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

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122167436#Comment_122167436

Exactly but also regarding the scratches:

Since his DNA wasn't at the scene of the crime, or anywhere around the house to be found, so he couldn't have gotten the scratches there and then.

He doesn't even owe anybody an answer about the scratches, no stories about cutting trees, or killing a turkey.

Seth Brundle

If the scratches were deemed that relevant, AGS would have taken a photo of them rather than get someone to try draw them on paper!

robbiezero

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122167328#Comment_122167328

The whole story changing thing always sounded to me like the incoherent remembrances of a heavy drinker which I believe he was.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122167763#Comment_122167763

That's probably a very good explanation, with a strong likelihood of truth. It's also possible that drinking makes writers creative. 😁

But after all, I also have to say that there not more evidence of Bailey being the killer than any of the possible suspects and theories. As a matter of fact there is absolutely no evidence neither for nor against anybody in this case.

All the subjects discussed are nice stories, but they will never ever lead to a conviction, not in the Irish courts at least.

A man with a dark coat, unshaven, loitering in a back street, apparently observing Sophy entering a shop, somebody with an expensive bottle of French wine which can't be bought in Ireland, a speeding car in the early morning, a man or any other figure resembling a man wandering at 2 or 3 am in the morning near Kaelfadda bridge, a married woman out with a man who isn't her husband is all neither suspicious nor does it lead to a conviction for murder. This could all happen in any given village, city or town, at any given day or night.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122167763#Comment_122167763

I agree - Both Jules and Bailey were drinking that night which could leave their memory hazy and unreliable. I know also that if you asked me to account for my all movements on a random night 3 weeks ago I could get it wrong and confuse the nights or not remember every detail. I think most people would be the same.

Drinking of course could also mean he did it and had no memory of the murder. Him leaving no trace whatsover at the scene wouldnt support this idea though.

drury..

Ah here he did it and forgot?

This was the night of miss du planters murder the alibi was for

He was at the scene the next day, he knew well where he was the night before , drink or no drink

Total conspiracy nonsense suggesting he forgot where he was or forgot he killed her

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122167763#Comment_122167763

Or maybe he didn't attach much importance to the question at the time. If he had anything to hide he would have had all his ducks in a row, including what Jules might or might not know about his actions that night. He was not stupid.

Don't forget to remember also the other lapses of memory in the case, or witnesses not attaching much importance to events until "prompted".

Leo Bolger forgetting for 8 years that he saw Alfie introduce Bailey to Sophie.

Alfie only 80-90% sure he may have introduced them, couldn't remember.

Marie Farrell remembering Sophie in her shop on Saturday buying a sweater for 39 euro and then remembering that she forgot it didn't fit her and didn't buy it at all. The rest of Farrell's crap is best forgotten.

Sullivan the publican remembered speaking to Sophie about her plans for Christmas on Saturday, except it was actually on Sunday, when she was in Crookhaven.

Then there's Carmier, Bill Fuller, Cassidy the reporter, Florence Newman, Malachi Reid etc.etc.

And of course our very own finest, the Gardaí forgot what they did with Bailey's coat and other evidence and statements and none of them remembering what was in the pages cut from the Jobs book. The Garda that saw the scratches on Bailey's hands forgot about them until later and had to draw them from memory.

I've done this from memory, so may be some inaccurancies.

FishOnABike

@chooseusername I think you might be on to something there. If they all lied in one way or another they all must have been involved in some wickerman style conspiracy.

Or like the story of Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody.

There was an job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.

Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.

Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody’s job.

Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn’t do it.

It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.

/sarcasm

If you try to follow the evidence there doesn't appear to be sufficient evidence there to lead anywhere or even a starting direction.

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122168126#Comment_122168126

I know also that if you asked me to account for my all movements on a random night 3 weeks ago I could get it wrong and confuse the nights or not remember every detail.

But it wasn't three weeks ago.

It was a few days ago.

There was a questionnaire that people filled out a few days after the murder.

