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

Again and again and again posters come back with "well the DPP......" in relation to Bailey evidence.

How many times have I said on this thread that I'm well aware that the evidence against Bailey is circumstantial and was never good enough for charges?

I'll tell you the answer....loads of times.

But the circumstantial evidence we have against Bailey are facts, and there are no other facts around this case that point to another person as a stronger suspect than Bailey.

Thus my belief that Bailey is the best suspect.

This is excellently posted. It would be where I'm at overall. I mean AGS would get lot more behind them if they admitted some of earlier failings and maybe just maybe they wanted to alleviate some of that pressure on french side and put out the front they had large amount of files and had a suspect. Look it's what lot of people would probably have done in same situation.

But that has now been found over and over again to be detrimental to investigation techniques and resultant in flawed investigation.

It's still highly likely no conclusion will be reached but naturally it's what a lot of don't want. We want to hopefully have something to move nearer to reason for this murder at least.

The Gardai didn't make up his failed alibi.

The Gardai didn't make up Bailey telling multiple people he did it.

The Gardai didn't make up his violence.

The Gardai didn't make up that he was known to walk the roads late at night.

The Gardai didn't make up his weird premonition that something bad would happen.

The Gardai didn't make up that he had the physical attributes to inflict such violence against Sophie.

The Gardai didn't make up that Delia Jackson said Bailey had a bonfire when she was home from England at Christmas.

All of these are facts, real facts.

All of these points are debatable and / or circumstantial, none of it is direct evidence.

The reason for his failed alibi is - wasn't it, in your words, the Guards used a fake witness in Marie Farrell? The Guards made that up. Totally understandable for an innocent person to change their statement as a defensive move when faced with such Garda corruption and wrongdoing.

One of your 'facts' is that he was physically capable of inflicting the violence?

You want to give us the a guess at the number of people that applies to, that by that standard that can now be considered a fact against them as suspects in the murder? Hundreds? Thousands?

In your own time.

Absolutely desperate stuff.

Real facts. The Garda log book that showed how Bailey was identified as their suspect were deliberately destroyed. We have multiple pieces of evidence "lost" the implications of which are unknown in terms of pointing to other suspects or exonerating Bailey (but we can be fairly sure if they assisted the Garda case against Bailey they would not have been "lost"). We have the instructions of the State Pathlogist overruled by local Guards with regard to handling of the body.

We have Guards on tape discussing altering witness statements. We have related witness statements "lost".

You can’t take “likes walking at night” as serious piece of evidence?

It helps support the theory that he walked from The Prairie to Sophie's house.

As in such a distance to walk and at that time of night would not be out of the ordinary for him.

It's circumstantial, I've always admitted that.

But it's not debatable.

How do you determine it's debatable ?

Again none of this would hold weight. Near all instances of Bailey's alleged confessions or confessions of people with him were in drink bring taken scenarios..apart from maybe when he gave the lift to boy of school..yet he still got lifts from him..didn't report it till following day.

What about other who admitted done terrible thing..

Was the alleged disagreements with any landowners..any of them I'd say be handy with block work I'm sure you'll agree. It's all doesn't amount to anything with IB.

The peeping tom I'm sure was walking the roads..

The guards making up alibis was failing apart...any idea why Jules had get solicitor to confirm that's not what she said...any thoughts on that..sure it's changing how alibis are in interpretation. It's a flawed process. Sure I could have concocted a bizarre alibi for number of witnesses here..place them near the scene.

I absolutely agree. But again you have just said AGS made it up or whatever. Like do you think that's good place to be coming from. If that's part of any of investigation techniques, you don't have investigation.

I agree bailey changed things throughout but with type of character he is , becoming a suspect , the drink..it all leads to nothing. Your quoting a podcast..again..can it be used as evidence. Why didn't guards spot the changes in alibi.??

That's not what I said.

I said that Jules claimed that the Gardai made it up or took it out of context or whatever.

The only person claiming that it was not what she said is Jules.

Give examples of influencing other alibis?

You cannot justify examing and scrutinizing IB alibis without examing all others.

I totally agree with you..IB merits further review and we can only turn to Jules family..but risk of that now is still all but lost considering they tampered with some of her original statements. So weather they did or didn't it's flawed process

And pray tell, where is the evidence that he went on “walk about” on the night in question? He went to his office annex yes a few metres up from the main house - but “walk about? “ Tell me, who saw him out walking that night?

Great so let’s stick to the facts here considering that whenever I elect to say that other avenues also need exploring, I get shot down by you and others -if you allow yourself to add 2+2 to get 5, then I’m more entitled to also - you can’t have it all your own way- if you want to extend out to “possibilities” so can I - so if I say there are other avenues not properly explored which there are, you’re just going to have to accept that .

I’ve already referenced a number of them but as I’ve said many times it’s not up to me to explore them - that was the duty of the Gardai back in 1997- and instead they developed a groupthink approach to Bailey and that put paid to that - chances now long gone. But that doesn’t mean because Bailey is the only game in town, that he’s the killer - far from it.

What is the walking at night thing?

Did he walk home from the pub often or did he used to go for strolls around the roads after midnight?

Any thoughts on my earlier answer to your question

I'm almost to scared to express an opinion but here goes.

Harbison's conclusion was that she was battered with the flat stone initially and then the breeze block was dropped onthe right sidebof her head. This is, to my mind, contradicted by the position of the breeze block and the blood distribution on it.

The French pathologists conclusion was that she was hit on right said of the head with a blunt object (presumably the stone) and that when this happened the left side of her head was against a hard flat surface.

The abrasions Harbison describes on the right side of her face, could have been caused by the breeze block.but not necessarily by it having been dropped on her head. As she was skeletonised by the time of the Franch post mortem they did not comment on this. In fact they did not comment at all on Harbison's findings.

Hope that helps.

It's the time of the bonfire that was in question.

Bailey claims it was usually October, November or the very latest early December that he had a bonfire.

But Delia Jackson the neighbour claims there one when she was at home on holidays from England that Christmas time.

The problem with Bailey is that there is always ambiguity, nothing is definitive.

There is ambiguity about how well he did or didn't know Sophie.

There is ambiguity about his movements the night of the murder.

Hell there's even ambiguity about what he did the night before the murder.

His movements the night before the murder should be of no relevance, but Bailey managed to mislead the Gardai on that as well.

You’re grand, work away.

If the hard flat surface was the block, how did it end up where it was found and resting on Sophie’s clothes?

Have been not fave been!!!!