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

I assume he would've brought the photography equipment with him on the first run to save him doing two trips in the one night as part of his career resurrection...

Is there any rebuttal here of the photographers statement ?

Seems significant on the face of it

He identified the man as Bailey and the woman on the ground can only be Sophie

You not making any valid points there

More of a rant

2 witnesses saying bailey offered them crime scene photos

Bailey saying when he arrived at the scene it had been cordoned off therefore he couldn't have taken scene shots

I'd be inclined to assume that this happened and bailey did indeed have crime scene shots

So if he didn't take them after scene had been cordoned off when did he take them

So he never made the joke? Did she invent the conversation?

He also identified the location as where Sophie was found. Although interestingly the gate was closed in the photos.

Nope. The question what was put to you is this: "They are hardly the same ones reported by Lowney now are they?"

You provided no answer therefore it is reasonable to conclude the reason you do not do so is it undermines your position by demonstrating its contradictions.

Are you continually ignoring the posts where Lowney tells a newspaper that:

Mr Lowney told the Irish Mail on Sunday that although a man did come to him with suspicious photos, he never identified him to gardai as Bailey. He said: "I didn't actually say it was him."

Why, if Lowney thought this was connected to a murder, and therefore in likelihood had met the murderer and could identify him - would he wait FIVE months to mention it to Guards?

Are you seriously suggesting that Bailey would be shopping around photos of him standing over the body at night - so before it was found by the Lyons? How incriminating would that be given by that point he had been arrested over the murder?

In this case, you should consider the possibility there is more than one person lying \ misremembering at a time.

These photos? They are not by any stretch of the imagination the same as the ones Lowney describes.

Bailey called the Independent offering photos of the scene. However, when he was quizzed by a photographer about these photos in detail he admitted Jules Thomas took them. In fact Thomas did take photos when they both visited the scene at 2:20pm. Mike McSweeney decided the photos were not editorially useful and threw them away. Journalist Ann Cahill looking at these photos, but she said they showed the hat of a garda. At the scene, Bailey offered photos to Dan Linehan (Examiner) but he declined because Bailey hadn't gotten anywhere nearer than he had.

Bailey could not have been secretly at the crime scene before 2pm, unless he was there in the very early morning, in which case he would have needed a flash to take pictures. Flash makes no sense with telephoto shots, and if he was close enough to use a flash, how could he have sold such photos to newspapers? The accusation makes no sense.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderAtTheCottage/comments/xf1kc4/bailey_didnt_do_it/

You're conflating two stories here, 3 years apart.

Bailey offered the Independent crime scene photos, but when he and Jules arrived at 2:20 they got nowhere near the crime scene. Jules took the photos, but they showed nothing of value and the Independent binned them. He offered the photos to the Examiner but the examiner already had their own photos taken from the same place. Basically just photos from outside the police cordon showing a couple of Gardaí and a Garda car.

The Patrick Lowney story was 3 years later. He retracted the statement and said he never identified Ian Bailey as the man whose photos he developed. His statements were not used in either the libel trial or the high court action. The French subpoenaed him to appear in the kangaroo court but he was already dead. His statement was read out at the French trial- the statement he had retracted

Yeah he was lying or bluffing, he didn't have photos of miss du plantier did he! The photos he did offer was useless.

So his "lies" actually exonerate him of the bigger charge of tying him to the actual murder, to anyone following the details with an open mind.

Which is the point of the previous post you completely ignored.

And they would be incriminating themselves to a witness...

Another possibility is someone who didn't actually know what was on the film, the camera is not their own, they had stolen the camera perhaps. I'm just theorising here.

Nope, you're clutching at straws, as usual.

How is it clutching at straws to point out it would be an incriminating thing to do?

Can you come back to us with some actual arguments instead of vague one liners you feel obliged to post when you can't actually challenge the points made.

You're clutching at the bizarre testimony of a photographer who has said of Bailey: "I didn't actually say it was him."

I'm trying to theorise the circumstances in which someone would bring those photos to be developed.

Whatever way you look at, it is bizarre, both on the part of Lowney and whoever brought the camera - whether it is the murderer or was done for some other reason.

But it could all be a pack of lies, like Marie Farrell.

How do you know it is nonsense? You simply don't know the circumstances. I said it might be a stolen camera. So grand, provide us your proof that it wasn't a stolen camera. In your own time.

The entire circumstances of the meeting and how it came to be reported are strange.

Why did he wait 5 months to report this to Guards? Did he make contact with Guards or how did it occur to him at this 5 months later point to bring it up? Well? You have no idea do you? That should give you pause before being so certain about what it means.

We already have Guards involved in this case prepared to push Marie Farrell forward as identifying Bailey, something which has no credibility.

We already have Guards involved involved in this case talking about 'filling in statements' afterwards, implying what ends up in the Garda statement isn't what the person interviewed actually signed to.

We already have the DPP on this case calling out Garda conduct on the case with witnesses as unsafe.

So we have Guards tampering with witnesses statements and even destroying witness statements.

So the Guards do not get the benefit of the doubt here.

Lowney says he didn't actually identify Bailey, if indeed there was any such encounter.

So no, we don't have any actual independent proof (other than the Garda statement or versions of it) to backup your claim that: "He clearly stated on several occassions Ian Bailey in relation to photos developed of a badly beaten woman." But if you have it, do share.