Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed. **Threadbans in OP**

Of course he was in her car from Cork on Friday, didn't he have a premonition up on Hunts Hill she was coming to visit? Off he went to the airport to meet her and didn't the lad in the filling station recognise Bailey, all 6ft 4ins in the Ford Fiesta with his deerstalker hat and 7ft thinking stick? oh, and the big black overcoat. More absolute nonsense!

Nope I definitely wasn't there. Please can you link an article/report where it confirms that Bailey was in Sophie's car?

Yes, there have been some wild, crazy theories thrown out. Unbelievable Hollywood type scripts. Maybe the turkey who attacked Bailey did it?

Instead of these fantasy theories, it's normally the most simple. And the most simple theory came from Bailey's mouth. He saw her in spar, he fancied her, he was drunk and went up for some action, he got rejected and lost the head, he murdered her.

Your claims have no credibility when you resort to these tactics... make a definite statement of fact without evidence such as Bailey in Sophie's car and when posters quite reasonably ask for something to back it up ... respond with weasel words.

Sure anyone can invent anything they want to if that's the case.

Your claims are without foundation or merit.

Oh you've reappeared. I think you missed a few posts. Remember this? -

We've still got the extreme violence committed by Bailey a short time before the murder, we've got his premonition of something bad happening in the area, we've got the changing stories and unknown whereabouts on the night, we've got the injuries, we've got the motive which came from Bailey himself, we've got the suspicious fire, the list goes on. What are your excuses for Bailey on all of those for you to state he's not a suspect in the murder?

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/im-an-animal-on-two-feet-he-wrote-after-beating-up-girlfriend/25918268.html

There were multiple instances of violence towards Jules Thomas. His marriage to Sarah Limbrick was violent. He sexually assaulted Collette Gallagher in the Studio by getting into the bed she was sleeping in and touching her without her consent.

I remember asking you questions before about innocent people at the crime scene, and you dodging the question about half a dozen times. Remember that? So you wanna talk about missed posts?

Multiple posters have pointed out to you the evidence of Garda malpractice such as the Bandon tapes - you ignore it and don't engage with it, and repeat the same stuff about AGS as if the Bandon Tapes weren't mentioned. Did you miss that post too?

And now, I put questions to you about the murder scenario, and you again ignore it, and just repeat the same paragraph again and again. Did you miss that post too?

All the points you have raised were looked at in what is taken to be the DPP report. It has been cited multiple times on the thread.

https://syndicatedanarchy.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/30/

I don't have to give any 'excuses', they are all there. They've been gone over and over again on the thread already. If your conduct in discussing Bailey's presence at the crime scene is anything to go by, I think we can expect similar feigning of ignorance and disingenuous replies if any other specific points are rehashed again.

But here's one example from the report:

Bailey’s explanation for the scratches is plausible, consistent and is supported by other direct and credible evidence.

It was put to you why the DPP didn't proceed with charges if there was all this 'evidence'? Again, you failed to engage.

And this is the key point, the DPP is the proper authority to assess this evidence, they reviewed it and concluded that: "A prosecution against Bailey is not warranted by the evidence."

I wrote the below post explaining why I don't consider Bailey to be a current suspect, you ignored it multiple times.

So nope, not playing your game. If you're just going to ignore the posts put to you, and repeat the same lines, it is demonstrably a bad faith argument.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120914905/#Comment_120914905

That's a long post basically saying you're not going to answer questions put to you. Fair enough, you don't have to but the questions you ignore are the reason Bailey is the main suspect. You're just going to have to accept that.

Unwanted advances? An advance is unwanted when a person lets you know they don’t want the attention/intrusion/contact. Colette Gallagher was asleep. She didn’t know Ian Bailey when this happened... Getting into bed beside a sleeping woman and touching her without her consent is sexual violence. She was terrified by the experience and by what he did to her.

It is known that the marriage to Sarah Limbrick was violent.

He hospitalised Jules Thomas numerous times.

He is an extremely violent person. Any attempt to minimise that is beneath contempt.

It’s not irrelevant in a murder investigation that the prime suspect has an extensive history of violence against women. It shows a pattern of behaviour and a willingness to inflict pain and serious injury on women.

Conviction in an Irish court could only follow prosecution - the reason he hasn’t been convicted here is first and foremost that he hasn’t yet been tried.

Traces were left at the scene; “every crime leaves a trace” etc. The Dr Marten-style boot impression on the neck that was observed in various reports / by the pathologist is one example.

I have faith in the re-investigation team and that the fresh look at the existing evidence will yield positive results for Sophie and for her family.