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

Yeah, that's what Bailey described. She may have made a fatal mistake opening the door to Bailey and after a verbal argument and then physical, she ran off screaming, Bailey couldn't calm her down and lost it, he had to finish her off.

This is the version of events described by Bailey.

And Alfie and Shirley didn't hear a thing, nothing.

Again, we're not in court, we're not investigating this case, we're not involved. We're just giving our opinions.

It was Josie's opinion that it was a local man who had a crush on Sophie. This fits with the Bailey statement. I'm not going to put Bailey in handcuffs, don't worry. I'm just stating that this is another factor in showing why Bailey is the number 1 suspect.

Go 100 yards from your house in the middle of the night when you know people in your house are asleep.

Make a racket, shout, scream for a minute.

See do you wake them up.

I'd bet you don't.

It's hardly accurate to say that the Irish DPP is part of the pro Bailey faction. You are clutching at straws in your last few posts. I see now that you think the Irish DPP is incompetent. Have you read the DPP breakdown of the evidence that was posted earlier in this thread? It doesn't look like the DPP is in any way incompetent.

If I find it, I'll post it again.

Odd though that Alfie didn’t hear Shirley scream or the car horn blaring, and he was awake and up and about.

I outlined a specific scenario - the one outlined by AGS. I asked for an example matching that scenario.

Noted you are unable to. Nor has anyone else on the thread. This speaks volumes that this is not a "likely" scenario for murder. Could it have happened that way with Bailey or AN other as perpetrator. Yes. But it's clear we are not in "likely" territory.

If it's just some man randomly murdering women that's bringing in serial killer territory. It's not the scenario you outlined for Bailey and don't pretend otherwise.

So less of the obvious deflections like "are you serious" when it's obvious you have to dramatically shift the goalposts from post to post.

Here, set aside 20 or 30 minutes and read this. It looks at each piece of evidence against Bailey and either rules it in or out. It looks pretty sure to me that the DPP know what they are doing. They've looked at the evidence in detail, have proof that they looked at it in detail, and ruled that it is sh1te (mostly).

Was Sophie killed going for a jog? Nope. Relevance - ZERO.

So nope, you don't have a scenario matching the AGS outline of this one.

The rest of your post includes the obligatory shout of "nonsense" to deflect attention away from the fact you couldn't actually answer the question.

And also taking as fact that Bailey made a statement when you don't actually know that, or the full context of the conversation.

My point stands and you've provided exactly zero evidence to contradict it - this is not a "likely" scenario for murder.

No, the French were handed selective evidence.

What were they handed?

How is it a ridiculous question? You outlined it as a "likely" scenario for murder.

If it's a likely scenario for murder then the broad pattern of the murder should have cropped up again and again. But apparently it has not.

We see random attacks by serial killers. We see robberies or attempted sexual assaults leading to murder. We see husbands knocking off wives to be with mistresses or vice versa / and or to avoid expensive divorces \ claim life insurance - sometimes using hitmen (more so in the US). We see women being attacked while alone walking home. We see witnesses disappeared.

What you call "Hollywood scripts" seem to have actually come up far more often than what you think is "likely". So your statement about what is "likely" is based on nothing, it is without foundation. What local people think "likely" simply speaks to their ignorance of crimes rather than what is actually likely.

We don't see the pattern outlined for this murder coming up.

It is not a plausible motive. The sexual motive is entirely speculative and there is zero evidence of any kind to support it.

Sophie's body showed no signs of sexual interference.

Bailey said a lot of things.....he told a sub editor that "I did it to further my career" His clumsy attempts at black humour cannot be taken literally.

The DPP described his "admissions" as "sacrastic retorts", "black humour," "sarcastic responses" "of negligible weight" "reeking of sarcasm, not veracity" and the "antithesis of an admission"

In fact, the way Bailey constantly mouthed off is the exact opposite of how you would expect a guilty man to behave.

The investigation certainly was flawed. But, more than that, it was prejudiced. Flaws can be brushed under the carpet as mistakes. Prejudice is far more sinister. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the conduct of the investigators is that they attempted to frame an innocent man. Fortunately, for Bailey and Irish justice, they were also incompetent in this.

Had there been one real piece of evidence to link Bailey to the crime, however slim, tenuous or oblique, it would have emerged by now. And it hasn't.

The DPP has said there's no evidence to suggest a sexual motive in this crime. I think their words were "pure speculation".

It's impossible to prove or disprove that Bailey (or anyone else) went there for a shag. As the DPP said, pure speculation.

You don't know what they were handed? What weren't they handed?