Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed. **Threadbans lifted - see OP**

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122627995#Comment_122627995

The thing is what still buggs me about the "Bailey theory" is not the motive, he basically had none which we can think of, he had no gain out of Sophie's murder, but he certainly had opportunity.

He had a good 6 or 7 hours unaccounted for? Correct? He was again seen at 8 or 9 am in the morning?

He also had the studio, far away from Jule's and her daughters. It is there where he theoretically could have cleaned up and even cleaned the car, that is if he was driving. Also he was burning something behind the studio as well.

So from that aspect Bailey did have at least the opportunity to kill and to clean up in relative safety, disposed of the clothes and cleaned the studio more then thoroughly. That is if he was sober after 6 pints and a few more….

Suppose if Daniel sent a killer, where would this killer have cleaned up? (he could only have gone to the beach or something like that in hopes that the blood wears of in the salt water, and then driven in a rather wet state to the hotel where he was staying). An ugly site behind the wheel for anybody to remember if he was seen at closer range.

Suppose if it was Alfie and Bolger, where would they have cleaned up? At their own homes? Shirley shouley would have noticed what Alfie was up to? And Bolger? He has a wife as well?

Where would the horny Guard from Bantry have cleaned up? Another good question.

One thing I would see with certainty: Whoever did the killing in such a manner must have been full of blood, it was more than visible. So cleaning up and changing clothes would have been paramount.

Day Lewin

Cleaning up after a brutal murder.

If a vehicle was used, it is just about certain that the floor of the vehicle would show traces of blood, since the nature of the crime almost guaranteed that the attacker would have blood on the soles of their boots. I believe that the vehicle used by Bailey was examined for blood traces - but such blood traces are notoriously difficult to remove - virtually impossible, in fact. Even the Keystone Cops would have surely noticed if any of the vehicles connected to this case had been scrupulously cleaned after the crime! We don't know if Luminol was used but it certainly has been around and used in forensics since the mid-20th century. (Currently you can buy it on Amazon.) They must have tested for blood, wouldn't you think?

So if none of the known vehicles was used in the crime, then either the car was from outside the area and not discovered, or the killer arrived and left on foot. There are no other possibilities!

If on foot, why was the gate pushed wide open right back to the hedge, as if to allow passage for a car?

Alternatively, if a car from outside was used, by a stranger unconnected with the area, it has never been traced and is probably a lost cause.

More and more, as I ponder this case, my own view is growing that it was committed by a stranger; an attempted burglary or a small-time criminal, interrupted at the gate by Sophie; leading to a heated argument and a brutal attack causing her death. Criminal turns his vehicle and zooms away, never to be seen around there again.

I can see why the guards assumed that the criminal was local and known to the victim; this is by far the commonest scenario for this type of crime. Yet nothing has been found to support this idea. And they have all been checked out, over and over; the neighbours who found her difficult, the acquaintances who chatted with her in French, the boozy local journalist/poet. All exhaustively scrutinised. And nothing ever stuck!

So, maybe the stranger. But how on earth can they find him now?

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122628082#Comment_122628082

All good thoughts. Cleaning up after the murder, in say the sea at the beach would also be a challenge, it was a cold night, the sea is also cold, a tricky and harsh task in winter.

Suppose the killer was a stranger, a real stranger, - and also not the hitman sent by her husband. What would the motive be? Just lust for killing? Also possible? Also there was no sign of a forced entry into the house. There was also no sign of a robbery, her briefcase / wallet was untouched, so it was reported. There was no attempted rape or rape. Also remember, this is a cul de sac only one way in, same way out, so one who goes there, is not "just a passer by", one has a reason to go there if one does…

Also murders in West Cork are more than rare, - the last one before that, was probably Michael Collins? So the locals would most likely be peacefull characters, maybe a bit odd here and there, job issues in the past, marriages broken up, idealistic artistic lives, but not murderers. Thus the idea always stuck that the murder was about Sophie and she was the reason why the murderer came and entered and left via the cul de sac.