On this Bailey said he went to bed

But six weeks later he is admitting getting up to write the article.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122168714#Comment_122168714

Maybe he doesn't really recall what he did that night, due to drink taken, he assumed he was in bed.

Six weeks later the Guards engaged in their malpractice with Marie Farrell, and used what in all likelihood seems a lying witness.

Faced with a fit up job, Bailey came up with something else innocent he could plausibly have done.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122168714#Comment_122168714

What percentage of questionnaire respondents omitted facts or any other details that they thought might inadvertently implicate them?

drury..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122169152#Comment_122169152

More conspiracy nonsense

Are any of the anti bailey posters thinking anything through

Innocent people lie so as not to implicate themselves in a murder enquiry ?

The act of lying is more likely to implicate them as posters are claiming happened here with bailey

drury..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122168714#Comment_122168714

Wasn't both their stories changed

She changed her story said he left the bed and then he changed his , said he went to the study

That's my general recollection

So that would make 2 persons not recollecting the events of that nite?

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122169475#Comment_122169475

"Anything you say can and will be used against you", so why would you give up any information that doesn't help you, especially if you are the prime suspect. Any decent lawyer worth their salt they will say don't give up any information. This is very common for both innocent and guilty people.

Fact is we don't actually know anything about what Bailey did that night, same as any other suspect in the case, everyone's alibi is tenuous and would probably be suspect after interrogation almost every suspect's alibi in the case was home in bed asleep (i.e. no alibi)

Some suspects were willing to say they were driving around in the vicinity of the crime with an unknown male. Do you not think that they are more suspicious according to your standard?

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122169475#Comment_122169475

Innocent people lie to avoid disclosing other things which they might prefer went undisclosed, e.g. infidelity, other illegal or dubious activity, or even just omit details which they forgot at the time or didn't think were relevant.

Memory is more like a jigsaw puzzle than a photograph and is more a reconstruction, open to inaccuracy, suggestion or supposition the more distant the memory. Even recent memory of something varies between people.

drury..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122169601#Comment_122169601

That wasn't the point I replied to

Sethbrundle was asking what percentage lie so as not to implicate themselves in the murder

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122168714#Comment_122168714

This would be extremely relevant if there was some evidence of Bailey at the scene.

He does not have an alibi, which by itself is meaningless given no one else has much of an alibi.

He did change his story, which I would say is meaningful but again not that strong as he is not the only one to do so, and was in fact the only person interviewed extensively, and he was a drunken fool.

What I can't understand though is, if you and others like @drury..believe Bailey did it, why aren't you consistently requesting further investigation of the DNA evidence. There is still a strong possibility that that evidence could be found as technology advances, it's very unlikely nothing was left within the evidence. In addition, why aren't you complaining about the missing evidence book pages etc., or further interviewing of the original police investigators to lock down a time of death for example, or the content of those pages (which would be in their memories), or to understand whether a car was used etc. If you truly believe Bailey did it, then all of these steps would help build the case against him.

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122169716#Comment_122169716

What I can't understand though is, if you and others like @drury..believe Bailey did it, why aren't you consistently requesting further investigation of the DNA evidence

I don't know if Bailey did it or not.

But I believe that because of all the circumstantial evidence that is against him that him being the main suspect is not a surprise.

I find it odd that others claim that other people make better prime suspects than him.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122170002#Comment_122170002

Bailey is main suspect because the Gardai made him suspect no 1, not because there was evidence. This was based on Bailey being in their face at the scene, him having no concrete alibi, a witness placing him at Kilfeada Bridge ( which turned out to be false) and scratches . He had no known reason to kill Sophie where as others did, thats why they also are or should have been treated as suspects. I cant understand why you cant understand this. If the other suspects were investigated properly there would be circumstantial evidence against them aswell.

drury..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122170203#Comment_122170203

What's the basis for your last paragraph

How can you know this

Seems to be another made up fact that's common around here with the anti bailey group

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122170203#Comment_122170203

This a perfect example of where a shortage of facts leads people the likes of yourself to think that there is something undiscovered out there.

