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

This has to be around your 10th time at least to fail to counteract any evidence raised against Bailey. It's obviously not as easy as you claim to rule him out as the leading suspect.

You're not getting confused, you're just accusing everyone of ignoring evidence when noone has done that. Then you're arguing against them because they have ignored the evidence. This is called a strawman argument.

Could the DNA found on the boot have nothing to do with the murder of Sophie? I've asked you that multiple times now.

It is possible that it is just coincidental of course, but I believe that the list of items, and in particular the DNA evidence has everything to do with her murder. Whoever left it has to explain themselves in my opinion, and their alibi (if they have one) would have to be scrutinised further, and they could be questioned, and probably arrested under that evidence alone.

It would be up to a jury to decide if the physical evidence left at the scene of the murder is sufficient to warrant a conviction of the person that left it there.

In an actual trial of this suspect, any of the hearsay evidence against Bailey would be ruled inadmissible, however in a trial against Bailey, physical evidence of another potential perpetrator would have been permitted, as it is stronger evidence. The DNA alone would have thrown massive doubt on the case, especially if the gardai had not bothered to investigate it.

It doesn't completely rule out Bailey as a suspect either, but in my opinion it is stronger, and far more damning than circumstantial evidence, and rules in a more likely suspect than Bailey, if the gards bothered to investigate it further. Doesn't fully rule him out though, he would still be a suspect, just not the prime suspect, and that's what a proper investigation is supposed to do, instead of the shambles we got.

Let me be concise. DNA evidence which has not been explained, or investigated further, is stronger evidence than anything against Bailey.

It is possible that there are innocent explanations for the DNA on Sophie's boot, the unidentified tyre marks, boot prints, fingermarks and finger prints.

It is equally possible thre are innocent explanations for the circumstantial evidence you list against Ian Bailey. Even more than possible since two different DPPs on at least three separate occasions have expressed the view that there was not evidence to support prosecuting Ian Bailey.

It would appear there are far too many loose ends and too little (if any) direct evidence to even approach the 'beyond reasonable doubt' threshold.

Until then, almost anyone could be a suspect.

"evidence raised against Bailey"

There is none. You constantly repeating this and spamming your pointless list doesn't change the fact.

A completely reasonable take. Sadly wasted on certain people.

In terms of questioning others I think the boat has long sailed on that one - most if not all people mentioned in this and other discussions on the case have long since deceased - if the report to the DPP in 2025 doesn’t differ considerably to the report submitted in the early 2000s then this has been a complete waste of time money and effort- and if they’re still banging on about Bailey submitting essentially hearsay as “evidence” then they’ve a hell of a lot of questions to answer to justify this complete waste of taxpayers money.

There is and the cold case team are looking into this and more it seems. Putting your fingers in your ears and going la la la won't make it disappear.

A reasonable take, however it warrants further investigation to establish this, and until that investigation is carried out the DNA is the strongest piece of evidence in the case.

In addition, I believe there is almost certainly more DNA to be found, given how advanced techniques have become and the plethora of samples available to test. This would include potential evidence against Bailey by the way.

The fact that everyone cannot simply agree (even if you consider people pro-or-anti Bailey) that further investigation of DNA is the first, and most important step, in any cold case review is extremely disheartening in the search for justice.

“It's more likely that it has nothing to do with the murder at all.”

Where is the evidence for that statement?

Everyone thinks it's an important step, what are you talking about? But remember, this investigation was botched from the start. This means that potential evidence was not gathered or destroyed. So there is not many samples to test and what they do have may have the possibility to be tested once more. Waiting until DNA analysis is at an even more developed stage may be the tactic.

People pointing out the evidence against Bailey does not mean they 100% think it was him, it just means he's the most likely culprit given everything we know.

This snake oil evidence as you call it also went on to say the following:

“His analysis suggests the manner in which Sophie was bludgeoned to death, “particularly and relentlessly directed to the victim’s face, might suggest an emotional connection between the perpetrator and victim”.

He submits that the “targeted destructive rage may also suggest repressed and unexpressed sexual motivation enhancing the perpetrator’s frustration and hence his rage.”

Considering no clear connection between Bailey and Sophie has ever been established, no less an emotional one, that one hell if a fcking jump 😀

https://www.thesun.ie/news/12042438/ian-bailey-report-sophie-tuscan-du-plantier-murder/amp/

Reverse profiling- Here's the murder. Here's the killer. Here's everything the Gardaí have given us on the killer, now make it fit.

However

"And he suggested the alleged admissions he made about Sophie’s death were “attempts to create confusion and cloud the issue”….

Dr Gatherias wrote: “They are not to be taken as confessions as such ………"

He's probably right about that.

🤣 He's talking complete and utter rubbish I tells ya. Except for the part that is pro Bailey.

Given that Bailey has been investigated by fair means and foul with a spotlight, and all that was drummed up was 'very weak  circumstantial evidence'
… And a senior Guard said that considering the now discredited Marie Farrell's evidence of a sighting on the night of the murder as reliable…

The most likely suspect is person or person(s) unknown.

The entire "leading suspect" angle is meaningless nonsense. The amount of very weak evidence the Guards put together against Bailey is a function of him being suspected and investigated by them. Even to the extent of rolling out such dodgy witnesses as Marie Farrell and Bill Fuller. It is circular logic.

The DNA on the boot may have nothing to do with the murder, but if people are prepared to argue that for DNA, then the same standard needs to be applied for so much of the debatable or possibly innocent 'evidence' against Bailey, such as scratches,
That's circumstantial evidence for you.

And there are many other points that suggest a time for the murder towards morning which would make Bailey an even less likely suspect. Also use of a vehicle. The foot prints. The tire tracks.
Supposedly scratched at the scene yet zero forensics.
How many of those have to be "explained away"?