What I have also often wondered, is why Sophie was left in clear sight of the road? The killer could have thrown her body over the brambles and briars and the murder would have been undiscovered for a while? Alfie and Shirley just driving by not noticing anything? A "worried" husband trying to call no earlier than midday, an angry rental car company calling for an unreturned car? Josie Hellens not meeting Sophie? Eventually someobody calls the police and the Guards come over and investigate. A good 12 hours elapse and the killer gets clean away, far away….

PolicemanFox

We can let Jules Thomas can speak for herself.

‘I thought I was hardened from decades at the centre of this attention, all the headlines, the legal cases, false statements, the pointing of guilt,’ the reclusive artist who moved to West Cork in the mid-Seventies revealed.

‘But Mr Martin’s remarks shocked me deeply, I felt physically sick. ‘I was sick to my stomach reading this in the press,’ she added.

‘It’s ridiculous to say the judicial system in Ireland failed. The investigation to my mind had figured out who they thought did it. But they were unable to back that up with any forensic firm evidence. If I thought Ian did it or found any evidence showing he was the murderer, I would have gone straight to the guards. I had three beautiful daughters to protect. He didn’t do it.’

‘Had he killed her, there would have been blood and other evidence.’

‘I would have known, he couldn’t have hidden it from me. I could read him like a book, I would have spotted something. If I suspected he did it I would have turned him in.’

Extra.ie

https://extra.ie/2024/09/15/news/jules-thomas-inquiry

Those who insinuate Jules Thomas and/or her daughters lied to protect Ian Bailey are continuing the smears and psychological attacks that she was subject to by the Gardai. Making these claims is not merely lies, it is a real form of abuse. For such people to claim they are fighting misogyny is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

I have read the transcripts of both her interrogation and her daughter Fenella’s. The Gardai had absolutely nothing on either of them. One of the Gardai (Liam Leahy) expressed his opinion in a memo that he felt she was doing her best to recall and tell the truth. This comment incensed D/Sgt Liam Hogan who was writing the file to be sent to the DPP. Apparently Garda Leahy didn’t understand they were supposed to be undermining her, not make honest appraisals of her testimony.

Hogan was recorded on Bandon Tape 91 bitching about Leahy to D/Garda Jim Fitzgerald, his partner:

LIAM HOGAN : Ah **** it, it's awful. When I see your friend then, like writing them stupid **** statements, like I mean what man “I believe he says that she was doing her best to recall the night in question and being truthful”.
JIM FITZGERALD: Yeah, she was doing her **** best to recall it the night she went over, last Sunday Week to Marie Farrell.
LIAM HOGAN : Yeah, he has to get **** that statement has to get **** chopped up anyway.
JIM FITZGERALD: Yeah.

He went on to say “That statement is very damaging to have in there I mean it's not – it's not, it doesn't do himself any good anyway.” Implying it wouldn’t be good for D/Garda Leahy’s career to be expressing honest opinions like that.

Hogan told Chief Superintendent Sean Camon about Leahy’s comment “It is in the statement it has to be taken, **** out of it” (Bandon Tape 48). He later explains why. As he is writing the file for the DPP he told Camon “You see all we have is very weak circumstantial evidence, a lot of it anyway” so the case needs to be much stronger for the DPP. Hogan’s explains “I tell you now unless we break Jules, who I think must have **** something for us, we need her broken and we need to have it because if you stand back from it it is a very arguable, it is a 50/50.”

tinytobe

There is no abuse, nothing like that at all. It's just a discussion.

However I think it's highly unlikely to even complete nonsense that either Jules together with her daughters tried to protect or otherwise cover for Bailey. Her daughters were simply visiting over Christmas, and this is in general a familiy matter, they were there to spend time with her mother, rather to protect someone they don't know in a murder case.

PolicemanFox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122626903#Comment_122626903

It does look suspicious when you take it in isolation. But if you look at all the newspapers, they were all saying the same thing at that time, and in some cases, before Ian Bailey wrote it in the Daily Star.

