detectives can be.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747555#Comment_121747555

No tangent. I can see immediately that you have been utterly unable to support your previous claim. Therefore it can safely dismissed as without foundation.

Check the thread yourself. It is your claim and you cant stand over it.

FrankN1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747580#Comment_121747580

The claim with 100s of posts? Have a read. I'll save everyone reading the endless back and forth. You can have the last word which I'm sure you'll have, I won't be replying to you.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121746804#Comment_121746804

That reads like the child in Longford was not the secret. Did the Gardaí know about her earlier life in England that Bailey said he had "uncovered"?

Page 18 GSOC report;

4.1.3.19 During this meeting, Marie Farrell alleged that Ian Bailey told her that he knew about her old address in London, as he was an investigative journalist and that he also knew the reason why she and her family left London. Marie Farrell told the GSOC designated officers that she had been involved in a fraudulent claim of income support and housing benefits amounting to a sum in the region of £27,000. She states that following a dispute over money with Chris Farrell’s sister and her husband, who had been working with Chris Farrell in a double glazing firm in London, Marie Farrell had been reported to the social welfare authorities by her sister-in-law concerning fraudulent claims she had made. She states that she was contacted by the social welfare authorities who told her to pay back the money. It was then that Marie Farrell and her husband left London and returned to Ireland.

4.1.3.20 Marie Farrell met the detective garda in Schull following the meeting in her shop with Ian Bailey. The tape recorder had not recorded details of the meeting. The detective garda took the cheque (believed to be to the value of £25) from Marie Farrell which Ian Bailey had wanted cashed.

4.1.3.21 Marie Farrell alleged that sometime in 1997, her husband Chris was due to appear in the Circuit Court in relation to his appeal against having no car insurance but, owing to the intervention of the detective garda, Chris Farrell did not have to attend the court. It is understood that gardaí offered no evidence at the detective garda’s request. Marie Farrell believes her husband did not receive any penalty or sanction in relation to the matter.

4.1.3.22 In the autumn of 1997, Marie Farrell alleged that the detective garda assisted her in getting a new council house in order to get a serviced site to build on in Schull. It was reported by her that a (now-deceased) politician was a friend of the detective garda and that two meetings were arranged by the detective garda with this politician. During one of these meetings (in the Munster Arms in Bandon), the politician allegedly told Chris and Marie Farrell that they would get one of the new houses in Schull as he was owed a favour from somebody in the Housing Department in the County Hall in Cork. A few months after the meetings, Marie Farrell states that they got a new house.5

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747590#Comment_121747590

It is your claim, in the previous post you suggested I go back and reread the thread - to disprove your claim. When you now admit you have no intention of doing so yourself. So it was an entirely bad faith position from the outset.

If you cant be bothered to support it then you cant expect anyone to give it any credibility. Claim dismissed as without foundation and without merit.

Padraig Mor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747557#Comment_121747557

He didn't "admit to it" in any meaningful sense. He was taking the piss and playing upon the absurdity of the situation. This is absolutely clear to anyone with a bit of cop on. I mean - "I killed her to further my career as a journalist" (or words to that effect) - does that REALLY sound like a genuine confession? Yet, that conversation, and a small number of similar conversations (is it even just one - the young lad?) are actually used by some people as 'evidence' of Bailey's guilt! Incredibly, this was used, among other similarly far fetched and trumped up 'evidence' to convict him of murder in France - insane!

FrankN1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747631#Comment_121747631

It's absolutely evidence. No sane person goes says this once nevermind twice. It's insane you disregard it as a joke when you have absolutely no evidence to support it.

Green Peter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747631#Comment_121747631

"A drunk man's words is a sane man's thoughts"

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747631#Comment_121747631

Yvonne Ungerer called it right, she said his confession to her was his idea of a joke.

"Washing blood off my clothes" on Kealfada bridge at 3am.

