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

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913423#Comment_120913423

The DPP might be wrong but it is proof your earlier claims of flimsy excuses are without merit or foundation. The DPP accepted Baileys version of events. They could be wrong but it is proof positive you 'flimsy' take is wrong in fact.

Noted you ran away from the point put to you about the catch 22 of Bailey being injured at the scene with an utterly disingenuous answer trying to pretend it is meaningless when the DPP drew attention to it. Proof positive it had a meaning. You are undermining your own argument with such tactics.

The only way you can think someone turning up afterwards points to someones guilt is if you have prejudged their guilt.

How many innocent people turn up to scenes just to look? Should we lock them all up? Why not?

So what are the percentages of someone being at a scene being the actual murderer?

You dont even know do you?

Your claims have no credibility.

Your posts are just exercises in confirmation bias.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913477#Comment_120913477

The DPP might be wrong about believing the flimsy excuses. You've already admitted they're not infallible.

Turning up at the scene possibly earlier than he should have known, acting suspiciously, added to the long list of other suspicious activity that you want to ignore is why he's the main suspect. I'm not sure how many times you want me to repeat that for you.

We've still got the extreme violence committed by Bailey a short time before the murder, we've got his premonition of something bad happening in the area, we've got the changing stories and unknown whereabouts on the night, we've got the injuries, we've got the motive which came from Bailey himself, we've got the suspicious fire, the list goes on. What are your excuses for Bailey on all of those for you to state he's not a suspect in the murder?

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913437#Comment_120913437

Was Bailey the only person in the locality that week that lit a fire or needed to dispose of rubbish or clothing? - no he wasn't

Was Bailey the only man in West cork who had a history of domestic violence - no he wasn't

Was Bailey the only person who couldn't fully account for all their movements or whereabouts that night - he's definitely not the only one

Is there any evidence that Bailey was at the murder scene that night - no there is no evidence at all

Did Bailey have a strong motive - no he didn't - in fact others had much stronger motive to want Sophie dead

What he said in passing to people has to be disregarded. Saying odd and inappropriate things is part of his personality.

There really is not a jot of evidence to convict him on. Surely you can see that - a conviction has to be based on evidence.

He is a horrible individual but I don't think he's a murderer.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913524#Comment_120913524

Who else went missing on the night, changed their story about the night, had a history of violence, had injuries, had dark premonitions, burnt clothes, shoes and a mattress, stated the motive for the murder and stated they murdered her?

We don't know if he did it or not but we do know why he's the number 1 suspect!

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913522#Comment_120913522

You are just repeating the same confirmation bias. That you cant even respond to simple questions about innocent people at a murder scene shows this.

If a DPP has looked at the same evidence and accepted it - your 'flimsy' take on it in comparison is meangingless and contradicted by the actions of the legit authority who assesses these things. Again you have no answer to this.

He had a premonition? Youve never had a premonition of a bad thing on a dark night? Does that make you guilty of something? You wanna talk flimsy - there it is.

If it is all so flimsy why didnt the DPP press charges?

Again you have no answer.

Is he a 'suspect' now?

I dont know.

He was suspected of the murder. AGS tried to dig up whatever they could about. Engaged in dubious practice and malpractice. And all they could find was flimsy, dubious and circumstantial if not actually fabricated.

That to me suggests he is not the culprit and suspicion should be cast elsewhere.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913547#Comment_120913547

Ok has anyone confirmed movements for that night for Marie Farrell or her invisible boyfriend - nope

If Bailey's movements are dodgy for that night than noone can confirm Jules movements for that night either.

French man living locally has no alibi because he lived alone.

That's just a few of the people living locally.

As regards rubbish disposal we know next door neighbour Shirley was in a mighty rush to get rid of her rubbish at the dump. Not even the shock of discovering a dead body could stop her from getting to that dump that day!

Alfie also had an injury.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913559#Comment_120913559

I have answered all your questions and as you said, the DPP aren't infallible so they could have been wrong. A premonition alone or one lie or just a changing story or just an injury or saying he did it etc wouldn't mean much on there own but put them all together, you get your number 1 suspect.

