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

I would guess that a lot of information is also held back. However I don't think there is any real new evidence, there is most likely only a bigger number of indications and further hearsay opening up even more questions than answers. Remember, it's been 28 years since the murder. Memories naturally fade, people pass away.

It's certainly not wrong to investigate Bailey, however also bear in mind that the Gardai also travelled to Paris to interview a man who was either close to Daniel or otherwise known to Daniel. So the Gardai must have investigated into every direction, even into Daniel's circles, somebody in Paris either pulling strings, organizing a hit, or even travelling to Ireland himself. It's likely that the man they've interviewed denied everything as they also had nothing on him, in terms of evidence. The outcome of the trip to Paris is not known to us as well.

Further anectotal evidence from 28 years back, with half or more than half of the individuals in questions under the earth already, and no further DNA evidence clearly and unequivocally linking killer to victim now unobtainable, it's hard to think that there will be anything really new in this case.

The only expectation I would have is that this cold case review would narrow the "most likely" from the "least likely" theory a bit further, but real proof we still wouldn't have.

Those who think that Bailey did it, would only see anything new as a form of confirmation, and those who think that Bailey didn't do it, would naturally have further doubts.

The discussion will most likely go on and on.

It's possible that it is the way you described things. Bailey has no real surviving family to stand up for him. Jules would hardly do that as the relationship ended.

Sophie's family and Sophie's son are a bit strange because they refuse to accept that there was absolutely no evidence to tie Bailey to the murder. Maybe they are small minded, maybe they are naive, stubborn or plainly dumb, I don't know. Sophie's father was a dentist in his professional life, so he must have been a university educated man, who would know and understand how the legal system worked, or better, the one in Ireland and the UK would have worked.

No conviction without evidence beyond reasonable doubt isn't that hard to understand.

Wouldn't it bother anybody in France if an innocent man would do time for murder?

I don't like to judge a whole nation…but…the French legal system is not at all like ours or Britain's.

It really is very much a case of "Someone's head must roll but it doesn't much matter whose….if you can't prove your innocence we are content to consider you guilty"

Source: I know someone whose son was brutally murdered in France. Family had to invoke Irish lawyers to wrestle with the system. Awful business.

It's really a very different concept of "justice".

In the Toscan du Plantier case, The French courts must have been delighted to be handed a complete, oven-ready file by An Gárda Síochana; they wouldn't have bothered to wonder whether the evidence was selective or even fabricated.

It was a case file, prosecute the named suspect in absentia, find guilty, done and dusted, case closed. Satisfaction all round. Unless you happen to BE the "named suspect", of course, or even an ordinary Irish citizen who wonders about the complete lack of forensic evidence!

Not necessarily….even in France, murder is not a very common crime. And in most murder cases, there's a fairly clear line of investigation to be followed; the resentful ex, the gang shooting, the brawl, etc etc; a complete mystery murder is pretty rare.

So probably their system works pretty well in the majority of cases.

It’s not so much of a conspiracy theory when you hear Michael Martin coming out saying Ian Bailey should have been prosecuted & ignoring the previous dpps report after Bailey passed away. The coward was much quieter when Bailey was alive.

The only good news is Frank Buttimer will likely call out any BS new findings that seek to pin the blame on his previous client so many in the establishment & Gards can pat themselves on the back saying job well done.

It’s been clear very early on in this cold case review they were only interested in pinning it on Bailey & improving their own image.

Amazing the shock and outcry and media attention when this happened 28 years ago. How many murders and manslaughters are there now. (Nobody bats an eyelid) How many this week? It's sad too the way the media feed on 'worthy' murders as opposed to prostitutes or homeless getting killed.

Bias? My thoughts are based on documented Garda conduct in this case and others. It is an objective view formed by the facts.

It would and should have been at least reasonable to assume that the initial investigation would be conducted in a professional unbiased manner, something that we know was not done as with other cases too.

I note that you assert that others are, "pro bailey support" yet you deny that you are a, "garda defender" when you are doing exactly that. Well what defines the two then?

Name each and every poster that’s “pro-Bailey”

They may be documented, but they are not explained, and in fact the explanations have been obfuscated, and evidence disposed of. A CCR should include detailing how and why the gards screwed up, regardless of who the perpetrator was. This is the measure of true justice. Not just pointing fingers, smoke and mirrors.