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

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119294138#Comment_119294138

The killer may never be caught even if they find DNA but there isn’t a chance in hell that the killer would get convicted of a reduced charge like manslaughter.

Admittedly, this jurisdiction may be the best place in the world for a killer to plead to a reduced charge (“he ran into my knife!”) but no jury in Ireland would believe this is anything other than a most brutal murder.

Smashing a defenceless woman’s head in self-defence?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119294118#Comment_119294118

It's well known that Bailey's arms were covered with scratches which, he claimed, he got while murdering turkeys. So, if he did it, then he'd have been a very foolish (or arrogant) man to to have though that he mightn't have left some blood at the scene.

archer22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119293962#Comment_119293962

"The family were offered it back but declined the offer" Has the family confirmed that somewhere, surely given the relevance the missing gate has garnered in the media they would have by now if that yarn was true.

Anyhow as I understand it the legal procedure is that the Gardai have to return property not required as evidence to its lawful owners..it would be up to the owners to dispose of it themselves if they wished.

And why would anybody not want a perfectly good gate that was part of the fittings on their property back.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119294666#Comment_119294666

. The scratches were on his arms which would have been covered at night. even so he would know had he bled, there would be stains on his shirt and arms. I have one or two hives on my arms and sometimes i get a rash and scratch and one might bleed. Blood is on my arm and shirt. even a tiny bleed is noticable. if i murdered someone I'd check. and whatever about being foolish Bailey is arrogant

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119295091#Comment_119295091

Being arrogant is not a crime. There is no evidence to point towards Bailey and despite an incompetent garda force carrying out an investigation which appears to have, like yourself, made a presumption of guilt without any evidence (and also despite some members fabricating evidence against him), Bailey is still entitled to his name.

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119294376#Comment_119294376

'Temporary insanity' defence? There were many other injuries also evidence of a prolonged struggle.

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119295394#Comment_119295394

Irish law has opened the Pandora's Box of the insanity defence but this is an exceptional case. Unless the accused has spent the last 30 years chained to a wall in some foreign Bedlam, no Irish jury will have an scintilla of sympathy for a defence based on his mental state. Unlike every other Irish criminal, his offence will not be mitigated by a terrible childhood, former drug abuse (he's clean now, your Honour!), traumatic experience or anything else that might have affected his mental state that night.

Imagine the jury with Sophie's son watching them day after day during the trial. Would they return with their verdict and say anything other than "guilty of murder as charged"? Not if they wanted to go home afterwards.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119295611#Comment_119295611

"Imagine the jury with Sophie's son watching them day after day during the trial."

If they are swayed by that, they've no business on a jury as it is a recipe for a miscarriage of justice.

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119295642#Comment_119295642

If you think a jury would not be swayed by that, you don't understand how trials work.

I'm not suggesting her son would do anything wrong. I mean the jury could never lose sight of the suffering which this crime has caused. No bad thing. Especially if they had to listen to some spoofer of a psychologist brought in to back up a plea of insanity.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119294734#Comment_119294734

Here's Senan Moloney's "yarn" about the gate.

Have you seen the photos of the "perfectly good gate"?

Would you want such a gate as a daily reminder on your property?

Edit, forgot link;

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/blood-stained-gate-in-sophie-murder-inquiry-wasnot-lost-gardai-reveal-40647261.html

Ush1

Looks like they are using mvac on the concrete block. Only hope for the case is DNA.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119295642#Comment_119295642

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119295712#Comment_119295712

There's not remotely enough evidence against Bailey, if any, for this to make it inside any courtroom other than a sham French courtroom.

Do I think Bailey did it? Haven't a clue. Do I think there's reliable evidence that points to Bailey doing it, absolutely not.

archer22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119295763#Comment_119295763

"I had never news of the gate from Garda.They never gave it back to me" her son Pierre-Louis Vignaud, who inherited the west Cork property told the Irish Independent.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119296963#Comment_119296963

That doesn't mean it wasn't offered back to the family.

archer22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119297016#Comment_119297016

It does he would have known if it had, you can be certain the family would have discussed every detail of the case.

DontHitTheDitch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119297038#Comment_119297038

Her next of kin at the time of the murder was her husband, who died long before this gate story emerged. As far as I've heard, he also bought the house. Is it really likely he contacted her family to say he refused to take back a bloodstained field gate?

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119297038#Comment_119297038

He probably knew all right, just not from the Gardai, as he said .

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119297063#Comment_119297063

The Indo article says it was offered back to Sophie's parents.

edit;

"understood it may have been offered"

archer22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119297082#Comment_119297082

"Understood" and "may" indeed 🙄... doesn't auger well for the new investigation if this is all they can produce to explain how a 20 foot gate vanished in their custody!

