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

SharkMX

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121498362#Comment_121498362

What I would like to know is where was Mary Hearney on the night of the murder. She was into French wine and was known to get a bit emotional too.

irishspiderplant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121499697#Comment_121499697

If Sophie was friends with the Ungerers and knew where they lived, wouldn't it stand to reason that they also knew where she lived? (edit: I didn't realise that both Sophie and the Ungerers occupied the same headland, the Mizen Peninsula. Big but remote and sparsley populated. It seems really unlikely that the Ungerers didn't know which house was hers.)

"In court, in 2007, Ian "vehemently denied having told a West Cork friend, Yvonne Ungerer, that he had had a dark premonition as he drove home from Schull on the night of December 22. He denied having said to her: "These premonitions usually come true."" (Irish Independent Feb 16 2007)"

irishspiderplant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121500395#Comment_121500395

Can you provide any evidence that Bailey and Sophie knew each other?

There is none. The suggestion that they knew each other has never been verified in any way.

Here's a quote from a Reddit thread about the case:

"Cape Clear Storytelling FestivalThis is not new.Mark McCarthy said he saw Ian Bailey talking to a blonde woman on Cape Clear after he had seen the Crimeline reconstruction. However, he rowed back somewhat in a later statement saying"When I gave it I was confused about the woman in Cape Clear. I can’t say for sure it was her. I remember seeing the documentary on the news. There was an actor playing Sophie maybe I became confused by the two. What I mean to say is that I can’t say by one hundred percent that it was her"

Regarding the story of meeting on Cape Clear Ferry, this isn't new either. In a 2015 statement to French investigators, Yvonne Ungerer said she believed Ian told her he met Sophie on the ferry but wasn't sure because of the passage of time. She never mentioned anything about this before 2015.

I can confirm Sophie's movements were checked and extensive searches for photos were undertaken with no luck. Sophie was confirmed to be in Ireland at the time, the festival was Friday - Sunday 1-3 September. However her diary indicates she dropped Pierre-Louis back to the airport on Friday, visited Blarney on the Saturday and her own flight home was the Sunday. So on the face of she couldn't have gone. Going to Cape Clear is an whole-day affair. It is possible, maybe she rushed back from the airport and caught the 11am ferry, or maybe she didn't go to Blarney.Bailey was known to go to the festival, bang his bodhran, get drunk and generally court attention. If someone finds a photo of Sophie at the festival that would be spectacular but barring that I suspect this is another attempt to fit Bailey into the frame."

irishspiderplant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121504201#Comment_121504201

I haven't found any reference to Sophie and Tomi Ungerer planning on making an erotic film together. I mentioned they had been planning a project to do with bodily fluids but it turns out that this was a project that Sophie was planning to do herself (on semen, blood, breast milk etc.) I don't know whether this is the project she was planning with Tomi. However her husband Danile Toscan du Plantier said that the pair were planning some kind of project together.

Daniel's account of his last phone conversation with Sophie, hours before she was killed:

"The conversation lasted a few minutes and dealt with trivialities and on the visit she had made during the day to Mr and Mrs Ungerer, who live a few kilometres from her house.

She got to know Mr Ungerer last April and had been won over by his personality and his talents as a cartoonist. I think that he is the author of cartoons for children, but with a style more suited to adults.

According to what she told me, she had returned home about 9.30pm, I suppose the Ungerers had kept her for dinner. If not, she would have gone to a pub for a sandwich or would have had a piece of cheese and a glass of red wine.

Clearly, she was very happy with this visit and had been very ‘taken’ by Mr Ungerer, to such an extent that they formed a work project together."

Here's another inconsistency in the timeline. Yvonne said Sophie left the Ungerers' at close to 18:00, but official reports say she left at 16:00 and was having a cup of tea in O'Sullivan's Bar in Crookhaven at 16:00. Now Daniel is saying she left at 21:30. So what is the truth?

Ms Robini

But a quote from a Reddit thread is not persuasive - what matters is Mark McCarthy’s cooperation with the Garda investigation, his further confirmation of being satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that Sophie was the lady that he saw Ian Bailey speaking with at the festival. That coupled with other statements from multiple other people that they saw Bailey be introduced to / interact with Sophie. And Bailey’s own comments to various people that he knew her. And telephone records also indicating he knew her and successfully attempted to make contact with her.

irishspiderplant

Some quotes re Tomi from the locked boards.ie thread:

"His cartoons were about bondage. Seemingly one of the documentaries she made was about bondage."

+

"He was also successful, artistic, wealthy, famous and about 20 years older than her.