For example, the Irish Time printed that there was no sexual assault in their issue published on the 24th, which was published before the autopsy! This article is online:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/murder-investigation-as-body-of-french-woman-is-found-in-cork-1.118736

Ian Bailey never wrote for the Irish Times.

The Irish Independent wrote it on their issue for 25/26/27th "Hair and skin clues may help find killer" (AnnCahill) for which copy would have been filed late on the 24th, as did the Daily Telegraph "Film man's wife murdered" (Carol Cadwalladr). The Independent had other details from the autopsy such that hairs had been found under her fingernails. This detail about hairs found in the victim's hand is a clear tell that the Gardai leaked details from the autopsy. Even the killer wouldn't have known about the few hairs that were found in her hand, as this was a tiny detail which wouldn't have been obvious in the dark.

The Gardai held a press conference on the 24th. The details must have leaked there or in the pub afterwards. And what the Gardai leaked was wrong.

Presumably Harbison expressed some opinion at the time that he didn't see any evidence of sexual assault. The Gardai garbled this into "no sexual assault" when one of them leaked this to the press. It has never been true to say this definitely wasn't a sexual assault. There are many forms of sexual assault that do not leave clear physical evidence.

It may well have began as a sexual assault which turned into a physical one. We can't say.

Ms Robini

Why did Jules exert pressure on her daughter to change her statement as to the movements in the house at The Prairie on the morning of 23 December 1996? Why did Jules meet Bill Hogan in a state of distress claiming she had helped Bailey after the murder by washing blood from his clothes? Why did Jules seek to minimise the assaults perpetrated by Bailey on her in the witness box during his failed case against the newspapers when we can see from the photographs and when we know from the established facts the assaults were horrific? Why did Bailey burn his Dr Marten boots in a fire at the studio on 26 December 1996?

You’re accusing me and posters who have similar views to me of misogyny by virtue of the questions raised about the behaviour, actions and statement of Jules Thomas in the aftermath of the murder of Sophie. I don’t believe it is misogynistic to point out troubling facts in the actions of Jules here - these are serious matters and I’m motivated by trying to piece together what happened to Sophie, having followed this case for a long time.

Why do you think he burned his boots, by the way? A bit suspicious wouldn’t you agree?

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122628387#Comment_122628387

If the case against Bailey is so strong, why do people feel the need to constantly include all the rumours and inaccuracies in the mix. I guess because it's all there is. You are the first person that I've seen actually claim that Bailey burned actual doc marten boots in a fire. Is that claimed made anywhere else you can point to, or did you just make it up. There's enough bs & rumours out there clouding this case that it is reckless to start adding to the pile.

The gardai went through the leftovers in the fire pit and they found no evidence of doc marten boots. There had been no picture or any evidence of Bailey wearing or purchasing doc Martens at all either.

As for the fire itself, the witness didn't 'see' any flames or smoke of a fire burning if you actually read their statement. How you wouldn't be able to see evidence of a fire burning in the depth of winter when living next door, and walking past I don't know. No smoke without fire, no fire without smoke….

Who made the boot print then @Ms Robini?

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122627793#Comment_122627793

If one accepts a sexual motivation for the murder (and there is nothing to support this) then the randy Garda is as plausible a suspect a Ian Bailey, possibly even more plausible given the reported sighting of a blue fiesta in the area on the morning of the 23rd.

Given the lack of evidence connecting anyone to the murder scene it makes no sense to dismiss one potential suspect and all but convict another. It could have been anyone.

Baz Richardson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122628387#Comment_122628387

Who claimed that Jules exerted pressure on her daughter? Her daughter? Is that in a statement or quote from her daughter?

Jules denied that she had said anything to Bill Hogan, so we only have his claim? Am I correct?

BQQ

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122628563#Comment_122628563

And why would Bill Hogan lie about that?