DontHitTheDitch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119297215#Comment_119297215

If there was nothing of evidential value found on it then it is not entered into evidence. It's a chunk of metal that doesn't belong to the investigation, the gardai or forensics lab. If it is not collected it's disposed of.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119297215#Comment_119297215

There is nothing sinister about the “missing” gate.

What is sinister is the missing pages from the police jobs books.

Missing witness statements

Ian Bailey’s missing diary and overcoat.

Etc. Etc.

This new report is supposed not be about the Garda handling of original case, so all the above is irrelevant including “gate gate”

2forjoy

How can a blood smeared gate be disregarded as evidence.

If new technology is now going to be used , surely the gate would be relevant.

Wouldn't it be easier to get fingerprints on steel rather than stone.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119297744#Comment_119297744

How can a blood smeared gate be disregarded as evidence.

That's a good chunk of the reason why I don't buy the whole "We didn't lose the gate." speil by the Gardai. If there was blood on it, surely it wouldn't be disposed of.

And given the other shennanigans with missing witness statements, pages torn out of notebooks, Bailey's missing coat and diary, dodgy witness statements from Marie Farrell etc., even if Bailey's DNA was on a rock/block, I still wouldn't be happy going ahead with a prosecution.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119295266#Comment_119295266

Being arrogant is not a crime

can you point out where i said it was

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119299077#Comment_119299077

The shenanigans of the Guards ... there has no doubt been incompetence and miscarriages of justice (including deliberate tampering with witness statements) in the course of this case.

With the gate, I really don't know which one it is. It is entirely without the bounds of either disgraceful category of conduct to have 'lost track of' the gate either through incompetence or corruption, because it was of no use in their fit up job of Bailey.

EdHoven

Oh dear, what are the haters gonna do? New "person of interest" at the scene.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/new-person-of-interest-triggered-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-cold-case-review-says-top-officer-41827939.html

MyLove4Satan

I don't think Bailey did it. I suspect the Garda are protecting the real killer.

saabsaab

Detectives going to France to obtain DNA from a person in connection with the case.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119324491#Comment_119324491

What obligation is anyone in France under to give a DNA sample to the Irish Gardai?

Surely they can tell the Gardai to "va te faire foutre"? And doubly so seeing as the French Justice System has already convicted Bailey of the crime.

Leg End Reject

They're going on a statement by Marie Farrell and have the suspects name, a known associate of her husband. This was all discounted in the original investigation I think.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/gardai-fly-france-track-down-27445454

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119328381#Comment_119328381

Any updates on this since? It's all gone very quiet lately.

flanna01

Cold case team to interview Bailey sometime before Christmas.

Were looking at a person of interest in France - But appears to have gone nowhere.

The team were to re-interview anybody that made a statement back at the time of the murder.

Review still officially on-going at the moment.

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119864037#Comment_119864037

There were hopes that new DNA techniques would turn something up.

flanna01

The more time that passes, the more remote anyone will be brought to justice for the French National's murder.

Strumms

I’d say there will never be a successful prosecution there.

26 years and a bit since her murder.

It’s known who did it, quite obvious who, they’ve admitted it to third parties…

but no evidence…

billyhead

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119867547#Comment_119867547

Who's known to have done it?

Seth Brundle

I'd hazard a guess that @Strumms is referring to the person that our DPP has said a number of times that there isn't sufficient evidence that would warrant consideration of a trial.

This would be the same DPP in whose office, an official produced an analysis of the case which actually believes that the evidence suggests that he didn’t do it.

Still @Strumms probably knows more than the rest of us!

flanna01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119867547#Comment_119867547

It's known who did it...?? Please enlighten us?

They've admitted it to third parties..??? Who are ''they''?

Who are the third parties that they felt compelled to unburden themselves to with this knowledge..??

Quite a few statements there buddy.... Are you suggesting this Country is knowingly protecting a murderer?

Or are you just looking to nail a murder on somebody without any evidence...??

What a delightful citizen you are..

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119869194#Comment_119869194

Best not to name names. I guess there are a few in the frame at this stage.

flanna01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119869228#Comment_119869228

At lease five credible suspects that I can think of.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119869373#Comment_119869373

Julian, Dick, Ann, George and Timmy, the dog?

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119869194#Comment_119869194

I doubt boards would appreciate it. So no. :)

would it be the first time the state protected criminals ? You are aware… The state have form for doing so.. ? Yes !?

you are rather delightful yourself.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119867547#Comment_119867547

You are absolutely correct. It is obvious and they have admitted their guilt to third parties. Anyone who comes on here suggesting otherwise is either poorly informed or making mischief.