She once had an affair with a film director in his 60's while married to Daniel, but ended it to go back to him."

irishspiderplant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121510932#Comment_121510932

He was not satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt, he says he doesn't know for sure. I literally quoted him.

Where are these other statements? I know Alfie Lyons said he was 'ninety per cent sure' he introduced them. Not very persuasive when we're talking about a personal, emotional, hate- and fear-fuelled murder.

Bailey said that Sophie was pointed out to him once.

And these telephone records you mention don't exist btw otherwise that would constitute actual proof.

irishspiderplant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121511048#Comment_121511048

Leo Bolger, who was bribed with hash by the guards to elicit a confession from Bailey, is not credible.

He was also given a suspended sentence for running a cannabis operation that according to Detective Sergeant Fergal Foley "was the most sophisticated operation of its kind seen in west Cork." He was looking at at least a ten year sentence otherwise.

The judge that presided over his trial was also the judge who presided over Bailey's libel case, which Bailey lost. Bolger was lined up as a witness to corroborate that he was there the day Alfie believes he introduced Bailey to Sophie.

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121510169#Comment_121510169

These cold case investigators are very good, look at the 40 year old murder case that they solved recently when Noel Long was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Nora Sheehan.

Someone is going to prison for the rest of their life for the murder of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier, and rightly so.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121511048#Comment_121511048

Alfie wasn't even sure if he introduced Sophie to Bailey, but Leo Bolger remembers a brief introduction between two third parties?

You can't believe anything that comes out of Leo Bolgers mouth. Especially given his suspiciously light sentence for a sophisticated illegal drug operation.

Even if Bailey was introduced very briefly to Sophie by Alfie in a garden doing work, does that really meet the definition of 'knowing' someone. Doubtful.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121510932#Comment_121510932

Nope. Again you present as a statement of fact points that are disputed or in doubt. Bailey has never acknowledged that he knew Sophie. You know this.

Where are these telephone records recording a call? Well, come on, cite the evidence of 'telephone records' or acknowledge you are making spurious claims.

Your posts are entirely unpersuasive.

Day Lewin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121511101#Comment_121511101

I think that these are the details uncovered in the podcast "West Cork".

Mr Bolger was very willing to be given money, if I remember correctly. Or a substitute. And he was told what to fish for.

This does NOT make for objective assessment of the information he may have produced!

Rows Grower

I just hope these cold case detectives are taking heed of all the comments from posters in this thread, it could save them a pile of work and wasted effort.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121511198#Comment_121511198

It was Martian Graham who was bribed with drugs.

Leo Bolger of the miraculous memory of an utterly unimportant brief introduction of third parties - not even introduced by him - was the one who got a remarkably light (suspended) sentence for running a sophisticated cannabis growing operation.

Both of their credibility stink to high heaven and anyone who believes a word that comes out of their mouths is just going along with a fit up job.

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121511248#Comment_121511248

Would you say that Ian Bailey has more credibility than the two people you don't believe?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121511276#Comment_121511276

When you are trying to fit someone up for murder you go for the oddball not the pillar of the community. Bailey is his own worst enemy.

But this is how miscarriages of justice happen.

What matters is the credibility of the case, the credibility of witnesses and actual evidence.

We have the likes of Marie Farrell, Leo Bolger, Martin Graham being used by AGS to fit up Bailey.

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121511293#Comment_121511293

A simple yes or no will suffice.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121511458#Comment_121511458

Some questions don't have simple answers, especially loaded ones - nor should they be looked for.

Noted you weren't able to defend the credibility of the investigation, or such 'witnesses' as Farrell, Bolger and Graham.

And on the salient points, the DPP found Bailey's evidence to be more credible than alternatives, or where they did not make a firm decision, for it to be inconsequential circumstantial evidence.

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121511486#Comment_121511486

I'm not asking about brain surgery or rocket science odessy, nor am I asking for another one of your tangents.

It's a simple question I simply asked because of your assertion that two of the people involved in the investigation have credibility that stinks to the high heavens.

I simply asked do you think that Ian Bailey has more credibility than the two people you mentioned.

You seem evasive in your response, a simple yes or no will suffice.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121511568#Comment_121511568

Tangents?

The question was asked and answered with reference to the case and the DPP. No rocket science or brain surgery brought into it.

Graham, Bolger, Farrell all their evidence stinks and you know it. And that matters when they are the ones making claims and being used by AGS to manufacture a shoddy case.

They bribed Martin Graham and who knows what went on off the record with Farrell and Bolger and their shenanigans. They are on tape considering altering evidence and we know the jobs book was tampered with again to conceal who knows what.

The DPP found Baileys evidence to be credible and I see no reason to dispute that. Which makes him more credible than the trio aboven

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121511623#Comment_121511623

It's a simple question odessy, yes or no.

