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

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119870065#Comment_119870065

"the DPP file notes all four had met up again in the pub the next day"

Disingenuous phrasing here both by you and indeed the DPP. Saying they "met up again" the following day, suggests the meeting was pre-arranged, when it clearly was not. I can understand why posters here of a certain viewpoint might use such terminology, but the DPP is supposed to be objective.

" "This diminishes the credibility of their recollection still further." "

No it doesn`t. It`s not as if they had the detail of a long conversation to recall. There were only three words to remember. The DPP needed to make up his mind as to whether the witnesses were inventing a conversation or not. It had nothing to do with faulty recall. If the Shelley`s intentions had been nefarious, they would have stated that Bailey said more than just "I did it". We could expect something along the lines of "I did it. I killed her." There can be no doubt Bailey said "I did it" to the Shelleys and there can be little doubt about what he was referring to. It is also obvious that it wasn`t some bizarre attempt at humour. He had a habit of revealing his thought processes under the influence of alcohol both before and after the murder.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119870203#Comment_119870203

"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".

Presumably then you disregard the DPP as his report is based on the reading of written witness statements.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119871378#Comment_119871378

On an overall basis the Shelley evidence is dangerously unreliable.

See, you are unable to directly challenge this DPP assertion. So instead you engage in semantic pedantic disingenuous nonsense about minor points, trying to get a 'gotcha' on another poster - as if this proves anything. All the while trying to distract and keep attention off the truth - the evidence is dangerously unreliable and you cannot change that.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119870276#Comment_119870276

Assuming that you are responding to what I posted, let me repeat from the article I quoted:

The file allegedly says: "The next morning, all four people met up in the pub again

Now, where did I or the original article say the Shellys went to the pub with Bailey & Thomas? Your entire retort is based on you not correctly reading what I quoted.

Also, if Shelley believed that Bailey had admitted murdering Sophie, why didn't he go to the gardai with this lead? As per the DPP report, "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".

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119871366#Comment_119871366

Disingenuous phrasing here both by you and indeed the DPP. Saying they "met up again" the following day, suggests the meeting was pre-arranged, when it clearly was not. I can understand why posters here of a certain viewpoint might use such terminology, but the DPP is supposed to be objective.

I've merely quoted an article so I haven't phrased anything disingenuous! I understand the article is quoting the DPP report.

As for the meeting and the use of the term "met up", you are simply interpreting that way.

No it doesn`t. It`s not as if they had the detail of a long conversation to recall. There were only three words to remember. The DPP needed to make up his mind as to whether the witnesses were inventing a conversation or not. It had nothing to do with faulty recall. If the Shelley`s intentions had been nefarious, they would have stated that Bailey said more than just "I did it". We could expect something along the lines of "I did it. I killed her." There can be no doubt Bailey said "I did it" to the Shelleys and there can be little doubt about what he was referring to. It is also obvious that it wasn`t some bizarre attempt at humour. He had a habit of revealing his thought processes under the influence of alcohol both before and after the murder.

Shelly had had a lot to drink. When collected by John Shelley, neither Richie nor Rose mentioned the "admission" to a crime that most of the area allegedly attributed to Bailey. Furthermore, Shelley didn't bother mentioning it to the gardai?

And we're supposed to believe that he heard bailey confess to a murder but didn't feel it warranted any action? In fact, Shelley is alleged to have said the following to Bailey when they met up in the pub the following morning: "up to last night I thought you were innocent but now I think you are guilty". Personally, if I had heard someone confess to a murder and I believed them, I would not have said "I think you are guilty", I'd have said "I know you are guilty because you told me, now f* off away from me you murdering bas***d" and I'd have let everyone hear me.

chooseusername

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

The Shelleys obviously didn't think like you, and they were there. If they did they would have gone to the police with it. Instead having "run out of the house" at 4am they continued the conversation next day in the pub. It took a visit from the police some time later to help the silly people think like you.

Malachy Reid didn't think much of Bailey's 'confession' at the time, If he did he too would have gone to the police. Instead it took a visit from the police to explain to the silly boy what Bailey meant. It didn't stop him from taking lifts from Bailey afterwards.

