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

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477744#Comment_120477744

You're using a decision that backs up your already formed opinion and calling that superior to the decision that goes against your already formed opinion. That's about as biased as it gets.

BattleCorp

The French trial

Undeterred by their failure to secure Bailey’s surrender, the French authorities proceeded to put him on trial (in his absence) in France for the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier in Ireland. As is normal in French criminal procedure, the trial was conducted largely on the basis of the police file. Unlike the situation in Ireland, a French police file is compiled under the supervision of an independent prosecutor and investigating judge. In effect, the credibility and reliability of the police evidence is tested at the investigation and pre-trial phases, so that there is less need for the application of more stringent evidential rules and due process checks at the final trial phase. The latter can proceed mostly on the basis of statement evidence from the police file.

In Ireland, of course, the balance is the other way around. At the investigation stage, the police are left with unsupervised freedom to get on with the task of gathering evidence. Ultimately, the trial, rather than the investigation or pre-trial phase, is the centrepiece of the criminal process where the case against the accused will be tested in full. Critically, it is at the trial phase that police evidence is scrutinised closely through the examination and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses in person. The trial is also conducted in accordance with evidential and procedural rules designed to protect the accused against prejudice that may otherwise flow from having allowed the police excessive unsupervised freedom in building a case against a suspect.

These systemic differences have little significance for the relative integrity or fairness of criminal process in Ireland or France respectively. Each is designed to function as an organic whole with its own internal checks and balances. It is a very different matter, however, when the Irish police investigation stage (and its results) is lifted from the Irish process and inserted into the French process at the post investigation stage. That is what happened in the Bailey case.

The Garda file, which was compiled in the loosely regulated and unsupervised Irish police investigation stage, was treated by the French court as the equivalent of a French police file which would have been compiled under the scrutiny and supervision of an independent prosecutor and investigating judge. The statement evidence compiled by the Garda against Bailey was accepted at face value by the French court, even though it was not sufficiently reliable or credible to put him on trial within the norms of the Irish criminal process where it was compiled and for which it was intended. In effect, the Irish police investigation stage was combined with the French trial stage to produce a monstrous hybrid in which guilt was determined by the unadulterated results of an unsupervised, unregulated and flawed police investigation.

Looking at the above explanation, it shows why the French system accepted the evidence given to them by the Gardai at face value without scrutiny. They skipped the scrutiny stage.

https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/criminaljusticenotes/2020/11/02/the-ian-bailey-eaw-litigation/#:~:text=The%20first%20French%20EAW&text=Seemingly%20taking%20the%20controversial%20contents,surrender%20to%20France%20in%202010.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477752#Comment_120477752

It's a very plausible motive, in fact, the most plausible. It's possible that the DPP were wrong. Or are they infallible? The Gardaí incompetence may have saved Bailey rather than costing him. There has been no physical evidence found against anyone but someone is guilty so again, the lack of physical evidence is more a result of Garda incompetence than exonerating anyone, including Bailey.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477793#Comment_120477793

But as we're not in a court of law, we can judge Bailey's own statement and see the motive explained fully. This is not pure speculation, it came from the number 1 suspect's mouth.

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477598#Comment_120477598

It is, very odd especially on a crisp night with a light breeze. There was a report of someone hearing a fox cry that night.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477894#Comment_120477894

The DPP report is much more than a decision.

It is a forensic analasys of the evidence. By some the finest legal minds in the country, which leads, step by step to the conclusion.

Not that Bailey is innocent. But that there is no credible evidence against him.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477895#Comment_120477895

That article is based on the premise that the DPP were correct. We don't know if they were. Based on the evidence received, the French authorities found a different verdict than the Irish authorities. Of course, the evidence provided to both came from a flawed investigation. Even with that, there's enough on Bailey to leave him as a top suspect.

saabsaab

Maybe, just maybe, it is a case of the 'dog that didn't bark in the night' in other words there was no DNA or fingerprints evidence etc. because the killer was someone local that might be expected to be in the area?

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477937#Comment_120477937

We already know that. The bodged investigation ensured there was not enough evidence against anyone. I think the circumstantial evidence against Bailey was quite damning though. The DPP disagreed, the French authorities didn't.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120475969#Comment_120475969

Possible - well (almost) anything is possible. Plausible - hardly. Who is the 'you' he was referring to? That clearly does not make any sort of admission unless one is going through mental contortions to try fit something to a preconceived notion.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477908#Comment_120477908

This is nonsense.