Now let's see if you can answer a question posed to you:

We've still got the extreme violence committed by Bailey a short time before the murder, we've got his premonition of something bad happening in the area, we've got the changing stories and unknown whereabouts on the night, we've got the injuries, we've got the motive which came from Bailey himself, we've got the suspicious fire, the list goes on. What are your excuses for Bailey on all of those for you to state he's not a suspect in the murder?

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913590#Comment_120913590

So no one else has the long list of suspicions that Bailey has. You've confirmed why he is the number 1 suspect.

tinytobe

The problem is that there is no evidence, and even what some would call cirumstatial isn't even that. Fact is we all know nothing. We all have our theories some favour more this than the other, rank them in some form of likelyhood, but nobody can prove anything

Scratches on ones head or hands doen't prove murder, even less so, that the prime suspect's DNA simply isn't at the murder scene. He couldn't have gotten the scracthes then and there, if his DNA isn't on the victim's body or the brambles and briars. Where ever Bailey gotten the scratches, he certainly didn't get them at Sophie's house or in the driveway to Sophie's. Thus if it's only down to scratches, it'll even rule him out.

The murder weapon being a cavity block or a stone could have been touched previously by anybody who was coming and going, visiting Alfie, Shirley, Sophie or even the Richardsons.

Burning things behind one's house also doesn't prove murder but is probably the closest to being circumstancial, as it would imply "getting rid of things, evidence, etc..."

Hiking at night and visiting Kealfadda Bridge is also not evidence.

Loitering in a dark coat in an alleyway or watching Sophie enter and leave a shop is also no evidence for murder.

Buying an expensive French bottle of wine, and placing it somewhere in the vicinity of Sophie's house will also not prove murder.

Driving a Ford Fiesta with unknown license plates and speeding around curves also doesn't prove murder, but quite possibly an issue with Irish road traffic laws.

Being Mexican or French and driving a Ford and that one being registered to a woman in Cork doesn't prove murder, even if it was car theft.

A verbal argument, even an ongoing leal argument ( if there were one ) regarding a land ownership dispute also doesn't prove murder.

Even previous records of domestic violence towards your partner doesn't prove murder of Sophie.

Since Sophie wasn't sexually assaulted, even rape or any sexual motive can't be confirmed.

As there is no forensic evidence to link anybody to the crime, we can only discuss possible motives. The problem I have with Bailey is there is simply is no strong motive I could see, - maybe a rage of violence, maybe sexual and for both he would have to hike for one hour one way, but for Bailey it's most likely not financial or drug related.

The only thing we can prove with certainty is the corruption and collusion and coercion the local Gards did, - and it's all on the Bandon Garda station tapes. That is all confirmed.

And the only other thing we have are possible motives for the murder and various characters leaving Ireland after the murder happened, and comitting suicide later on for whatever reason.

In summary, we all have no answers at all on the possible suspects and motives, but we do have a lot of answers regarding the mishandling of the case by the Garda.

Ms Robini

Agree. The scratches and wounds he exhibited after the murder are suspicious. The burning of boots/mattress/clothes is suspicious and the timing of that fire. The changing of the alibi. The multiple accounts from different people which indicate Bailey knew Sophie and his denial that he knew her. The multiple confessions, particularly the confession to Richie and Rosie Shelley. Sightings of Bailey on Main St in Schull on the Saturday before Sophie was murdered at the time Sophie was seen in Marie Farrell’s shop and in Spar. His odd speech to Florence Newman on camera at the Christmas swim about placing his faith in God and about talking to his solicitor. The striking similarity between the injuries inflicted on Sophie and the injuries Ian Bailey inflicted to Jules Thomas about the face, mouth and head in the months before Sophie’s murder. These are some examples of the reasons to suspect Ian Bailey. There are other reasons. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the renewed investigation and the evidence gathered to support a prosecution.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913522#Comment_120913522

"Turning up at the scene possibly earlier than he should have known" 

Bailey was actually late to the party, because he's a lazy, hungover, layabout. He was persona no grata and out of the loop locally. Other neighbours were at the scene, albeit accidentally, 2 hours after the body was discovered, about the same time it was known in certain circles in Cork city. It was another two and a half hours before Bailey, who lived a couple of miles away, turned up, unless you want to believe Nick Foster's rubbish.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913627#Comment_120913627

Where is your answer to the question about innocent people being at the crime scene?

Nowhere.

So your claims about your own posts on the thread dont stand up to basic scrutiny.

