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

Back to the conspiracy theory nonsense. Eugene Gilligan was in on it, multiple other members of the Gardaí were in on it, Bill Fuller was in on it, any other witnesses to his confessions were in on it, witnesses to the fire were in on it, who else was in on this?

I said that the DPP are not infallible. You're questioning Eugene Gilligan's integrity. Again, I choose to believe him and the many others over Bailey and his supporters.

So anything found in the fire - clothing, buttons, whatever can't be linked to the crime . So therefore anything found in the fire is irrelevant isn't it.

It was a man burning old clothing and rubbish which was normal event at that time - there is nothing whatsover to suggest he was burning evidence. The DPP didnt think he was burning evidence. So Im sorry to tell you it is irrelevent.

How do you know? An experienced Garda forensic expert seemed to think the fire may have burnt evidence. For that reason, it's can't be dismissed and it's very relevant.

How do you know? An experienced Garda forensic expert seemed to think the fire may have burnt evidence. For that reason, it's can't be dismissed and it's very relevant.

The words I highlighted above in your statement is the problem - thinking it means nothing whatsover.

Of course it's if. No one knows for sure. But again, you have to believe that others are lying or mistaken while Bailey is telling the truth. You have to believe that a huge number of times in order to rule Bailey out. When you're explaining you're losing. And Bailey has had to do an awful lot of explaining.

You've said the investigation was 'flawed'. That is a vague and unspecific term. It does not acknowledged the documented Garda malpractice and misconduct with witnesses such as Marie Farrell. GSOC would have brought charges only the Guard in question was deceased. There is also the Bandon tapes where senior Guards are putting pressure on another Guard to engage in malpractice with regard to a witness statement.

So therefore, it is entirely legitimate to query statements made by Guards that are not in the DPP report. Guards are not infallible either. And in this case as we have seen, it has been established that some Guards are willing to engage in malpractice and misconduct. The list against Bailey is a product of not just a flawed investigation but one where proper procedures were not followed, and malpractice was engaged in.

The DPP has looked at all this evidence. More than one DPP. With decades of experience. You were the one above making an appeal to authority and experience. Well, the DPP has the authority and the experience and in this case there are no questions about its integrity.

Therefore, if one is genuinely swayed by an argument from authority \ experience - as you claimed to be above when it suited your argument at the time - then the DPP version of events is the one that has more credibility.

And that report did not just conclude there was insufficient evidence, it also in several cases accepted Bailey's version of events. And the statements of witnesses that supported Baileys version of events.

Again there is no proof he was burning evidence. Surely he would have lit a fire earlier than the 26th if he was burning evidence.

He lit a fire on St Stephens day - its not unusual for people to be getting rid of rubbish after christmas to make room for presents, get rid of packaging etc. Again I will point out to you that at that time in the country people lit fires to dispose of rubbish - everyone did. Therefore everyone who lit a fire in that area that week was potentially burning evidence and should be suspects

By your logic everyone who lit a fire, disposed of rubbish, has no alibi, and has a history of violence should be a suspect.

No, that is an entirely bad faith misrepresentation of what was in my post and you know it. Nowhere is anything you said accepted.

But do you think we don't notice how incredibly obvious it is you clam up completely when it is put to you the facts about Garda malpractice in this case? You continually 'fail' to register any awareness of it in your posts, even though it has been presented to you multiple times on the thread in direct replies to you.

And anyone following the case in the media would be aware of it. They were headline stories in national news.

It's transparent.

Do you acknowledge and accept the evidence of Garda malpractice?

As documented in the Bandon tapes, GSOC report? Or do you need them to tell you exactly how many people were lying and and continue to ignore the documented evidence???

Based on GSOC and DPP, clearly there are legitimate questions about the integrity and\or fallibility of the Guards involved in this case. Which is why - and I reject your entirely bad faith misrepresentation of 'sneakily drag' and 'weasel' - I have posted that statements by the Guards in this case do not get the benefit of the doubt where they are not corroborated independently or accepted by the DPP.

There is nothing 'sneaky' about questioning the Garda conduct in this case, when there is documented evidence of Garda malpractice.

These so called 'findings' do not appear in the DPP report. So I must not be the only one who does not accept these so called 'findings'. Does that mean the DPP is sneakily blackening the names of Garda when they do not accept their evidence???

So simple question: Do you acknowledge and accept the evidence of Garda malpractice?

Per Barry Roche article in the Irish Times around the time of Bailey’s failed action against An Garda Síochána:

“Robert Sheehan: A law officer in the Office of the DPP, Sheehan, now retired, was the officer with control of the Garda file on the murder and, in November 2001, he wrote an analysis of the evidence linking Ian Bailey to the murder and concluded the evidence did not warrant a prosecution.

He was also highly critical of the gardaí in his analysis. Although his analysis was not admitted in evidence in the High Court case, he was scathing of gardaí and expressed serious reservations about the veracity of statements taken from witnesses Marie Farrell, Michael Oliver and Geraldine Camier.

Following legal argument in the absence of the jury, Mr Justice Hedigan ruled Mr Sheehan could not give opinion evidence and his testimony ended rather abruptly.”

You were unable to explain why 'coat buttons' werent mentioned in the DPP report even though the bonfire and coat were heavily discussed. That was the most pertinent moment of opportunity for such evidence to be introduced.

I was offering possible explanations as to why it was not.

There is obviously some explanation as to why. If you have a better one now is your opportunity.

No shifting of goalposts. It is you who are unable to answer basic questions relevant to the claims you have cited.

What is your explanation as to why there is no mention of coat buttons anywhere else eg DPP report?

Of course but until something concrete shows up, Bailey remains the main suspect.