In terms of plausibility, the involvement of an associate - husband, lover, neighbour in conflict etc is obviously more plausible.

The DPP report is logical, comprehensive and cohesive.

Nothing is infallible, and I am open to persuasion regarding Bailey's gulit. But nothing I have learned of this case has convinced me that he's guilty. In fact the more I study it, the more I think he's innocent.

And for the DPP to be wrong, they would have to be wrong on all 16 points analysed.

No, its possible, but stops short of plausibility.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477967#Comment_120477967

On the "you" question - Bailey was repeating - verbatim- the accusations spat at him by the Gardai during one of his interviews.

"You did this" " you saw that" etc etc.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477881#Comment_120477881

It's not the same scenario as the Aisling Murphy example. You know this. To pretend otherwise is nothing more than an attempt at a con job.

You don't know if it was his statement. It's what Bill Fuller said he said. Big distinction. We're zero objective evidence he stated it. Even if he stated it is does absolutely zero to make the scenario more plausible.

You continue to make statements without foundation. You have absolutely no expertise in crime or evidence (vis a vis other murders) to support the position that it is the most plausible theory. The inability to provide examples of it wrt other crimes shows it is an inherently unlikely scenario for murder which speaks to its implausibility.

It might be your opinion. But that's all it is. Stating it as fact just demonstrates how little understanding you have of what facts are.

Repeating the same line over and over does absolutely zero to advance evidence as to its plausibility.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477967#Comment_120477967

It's very plausible. Locals thought it was the most likely scenario as did AGS. He was speaking in the second person while talking to Bill Fuller.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477953#Comment_120477953

The DPP review outlines why the "evidence" against Bailey as presented by AGS is flimsy and of no legal use. It is easy to view whether or not the DPP were correct: they were! Had Bailey been put forward for trial on the basis of the "evidence", it would have been easy even for a poor quality defence team to poke holes through it.

This is purely because the garda investigation was flawed right from the outset and wasn't helped by the state's lack of investment wihthin the State Pathologist's office. The crime scene was not preserved adequately. The body was not preserved from the elements and vital evidence disappeared. A vital witnesses was allowed to bring items to the dump.

That the French legal system bypassed the scrutiny of the evidence just shows how important it is for such a stage. It also shows that the procedure to convict Bailey in France was flawed because it was based on a flawed process (whihc was based on flawed evidence). If a new investigation from scratch was held by the French - would they convict Bailey? It is very unlikely!

As for your coment that Bailey is the top suspect - given that there is absolutely nothing on Bailey just shows that you are expecting them to find evidence against him rather than them trying to find evidence against the culprit. You are pre-judgiung the outcome and looking for evidence to meet your perspective.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477953#Comment_120477953

The DPP were correct. If they brought charges against Bailey off the back of that file, it's a guaranteed acquital. Lionel Hutz defending would secure a not guilty verdict with that file.

The DPP inspect files with a view as to if the evidence credible, can we prove anything and can we secure a conviction. They took a look at it and basically said it's keystone cop BS and there's almost nothing to link Bailey to the crime.

As to whether Bailey is "top suspect", well we're in the world of yellow-pack journalism, bawdy podcasts, internet sleuths and curtain twitchers. Yes he's the "top suspect" in this conjecture flooded world, but that's because it was a circus from the beginning where the investigation zoned-in on one man, and one man only, and hasn't moved very far from that due to a shambolic investigating team completely lost at sea.

I'm not willing to condemn the man. He's a narcissistic boor, but I'll err on the side of caution that there's a distinct possibility his life has been destroyed by crap police work and a red top media that treated this like a bad episode of Murder She Wrote. He's fed into his downfall in the aftermath with his weirdo carry on, but that does not a murderer make.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477961#Comment_120477961

Equating the "French authorities" with the DPP is comparing apples with oranges.

It was the FRench cours which accepted the evidence as verified, which is normal under the French judicial system as , in France, the investigative proces incorporates verification steps at every stage before the presentation to the courts. This did not, obviously happen with the evidence in the Bailey case as the investigative process did not take place in France.

