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

yes it is.

but thats not to say that professionals cant diagnose with accuracy from other information sources.

even you or i can do this on the most basic level. if joe publics accounts show 50% of his earning regularly going on drink … good odds hes suffering alcoholism.

a dr psychologist typically trains for 6 years just on understanding people. when they submit a diagnosis to a court they put all that training, their reputation, and their career on the table. For all the public and legal professionals to try to pick holes in.

You've been beating this psychology drum for quite a while now, but I don't see where it leads us. At best, it gives us a likelihood of someone being capable of such an act, and even then it's just a probability. That's it. It's not a smoking gun and it never will be.

None of what you said brings us closer to the truth, because we don't know what the truth is. For example, if the truth is that Bailey didn't kill her, then accepting everything you just said takes us further from the truth.

That is why we stress the importance of hard evidence like DNA, because it is impartial and fair and that is the surest route to what really happened, not what a few psychologists imagine a person might be like without ever meeting him.

"Facts take you further away from the truth?"

If they lead you away from it, and I just described how but, again, as always, you pretend not to understand. And again, I'll point out, that it's obvious that you're doing it.

"And you move on."

Something you clearly can't do. You're clinging onto this psychological "evidence" with all your might. But it's vapour. Hot air.

Take your own advice. Move on. (You won't).

I don't know what a nothing burger is.

I don't see the value in speculation. In fact, I think it is harmful in the pursuit of the truth you claim to value.

This view of mine should be obvious if you paid the slightest attention to anything I've said.

I don't think you're being serious, tbh. But then again, you never really were.

So what does your theory say about the fact that unknown DNA was found on the victim and it wasn't Bailey's

And putting it out there that they had a witness that said that she saw someone resembling Bailey near the scene on the night in question. Evidence later recanted. Did they ever identify who was with her at the time ? Was she even out that night ?
Giving contraband to help to guide a witness. Keeping Bailey at the forefront of local suspicion even while admitting amongst themselves that the evidence against him was flimsy ?
But sure we can ignore all that as we now have the three shrinks !!

OK you're in dispute with the findings of 3 professionals with a total of over 20 years training between them.

You can take any fact and boil it down to just opinion if you want to be like that about it. Water freezing at 0 can be mocked as just opinion if you want to do so.

https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fbul0000323

If that link doesnt help just search 'increased violence and narcissism' and pick from any result, this isnt a controversial take.

Edit: here, took 5 seconds.

Ohio State University researchers Brad Bushman and Sophie Kjærvik reviewed 437 studies of narcissism and

aggression

involving more than 123,000 participants. They found that narcissism is related to a 21 percent increase in aggression and an 18 percent increase in violence.

Those aren't "findings" - they are theories.

If someone is found guilty then the theories are vindicated - they have some basis in experience, after all. But until someone IS found guilty, they remain merely theories - and unproveable.

Therefore they are largely irrelevant to an investigation; not only are theories inadmissible in court, they can even be misleading if someone should mistake a theory for a fact.

"There may not have been an organizational conspiracy…"

Jules Thomas`s statement is fundamental to setting out what Bailey`s intentions were on the night of the murder. Either he was going over to Alf Lyons`s place or he wasn`t. Either the statement was fabricated or it wasn`t. As far as I am aware she was questioned by six gardaí. Fabricating her statement then required an organized conspiracy of minimally six gardaí. Then she signed it and came back and signed it again three years later. It was either a conspiracy or it wasn`t. Take your pick.

"missing evidence"

Poor management and procedure or a conspiracy to deflect attention from the real killer. Take your pick.

"pages being ripped from the jobs book"

I don`t know why and neither do you but as I said before the conspiratorial mind will always think the worst.

"AGS members warning the community that Bailey was responsible and would kill again"

Because they genuinely believed he was the killer and that he had the propensity to do it again. He nearly did in 2001 and with a weapon too.

Life isn't black and white though, most everything lands in the grey area between. Unfortunately you just have two colours on your palette.

In addition as I've said before the gardai aren't a single entity. They are no different than the folks on here. I'm sure many of them have different opinions. You are in fact selling them very short in that respect. Do you think every single Garda on the whole island believed that Bailey was planning to murder someone else? Far more likely that one or two amped up gards thought so.

These comparisons are not the same, the point is not all opinions carry equal weight. Consensus usually drives the acceptance of facts. Compare the theory of gravity to people who believe in a flat earth.

Psychiatry/psychology almost never have consensus, and in particular it further requires meeting the person who you are diagnosing, much like any other medical ailment or disease someone may have. Just the way it is.

It is pretty much impossible to predict whether someone will have committed murder or not without other evidence. That is effectively what these people are trying to do. Sure there can be some marginal increases in statistical likelihood, but overall it is evident, whether Bailey or not, that the person who killed Sophie was violent, and likely had a very hot temper, we don't need a psychiatrist to tell us that.

There is literally nothing to show he did it. You can't go by confessions - every murder attracts weirdos who earnestly claim to have committed it.

Lucy Letby did NOT confess - this is true; yet a jury found her guilty. Having assessed what evidence they had. "Beyond reasonable doubt"

Other men have spent decades in jail only to be exonerated years later - convicted on circumstance and hearsay alone. Look up the trial of Steven Truscott. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/steven-truscott-case

Now, I do not know who killed Sophie Toscan du Plantier! A violent person, surely; a man, most probably. A description that fits Ian Bailey. (And also fits others)

The Gárdai seem to have felt that they had to choose a suspect from among those they could see. And really tried very hard to establish one solid connection between him and the crime scene. Not successfully! Though, of course, they did not successfully rule him out, either.

So of course it is a dilemma: what to believe? A hash of hearsay and contradictory statements, (too much of) or the forensic evidence (not enough of)

Cos, like, he still could have done it. Or maybe someone else did. #dilemma