Helen Callanan did go to the police after Bailey 'confessed' to her. This came after she felt duped by Bailey. All the Sunday Tribune coverage of the murder had been by Bailey. He continued contributing to her paper without telling her he was a suspect. When she did eventually find out she asked Bailey if he did kill Sophie, he answered; "I did it. I killed her. I did it to resurrect my career." I wouldn't call her a silly person, maybe naive to think he would actually confess to her over the phone.

Yvonne Ungerer always said she read Bailey's confession "I suppose I was washing blood off my clothes" as a joke. She is maybe the only sensible person here.

Bill Fuller interpreted "You did it! You saw her in Spar............you went up there.." as "I did it........" You decide how silly Billy is.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119871619#Comment_119871619

No minor points. I`m dealing with the fundamentals of the Shelley testimony. The crux of the issue isn`t the Shelley's recall as the DPP seems to suggest. It is whether or not they have invented a story where Bailey said to them "I did it".

"you are unable to challenge this DPP assertion"

In fairness to the DPP, we all now have access to information that he didn`t have at the time. We have all got to see and hear witnesses in the recent documentaries and podcast. Multiple witnesses, have gone before judges, been cross examined by Bailey`s reps and under oath, re-affirmed what they said in their original statements including Ritchie Shelley.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119871945#Comment_119871945

"Personally, if I had heard someone confess to a murder and I believed them, I would not have said "I think you are guilty", I`d have said "I know you are guilty because you told me, now f* off away from me you murdering bas***d" and I`d let everyone hear me."

You and me both then. Where we differ however is that I don`t presume that everyone else would act and think like I would in those circumstances.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119871954#Comment_119871954

"Bill Fuller interpreted "You did it! You saw her in Spar.........you went up there.." as I did it......". You decide how silly Billy is."

Fuller wasn`t in Spar at the same time as Sophie. So how else should he have interpreted what Bailey was saying? Then of course, we have a witness who bumped into Sophie as she exited Spar and saw Bailey across the street at the same time.

Malachy Reid was a kid. He was entitled to be silly. It doesn`t make him a liar.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119872430#Comment_119872430

And their explanation of why they didn't go to the Gardai and continued drinking with Bailey makes as much sense now as it did then - none.

Doesn't matter if they stick to the story when the story never made sense in the first place, as the DPP is right to call out.

So yes, you are unable to challenge the fundamentals of the DPP's assertion.

Or as I have put it - the evidence is unreliable, there is established evidence of garda malpractice - from tampering with the Garda Jobs Book, to pressuring officers to change statements, to bribing 'witnesses' with drugs. And that's only what we know about - what shenanigans really on with Marie Farrell and Leo Bolger. This is a recipe for a miscarriage of justice.

We can argue until the cows come home the minutiae of each piece of circumstantial evidence. It doesn't matter. It is still circumstantial evidence. None of which is enough to convict him, all of which is questionable in some manner, some of which is downright dodgy.

The DPP made the correct call.

Ms Robini

It will be put before the DPP again, a new DPP and a refreshed investigation file. I have no doubt that the DPP will make the right decision.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119872610#Comment_119872610

Bailey was hypothesizing and Fuller knew that, Bailey could just as easily said " you saw her on the street"

I did not say Malachy Reid was lying.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119873067#Comment_119873067

'Bailey was hypothesizing and Fuller knew that'

How do you know what Bailey was doing or what Fuller knew?

flanna01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119872968#Comment_119872968

If sufficient evidence is found, then I would hope the DPP would do the right thing..

Realistically, there is not one jot of hard evidence to support a prosecution.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119872968#Comment_119872968

"I have no doubt that the DPP will make the right decision"

Indeed, just like the previous ones in the case.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119872816#Comment_119872816

"Doesn`t matter if they stick to the story when the story never made sense in the first place"

Makes enough sense to me. They got spooked the night before when they were alone with him, then they got back into it the next day when they bumped into him in a very public place. Some people need everything to fit into place like a jigsaw. But that`s just nonsense.