Padraig Mor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747638#Comment_121747638

Evidence to support it? It's absolutely self evidently obvious that it's black humour! And totally in keeping with Bailey and his inability to keep his gob shut. I mean, if he had said something to the effect of "my life is destroyed since I killed that woman" to someone fair enough but claiming he did it to resurrect his career - really? It's equivalent to some eejit who says "Yeah, and I put a bomb in there" to the airport security guy when asked if he packed his bag himself - and gets himself the latex glove treatment for his troubles.

And as for saying it twice? There's definite disagreement between the reports of Bailey's conversation with that young lad - he said that he had said everything was gone to **** "since they started saying I went up there and bashed her head in with a rock" - yet the claim is that he admitted to killing her - IIRC it was actually your man's mother who did all the running with the story.

Was there even any other 'admissions'? (Maybe there was, I don't remember). But as for those two - easily dismissed.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747654#Comment_121747654

Was he drunk when he said that to Helen Calanan?

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121746997#Comment_121746997

The so called “briars” scratches on Bailey - that to me means DNA and Fingerprints would be found somewhere. They weren’t.

If the drawings are accurate of his hands at the time they certainly do look like briars scratches - you can get fairly prickly Christmas trees. It depends what species you go with - but it’s hard enough to imagine a Christmas tree would give those type of scratches .

The turkey gave him a nic so it was t the turkey claws - he definitely blamed it on the cutting of the top of a tree.

You’d imagine he would have worn gloves especially if he started to get scratched cutting the tree. If you’re cutting the top off a tree, you’re probably rubbing your hand and arm a lot as you’re sawing against the under and upper branches so will certainly get marks and scratches - question is, who the hell would do that bare armed in winter?

FrankN1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747695#Comment_121747695

Obvious it's black humour... Ok well it's lucky the other suspects said a similar thing...oh wait, they didn't.

OnTheCorner

This thing about the car being allowed through to go to the dump doesn’t make sense to me. Let’s just assume that Alfie just couldn’t contain himself over this disagreement about the gate and murdered Sophie. He then has to go home and tell Shirley what happened and tells her that they have to get rid of some evidence. Solution? Shirley will head off first thing in the morning with the evidence in the boot of the car knowing that she will then have to pretend she found the body also knowing that she will have to raise the alarm bringing the guards out and knowing that almost certainly the guards are going to want to look in the car before they let her through. Come on lads it’s absolute nonsense. It’s not the gotcha moment some of you so desperately want it to be.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747755#Comment_121747755

Does Shirley have to know anything?

In the scenario where we imagine Alfie as the murderer:

Or maybe Alfie hasnt told Shirley anything and puts something in the rubbish. Where else is he going to put it? On Sophies land it will be found by Guards.

He chances the Guards wont stop a woman like Shirley going on her way to the dump.

If you view Alfies actions with the same level of suspicion as Baileys we can see suspicious conduct everywhere.

The other point is allowing the car to go on its way could have obliterated evidence not related back to Alfie at all.

CuriousCal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747605#Comment_121747605

Yes maybe you’re right, I took it as the child was a secret too

Then when I saw this post I thought it strange they would use something like this as leverage

from my knowledge I also haven’t seen anything else only her initial statement saying it that proves it to be true that there even was a child

as corrupt as some of the guards were it’s a strange thing to use against someone

OnTheCorner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747770#Comment_121747770

So now Shirley doesn’t know Alfie murdered her! How long did that go on for? Does she still not know!? He would have known it was an enormous risk to take. It didn’t happen.

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121747445#Comment_121747445

"suppose Bailey arrived at 2am in the morning? He would not have made it there earlier according to every fact we know."

You, like a few others posting on this thread read other posters opinions and mistakingly assume they are "facts".

It's a common theme running through this thread, the latest one is there was no DNA on the briars which were cut down and sent to the UK for forensic testing.

Other "facts" imagined by posters here were that the block was removed from the pump house by the killer, the completely independent house over 250 yards away from Jules' house was an "annex", Alfie's wife was left drive to the dump without the contents of her car being checked, Sophies husband never came to Ireland after the murder.

It's interesting to see how easily some people can be convinced that surmisations are facts.