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

Women are very intuitive - We sense things in a way that men cant. Jules lived with Bailey for 25 years after the murder and even after his death she is positive he didnt do it. Even Jules daughters (who hated him) dont think he done it.

Jules and her daughters had alot to gain from getting Bailey locked up - it was the perfect way of getting rid of him out of their lives. They didnt do that though because they have a conscience and are convinced he was innocent.

So, he made numerous "confessions" to diverse local characters, whilst simultaneously hiding his guilt from Jules and her daughters.

Hmmmmm……….

Look, all I’m saying is that you should practice what you preach. I’m not sure I would call anyone on here pro-Bailey tbh. Maybe there are people who put him on some sort of pedestal, but I haven’t come across any. The vast majority that I come across here are earnestly searching for justice for Sophie. That involves revisiting the information and evidence with fresh eyes, and not to get bogged down in the mistakes of the past.

With fresh eyes it is clear that there is no evidence for a 3 a.m. murder, and statistically it is more likely to have happened either at midnight, or the morning. In addition given that blood was fresh on the face, would push it to morning time.

With fresh eyes it is evident that there should be more dna investigation carried out, and more cross referencing of the unknown dna that was found.

With fresh eyes it is evident that a new appeal for information should occur, similar to that of the JoJo Dullard case, and any loose ends not followed up on back then, should be now.

The gardai who attended the scene should provide updated statements, given their extensive knowledge that they have built up in the 30 years since and revisit their assumption also.

None of the above categorically rules out Bailey, and if he did it, would actually increase the likelihood of getting to clear evidence in his case. Anyone who comes on here claiming that supporters of these assertions are pro-Bailey, is being ignorant at best imo.

The DPPs office here looked at the evidence multiple times, and concluded there was insufficient evidence for him to stand trial. Not only that, there are scathing criticisms of the evidence and Garda conduct on the case from the DPP.

Senior Gardai are recorded discussing the case, and noting that all they have is "flimsy evidence".

So if he got convicted of murder in France, that should tell you a lot about the French judicial system and miscarriages of justice.

The legal system in France is different to here, in France you've to prove your innocence instead of them proving your guilt, he didn't travel to France for trial because he knew he would be found guilty because of all the inconsistencies in his statements and stories. He lied about knowing her, lied about where he was, fire out the back of his studio and we could go on and on but according to some everyone else is lying and Bailey wasn't.

Again i'm not saying he did it but the pro Bailey on here is crazy, blaming the Garda for how they investigate and question people (which to this day is still done that way), the way the pay informants (again, still done to this day) and many other things that have been said which is the normal course of things.

I know you yourself didn't say it but people saying Jules would know is total codswallop, most murderers, pedos, people who commit sexual assaults etc are wired different to others, most cases of these people that have been convicted live perfectly normal lives and commit these crimes without their partners/wifes/husbands etc not knowing anything about it at all until they're arrested/convicted for it and most of the time they still stand by their significant other saying they're innocent. People aslo saying it wasn't a sexual crime aren't right but they're not wrong either, there's been loads of cases of murders the world over and the motivation was sexual but the killing part was the part that the killer got sexual gratification from, the victim was not sexually assualted themselves.

A lot of posters here need to take their own advice and look at the case without rose tinted Bailey glasses on and look at it objectively without thinking he is innocent straight away.

way more is pushing it but "more" isnt

Nope, it is not normal for a DPP to come out with the sort of criticisms we see in this case - that is on public record.

It is not normal for GSOC to report on tampered evidence in the case - that is on public record.

So yes I will blame the Guards for a tunnel vision, incompetent investigation in which they engaged in malfeasance.

I didn't think Bailey was innocent straight away.
In the first instance, in Ireland you are innocent until proven guilty.
In the second instance, having looked at the 'flimsy' evidence the Guards put together, despite being all over Bailey and using fair means and foul, I think on balance he is innocent.
And it was called 'flimsy' by a senior Guard and that was when they thought they had Marie Farrell as a credible witness. For the French investigation to treat her testimony as credible and use that to support a conviction is a miscarriage of justice.
Or are you going to try to pretend she didn't lie?

Witnesses lie, witnesses make mistakes, they misremember, they allow themselves to be guided by police out for a 'result'.
Innocent people too can lie (if they think they are being fitted up or an answer might incriminate them in another crime or personally), or be mistaken in recollections under pressure.
It is highly debateable how well Bailey knew the victim or even what bearing it has on the case. It is indirect circumstantial evidence.

So spare us any patronising glib remarks about looking at it objectively. You are a million miles away from justifying them. So take your own advice, I have no need of it.

Listen the bottom line is this, everybody is innocent until proven guilty, rose tinted glasses or no. Objective is taking this viewpoint. Subjectively is considering someone guilty before looking at the evidence. This is basic stuff.

If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with the legal system in general, which has erred on the opposite side of that caution in this case. I would suggest you open up another thread to talk about how the legal system has failed Sophie, and countless others from finding someone guilty (but not necessarily responsible) for murder if it bothers you so much.