You're on a public discussion forum in Ireland and have given your opinion with regard to two witness's who you claim anyone who believes a word out of their mouths is part of a fit up.

Are you above reproach with regard to this ongoing murder investigation?

Are we all supposed to read your opinion and take it as fact?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121511673#Comment_121511673

You have the answer and explanation.

Not just my opinion but that of the DPP on the credibility of witnesses such as Farrell, Graham, Bolger.

Not my fault if you dont like it.

That Graham was offered inducements is a matter of public record - not my opinion. The only thing disputed is whether it was money and drugs. Or money and tobacco and clothes.

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/01/07/hash-for-questions/

If you believe evidence gathered from the likes of eg Graham who was bribed by AGS, and find him to be credible then you will believe anything. Exactly the kind of people fooled by police fit ups and how innocent people end up in jail in miscarriages of justice.

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121511730#Comment_121511730

My apologies odessy I didn't get to the last part of your previous tangent in post 2609 where you stated that you found Mr. Bailey to be more credible than the three witnesses you named.

May I ask how you came to the conclusion that the DPP found evidence from Mr. Bailey to be credible?

In your mind is this the same as the DPP deciding there is not enough evidence available at that moment in time for the Gardai to have a good chance of securing a conviction?

It kind of looks like you are under the impression the DPP judged that Mr. Bailey was innocent of the murder.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121512108#Comment_121512108

No tangent. It is directly relevant to the topic and the specific points under discussion.

If you read what is taken to be the DPP report in public circulation you will see phrasings such as 'consistent with' or 'credible' describing Baileys explanation for certain things. Similar for Jules.

The Garda conduct with Martin Graham is described as 'unsafe'.

Marie Farrell - 'unreliability'.

I have not presented jt as a judgement on Baileys innocence but it is clear that words and phrasings like that convey a stronger assessement on the matter than just 'there is insufficient evidence'.

I have been clear on the thread that on balance I think Bailey is not guilty.

https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/30/

Ms Robini

Do you accept that Bailey may have killed Sophie? Or do you refuse to accept that? You say “on balance” you think he is not guilty. Do you think that the wound to his forehead was made by a talon? Or do you think Sophie could have inflicted that wound or that it could have been sustained while Bailey physical attacked her? It’s a genuine question, to understand your point of view.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121512703#Comment_121512703

I don't think it is plausible, based on the case outlined by AGS and evidence provided, that Bailey killed Sophie. So it is possible but not plausible imo, for all the reasons outlined in the DPP report... if he was wounded at the scene, why did he leave no traces of this? Bailey met a dermatologist socially several days after the murder, and their description of Bailey doesn't tally with him having having been scratched at the scene.

It is implausible to suggest he would get up half-cut and go across mucky fields in December on the off chance of trying it on with Sophie, and then rebuffed, this triggers a violent scene ends in murder. And somehow do all this without trace despite the late hour, the darkness and drink taken and supposedly in a rage. It is to me unpersuasive and unconvincing.

An awful lot of (awful) "evidence" was dredged up by AGS when they fixated on Bailey, by fair means and foul, and despite all that what they have on Bailey is a pile of debateable or circumstantial evidence i.e. evidence that is disputed \ contradicted or could have an innocent explanation.

This is why on balance I don't think Bailey did it.

We don't even know what time Sophie was actually murdered.

Any prosecution on the evidence AGS had would be completely unsafe and a recipe for a miscarriage of justice.

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121512927#Comment_121512927

You give the impression that you know what was in the DPP report, do you have a link to it by any chance as I'd be interested to read it in full.

Also just wondering are you aware of the delay in the State pathologists arrival at the murder scene and the implications this had on the initial investigation?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121512952#Comment_121512952

I'm aware of that but the issues with the AGS investigation go deeper than that, with unsafe practices and even malfeasance.

I think the high profile nature of the murder, coupled with the criticism of the pathologist delay, had AGS feeling under pressure to "get a result".

The link to report was in my previous reply to you:

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121512184/#Comment_121512184

Rows Grower

Ian reckons he has lost his career, his partner and his health because of the false allegation that he was the murderer.

For someone so centrally involved in the case it's a bit of an eyebrow raiser that he hasn't yet been interviewed by the cold case team who are expected to make an arrest soon.

I wonder are they waiting for a particular day of significance to make the arrest?

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/government-block-bid-extradite-ian-31695596

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121513423#Comment_121513423

Leo did not “remember” this introduction until 2010, some 14 years after the murder and something like 20 years after the introduction.

Leo’s drug bust in Durrus happened in 2010.

edited