As to your questions - asked and answered. Not merely by me on this thread but by the DPP.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913669#Comment_120913669

I agree, it's not just one little thing. It's a whole host of things. We might never find out the truth because of a botched investigation but there is a clear leading suspect. No one can deny that. There's no one close to the long list against Bailey.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913709#Comment_120913709

So you can't even attempt to create excuses for Bailey on the history of violence, changing of stories, saying he did it and so on. That's your choice, you don't have to but it's that long list that shows why he has been rightfully identified as a person of interest.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913669#Comment_120913669

Yes, Bailey changed his story for that particular night, once he was not leaving the house, then he went to the studio to write. You seem to forget, Bailey was the first to volunteer DNA. But his DNA was never found at the crime scene.

Also similarities between injuries, or meeting someobody in a shop and in a Spar doesn't mean evidence of murder. Suppose Bailey followed Sophie the whole day it doesn't prove murder.

Same goes for possibly meeting Sophie in person before the murder? Meeting her at a poetry gathering on some island, or on the ferry, even calling or trying to call her office in Paris doesn't prove murder.

Suppose Bailey called Sophie's office in Paris, suppose they could track and trace the number and connection without a doubt, still this doesn't prove murder.

Suppose the Garda find a man who was in the car with Sophie and Sophie had driven him somewhere, suppose he was French, suppose it was the man the Gards spoke to in Paris, still this doesn't prove murder.

In the end, they must convince the judge and jury beyond reasonable doubt that Bailey is the killer, and that only means linking Bailey to the scene of the crime and the murder weapon and possibly also present a credible motive. One is always innocent until proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt.

To date there is nothing like this.

Or even worse that trial in France. How come the French believe that nonsense? Sophie's father probably pretends to believe it, to calm down his wife, and Sophie's son believes it, because it calms his nerves as he lost his mother so early in his life, and feels justice was served. However in the end, at the French side, they all live in a dreamland.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913732#Comment_120913732

Hold on a second. You falsely claimed to have answered questions about innocent people at the crime scene when you did no such thing. Any claim you make about the case or contents of this thread are therefore dubious.

If you have been reading this thread you know there is a copy of what is taken to be the DPP report in the public domain. The specifics of each point you have mentioned have been done to death multiple times.

The general point to each so called point of evidence is that it is circumstantial. None of it is is positive proof. It is either debateable in fact or relevance.

And one of the reasons there is so much circumstantial evidence is AGS tunnel vision and confirmation bias towards Bailey.

As noted above you are utterly unable to explain why the case has been looked at multiple times by the DPP and found wanting if any of this evidence is sufficient for a prosecution.

This is not a convincing argument.

Now of course you are free to dispute with the DPP assessment of the evidence but their assessment carries far more weight than any of us here. And when you go so far as to label the evidence they accepted as flimsy it just demonstrates the lack of weight and standing to such language.

This is reinforced by the demonstrably false claims you have made about posts on this thread which further discredit your position.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913803#Comment_120913803

The problem I see with Musicrules and similar users, is if they insist on the ever repeating "Bailey did it" is that with this opinion they are only supporting and approving of all the botched up investigations, the corruptions and collusions the Gards did. And this is really a bit disturbing. Suppose it was Musicrules or any of us whom the Gards were after in their tunnel vision?

In my personal opinion, yes it is possible that Bailey did it. He had no real alibi but so had a couple of others. I still don't see his motivation, but he certainly had the time to do it, leaving his house after Jules went to bed hiking over to Sophie's and back. I am not even certain if Sophie would have opened him the door at say 2 or 3 am at night, maybe more likely at 6 or 7 am in the morning?

But so it is possible that anybody else was the killer, the hired hitman by her husband, Bolger, Alfie, Wollney, Pecout, a Guard and Fiesta driver from Bantry, a Mexican driving a Fiesta, an unknown Frenchman in Sophie's rental car?

In a cold case review I would also be careful if I was going over findings from back then. In light of the Bandon Garda station tapes, I would doubt the credibility of the Gards back then. I hope that at least that has changed today.

Sadly the only hard evidence we have is against the Gards, not against any suspect.