It is a fact that Jules Thomas lied to the police - saying Bailey was home in bed all night

When put to her that he’d been seen at kealfadda bridge that night She “remembered” he got up shortly after they went to bed and didn’t see him again till the morning

I think anything she has to say carries about as much weight as Marie Farrell

bjsc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122628387#Comment_122628387

Where is the evidence that he burned his boots. According to the Garda exhibit list nothing was recovered from the fire.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122628653#Comment_122628653

"Extending to extremes"

Do you think she told the police that she stayed up all night watching Bailey sleep soundly, and then turned around and changed her mind? She trusted what the police were saying to her, and admitted that she couldn't back up the alibi beyond around 2.30 a.m. Same as all the other suspects at that time.

If you're holding her statement to this level then basically any and all statements made in this case have the same weight, including that of the police, which is zero.

Baz Richardson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122628653#Comment_122628653

Why would Bill Hogan wait until 2021?

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122628542#Comment_122628542

I would agree with you on that. However I think that the randy Garda would most likely not have known that Sophie was at her cottage, nor would he have waited for her or expect her to be around at Christmas. I would tend to think the only reason he would have come to her cottage was something else, like Sophie had a concern about something and actually called the police and he then came to see her.

People shy away from this kind of discussion, that's evident even here in the forum. This line of enquiry does simply not to be wanted here.

First it's a sexual matter, 2nd, it would imply or suggest that Sophie was possibly promiscuous and 3rd, it would imply the worst to the Garda, that it could as well have been one of their own. The latter would be the worst, as it would ruin their reputation in general. Speeding in a car is certainly no evidence for this murder.

There was talk about a red license plate on the car? Ireland stopped those red plates in 1987, I believe?

The Ford Fiesta in question would or could have been a Mk2?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Fiesta_%28second_generation%29

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122629191#Comment_122629191

Indeed, having volunteered about 6 or 7 statements over the years up to then and never mentioning this important information. This was a “consolidating statement “ taking over 3 hours, probably after he joined Sophie’s family crusade for justice for Sophie.

Baz Richardson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122629677#Comment_122629677

Would that be after he had maybe watched Netflix also in 2021 where Arianna Boarina had changed her initial statement to police, clothes soaking in a bath, then to become for Netflix, jacket soaking in a bucket in the shower?

Just wondering about the timeline of his new information.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122629780#Comment_122629780

A documentary “jogged his memory” and compelled him to go once again to the Gardai!!!
It’s not worth spending time researching this.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122629780#Comment_122629780

It's only possibly circumstantial, if at all.

Why would Bailey soak clothes in a bath when he could have burnt them in the same fire behind the studio?

Even if he was soaking clothes in a bath (let's assume for the exercise that the clothes had Sophie's blood on them) he would still have run the risk that not everything was completely removed.

If the then dried clothes were forensically examined, the Guards would for sure have found something. The risk would have been rather high for Bailey.

Even worse for Bailey, if you have 4 women staying over, Jules and her 3 daughters, they would have wanted to use the bathroom extensively ( women do that) and they would have noticed that. Not only that but also the blood in the sink? So why wouldn't he soak the clothes in the house he called the studio?

PolicemanFox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122628387#Comment_122628387

I don't accuse you personally of misogyny. However I think the continued vilification of Jules Thomas and her family is horrendous, and I do think it is a continuate of the abuse they suffered. Continuing this attack on her is outrageous, whatever about Ian Bailey, it is a denial of the principal that they are innocent in the eyes of the law. There is certainly no evidence that I can see, only essentially rumour. On the contrary Garda Leahy and the DPP said she seemed credible.

Mostly I can't answer the questions you just asked, those are questions for Jules Thomas and she has already answered them. The pressure you allege that she exerted is arguable. I don't think she did, and Fennella said emphatically that she did not. I think the only honest and correct approach is to simply believe what they say and work from there. If Jules Thomas changes her mind, I will change mine.

Jules Thomas herself has given the main reason why she won't. They were saying "we have to break Jules", but in fact she was psychologically broken at the time and the evidence she is alleged to have revealed really isn't all that much. I also think there is a strong case to say her statement of 10/2/1996 has been verballed, before she retracted it 3 days later.

