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

He knew Sophie, he had a believable motive, he lied about his whereabouts on the night in question, he had the opportunity, he had injuries on his arm and head, he had a history of violence against women, he had a suspicious fire behind his house soon after the murder, he showed obsession with other women and showed creepy sexual behaviour with others and he admitted on a number of occasions to actually killing Sophie.

What part of that is made up rubbish?

So after the stop off on Hunt`s Hill, according to Jules Thomas`s statement…

"The two of us then went home and very little was said except some words to the effect that he was going over later or sometime, if I wanted to go, and I said I was too tired. I got the impression that he was going over to Alfie`s but I wasn`t sure if it was that night or not."

The important part of that post was that both Jules and Bailey changed their stories. Why did they do that?

There was approx 4-6 accounts of Bailey knowing Sophie listed here , which I don't have to hand before the question is asked”

Absolute rubbish there aren’t even 2 accounts no less 6 -and none of them are anyways believable

That`s how it works. You didn`t think that she`d be writing it out herself did you? I know he might use terminology like "jog on" instead of "move along", but at the end of the day a guard writes out the statement, you are given the statement to read and you sign it if you are happy with it. She signed it and came back and signed it again three years later.

Yes, there is: living next door to the victim, history of disputes with her about access to the barn and use of the lane, being very close to the crime scene at the time it was committed, suspected of growing illegal narcotics. Knew the victim, met her frequently, had been in her house, described her as pain in the neck.

None of this means he did it, of course; but you can't say there's no connection or no link. There's actually plenty.

In absence of evidence it sounds strange, even stupid, to constantly blame Bailey, suggest that he hiked for hours to and from his house in the darkness of the night to ring or knock at Sophie's door in hopes of her opening up, demanding sex and killing her when she turned him down, and that all after a night of a good amount of drinking in the pub? - Whilst at the same time a known drug user and neighbour whom Sophie had a dispute with would be close by the whole night?

I'd suggest unless there is new credible evidence, the discussion will go in circles, and those thinking Bailey did it vs those who think he didn't more or less evenly split, - same of those supporting evidence beyond reasonable doubt vs those who think that he's guilty because he beat up his partner Jules…

I guess we'd have to wait for the end of the cold case review, - whatever that means, especially in the light of memories fading, suspects passing away etc…

I am also guessing that so far the Guards came up with a lot more circumstantial evidence, but a real break through in the case hasn't happened at all. The motive might be a combination of that they owe it to Sophie's family, or the local population and their doubts in the credibility of the Guards, or simply getting some form of answers to unanswered questions and maybe at best a more modern forensic approach with the little credible evidence found and still left.

Nope it is not "always omitted".

Big difference between a walk of several hours at 3am on a cold December night after no sleep and getting out of bed after a few hours kip to sit at a desk and tidy up an article.

This has been pointed out to you already on the thread but doesn't stop you making such false assertions. I guess that must be an example of the "blinkered bias" you claim to be concerned about in post above.

They did scrape her fingernails for DNA; and all they found was her own. [I apologise, I can't find where this is published; but I'm pretty sure it is a credited fact]

Adds a good deal of weight to the idea that the killer wore gloves. It was a winter night, after all, and no fingerprints were found at the scene in spite of much bloodshed. No skin scraps or DNA on the thorns of the brambles, in the hedge that poor Sophie got snagged in.

Of course, if they wore gloves, their hands wouldn't be scratched. Can't have it both ways!

However, the technology has improved by leaps and bounds since 1997. I earnestly hope that some of the evidence taken at the scene is still extant, able to be re-tested, and they can finally add some real data to this hazy cloud of guesswork and assumption.

I'm pretending to be a Cold Case Detective, today. See thread title for justification!

IF the killer wore gloves - and it seems quite likely that he did - then it should have been an easy next step to round up every glove owned by every male in a five-mile radius, and test all of them for blood. It's a simple test. There aren't all that many men of suitable age and fitness in the area. This could have been done, and should have been done.

That is, assuming that the killer was local. This is usually a safe assumption, and statistics would support it. But if the killer was an unknown from outside the area, well, it makes detecting much harder. They might have been a scrap-metal dealer looking to turn over unoccupied holiday homes over winter, or a drug buyer hoping to score. We cannot know!

In such a case, there are almost no leads to follow - and the case remains unsolved.

"Adds a good deal of weight to the idea that the killer wore gloves"

Or used a weapon that kept him beyond arms length to incapacitate her.

if the killer was “smart” enough to wear gloves do you think he kept them then for work around the house? 😀