Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed (Threadbans in OP)

You've assumed he did it to begin with. I don't think he did. Your whole argument is moot.

Until evidence leads somewhere it is best to have an open mind.

"You`ve assumed he did it to begin with."

Not to begin with, but after weighing up the available evidence.

"I don`t think he did."

That conclusion requires the highly improbable scenario that there was a conspiracy and collusion by multiple gardaí and multiple witnesses to fit up Ian Bailey.

"Until the evidence leads somewhere…."

The evidence does lead somewhere. You have to ignore it all to come to your conclusion.

The office of the director of public prosecutions would seem to disagree with you.

I’m not clear if you’re talking about the DV or the murder, but they found out sooner or later for both regardless. They still don’t believe he did it, and their opinion carries far more weight than yours imo.

In fact if you can find someone who has gone on record from the area (not a Garda or journalist) to say he actually did do it that would be much appreciated. No libel involved any more, so no reason for anyone to hold back.

"They still don`t beleive he did it"

Which makes your argument moot.

"their opinion carries far more weight that yours"

They have no idea where he was for several hours on the night of the murder so their opinion is based on belief, not fact.

You no longer know what your point is. Turning up at the scene only made him a person of interest. He was arrested primarily because he was seen with scratches on his hands in the days after the murder, because a witness had seen him loitering outside her shop when Sophie came in on the Saturday before the murder and also at Kealfada on the night of the murder. I think he had also confessed to Malachy Reed before he was arrested. Further incriminating evidence came to light after the arrests.

"No conspiracy needed"

This statement makes no sense within the context of what I originally said. There are realistically only two scenarios. He is guilty or there was a conspiracy to pin it on him.

"who are you to judge only two scenarios"

That`s the number of scenarios a jury is asked to decide upon.

"If Bailey hadn`t turned up at the scene and just stayed home writing about cyber cafes you`d never have even heard of him."

That depends on whether you are talking about before or after the murder.

Justice is logic, and the system we have only determines guilt or not guilt. The fact that the justice system didn’t even take it to trial should be the first indication that there may be more than reasonable doubt about his guilt. I have never said he is 100% guaranteed innocent, you seem to see everything as black or white. There is always a chance, and that is why he is a suspect in the first place. There were 50 suspects in fact, every one had some measure of potential.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, I believe in incompetence far more than malice. Trying to force others to agree to your ridiculous assertion of only 2 scenarios is a much lower form of debate I’m afraid.

I would appreciate it if you wouldn`t mess about with my username. You may get away with your "no evidence" nonsense on this thread but the last time you took it to one of the other crime threads you got short shrift.

"I believe in incompetence far more than malice."

One of the primary requirements for Ian Bailey being innocent of this murder would be that Jules Thomas`s statement had added interpolations. Would that amount to incompetence or malice?

I do, in fact, think that the Gardai "conspired against" Mr Bailey.

Not in the form of "let's frame him" - I have no doubt that they believed they were doing the best job possible, to try and catch a killer. More likely in the form of "it could have been him " (true) and "can we dig up some evidence to confirm such a theory?" Sadly for them, they did not find any such evidence.

Sadly for Bailey, the investigation was conducted by inexperienced officers; who gave over, in turn, to a group of heavy-handed detectives who found, during the 1990's, that bullying tactics worked faster than painstaking forensic work.

And if the results were less than reliable? Well, they didn't care, back then.

Sure, it could have been Mr Bailey, at a pinch. It could have been any of half a dozen men, at least. There is no clear indication pointing towards any one person. Though the tyre tread-mark and the open gates do, at least, suggest a vehicle was used.

(No trace of blood was found on or in the car used by Bailey and Ms. Thomas)

I like to think that our Irish police are, in general, honourable and ethical. But I'd never be so naive as to imagine that they are immune to news headlines, or incapable of jumping to conclusions based on flimsy theories.

This Cold Case Review appears to be much more steady and focussed than the original investigation was. Sifting every scrap of data, reviewing every interview.

I continue to hope that they will reach a conclusion that accords with justice and the truth.

“This Cold Case Review appears to be much more steady and focussed than the original investigation was. Sifting every scrap of data, reviewing every interview.”

Whilst I hope they are, given it was reported that Bailey was about to be arrested before his death, I’m really not sure what this cold case review is achieving. If it’s focused purely on Bailey then it’s been a complete waste of time and tax payers money.
DNA analysis appears to have struck a dead end - I couldn’t see them keeping quiet if they found Baileys DNA on her shoe/clothing.
As many have said, a confession or eyewitness testimony or DNA are likely the only ways this case will get solved.