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

When you're explaining you're losing, Bailey and his defenders are explaining an awful lot. It's a realistic outline of what may have happened. And Bill Fuller believed it was a confession. Why believe Bailey over him? Why believe Bailey over every testimony against him in case?

As you said, when you're explaining, you're losing. 😉

You just quoted a summation of one of Bailey's confessions. So yes, when you're explaining, you're losing. 😀

Also, if you don't mind answering. Why do you believe Bailey over every testimony against him in this case?

People accuse me of repeating myself but sometimes there's just no choice. The Garda investigation is completely irrelevant to Bailey beating Jules to a pulp, he wasn't forced to change his story about the night in question, the guards didn't give him the suspicious injuries, the investigation team didn't make him burn clothes and shoes soon after the murder, they didn't make him confess to doing it to multiple people etc.

He's the main suspect in many people's minds because of these things.

I would give her the benefit of the doubt that she would not try to implicate Bailey purely in a malicious or spiteful manner simply because he is the main suspect in the case or the only suspect, I should say. Nor would the Bouniol family. Their opinions are formed by the evidence before them and their knowledge of the case.

I acknowledge that may have been the case back then although there was a local dump people could drive to with their rubbish. That's where Shirley Foster was going when she discovered Sophie's body.

I think she may just have been dismissive of him and his bloody awful poetry and saw him as a charlatan, as most did. He saw her as somebody far more interesting, intelligent and more desirable company than the locals down the pub and far more attractive than plain old Jules sat at home. So, he wanted to ingratiate himself with her and wanted her to find him attractive and interesting, not necessarily in a sexual sense. Sex may not have been a motivating factor in his mind at all.

So whatever interaction or conversation between them would have been brief and unsatisfying from his point of view. She rebuffs him, politely at first, but then with increasing anger as he persists in trying to woo her. Being the egomaniac that he is this is simply too much for him to bear. The final explosion of violence is the inevitable outcome.

This is the definition of malpractice. In fact 'serious errors' would be covered in the scope of the below so I don't see how you can reasonably object to its use here? You seem to have had a different definition of it in mind, synonymous with corruption but that does not correlate with the below:

1. a dereliction of professional duty or a failure to exercise an ordinary degree of professional skill or learning by one (such as a physician) rendering professional services which results in injury, loss, or damage.

2. : an injurious, negligent, or improper practice : malfeasance.

If the mistakes made were such that they significantly impacted the chances of catching the culprit, then I think that would legitimately fall under that description.

And actually the findings in the GSOC report would go beyond 'mistakes' and into malfeasance / wrongdoing..

The report found that pages from the Jobs Book had been deliberately removed. That is not an error, or incompetence or a mistake. That is malfeasance.

On the Bandon Tapes, Guards are recorded discussing putting pressure on another Guard to alter a witness statement. That is not an error, or incompetence or a mistake. That is malfeasance.

And that is only what was established. GSOC had very limited investigative powers especially in a case like this after so much elapsed time where many of the Guards were retired.

Losing track of pieces of evidence would fall under malpractice.

There is also the misconduct with Marie Farrell.

I think given all that, I think you give insufficient consideration to the possibility that the evidence points that way because that was the way the investigation was pointed. It doesn't necessarily have to be a 'fit up' of someone known to be innocent, but a groupthink approach which leads to tunnel vision and confirmation bias in evidence gathering and assessment.

Miscarriages of justice happen all the time, sometimes yes straight up corruption and framing of an innocent man. Sometimes because perspective goes out the window and someone deemed to be the perp is pursued at all costs, playing fast and loose with procedures. Procedures that are there to protect the innocent and prevent miscarriages of justice.

With all the effort AGS put into trying to 'get' Bailey for this murder, the evidence is very weak, indirect, circumstantial or debatable either in relevance or fact. There is nothing that directly incriminates him.

That is why the DPP made the right call in not pressing charges. And why I think the investigation focus needs to be shone elsewhere at present.

Have you ever considered writing some scandi noir fiction? Without evidence that is effectively what any 'theory' about, what happened and the motive, is.

Without evidence it is difficult to put one plausible 'theory' above another, they are all no more than conjecture.

