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

Why would I provide evidence it wasn't a stolen camera when it's your theory! Laughable. Why would a thief want pictures developed from a stolen camera? Maybe it was the hitman with a rock?

I have already explained to you clearly that Lowney did not think it was from a murder scene, he thought it was a badly beaten woman.

Marie Farrell, out of context again? How many posts is that with Marie Farrell brought up out of context? Again laughable.

So you are now doubting this episode of the pictures being developed and Lowney ever happened, when Lowney said it did happen.

More head in the sand, fingers in both ears stuff from you.

Lowney has never disputed such photos were developed, regardless if you think it was Bailey or not. Someone had them developed, most likely of Sophie at the crime scene. That part is not is not in doubt, except maybe from the most extreme of Bailey defenders.

Grand, so you have no proof it wasn't a stolen camera then. Who knows why, the entire encounter of bringing the photos to be developed is highly unusual in itself. Why would the murderer bring photos to be developed, photos they knew could incriminate them in a serious crime?

"A hitman with a rock" - look, if we listed all the times you have gotten basic things about the case wrong, it would be a long list. I'm not going to bore readers of the thread with the context of that conversation. Just in previous post you made a claim you were utterly unable to stand over that Lowney stated this about Bailey on several occasions. When asked for proof, you had exactly nothing, no acknowledgement of this, nothing. So suffice to say, your claims about the content of this thread and the case have no credibility.

Your explanation is no explanation. He thought it was a picture of a badly beaten woman... which is still a serious crime scene ffs. But he didn't think anything more of it... for 5 months... for reasons unknown. Even though the man apparently offered no explanation for such a violent scene such as, oh I needed photos for a book I'm working on, or anything. All very strange both what Lowney did not ask and what the man did not say.

Well when you have unsafe Garda conduct on the case, and we have Marie Farrell, then yes it is entirely possible some of this stuff never happened or actually has no connection to the case.

Lowney has later said he didn't identify Bailey despite being shown photos of him, despite having sufficient recall to identify Sophie's property. If you think he is telling the truth about a man coming to get photographs developed, and the photos are in fact of Sophie's body, then you need the consider the possibility of who else it might have been. Because either it was the murderer, or someone who came across the body after the murder and did not report it, because the light indicates it was before the Lyons found the body at 10am or so.

The photographer must have taken the flowery dress with him. Kinky fukcer

He didn’t even know the name of the dead woman at that stage, never mind conjure up photos of her.

Think of it as photos of the scene with the victim still there.

Yeah the whole thing is so bizarre I don't know what credence to give it. If it happened, I think it most likely is some bizarre re-enactment for purposes unknown, to try to sell photos to a paper or someone overly attached to the case.

This is a dump of questions that occurred to me about it, if we assume for sake of debate the encounter took place as described.

(a) Real or Staged

Were the photos actually of the scene, or some staging of it?

What is this mysterious piece of clothing on the gate?

(b) Murderer or In Possession

Was the man the murderer?

Or someone in possession of the camera - perhaps a thief, or camera was found e.g. family member inherited it or was suspicious about someone known to them.

(c) Did they know what was on the roll?

Lowney's description said the man got agitated at a certain point - was the nature of the photos a surprise to the man?

Was Lowney known for developing photographs on the quiet for strangers and not asking too many questions?

(d) Five Month Wait

What circumstances lead to this coming to light 5 months later - did Lowney bring it to the Guards, or did it comes up because Lowney came in contact with the Guards for other reasons.

(e) What did the man actually look like

Based on his later media statement, if he not identify Bailey - was it because he couldnt recall clearly enough, or because the man he recalled did not resemble Bailey? Bearing in mind he apparently could recall the crime scene itself with some detail. So what was the description of the man?

Read it again, slowly this time.

Lowney said the pictures of the woman were taken at night, but the murder most likely occured in the morning daylight

Apologies, I have only been browsing the thread lately.

These new photos, are they now conclusive evidence that Sophie was killed at night?

Not conclusive of anything... throws up as many questions as answers especially when you consider subsequent reports by Lowney that he did not actually identify Bailey.

Summary here of what Lowney said:

https://watchers.ie/2021/12/24/this-is-the-part-that-has-many-questions-left-in-limbo/

Is there a credible link to Lowney retracting his ID of Bailey

So the Farrells just got lucky with the husbands court case and getting the council house?

Either way their conduct with her was unsafe and she made a fool of them.

And those sorts of shenanigans as alleged by Farrell dont happen over the phone.

GSOC had very limited powers of investigatiom and given the time delay many of the participants had left the force and refused to co-operate in a demonstration of their commitment to their civic duty and the truth.

Did they ever find these photos, Bailey supposedly took at the crime scene? The Guards did search Bailey's apartment after his death? And they probably did, after the murder at some point where he lived? and the studio?

Were the photos taken at night, and directly after the murder, or after the discovery of the murder on that morning?

There are two sets of photos being discussed.

Useless ones taken by Jules at the crime scene cordon taken in the afternoon.

A set Lowney claims to have developed for someone the Guards say was Bailey but it is reported Lowney did not identify Bailey.

"Mr Lowney said the shots seemed to be taken at night given how the light was projected."

But that could mean taken in darkness which if in December could mean 6 or 7am.

The Lowney photos most likely had nothing to do with the murder.

If Bailey killed her, I doubt he would have taken a photo right after. Just too risky.

It's possible that Bailey alone or with Jules were sneaking into the murder site and took pictures? And they did that for a financial motive? All within the realm of possibilities.