There is a significant amount of circumstantial evidence, more than enough for a prosecution in my opinion. The passage of time, the shifting positions of Ian Bailey and Jules Thomas in the intervening years and the unwavering testimony of witnesses which was very evident most recently in TV documentaries and the West Cork Podcast, has clearly undermined many of the DPP`s conclusions about this case.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119869703#Comment_119869703

They did not admit their guilt. They made sarcastic remarks which people who want to make mischief are running with to fool the poorly informed.

TO submit anyone for prosecution on the basis of the questionable circumstantial evidence, in light of evidence of garda malpractice, would be a recipe for miscarriage of justice. No conviction would be safe when evidence has been tampered with.

We know the 'star' witness Marie Farrell has wavered all over the shop and is completely unreliable, and may have been subject to \ of Garda malpractice.

Ms Robini

The statements made in the presence of Richie Shelley were not in any way sarcastic - they were admissions of guilt.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119869986#Comment_119869986

Admissions of what exactly...

As noted on the earlier thread:

According to the Dpp report, after the so called confession that night where IB said" I did it, I did it"

The Shelley's were that upset and concerned that they went to the pub with Ian and Jules again next day... pretty much says it all !

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119869986#Comment_119869986

Presumably youre referring to this (my emphasis at the end!)...

Richie and Rose Shelley

In Netflix's piece Journalists Michael Sheridan, Barry Roche, and Schull resident Peter Bielecki tell the story of Ian's alleged confession to Richie, saying they were in a pub together before going to Jules's house for a nightcap.

As this story is told on Netflix, Bailey started crying and said "I did it, I did it" to Richie at around 4am after Jules had gone to bed.

Bielecki explains it's like "that early morning thing after drinking when he'd get strange" and after Bailey's alleged admission "they ran screaming from the house. They ran away".

Rose does say she ran out of the house, but the DPP file notes all four had met up again in the pub the next day, which wasn't mentioned in the documentary.

The DPP note that despite numerous attempts by Richie to get Ian to elaborate at the time he only ever repeated "I did it" and never explicitly said it was about the murder.

The DPP call their evidence "dangerously unreliable" owing to other factors too.

The file allegedly says: "The next morning, all four people met up in the pub again, and Richie Shelley is alleged to have said to Bailey 'up to last night I thought you were innocent but now I think you are guilty'.

"From the report of Inspector Horgan dated 27 July 1999 it appears that Richie and Rose Shelley have indicated that they did not come forward with the above information previously because they did not want an involvement in the case.

"This diminishes the credibility of their recollection still further. In fact Richie Shelley in his statement dated 19 June 2001 states that he did not come forward with the information until he was approached by the Gardaí.

"If the alleged conversation took place he did not attach sufficient weight to it to even bother reporting it.

"Richie and Rose Shelley were collected from outside the Thomas house by John Shelley but neither Richie nor Rose bothered to tell John Shelley about the alleged admission.

"On an overall basis the Shelley evidence is dangerously unreliable."

https://www.corkbeo.ie/news/local-news/murder-west-cork-four-things-21110448

flanna01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119869986#Comment_119869986

Or.... As stated by Ian Bailey, he was mimicking the line of questioning being used by the Gards?

You see, that's the counter response to the admission of guilt (and can be used vice-versa as well)

What witness accounts & written statements don't reveal - Is the context of the statement(s)

In Cork, the statement ''I will, yeah'' - Basically means the exact opposite.

Unless, there is video recordings of the alleged statements, it is practically impossible to determine the context of the conversation in which they were spoken..

Ian Bailey is British - Dark humor is one of his traits. (Along with having a dose of the Donald Trumps about himself too... )

In my opinion, Ian Bailey loved to shock & awe his congregation whoever they may be... He kept himself in the spotlight on purpose, and too be frank, revelled in the notoriety attached to it..)

Like most of his utterings, best taken with a pinch of salt - Let hard evidence convict a man, not his alter-ego.

Ms Robini

The Shelleys didn’t go to the pub with them - it was over the Christmas / New Year period and they were in the same pub as Jules Thomas and Ian Bailey. As they were known to each other and had been in each other’s company the night before, they acknowledged each other and entered into a conversation during which time Richie Shelley made known to Ian Bailey his belief that, based on what Bailey had said and how he had acted the previous night, Bailey murdered Sophie Toscan du Plantier.

Bailey is now doing shout out on tik tok for 15 Euro a time. His fans call him "the ledge"

https://extra.ie/2022/11/07/news/watch-ian-bailey-now-charging-people-e15-for-tiktok-shoutout-videos