When you invent a narrative, that`s when you make it all fit. As far as I can see, the Shelley`s told it as it was, warts and all. Both you and the DPP need to stop applying your own standards of what you consider normal when you are judging the various witnesses in this case. Maybe you both need to get out more and get a handle on the slobbering drinking culture that was part and parcel of the Bailey/Thomas existence, where people don`t always behave in a rational or normal way.

"what shenanigans went on with Marie Farrell"

We know all about the shenanigans that went on with Marie since she has now switched sides. Apart from the pants dropping, we can safely conclude that no garda played any part in inventing narratives about Bailey. Truth or lie, it all belongs to Marie. There are some obvious truths and some obvious lies. Bailey was outside her shop. Bailey was on the Airhill road. There was no Frenchman.

"and Leo Bolger"

Well I listened to Bolger on the West Cork Podcast talk quite extensively about Bailey`s meeting with Sophie. I found him to be quite convincing. All he does is add the 10% onto Alfie`s 90. Now if I was a crooked investigator and I had Bolger over a barrel with an upcoming drugs conviction, I would be making him invent something a bit more productive than Alfie`s missing 10%. We don`t need Bolger`s evidence to know that Bailey is a liar.

"We can argue until the cows come home about the minutiae of each piece of circumstantial evidence."

We can and I intend to. It is important.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119873067#Comment_119873067

"I did not say Malachy Reid was lying"

Whatever one says about a young Malachy, that`s the most important bit really.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119876515#Comment_119876515

Incredible eyesight Marie Farrell has. Picking out people on the side of the road from a moving car in the dark or twilight, but apparently doesn't get Bailey's height and build remotely correct in broad daylight.

Incredible memory Leo Bolger has, to remember a distinctly un-memorable event at the time - being a third party to a brief social introduction.

Incredible.

This is a recipe for a miscarriage of justice. No information currently available, which has been gone over a 100 times, gives me any reason to doubt that.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119876688#Comment_119876688

"a recipe for a miscarriage of justice"

I completely disagree. You and I have different perspectives on things. I don`t get the fuss over Marie being out by 4 inches on the height of a man seen from across the street. I wouldn`t be confident I could be more accurate than that unless I was close up and could compare that individual to my own height. A face lit up by headlights? Maybe, maybe not. But I would have remembered the introduction.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119876688#Comment_119876688

"Incredible memory Leo Bolger has, to remember a distinctly un-memorable event at the time - being a third party to a brief social introduction"

The supposed introduction happened around 1993 or "mid 90's ", he suddenly remembered the importance of this this meeting about 15 years later!

I believe it never happened. I think Alfie's uncertainty (90%) arose from a retirement party for Shirley Foster in the mid 90's at Alfie's house which Bailey attended. Sophie and some guests were at her holiday home at the time and Alfie pointed her out from a distance to his guests including Bailey. He called her a moaning , pain in the backside or words to that effect.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119877233#Comment_119877233

You are running with the recovered memory argument now. He didn`t "suddenly remember " anything. The gardaí didn`t asked him about it the first time around. Furthermore, he didn`t have to remember it for 15 years. It would have stuck in his mind from the moment that Bailey became a suspect for the murder. As far as I remember he was working on Sophie`s roof and Bailey was working on Alfie`s garden. He popped up to the two boys for a chat and Sophie came home and came up to Alfie`s looking for him. Bailey had a bee in his bonnet because he wanted to show her his poetry. Apparently he carried it around with him in a satchel.

The party you are referring to is probably that one where Bannsidhe met Bailey. I actually think it was Bannsidhe who said on here that Alfie made a remark about how Sophie used to close the gate when she came to stay. I don`t remember anything about moaning. I suspect that this is the genesis of the whole "Alfie did it" silliness.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119877725#Comment_119877725

Not recovered memory. I said he suddenly remembered the importance of the introduction, not the actual meeting.

So he remembered it for 15 years and then went to the police with the information?, or did the police come to Leo? Wasn't that around the time his grow-house in Durrus got busted?

The Gardaí have an amazing ability to help people remember stuff.

" I suspect that this is the genesis of the whole "Alfie did it" silliness."