I often think that Tomi Ungerer might have known something, some hint, something Sophie had mentioned in a conversation. After all they were friends and Sophie seemed to have met Tomi regularly. Also the caretaker of the house may have known something, some information leading into the right direction, as she would have been another person Sophie would have confided in.

chicorytip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913477#Comment_120913477

It's not that the DPP accepted Bailey's version of events. What it found was that there was insufficient evidence against him to warrant a prosecution.

Wompa1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912860#Comment_120912860

That wouldn't be all that surprising. Narcissistic murderer wants to hold onto the murder weapon but when pressure starts to mount he finds a way to get rid of it that would be impossible to tie back to him.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913803#Comment_120913803

Again you refuse to tackle the reasons why Bailey is the number 1 suspect. They won't just go away. His extremely violent attacks on Jules, his lies, changing of his story, his injuries, the motive that came from his mouth, his admittance to committing the murder to a number of different people and the list goes. These are the reasons why he is rightfully the leading suspect. It's not some conspiracy, these are all factual events. And the fact that you can't dispute any of it means that you know he's rightfully under suspicion too.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120914204#Comment_120914204

There is no doubt that it was a botched investigation but that could be the reason how Bailey has got away with it.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120914219#Comment_120914219

Thats not what is taken to be the dpp report says eg it uses phrases like consistent with baileys version talking about specific points such as scratches.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120914519#Comment_120914519

Asked and answered below re suspect status. You didnt engage with it first time round either no surprise.

I did tackle points you raised - such as him being at the scene. You couldnt reply to simple questions about other innocent people. Safe to assume any other points would be dodged by you in same fashion in a disingenuous manner.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913559/#Comment_120913559

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120914519#Comment_120914519

What you don't seem to get is that none of what you mentioned is evidence he committed the murder. Honestly your coming across as someone who is lacking common sense.

Have you studied all the detail of this case - it really does look like you just watched the netflix documentary which is a very bad source of information - it completely missed very important details.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120914547#Comment_120914547

Like I said, if you want to ignore the reasons why he's the main suspect then that's fair enough and it's up to you but the list is long. If it was just one or two things then it could be explained away. But it's not and no one else comes close to that level of suspicion. Hence why he's top of the list of potential perpetrators.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120914566#Comment_120914566

Where did I say it was evidence he committed the murder? We're never going to get that for anyone unless someone confesses. I'm saying that the long list of lies, violence, confessions etc means that he's rightfully under huge suspicion.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913437#Comment_120913437

...and despite the complete lack of evidence against Bailey, you choose not to consider other events such as the essential trip to the dump on the morning of the discovery made by those that found Sophie's remains?

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120914582#Comment_120914582

Where have you discussed other suspects? You have only focused on Bailey therefore you are convinced he done it - thats how your posts read as

Alfie had strong motive, opportunity, an injury, involved in drug dealing activities, both him and his partner behaved abnormally upon discovering the body, drove over the murder scene etc. For me he is a far bigger suspect than Bailey but Im intelligent enough to know that there is no evidence whatsoever of Alfies involvement. And please dont come back and say that Alfie was incapable - he was man in this 60's. If you look at the french documentary he was not a frail ill man at all - of course he was capable of murder. Alfie is only one example of other suspects that have a list of odd suspicious goings on that far outweigh Baileys weak list but it seems you want to ignore them

The gardai only wanted to pin this on Bailey and didnt investigate other suspects thouragh at all.

As regards Baileys 'confessions'

• The young lad he confessed to in the car wouldnt go to France to his trial - Why? - because he knew this confession was Baileys humour rather than an actual confession
• The Shelleys - after Baileys confession to them they went home and went out drinking with him AGAIN the next day. They didnt go to the gardai about it until much later - very odd behaviour dont you think
• Bill Fuller confession - I do think Bailey said this to Fuller but it was him telling what the gardai are trying to pin on him rather than a confession. Bill fell out with his friend Bailey and then told this to the gardai. Bill Fuller is by no means a reliable witness.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120914667#Comment_120914667

Again, where is the evidence against anyone? There's a reason this case remains unsolved. Are you another one who wants to brush over the long list of suspicions against Bailey?

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120914582#Comment_120914582

Where was the Garda assessment of violent men in the area done or why are you just looking at Bailey's violent history? Was there a similar assessment of violent women?

Did anyone else lie about their actions on the night of the murder?

Like the Gardai, you have found a perpetrator and now moulding the "evidence" to the crime.