We don't know whether Ian Bailey wore Dr Marten's boots are not. He certainly had tan boots, but they don't appear to have been Dr Martens. I haven't seen any evidence he wore such boots. Even so they are pretty common. I haven't seen any analysis of the contents of the fire beyond what Dwyer and Eugene Gilligan said in the documentaries. This wasn't shared with the French. Neither was the report on the bootprints. Based on the Garda form, if it helped incriminate Ian Bailey, they would have shared it.

Regarding Bill Hogan I have doubts about his latest statements. He spoke to the Gardai in 1997 & 2006. I think the Gardai had doubts about him too, otherwise they would have encouraged him to attend the libel trial. For him to hold back that the partner of the principle suspect told him about washing bloody clothes in 2001 would be criminal.

They did not give his later statements to the French either. He started tell this latest story of bloody clothes after 2011 but before 2016. He didn't make a Gardai statement until last year, and I haven't seen it, only read media reports. We also have to factor in that Hogan went to the press as well. This greatly undermines his testimony in my view. I wonder if he is part of the lynch mob who don't care about the truth, they just wanted to harrass Ian Bailey. He has also told variations on the story over the years. Bluntly, I don't trust his account.

I am honestly not opposed to viewing Ian Bailey as a suspect, but we have to sift through the mountain of lies and corruption to find pieces of evidence we can believe it. His assaults on Jules are one such point. It puts him on the list, for sure. But there is very little else, that isn't tainted by some caveat or other. Much of it is obvious lies. That doesn't mean there isn't something, but so far I haven't found it.

You're motivated to piece things together - I entirely share this with you! I have read every statement I can. I have gone through Bailey's writings with a fine tooth comb. I learned his idiosyncratic scrawling shorthand - the translations that the Gardai claimed are wrong. I have also learned to read Sophie's handwriting, she wrote down basically every meeting she had, every telephone number. We know every time she visited from 1995-1996. If she met Ian Bailey, we know the date was sometime 23th-26th April 1995, that's the only time he was working with Alfie, when Sophie was around. Frustratingly, I have not seen Ian Bailey's diary for this period. Her diary shows she was there with Pierre-Louis, stepson Carlo & and one other man (not Bruno or her husband). I believe I know who this man was, I don't know any reason to make him a suspect.

If some hard piece of evidence of contact were found, especially written in Bailey's or Sophie's agendas, that would be incredible. Honestly though I don't think it exists. At most they may have had a handshake but even that is uncertain. More than that is very unlikely. She was never alone in West Cork except for that weekend. Same goes for any putative dalliance, with a dodgy Garda or Karl Wollny. Someone would know and there would be a record in her agenda.

I have made an attempt to build a scenario if Bailey did it, how would it fit the evidence that is credible and trustworthy. This would be a sort of case for the prosecution, but an honest one, leaving out the stuff which doesn't make sense. The "murder he wrote" stuff, the timing stuff with phonecalls which is clearly disproven, putting maximum weight on the earliest statements. In this scenario Jules wouldn't know anything, or if there were signs, she missed them put them down to something else. If Ian Bailey took photographs at the scene, the only possible time would have been at night, at the time of the attack. I think the theory that Jules and Ian went out in the morning to the crime scene is basically impossible and can be ruled out. I will write this up at some stage, when I have the time. To be upfront, my opinion is it's an unlikely scenario. I still think it's worth evaluating.

EDIT: grammar.

Baz Richardson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122629908#Comment_122629908

Yes the oddly coincidental timing of his clarity of events when Netflix released their documentary. Who'd have thought it eh? The fact that some here can not give some critical thought to the timing of these sudden recollections is the real mystery to me, is it really hard to figure out that some are recalling memories that aren't actually real? Or even simply wanting their 15 minutes of fame again?

Baz Richardson

No text. Forgot to quote.

Baz Richardson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122630009#Comment_122630009

The coat that he wore the next day at the beach, clean and dry.

csirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122628082#Comment_122628082

+1 on this.

