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

If you think the story about the German telling someone he had done a terrible thing is an "obvious lead" then you clearly do. It isn`t even hearsay.

Well he wasn't wearing gloves was he, which would be the obvious thing to do if you're actually trying to conceal your hands…..

Pschologists arent medical professionals. They cant diagnose anything. No pschologist was officially uses in the investigation.

no thats wrong, as is your other post. a psychologist can indeed diagnose.

That wasnt your claim. Your claim was a psychologist cant diagnose. That is wrong. A psychologist can diagnose a personality disorder. You are wrong.

"At some stage thereafter, Jules was stating it was impossible that Ian could have done it."

What she actually said was - It was impossible that Ian could have done it without her knowing. Not that he could have left the house and gone over there and killed her in the middle of that night, without her knowing, but that she would have known in the aftermath of such a slaughter, from his demeanour.

From an interview in the independent-

" I know Ian had nothing to do with it,” she said.

“He just wouldn’t be able to handle it. He wouldn’t be able to cover it up emotionally. He is not capable of covering up his emotions. I could read him like a book.

“If he done something like that, I would have known. He is messy. I would have seen blood. I would have seen all sorts of things.”"

If he had a pair maybe. Most men don`t. I`ve never owned a pair for casual wear and if you went about wearing the gloves of a manual labourer casually you would only draw more attention to yourself.

You keep on labouring on about how 3 psycholigists "diagnosed" Bailey. Where? Was not a feature of any of the trials or investigations in Ireland. Please give proof of an official diagnosis of Bailey (as opposed to a personal opinion of someone not involved in the case or with Bailey). There are many documents in the public domain, but I"ve never come across a formal report outlining a professional diagnosis.

Its a bit like the lack of any physical evidence linking Bailey to the crime scene. Either a professional diagnosis exists or it doesnt.

May I suggesr that you'rw going down a rabbit hole here with this psychology stuff? Would be better to concentrate on facts/evidence etc. No psychology report is proof of anything.

Thankfully the Irish Courts deal in facts/evidence only and dont stray into opinions......its a dangerous road to go down when you try and use opinions to find people guilty.

I keep on labouring? No. Not really. I pointed to something, and then faced many objections from those who simply would not see. I dont much care if the courts do/dont consider professional opinions. I dont much care if Bailey was guilty or not. Im not trying for something.

I came to a thread, saw a mistake, dared correct it, presented a previously overlooked angle. And invoked much salt for my kind gesture. No good deed.

And now we're at the point of pedantics over the word diagnosis. Very well. "A: investigation or analysis of the cause or nature of a condition, situation, or problem" - Merriam Webster.

B: "a statement or conclusion from such an analysis".

And there was an investigation, and there was a conclusion.

Must I remind you again that you didn't even know until tonight that a psychologist could diagnose. You dont know what you're talking about.

To keep this thread on subject.

Is the cold case review looking at the DNA that was found at the scene. There's so much more than can be gleened from DNA today. Even if there is no known match, you can still get information on the persons ethic origins, wider family etc.

He would have sought to be accepted by her as a friend and an intellectual equal but the prospect of sex would have been pretty high on his agenda as well, I imagine.

Still an urban myth I`m afraid. I don`t do misinformation. I never denied Wolney`s existence or that he committed suicide. Only that he ever told someone he had done something terrible before he died. Read the article you cited. No mention of it. Even Jim Sheridan knows better than to allege it because he knows it never happened.

"prove it`s an urban myth so."

Sure I have done so already and will continue to do so every time you come on here and fail to substantiate it. I`m sure if you try really hard you might find an off hand reference to it by some uninformed hack who wanted to make up a story on a slow news day and no doubt there are Baileyites who like to repeat it on Reddit or X or wherever. But go see does it exist in a witness statement or if it`s mentioned in a DPP report. You needn`t bother because it doesn`t.

"Why would it be mentioned in a DPP report about about Ian Bailey?"

Because if there was substance to it the DPP would have been all over it.

"So it`s your opinion then and not a fact"

Nah. The non-existence of something is a fact until someone proves it actually exists.