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

The GSOC Report concluded there was no evidence to support claims by Ian Bailey, his partner Jules Thomas and witness Marie Farrell that the Garda investigation into Ms Toscan du Plantier’s murder in west Cork in 1996 was corrupt.

Where did you say that you had?

You havent stated that you accept the below and dont pretend otherwise.

Any excuse or vague semantics to avoid doing so is resorted to in very obvious tactics of evasion.

Do you acknowledge and accept the evidence of Garda malpractice?

It was inadmissable as it wasn't signed off by the DPP Eamon Barnes. Barnes retired shortly after the murder and James Hamilton took over as DPP. He agreed with Sheehan that there was no case against Bailey , and told Sheehan to throw it back to the Gardaí. There was no new evidence presented against Bailey so his decision stood

I found that rather odd.

So the Bandon Garda station tapes were not mentioned.

Marie Farell wasn't coerced by the Gards

Martin Graham wasn't supplied drugs by the Gards to get close to Bailey

No attempt was made to frame Bailey by the Gards.

All a bit a contradiction, ain't it.

Ah, yes, a wee bit of evidence got lost.

And conveniently they found a deceased Guard to hang the established malpractice on wrt tampering with the Jobs Book.

I was aware that Thomas had not mentioned Bailey by name, the likely reason being Sophie had not mentioned his name to her. He was just some oddball with literary pretensions hovering in the background. The fact she failed to mention details of that conversation until 2015, as you claim, has no great significance for me. There has been no grand conspiracy on the French side to create false evidence in a bid to get Bailey at all costs. Based on real evidence and witness testimony he was found guilty of murder.

There very well may have been no refuse service. In many parts of the country in the 90s there was no bin truck going around. In my household in the 80s/90s my dad burned rubbish once a week - that's what everyone done.

Ah come on she suddenly remembered this in 2015 when Bailey was the main suspect. You don't think that's convenient.

@Musicrules Just wondering, in your opinion what precisely do you think was Bailey's motive for murder? How would he have benefitted by killing Sophie?

He lost control, went too far and thought he had to kill her then. It's such a believable scenario. It happens so regularly with men attacking and killing women.

You tell me. You seem to have assumed a link when none was directly drawn.

I listed multiple reasons why any Garda comment on this case should be scrutinised and challenged more than a typical case. Nowhere did I say this specific Guard engaged in malpractice. Indirectly however all Guards on this case are linked to a flawed, malpracticed investigation. And several other Guards on this case either did engage in malpractice or were recorded discussing such action.

You are the one who seems to think any questioning of a Guards comments is a slur on their integrity.

You have multiple times on the thread stated the investigation was flawed.

Terrible thing to be saying about so many experienced Guards, if thats how you feel about such questions which you assume to be slurs.

I have listed several reasons why Garda comments should be scrutinised:

1. Flawed investigation - which you also stated

2. Malpractice in the investigation - which you have not denied

3. The pressure to 'get a result' in a high profile case can lead to a tunnel vision and confirmation bias. Especially to 'make amends' for 1.

4. The general oversight and scrutiny a DPP applies to evidence, especially to guard against 2 and 3.

The DPP seemingly does not accept these specific claims as they are not in the report though the coat and fire are discussed in detail.

And as noted, this is all speculation re: use of coat in the murder. It is indirect evidence on top of indirect evidence.

And remember there is documented malpractice in this case even though you refuse to accept - though you do not deny it.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30859712.html

As expected, you decided to go with the bluster option. I stated that I'd believe a Garda forensic expert with years of experience over an internet Bailey supporter. To which you replied:

"Given the documented Garda antics and malpractice in this case - which despite being repeatedly pointed out to you, you refuse to engage with or acknowledge, only further undermining your credibility. They have lost the benefit of the doubt, and exactly what aspect of forensics Gilligan is an expert is is very much open to question."

You were linking Eugene Gilligan to 'Garda antics' and 'malpractice'. You've tried to weasel your way out of that but failed.

Now why would you want to taint the good name of Eugene Gilligan? Because that's part of the modus operandi of Bailey defenders. Anyone who contradicts the notion that Bailey is some hard done by innocent is in on the conspiracy. They're either a corrupt guard, involved with drugs, a dodgy character, they're liars, they don't understand what Bailey really meant and so on.

You want us to believe that a long list of people are out to get Bailey instead of the obvious, he's the main suspect because he has a long list of suspicions against him. Let's not forget, guilty or innocent, he's a woman beating scumbag. Yet, you defend him but try to sully the name of a highly respected Garda forensic expert. He wasn't lying when he stated what he found in the fire, as I stated, I'd trust his verdict far more than a bailey defender posting on the internet.

Also, none of the names that Bailey defenders try to darken forced Bailey to beat Jules to a pulp, they didn't force him to change his story about his whereabouts, they didn't give him the suspicious injuries, they didn't tell him to burn his clothes and shoes soon after the murder, they didn't force him to confess multiple times etc. That's why he's top of the list of suspects. No amount of bluster, strawmaning, misrepresentation, sullying people's good name and so on can make that go away.

Yes, but losing control is not a motive. Again, what kind of motive could Bailey have had for killing Sophie? And he must have had a motive, after all taking a hike for one hour to get to her house is quite a physical challenge after a few drinks in the pub, plus the uncertainty of Sophie even opening up the door? So what would in your mind the motive for Bailey have been?

People simply don't hike around at night, in darkness after many drinks in the pub in order to knock on people's doors in the middle of the night for no reason.

Bailey certainly wasn't in the habit of visiting other women at night or in the early morining in order to beat them up?

In my opinion, having met her, Bailey was interested in Sophie and he wanted to meet her again. This is something that Agnes Thomas’s statements attest to - I am aware of the challenges that may be made with regards to Agnes Thomas’s statement; I believe her to be telling the truth.

I believe the motive for going to Sophie’s house that night was sexual or at least primarily sexual.

In terms of previous instances where Bailey behaved in a similar way (i.e. making advances on a woman who was not his partner at night in a drunken state), we know that he made an attempt to be sexual with Collette Gallagher without her consent, going so far as to get into the bed where she was sleeping and touching her. That assault did not go further in circumstances where it was interrupted by the arrival of Jules Thomas at the scene. Like Sophie, Colette Gallagher also ran from Bailey and was in considerable fear - of course she escaped relatively unharmed physically whereas we know that Sophie did not escape and was brutally murdered.