For what it's worth I don't think Alfie did it, he may have done.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119878010#Comment_119878010

And didn't he get a remarkably light sentence for such a level of criminal operation, totally out of synch with some other sentences from that judge.

And where does that judge pop up again later...

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119878010#Comment_119878010

"The Gardaí have an amazing ability to help people remember stuff"

That is supposition. I have no issue with Bolger remembering in detail that introduction. For example, Bannsidhe came on here last year and told us about her own introduction to Ian Bailey in some detail. This had happened over 25 years previously. I haven`t looked back to find the post, so off the top of my head, she attended a gathering at Alfie`s where she was introduced to Ian Bailey and found herself stuck with him for some time afterwards as he bored her by talking about himself.

Now imagine a scenario where soon after that meeting Bailey hightailed it back to England and was never heard tell of again. If you asked Bannsidhe 25 years later about meeting an English guy at Alf Lyons back in the mid 90`s, I would suggest that her memory of it would be vague at best. It is the fact that Bailey became the most notorious murder suspect in recent Irish history, when the memory of the meeting was still relatively fresh in her mind, that enables her to remember it so clearly now. She would replayed the meeting in her mind any time Bailey turned up on TV or in print in the intervening years. The same logic applies to Leo Bolger. He introduced the notorious murder suspect to the murder victim.

I also do not suspect that Gardaí had any input in Bolger making up a story. I don`t see the risk reward tradeoff for what was a relatively mundane piece of information. After all it has been regularly repeated by a few around here that even if Bailey really did know her, that doesn`t mean he killed her. Bolger was only confirming an introduction made by Alfie. The notion that the Gardaí were going around coercing multiple witnesses to invent stories that would incriminate Bailey is ridiculous. That didn`t even happen with Martin Graham.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119878010#Comment_119878010

"So he remembered it for 15 years and then went to the police with the information? or did the police come to Leo?"

My understanding is that Leo was listed to be called in the `04 libel case. He wasn`t called because the case was settled first, but apparently he was going to testify that Alfie had introduced Bailey to Sophie. In the end he made the statement after the drug bust.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119878544#Comment_119878544

Bannasidhe actually wrote notes on her meeting with Bailey, anticipating being questioned by the Gardaí, but they never spoke to her.

As soon as Bailey's name was in the frame Bannasidhe went back over the party and made the notes. I'd imagine observing a brief introduction which you were not part of, is a bit different to having to having to put up with Bailey boring the sh1t out of you for a whole afternoon. A blowhole she called him.

BattleCorp

The circumstantial evidence against Bailey is dubious at best. The only place it would stand up is in a kangaroo court in France.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119878727#Comment_119878727

"He was going to testify" ? Ah Now!

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119878832#Comment_119878832

It was confirmed by lawyer Paula Mulooly to West Cork Podcast that Leo was in line to testify that he was present when Alfie introduced Bailey to Sophie.

saabsaab

I wonder are they looking for someone in relation to new DNA evidence?

https://www.corkbeo.ie/news/local-news/gardai-probe-theory-sophie-toscan-25554642

maybe the wine was a parting gift at Christmas but the killer was incensed at being rejected/broken up with? I guess it would rule out a Frenchman as they wouldn't throw a wine away.

jimwallace197

Alot of the problem with the STDP murder is its clickbait for many media outlets. This news provided is nothing new.

Id believe she knew the man definitely or he was in a position of authority, but didnt let him into her home, went out to meet him, considering the boots etc she put on & the location of the murder

xxxxxxl

So If it turns out to be someone else what happens to the Show Trail they had in France ?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119903657#Comment_119903657

If it turns out to be connected to France... very embarrassing for France.

It it turns out to be someone Irish they will heap the blame on us and say they acted on what they had been given in good faith.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119869637#Comment_119869637

Then why post that it's obvious who did it when you know you can't mention names? Plenty of us haven't a clue so the dropping of "oh the dogs on the street know" or other such statements are frustrating.

chooseusername

So, someone local she knew?