Furthermore, the case was uncontested and the outcome was a foregone conclusion.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477975#Comment_120477975

Alright, you've looked at the evidence and don't think he should be a suspect. Others have looked at it and think he very much is a suspect. The DPP didn't have to be wrong on everything. Some of the investigation was botched. The changing story, marks on his arms/face, his admissions, his history of violence, his knowledge of the area, his access to the area, the fire behind his house, turning up to the scene soon after the murder and so on leads me to believe he's the main suspect. You don't think that does. We agree to disagree.

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477838#Comment_120477838

Of course it means something. It means that the sexual motive theory is entirely speculative.

But everything on this thread is entirely speculative.

And it's just opinions on what people think happened.

I make no bones about what I think happened is just speculation and that my opinion that Bailey is the prime suspect is just that,van opinion.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120478010#Comment_120478010

Many "locals" do not think anything of the kind. Some do, some don't.

That is a lazy assertion.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477998#Comment_120477998

Where did you get that from? Bailey? He made the statement to Fuller soon after the murder. He wasn't even asked for questioning at that stage!

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120478031#Comment_120478031

Some of the things you mention there like "his knowledge of the area, his access to the area" could apply to thousands of people in the area and doesn't consist of evidence of any sort. Some of it is conjecture like his history of violence - shake a tree in Ireland and a person with histroy of violence will come down off of it. Some of it has been discredited and assigned as weak or irrelevant evidence by the DPP

I mean, people are free to continue with the "top suspect" stuff as long as they want to, but there's a reasonable and credible possibility the real perpetrator is out there laughing his or her head off at this and got off scot free while people lead themselves in a merry dance about the local English alcho.

It's worth thinking about and letting it seep into your thoughts rather than obsessing about a man who there's actually almost zero evidence against.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120478017#Comment_120478017

Great post Yurt.

I would add that, not only were the DPP dismissive of the "evidence" - they were scathingly so.

The case of Colin Stagg in Surry comes to mind.

He was a bit of an oddball. The police were convinced of his guilt. They convinced the media. The media convinced the public. All despite there being no real evidence against him. The police moved heaven and earth to try to frame him, even setting him up with a bogus "girlfriend"

Stagg became a pariah. He couldn't even walk the streets without being insulted and threatened.

Made his life a misery.

But he was totally innocent.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120478007#Comment_120478007

Why are you ignoring my question? Can you give an example of a murder like Aisling Murphy's?

Then you're back to your conspiracy theories, Bill Fuller was lying as was a long list of others who made statements against Bailey.

It's a very weak defence of Bailey when that's all you've got.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120478011#Comment_120478011

We all know the investigation was flawed. The circumstantial evidence leaves Bailey as the main suspect in my view. That you say there's nothing on him means that you're in the camp that believe people were lying in their statements except for Bailey and those associated with them. That's quite the leap.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120478017#Comment_120478017

He's the top suspect because of what I listed above:

The changing story, marks on his arms/face, his admissions, his history of violence, his knowledge of the area, his access to the area, the fire behind his house, turning up to the scene soon after the murder etc.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120478038#Comment_120478038

Yeah, some do, some don't. Helen, a woman close to Sophie thought that though.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120478070#Comment_120478070

The designation as "main suspect/top suspect/chief suspect/El Suspecto Grande" in this case has lost all meaning over the years. He's been left with that title by dint of the Gardai carry-on in the very first days of the investigation because they knew they had a sh*tstorm on their hands with an attractive high profile victim, the burning hot glare of Irish and French national media and not a clue how to resolve the crime.

At a certain stage people will have to ask themselves, with the reality of zero evidence against him, is it right for him to carry that label until he dies with the very open and credible possibility it wasn't him at all? Is that justice? And does it even bring any peace to du Plantier's family who are left with nothing but a botched investigation and just one name to pin their grief and loss on (however misguided)?

I'm going to say no.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120478055#Comment_120478055

Or maybe it's Bailey who's laughing his head off? Maybe you should ponder that?

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120478070#Comment_120478070

I've no idea what is in people's statements regarding Bailey. However, most of what has been released to the public has been circumstantial at best. Then you have the fact that AGS bribed or coerced a number of people to make false claims against Bailey.

So, we cannot trust any of the evidence against Bailey colleceted by AGS because we cannot state without doubt what is true and what is not.

personally I don't think he did it. However, that is irrelevant in my view that the investigation has been so flawed with incompetence that it needed to be completely restarted at some point - it may be too late to restart it now but I'd still have more faith in a restarted investigation based on very limited evidence rather than the clusterf**k we have been offered to date by AGS.