Sometimes the most obvious answer is the right one. Aggravated burgler/robber are by far more likely theories than any others. The evidence 100% fits without having to consider mad improbabilities or conspiracy theories.

Nobody has ever explained how or why this is ruled out.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122630170#Comment_122630170

No, I don't believe so.

There was no forced sign of entry, no evidence of theft, no money stolen, or possible valuables.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122628042#Comment_122628042

”The Scratches”

If one were to believe that Bailey got these on the night of the murder, it would have been very obvious the following day- too obvious I’d argue- to his partner, to her daughter who lived with them.

I know he had a “Nick” on his forehead - can’t remember if Jules said it appeared the morning of the murder or not - but suffice to say if Bailey got ravaged by brambles whilst murdering Sophie Jules most certainly would have noticed that morning - evidence says this wasn’t an issue the following morning so that’s telling me he wasn’t out wrestling brambles earlier that morning .

I mean, either the scratches are significant or they’re not- Gardai said they tried to replicate getting them and couldn’t - well unless they picked a similar tree to cut down and wrestled with a turkey about to have its neck cut, I can’t imagine they would be able to replicate them

PolicemanFox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122628736#Comment_122628736

There is only one statement.

That's all there is. Did they keep those eyelets, photograph them, analyze to see if they came from Dr Martens? I don't know, I doubt it.

I also don't known why the Gardai often wrote statements without dating them. From the numbering I think this one was made around 98/99.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122628082#Comment_122628082

I agree in terms of blood- impossible to remove all traces - and it’s not small work either -and also he’d attract attention from Jules and daughter - if Gardai searched that car and if Bailey was covered in blood they would have found traces - guaranteed .

What put me off the “burglar” theory is simply you have burglars and you have killers - burglars don’t generally tend to be killers - they can be but it’s rare- once disturbed all they want to do is flee - even if Sophie blocked their passage I reckon a hard shove into the ditch is all she would have experienced - burglars don’t tend to kill people - secondly, considering there were signs of life at the house it’s less likely a burglar was targeting it - they prefer empty houses.

Small time criminal? Doing some sort of drug deal in that area? Disturbed and killed her for fear of identification?
If they were high on drugs themselves it’s possible I guess- but would imagine finger prints and dna would have been left at the scene given their “high” state - also, I’d imagine they may have told someone subsequently - high on drugs again - it’s possible but again why? Drug dealers likely want to be left alone and get on with doing what they do- I don’t think they’d risk killing someone unconnected to their business if at all possible and especially some random “tourist” which is likely how they would have viewed Sophie if they didn’t know her

After that you have all the “possible” suspects listed adnauseum throughout this thread - the husband, ex lover, the creepy perverty guy the guy who said he did something awful and killed himself some months later etc etc

I would have liked the same attention on these people as was placed on Bailey - maybe things might have turned out differently

bjsc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122630221#Comment_122630221

I have read Eugene Gilligan's statement. The items he describes certainly don't appear in the list of exhibits. Had they in any way inculpated Bailey I'm pretty sure they would have been front and centre.

Beasty

Thread moved from AH, and in line with the CA New Rules sticky all threadbans are lifted

However if posters to fall foul of thread or forum (or indeed site) rules, forum bans can be expected

csirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122630187#Comment_122630187

Didnt get that far. Car with robbers looking for remote houses to rob in Christmas week when full of gifts etc Sees house(s) up a remote gated laneway. Stops and opens the gate. STDP sees them and goes down to gate to see whats going on...........after struggle they check that nobody else was in the house who might have seen and scarper as quickly as they can. All fits.

Ms Robini

Per reports on the failed action Bailey took against An Garda Síochána: “The son-in-law of Jules Thomas - Ian Bailey's partner - will testify that Ms Thomas tried to pressurise her daughter to change a statement she made to the Gardaí”.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122630719#Comment_122630719

Was that the lad who claimed he saw Ian Bailey chatting to Sophie Toscan Du Plantier at a folk festival or story-telling festival by any chance?

