Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

It's all just he said/she said, every single piece of evidence (against Bailey at least).

No. I`m putting evidence to you. It`s that stuff that you maintain doesn`t exist.

The fact that he refined the time a year later is of no consequence. It may be as a result of him having given more thought to what exactly he did on the day in question which could have led to him ruling out the initial possibility that it was early afternoon which in itself doesn`t absolve Bailey from his timeline problem anyway.

You reproduce a quote that you attribute to nobody in your final line so I won`t comment on it other than it just indicates what you think but would rather not say yourself outright.

"of note"..Ah. So there is evidence then. You`ve changed your tune so.

There`s nothing inaccurate about either statement. The later one gives a more precise time window and you don`t know why. Nor do I. You automatically presume that he was bending to the will of Garda pressure. Option 3.

Bailey and his solicitor no doubt. The DPP with all the water gone under the bridge would hopefully reconsider. The vast majority of jury members are not conspiracy theorists.

Maybe there isn't any evidence against him because he wasn't involved in the murder?

Yeah, that's kind of my point.

If you stack up all the statements and people on one side vs the other you just have a he said/she said. It comes down to a jury trying to decide who to believe. Witness statements are notoriously unreliable, and that's all we have. When you see how difficult it is to convict other he said/she said cases (assault, rape etc.), and the clear mis-steps the gardai made it is clear and obvious why the case was not pursued. A lot of the time the gardai don't pursue those either.

We're all fairly well informed on here, and there is a wide disparity of opinions, this is similar to a how jury would likely be composed, and ultimately they would likely be unable to form a consensus imo, i.e. not guilty. Still doesn't mean he didn't do it all the same.

Let those who believe that Bailey is guilty in their believes. This opinion is most likely motivated by Bailey's personality and Bailey's previous brushes with the law as well as he's British, not Irish.

There is no evidence at all against anybody.

There isn't even new evidence ever since the cold case gotten opened.

The trip by the Garda to Paris didn't bring any news, we don't even have a name, just that it was somebody in Daniel's circles.

The clothes sent to the FBI in the US didn't bring any new DNA evidence either.

Any sightings, overheard conversation of anybody, verbal statements, beatings, excessive alcohol consumptions or introductions to somebody nearly 30 years back can be true or not. They certainly don't prove murder.

I took the liberty of doing a bit of internet searching on this topic, the fallibility of memory: and this extract is from an article published by https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles

"The impact of recall timing on the preservation of eyewitness memory"

quote follows:

……Participants watched a crime video and then either completed the SAI© or did not engage in an immediate recall attempt. Participants then completed a final recall questionnaire after a delay of 24 h, 1 week, 2 weeks, or 1 month. The results indicated that initial recall should be completed within 24 h of an incident and that under these conditions, the beneficial impact of early recall on long-term memory endures for at least 1 month.

Keywords: delay, eyewitness memory, eyewitness testimony, guided recall, self-administered interview

Within the judicial system, eyewitness evidence can be critical to an investigation. However, the quality of such evidence is impacted by the fallibility of memory, which is known to fade rapidly over time (Ebbinghaus, 1913; Murre & Dros, 2015). Furthermore, the longer the delay between the crime and recall, the more likely it is that a witness will encounter misinformation about the event (e.g., through the media) (Paz-Alonso & Goodman, 2008). Several decades of research has demonstrated that when witnesses encounter misinformation after an event, they often incorporate it into their memory, a phenomenon known as the misinformation effect (see Loftus, 2019, for review). As a witness’ memory of the event fades, they become increasingly susceptible to the misinformation effect, as they are less likely to notice the discrepancy between their original memory and any inaccurate post-event information (PEI) they encounter (Paz-Alonso & Goodman, 2008). Therefore, it is important for law enforcement officers to interview witnesses as soon as possible after a critical incident, when their memory is most robust and less likely to have been impacted by exposure to PEI. However, police officers report that this often is not feasible due to limited resources (Wright & Holliday, 2005). When police arrive at a crime scene, they need to secure the area, ensure the safety of everybody present, and perhaps pursue the perpetrator. Therefore, witness interviews are often delayed, sometimes for many weeks (Brown et al., 2008).

"And what a trivial and irrelevant piece of information it is…"

Sure it only confirms that Bailey knew there was a woman found dead in suspicious circumstances locally, over two hours before he was first told that there was a woman found dead in suspicious circumstances locally.

"No conspiracy theory needed"

Your whole first paragraph, which sets out how you believe it all went down, is the epitome of a conspiracy.

"a list of only 3 bullet points as the only possible options."

I gave a very specific reply to a very specific question.. i.e. why the witness waited three years to make a statement.