The lack of information about others lead the likes of yourself to assume they weren't investigated properly.

You say "if the other suspects were investigated properly" but what do you mean?

The reason we hear nothing about other suspects is probably because the they were investigated properly and there were no leads there.

People like yourself want to shoehorn others into the narrative even though there is less reason to look into them than Bailey.

Who are you these other people who had a reason to kill Sophie?

The guy who killed the girl running along the canal last year "didn't want her killed" either but he still killed her.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122170275#Comment_122170275

As has been pointed out to your numerous times on the thread, if the investigation was done properly and above board into Bailey and other suspects - why was the log of how Bailey came to be identified as a suspect destroyed?

Why did the Guards engage in malpractice and unsafe conduct towards Bailey, if all was above board?

The Guards are on tape admitting their evidence on Bailey was flimsy. Very easy to put together such flimsy circumstantial evidence when you engage in such tunnel vision and unsafe conduct. Therefore it is entirely reasonable to state that the evidence on Bailey is flimsy and that such levels of flimsy evidence can be produced on many innocent people. It is simply a factor of the tunnel vision of the investigation.

There isn't a single piece of direct evidence implicating Bailey in the crime.

And also, Bailey had no reason to kill Sophie.

drury..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122170275#Comment_122170275

Wasting your time, you're arguing against made up facts

"Others had reason to kill Sophie"

Who are these other people who had reason to kill Sophie

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122170247#Comment_122170247

Well if we take Alfie for example -

• Bailey had scratches on his hand - Alfie had a recent hand injury
• Bailey was reportedly sighted near the scene ( later witness said this was false) - we know Alfie was definitely near the scene of the murder at the time
• Bailey had no motive - Alfie had disputes with Sophie over gates etc. He also had his drug growing operation - Sophie could have turned up at the wrong time of year and was an annoyance to this enterprise.He is reported to have said that Sophie was a nuicance
• Baileys dodgy alibi - Alfie has Shirley as an alibi but given Shirley slept soundly and didnt hear any activity in the vicinity Im not sure how reliable she is.

This is just an example but when you look at it Alfie should be higher up the suspect list than Bailey.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122170275#Comment_122170275

It is disingenuous on the one hand dismiss one persons assessment of saying that others "were not investigated properly", and then on the other hand say others "probably were investigated properly". It is circular reasoning, your own assumption, not based on any evidence of fact. There is the same merit to either argument, so both points are equally valid.

You then go on to say, don't look into other candidates because there is less reason than Bailey. This again is your opinion only, not fact.

Now you may "believe" that Bailey is the highest likelihood suspect, that is your belief, but just because you believe it, doesn't give it any higher merit than @Deeec's opinion.

saabsaab

Amazing to think that in a high profile murder pages from the jobs book were removed. Who and why?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30859712.html

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122170358#Comment_122170358

Alfie had a recent hand injury

But it wasn't a recent hand injury.

It was a very old hand injury and that was established very early in the investigation.

But this is just an example of what I am saying, people like this poster shoehorning stuff into the narrative.

Stuff that is not factual.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122171186#Comment_122171186

Yep apparently it was an old injury - It was a fresh wound on an old injury though so may be plausible, or may be lies. We have no idea if the gardai sought further verification or just took his word. Baileys explanation of his scratches is also plausible - there was a witness to him cutting the tree and he did kill Turkeys. Therefore what you are saying is that Alfies explanation of his injury is credible and Baileys explanation of his injury is not. Both explanations are 'factual' as you put it IMO. The fact of the matter is they both apparently had injuries to their hands directly after the murder.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122171186#Comment_122171186

Thats not an established fact.

You have literally just done what you vented about so you can apply what you said about this mysterious third person 'this poster' to yourself.

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122171246#Comment_122171246

Therefore what you are saying is that Alfies explanation of his injury is credible and Baileys explanation of his injury is not

I never mentioned Bailey's scratches.