Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

So Bailey was the first civilian on the scene or wasnt he? This deflection is implicitly an admissiom he was not. So no matter how many of the points you cited are discredited zero change in your belief in his guilt.

Conclusion - they were made up claims and you know you cant stand over them.

So when you shift to another dubious claim... it has negative credibility. No point in asking for the basis of the claim just as you never offer, just shift to another. Completely discrediting of your claims and position.

Its clear your opinion of Baileys guilt isnt based on objective evidence.

Why do you think Bailey burnt the clothes (the following day) that he wore on the night of the murder?

Who is saying he did based on what specific evidence that supports that specific claim?
Is it the same bogus source as your false claim that Bailey was the "first civilian on the scene"?
You couldn't stand over that claim, couldn't provide a single piece of evidence to back it up it was so obviously misinformation.

Completely discrediting of your certainty of Bailey's guilt - when you drop in claims like this, backed by nothing and whenever challenged on them, respond with another question or new claim.

He stopped on Hunts Hill that night and wondered if there was a party in Alfie Lyons house.

He had a drink problem so might've been wanting more drink. I'm not a big drinker but sometimes I've the urge to just keep drinking after the pub. It wasn't that late.

It was a short drive not an hour's hike.

There's a gate behind Sophie's house leading to the Lyon's house. Maybe he got out of the car to open it and made noise. Sophie got out of bed to investigate. They had an argument and he went too far.

It's the simplest explanation.

Simple or over simplified. It's an invention out of nowhere that is implausible looking at history of criminal cases.

It's an hour's hike in the scenario outlined by the Guards, and the reason they had to resort to that is that they couldn't find any evidence for the car being missing in those hours or used in the murder.

If it's such a simple explanation, find us other examples of that scenario in crime annals. And yes, we can find examples of wives being killed by hitmen hired by husbands, witnesses killed by crime gangs, we can find botched murder attempts by hitmen, neighbour disputes that get out of hand and lead to violence.

You're already including maybes, might'ves.

It is just special pleading.

Further reasons to doubt the use by Bailey of the white Ford Fiesta in the murder comes from this article, ok granted it is by Senan Molony…

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/investigators-are-again-studying-whether-a-car-was-used-in-killing-of-french-filmmaker-sophie-toscan-du-plantier/40674312.html

The white 1987 Cork-registered Ford Fiesta belonging to Jules Thomas, the partner of Ian Bailey, was among the cars examined for clues. “Many” vehicles were examined, according to a source with knowledge of the original investigation…

In a memo of his interview with Ms Thomas, Det Gda Jim Fitzgerald wrote that she said: “I remember hoovering our Fiesta car around Christmas time, and I thought to myself at the time that it was unusually dirty when I did so, and also there was sand on the floor of the driver’s side.“
In relation to the fire that has been mentioned at the back of my mother’s house [the studio] at Lissacaha, Schull, I wish to state that I started up this fire myself long before Christmas. The place needed a clean-up and I burned an old mattress and there was a heap of old magazines there which I also burned.

(from this it requires explanation as to how such a murder could have been carried out leaving no clues in the car)

Yes, Bailey had noted the vehicle on his Garda questionnaire:

Questionnaire responded to on 14 January 1997 by Bailey has a question which asks “account of movements between 12 midday Friday the 20th of December 1996 and 10 a.m. on Monday 23rd of December 1996. Details of all travel and meetings with other individuals no matter how trivial should be included that is visits to shops, mass, pubs, local visits etc. Means of transport need to be included. Use separate page for this information if necessary. Bailey’s response was, “access to car 87 C 1524 (white ford fiesta) as attached”.

The implication I took from the remark was that the car had built up a considerable amount of dirt i.e. "unusually dirty", therefore it had not been cleaned up shortly after the murder, that it had been a long while since it was last cleaned. Traces of use in such a murder would lead to more than sand being noticed. And a domestic hoovering would not get rid of all such traces.

There were no legal grounds for extradition. Anyone with the slightest insight into the facts of the case would understand this.

Every post seems to only demonstrate further your lack of knowledge of the facts of the case.