Sadly, there are many cases where a man has murdered a woman because she rejected him. You never know how angry a rejected man is going to get.

Tiarah Poyau was a 22-year-old university student who told a man at a dance party to “get off” after he started to grind on her. His response was to shoot her in the face.

Iowa college student Mollie Tibbets was killed by a man she told to leave her alone when he approached her while she was jogging. 

A Detroit mother of three was killed because she refused to give a stranger her phone number.

A New York woman had her neck slashed when she declined her attacker’s offer for a date.

In the UK, Lewis Haines tried to force himself on Lily Sullivan and, when she resisted, murdered her to try to make sure she could not tell anyone, including his long-term partner. The pair met for the first time at a nightclub in Pembroke on the evening of 16 December 2021. In the early hours of the next morning they left the club and Haines shepherded Sullivan to an unlit, secluded alley leading to a millpond.

The judge found that the pair had kissed and cuddled but Haines had wanted to have sex. He said: “I am sure Lily decided she was going home. Fuelled as he was by drink, I am sure Mr Haines was frustrated by this. He became forceful; she resisted. I am sure that Lily did not remove her own top voluntarily. I am sure that Mr Haines took it off her before he put her in the pond.

“My firm view is that when he got forceful Lily did say that she would complain that he had tried to force himself upon her.”

The judge said Haines knew that people including his partner would be angry and he killed the teenager because he “couldn’t risk her surviving”. I believe that Sophie’s killer also murdered her because felt he couldn’t risk her surviving after the initial had confrontation escalated into violence…

These are only a few examples of what has become known as ‘rejection killings’ - it is beyond sad that a man murdering a woman because she rejected him is not that uncommon.

Such attacks are still very much the exception rather than the rule. In an earlier post I linked to statistics which show that just over three quarter of female murder victims are murdered by someone they know well - partner, family, friend or someone else they know. Approx. 12% are killed by a stranger. The statstics didn't examine the motive for the murders but only a subset of that 12% would have been for rejecting an advance.

The chance of a woman being murdered by someone she didn't know outside of a chance encounter in a public or social setting they happened to meet are a subset of a subset of that 12%.

The chances of someone - taking a two and a half hour round trip walk, drunk, in the middle of the night, to see someone they didn't know, committing the perfect murder, in a drunken rage but leaving no evidence nor them or their environment being contaminated by any scene of crime evidence, appearing perfectly normal a few hours later and not raising any suspicions from his partner and several guests staying with them over Christmas - seem so statistically unlikely as to very low down in the list of possibilities as to be scarcely worth considering, especially in the complete absence of any probative evidence.

Suppose I would any of the "Bailey did it because he wanted sex supporters" accuse of murder just because they are physically able bodied to complete the hike, had the time, and no aliby, - but at the same time neither having any form of evidence nor witnesses and not even a solid motive. Add to this a corrupt police force where there is enough evidence to have them locked up.

Scary, isn't it?

And imagine this in front of a judge, - it'll be dismissed straight and quickly. In the British and Irish legal system at least, but apparently not in France.

Ah, yes Bailey did it, he wanted sex with a French woman and couldn't hold imself back, even a hike for more than an hour didn't hold him back, he broke out in a rage, leaving no evidence not even footprints, and hiked back.

There is disputed evidence Bailey knew her in the sense of very brief social introductions. There is nothing to suggest they knew each other to the extent that turning up at the cottage after midnight would be in any way expected. And remember Bailey woud be instantly known if seen at her cottage if spotted by the Lyons.

How was he acting suspiciously? He was a journalist who asked questions at the scene. A Guard thought this suspicious. Rather absurd isnt it. He then filed stories about the case so it wasnt a facade. It would have been suspicious had he not turned up and done his job I would argue. It was entirely in fitting with his role and easily innocently explainable.

If his appearance was suspicious why did he not keep a low profile with a convenient winter flu? Would have been trivial to be bed ridden for few days.

Instead he continued to socialise ... he made no attempt to conceal his appearance and attended the xmas day swim.

The evidence can read either way. Which is why it is not incriminating except when applied backwards to fit a particular narrative.

I'd nearly be more afraid of depending on a jury. Half the population is below the median intelligence.

You are right, Guy Girard has provided statements to this effect.