I didn’t need all the fingers of one hand, and two of them are dead.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119878773#Comment_119878773

The four most compelling pieces of evidence I've heard against Bailey are as follows:-

1. The scratches on his face
2. The sighting of him near the murder scene on the night
3. The confession to the boy he gave a lift to
4. The sobbing confession to that couple who he and his partner Jules were having drinks with

And that sounds pretty damning, but all of these points have been challenged as being either caused by something else, or recanted, or taken out of context. Because the gards made such a hames of the initial investigation, actual forensic evidence that implicates someone appears to be nil.

I believe that our justice system's first priority should be to prevent the wrongful conviction of innocent people and that means proving cases beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, that will mean that guilty people sometimes walk free, especially where investigations have been improperly handled. While it could be that Bailey did it, because there is no conclusive evidence against him, I can't say that I think he's guilty.

Much as we'd all love to see this solved, I just can't see it. If the new DNA evidence had turned up Bailey, he'd at least have been interviewed by now, and according to weekend articles about the case, he hasn't. Much as I'd love to believe its him because he's a POS with zero morals, the evidence isn't there or else we'd surely know about it.

Doesn't mean it wasn't, but our law convicts by a standard of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and on the whole that keeps innocent people from going to jail.

But still. Doesn't exonerate Bailey.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119904459#Comment_119904459

Probable, then, that Bailey will live out what remains of his life in that legal purgatory between 'legally innocent' and 'still suspected by a whole load of people' , ala OJ Simpson. He'll be kind of a free man in that he won't be incarcerated for the crime of which he is suspected, but he'll never be able to safely leave Ireland and he'll routinely face accusatory stares and whispers wherever he goes.

Ush1

Wasn't just the gards fault, one very unreliable witness in particular comes to mind who really wasted a huge amount of time and resources.

flanna01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119905768#Comment_119905768

Or maybe one particular witness that was coerced by the Gards to fill the gaps??

It beggers belief that the prosecutions star witness (had it gone to trial), would later be the accused star witness in a libel case against the Gards...

Couldn't make it up....

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119905768#Comment_119905768

That was either in whole or in part the Guards fault. Maybe she was unreliable because of Garda interaction, maybe she was just unreliable... but police officers should see through that. They latched onto an unreliable witness because they had no real evidence.

Ush1

Gards may see it, but the DPP makes the call. Gards often have to take a lot of information at face value and coerced? Come on, she was having an affair and a strange attention seeker. Again, a lot of wasted time and resources.

chooseusername

misread the post.

Seth Brundle

Still standing by her ex...

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2022/11/22/ian-baileys-ex-partner-jules-thomas-to-sue-netflix-over-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-documentary/

robwen

Is she in a relationship with Jim Sheridan? The rumour has been doing the rounds with a few months now

Xander10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119908398#Comment_119908398

Hadn't heard it. Interesting to see how she gets on with the libel action

jimwallace197

God, that would be a bit mental if the two of them got involved. Wasnt expecting that although Jim did lose his wife last year I think. I guess stranger things have happened. Fair play to her on suing Netflix, absolute trash of a documentary. Deliberately leaving out key pieces of information in it to paint the picture they wanted. They're quickly losing any credibility they had in the first place for documentaries.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119908398#Comment_119908398

I heard that a while ago but assumed it was rubbish, however going to this public event together, who knows?

Maybe they have shared trauma in common after years of Bailey 🤔

flanna01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119912448#Comment_119912448

I guess it would have been difficult to attend a Sophie tribute night alone?

Your man Sheridan could be making another documentary, and be gaining good information and film footage by way of accompanying Jules around the town.

I don't think too many people would dispute the seedy character of Bailey, a quick flick over his tik tok clips will enlighten anybody with any lingering doubts there...

However, a man's seedy nature does not make him a murderer.

PS - I have engaged with you in the past on other threads, and totally get your mindset & the reasons you withdrawn your support for Ian Bailey.

His manner for a man of his years is somewhat strange, the innuendos are creepy at best - No argument from me there.

Ms Robini

He is a bad person. I don’t think there is any doubt about that. He may also be a murderer, whether there is any doubt is for a jury to decide.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119913220#Comment_119913220

No not that event, this other one in linked article this week. The sophie event id think nothing of, but this looked more like a public declaration of togetherness, but who knows or really cares.