Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

The "evidence", such as it is, is flimsy and circumstantial.
I've put it to you already on the thread that was the Guards own assessment of it, citing an Irish Examiner article.
And that was when they thought Marie Farrell was a reliable witness, which it is plain she is not.
You could offer no challenge to it. So the point stands. The evidence is flimsy and circumstantial at best.
No witness putting Bailey at the scene, no forensics putting Bailey at the scene despite him being allegedly injured at it, witnesses attesting to Bailey having being scratched before the murder, witnesses attesting to the scratches not being consistent with briar cuts.
No solid motive, only speculation.
We don't even have a firm time of death with indications it may have been an early morning murder which would effectively rule Bailey out based on Jules' testimony.

I've never seen any poll or indication that "the vast majority of people think IB killed Sophie", so unless you can provide a source for that, it can be dismissed as without foundation and something you have just invented.

You also stated:

I respect the view of the DPP and others that a conviction was not possible due to incompetence from AGS.

You also posted: it is understandable that the DPP did not proceed with a case.

Multiple witnesses attest to Bailey's involvement with Christmas trees before the murder.
Multiple witnesses attest to barking dogs on that night.
They are not some invention of the DPP's office. They are based on statements reviewed by the DPP's office submitted by AGS.
You can't offer a coherent response to these points, just calling them 'rubbish' is utterly unconvincing.

The DPP's office knows more about a court of law and standards of evidence than you or I or former history teacher Michael Martin ever will. This is not a Michael McDowell making the claim. Martin embarrassed himself going outside his lane. Multiple DPPs across several years made the decision not to prosecute.

It was only when the Guards put the wind up him the lad got scared, from the DPP report:

Malachi Reed says that he got a shock when he heard what Ian had said and he got a cold shiver. This is not consistent with the recollection of his mother, Amanda, who states that: “I remember Tuesday the 4th February 1997 at 9 p.m. Malachi arrived home. He told me he had got a spin home from Ian Bailey. Malachi seemed okay and was in good form. On the following day the 5th February 1997 Malachi arrived home at about 6:00 p.m. I noticed he was agitated and I wondered why. I questioned him and he told me that Gda. Kevin Kelleher had called to school that day and was asking questions about Ian Bailey and his movements on the previous night. Malachi then said he hadn’t told the Guard everything and he told me that Ian had been drinking on the Tuesday night and that he had said to him that he had smashed her brains in with a rock or stone. At this stage Malachi was upset and I think that it was only then that the impact of what Ian Bailey had said to him hit him”.
It is abundantly clear that Malachi Reed was not upset by Ian Bailey on 4 February 1997, however, following his conversation with Gda. Kelleher he became upset and turned a conversation which had not apparently up until then alarmed him into something sinister.

We really are at bottom of the barrel levels of evidence. The Guards on this case engaged in so much malpractice I wouldn't even trust a confession from Bailey to them, never mind these so-called admissions, all of which are dubious or explainable.

Bailey's own version of events below is plausible and given that the lad continued to take lifts from Bailey afterwards, this really is a mountain from a molehill:

Mr Bailey denies making such an admission - though he acknowledged he did repeat rumours about himself to the schoolboy.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/boy-heard-how-womans-brains-were-bashed-in/25919004.html

There's no way to be sure of Baileys guilt if you cant be reasonably sure on time of death. Or its not an evidence based assessment.

Not only the time of death, but there are still too many open questions as well.

One of the biggest ones are that the blood on the door of the cottage is apparently Sophie's. However she was murdered near the gates. It would seem she walked calmly and possibly in conversation not suspecting anything with the killer down the road rather than ran? If so, how come the blood stain is on the door? Possibly it was left by the killer going back to the house? ( This would imply that Sophie's blood was on the killer) Why would the killer return to the house? Or was she assaulted right at the door and ran? Also the fire poke missing from the house? Did the killer take it? Or was Sophie considering the fire poke for defence? And then there is an expensive bottle of French wine which was missed by police?

"A THEN fourteen-year-old West Cork schoolboy who claims Ian Bailey admitted to him that he "bashed in" Sophie Toscan du Plantier's brains was so terrified that both he and his mother put dead-bolts on every door in their home.

Malachi Reed (now 21) told the seventh day of Ian Bailey's defamation action against eight Irish and English newspapers that the journalist, while giving him a lift, said: "It was fine up until I went up and bashed her f***ing brains in."

Mr Reed said he was stunned at what he believed to be a murder confession."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/boy-heard-how-womans-brains-were-bashed-in/25919004.html

Malachi Reed's statement was analysed in the DPP notes. For the FIFTH time. Have you read them in full?

That's not what was stated in a court of law. Forget the DPP.

They could have done so ever night in the pub, and still it doesn't prove murder.

No an Irish court at Bailey's libel case ...which he lost.

Suppose you're devastated over that as well?

A civil court is not a criminal court.

Sixth time: Have you read the DPP notes in full?

That was the night before. Then they (with his wife) went back to Jules' house with IB. Realised he was crazy and avoided him the next day when they accidentally bumped into him again.

I did read it. No mention of Shelley.

Shelley avoided IB the next day. He found out he's crazy.