He was the first civilian on the scene after Sophie had been found and the crime reported to the Gardaí. It would have been quite odd if he'd discovered Sophie himself when clearly he had no business being in that area the following morning. The likely people to have found Sophie were the people living next door (Alfie Lyons and his family). That is what occurred. Then it was reported to AGS. Then the media found out. Someone told Bailey. . . Then he was the first to turn up.

I wouldn't waste any time convincing a user who doesn't believe things anyway.

One just has to pose the question in reverse.

Suppose you ( or myself or Peter Flynt ) lived in an area or part of the country where you're not particualrly liked by the locals due to your personality, and suppose something else negative happened, would that all make you number one suspect in a murder case, even if there is no evidence? Or even worse, convicted for murder without any evidence, with a coerced witness and a completely botched police investigation…..

Nobody seen Bailey do it, Bailey didn't leave any DNA, no fingerprints, his cuts and bruises from either killing a turkey or chopping a Christmas tree also wasn't tied to the crime scene, there was basically nothing, and still some like Peter Flynt insist he did it.

Suppose we all don't like Peter Flynt's personality, but all agreed he did it, not having any evidence…..

What kind of system would that be?

And this is what Bailey had gotten.

This is a damning comment by the first journalist to interview Bailey (Senan Molony).

"He said he had told the guards when under arrest that he had a sidebar selling Christmas trees, and got them from lopping them down. I can still see his mouth opening and closing like a goldfish when I protested: “Who the hell buys a Christmas tree on the 23rd of December? They’ve already got them up.”

Turkeys came into it days later – belt and braces, because he never said turkeys to me that night, but had instead told trees to the gardaí. Henceforth he had been nicked by an upside-down bird… but I knew then he was lying."

Again it wouldn't be enough to convict Bailey in a court of law and this is the argument taken by some posters on here.

Not the first time Bailey lied either. He almost certainly lied about ever meeting Sophie as Alfie Lyons stated he was 90% sure he introduced them and he originally lied over leaving the house that night. The story constantly changed.

It is possible to simultaneously believe that Bailey was guilty and yet accept that AGS screwed up the case so much that it is understandable that the DPP did not proceed with a case.

Therefore it's up to your own judgment and, let's be honest, this area of West Cork is not The Bronx in the 1980s. It was almost certainly a local man with about 200 living permanently in the area at the time. It would not be unreasonable to link a man with a known history of criminality and violence towards women.

When I first watched the Netflix doc I thought, like you, yeah he's guilty and all the circumstantial evidence points to him. Then I watched the Jim Sheridan one and listened to the murder in West Cork podcast. To be fair there's really nothing tying Bailey to the murder. There's a lot of hearsay and maybe people didn't like him (no shock there). However, there's no motive, no DNA, no witnesses. Yes, he had been violent with Jules but that really doesn't add up to murdering a woman he would hardly have met let alone known.

I think one of the issues is that Bailey himself, the bizarre person that he was, seemed to court the attention and almost enjoyed laughing at the paddywackery approach from the guards. I'm sure this wound them up more and it seems like they really wanted to pin it on him. A lot of the "evidence" that people quote against Bailey comes from statements made years later, half-remembered conversations, hearsay, and let's not forget the amazingly incredible, in every sense of the word, Marie Farrell.

Yeah. There are more questions than answers. Why were the pages torn out of the casebook by the guards? Some of the conversations taped of guards discussing the case. Missing evidence and generally poor detective work. Also, the fact harbison didn't get there till the following evening (was it?). Shambolic really. If it was someone belonging to you you'd be so angry. I can understand why her family want to pin it on Bailey as the "evidence" they've focussed on points to him. If they could be objective though they would see that it doesn't stack up. The French court case was embarassing. To be fair to the guards, they weren't used to dealing with murder in a small locale like that. But that's probably being overly fair to them.

As someone mentioned above, it's a travesty that the guards didn't interview the husband and anyone on the French side. That's basic really. So many cases, it's the husband as we've seen recently in other news. Who did she know in Ireland: not many people really. Was it someone unknown? Then it could be anyone. The guy who committed suicide not long after?