Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

I only accept that Jules wasn't Sophie.

Beating up one woman, is absolutely no evidence that he beat up other women.

And even if he say randomly beat up other women on the streets, say unprovoked and under the influence of alcohol, you'd still have to prove that Bailey was at the scene of the crime and killed Sophie and provide evidence.

Bailey claimed to be not even aware of Sophie's existence, let alone having been introduced to her and gotten to know her. He said this in an interview with Vincent Browne on TV3, in which his body language clearly suggested he was lying - Adam's Apple bobbing furiously. I don't think he would have passed a polygraph exam had he been required to sit one.

Body language…..talk about scraping the barrel…

Did his eyebrows meet in the middle too? Can't trust anybody with them that do.

Do you have a source for this alleged claim?

Because a quick google of Bailey and Vincent Browne tells a different story.

Strange how much misinformation is circulated on the thread trying to point to Baileye guilt that a quick google disproves.

“I saw her once from a distance when I was working for a neighbour of hers” and said that he was never told why or how he might have been involved in her murder when he was arrested by Gardaí.

https://www.thejournal.ie/bailey-says-his-life-became-absolutely-hell-in-years-after-du-plantier-death-371080-Mar2012/

On ths subject of polygraphs... a quick google into wikipedia explains why they are generally not admissible / used as evidence:

Comprehensive 2003 review by the National Academy of Sciences of existing research concluded that there was "little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy."  The American Psychological Association states that "most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies." For this reason, the use of polygraphs to detect lies is considered a form of pseudoscience, or junk science.

Body language is not proof of murder.

Whether Bailey knew Sofie or not is also not proof of murder.

Lot's of people don't get that.

The people scraping the barrel are the Ian Bailey fans on here who excuse a murderer, ignore and couldn't care less about overwhelming circumstantial evidence which convicted Bailey in a French court, and who get taken in by a compulsive liar whose story changed more times than his socks (it was Xmas trees, it was turkeys etc....).

Mod Edit: Warned for uncivil posting and discussing other posters

I've had that thought often as well. However one thing I've also always considered is that due to the remoteness of the house, mostly everyone visiting would always have driven to come and go. I've always put it off to one car being parked outside of the house, would mean one person, or at least one adult was staying there, two cars, two adults….. That is unless they were a couple and travelling together. Of course there is little logic to that, but maybe also not.

Her French contacts / husband would have known early on that she would have travelled alone, but most likely would have Josie Hellens, and thus Finbarr and most likely pretty soon Leo Bolger. I think if somebody in Ireland would have wanted to have known if she was alone or not he or she would have found out quickly.

Maybe that identified/unidentfied? stranger in a black coat and unshaven beard was keeping and eye on her and following her and looking for some kind of right moment for the murder / study her movements / etc..?

One very strong possibility in this murder case is that the murderer most likely wanted to be alone with Sophie, and chances of catching her alone were the highest at her cottage in Ireland. No son, no family from France around, etc… I would presume catching Sophie alone and no possible witnesses somewhere in France would be very difficult.

Another thought I've also had is if the murder wasn't at all of what we think. One possible motive I could come up with as a possible consideration would be her work, and Uni-France. How about a movie about some controversial subject, something political or socially controversial, somebody didn't want or like? I've researched Uni-France once, but no movie ever came up. But it's at least worth a thought for a yet unknown motive.

There are lot's of different opinions and some people find it harder to have a closer look.

The mere method on how she was killed and the whole discussion rage killing vs planned killing is another one.

On the surface it looks very much like a rage killing, but that automatically beggs the question, whom would Sophie bring in such a rage, if she's rarely ever at her cottage in any given year. She was what, say, only 2 to 3 weeks in any given year at her cottage anyway. Rages usually build up over a longer time or some other long and unresolved dispute ( not about opened or closed gates and those likes…)

And then there is the consideration that a professional killer made it look like a rage killing, to keep everyone guessing.

Her time of the visit in December was unusual, so the killer would under normal circumstances not have expected her to stay at the cottage. Thus the killer must have known she was at the cottage, which again would limit the possible suspects both in France and Ireland.

Ignore the posters on here who say there's no evidence. There is evidence. Most of it circumstantial, for sure, because Bailey was lucky enough to get away with not leaving evidence at the crime scene.

Let's not forget that Bailey has been convicted in a court of an EU country and given a 25 year sentence .... yet the Bailey fans on here would like you to believe that France is a tinpot dictatorship or banana republic (and not Ireland ironically).

Bailey drove to Sophie that night after stating his bizarre admission to Jules that he felt something bad was going to happen that night.

He then murdered her.

Did you see him do it? Not most, but all of it circumstancial, if not even that.

I am also wondering, or thinking if Bailey really did it, Jules would have known or at least suspected. This would have begged the question on Bailey being around her 3 daughters staying over?

And if Alfie did it, Shirley would have known about it as well.

Jules, god bless her, is completely unreliable. Very little to gain from implicating her abuser, and possibly plenty to lose. Not all there, and what woman could be after what she endured.

Should we lock up everyone in the country who didn't have someone trustworthy standing watch over them for the full night of 22nd to 23rd December 1996 and can vouch for them?

Someone could have travelled half the length of the country and back again in the time window the murder could have occurred.

Ian Bailey was far from the only person, even in the locality, that wouldn't have had a complete, absolute alibi for the entirety of that night.

There is nothing but conjecture and fantasy to connect him to the murder.

edit: spotted typo changed conne → connect

More vague memories surfacing years later, contradicting other vague memories which surfaced years later.

Eye witness statements of actual crimes can be unreliable. An at the time trivial social introduction that happened well before the crime... simply cannot be relied on.