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122627150#Comment_122627150

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122627150#Comment_122627150

Yes, free to speculate but also open to being shot down in flames if the speculation is absolutely baseless.

The case against Ian Bailey was not baseless. There was considerable evidence against him in the large Garda file sent to the DPP but it did not amount to proof so he was not prosecuted. That is entirely different to a pure fantasy or, if we’re being realistic, barefaced lies.

The notion that “it’s all just speculation” is poison to rational thought.

Let’s leave it there and forget about the anonymous “Bantry Garda” nonsense.

drury..

Maloney says that the dpp office had a number of people dealing with case files

Says the DPP himself did not deal with the bailey case file

Seems to know of the person who did . Claims he was a jobsworth who later sued the dpps office and set the bar too high for the case to go to trial

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122630659#Comment_122630659

It's not impossible.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122630900#Comment_122630900

I think it's just a difference of opinion between the two of us.

In the end, there is no need to agree, there is no proof in either direction of speculation.

Ms Robini

No, this person is Tadgh O’Driscoll and his evidence is in addition to Mark McCarthy’s.

dublin49

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122627348#Comment_122627348

Eh hes the main suspect because,he confessed more than once,he changed his Alibi,hes a proven violent woman beater,he knew the way to her house and he suggested he would head over her way that night.Find another suspect with similiar links and more and they become the number one suspect.

drury..

His obsession/infatuation with the French journalist shows you the type he is

Bailey wasn't a promiscuous type supposedly .

More the obsessive disturbed violent type

Worked at Alfie's for 4 days while Sophie was staying and knew nothing of Sophie just saw her once through alfies window, ya right

And Alfie 90% under oath he introduced them.

robbiezero

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122631134#Comment_122631134

Can you link to where he suggested he would head over to her house on that night?

I haven't heard that before?

drury..

Has Jules ever explained why she gave Bailey an alibi for the nite ?

The interview was I believe only days after the murder

Bailey was gone all night allegedly to the study and arrived back the morning of the murder with a fresh mark on his face which she noticed . Seems like something you wouldn't be confused about.

And Bailey was some man, allegedly too pissed to make his way to Sophie's but not too drunk that he couldn't work on a newspaper article

He can't be both . Too drunk to go to Sophie's yet sober enough to work on a newspaper article

drury..

Its a very strange coincidence

Arrives back hammered but is somehow gone all nite that particular nite to complete a newspaper article

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122631134#Comment_122631134

This is not true, he was already the number 1 suspect before almost any of the things you listed occurred.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122631206#Comment_122631206

Jules was asleep almost the whole night and then met him when she woke the next morning with coffee. Pretty self-explanatory that an alibi doesn't exist when you're asleep.

Bailey was obviously a functional alcoholic, he was pretty much always drunk or hung over, and still able to work, as well as go on the odd jaunt howling at the moon after midnight!

drury..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122631353#Comment_122631353

So Jules didn't originally state that Bailey was in bed the whole nite?

Or she said she didn't know if he left the bed or not ?

My understanding is that her story changed . Confirm either way ?

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122630719#Comment_122630719

Perhaps the statement was false/inaccurate?

nc6000

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122630659#Comment_122630659

Aren't empty houses and holiday homes around the country regularly broken into? I don't see any reason why an attempted burglary gone wrong wasn't seriously considered in this case, possibly early that morning a few hours before she was found.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122631391#Comment_122631391

Common sense tells you that she was not awake all night to confirm he was there yes? Do you think she stayed up all night yourself?

drury..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122631419#Comment_122631419

I said she changed her story and originally said he didn't leave the bed

Are you disputing this or not ?

And I agree with your general point that she couldn't confirm he was there

Therefore the fact that she did is odd

I believe Bailey told her to say he was in bed

Anyway you're one of these round the houses posters when you're caught out so I'm done with u

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122631473#Comment_122631473

I don't dispute anything you've said, it's a reasonable belief to have.

Not sure why you're saying I'm caught out, you didn't dispute me either.

No probs if you're done.