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

Well, it is nonsense.

To suggest that an investigation should be driven by anything other than evidence is, obviously, well, ......nonsense.

I think that if the bottle of wine could possibly be connected to the killer ( like it was on airport CCTV when the killer bought it ) then the killer would not have left it in a field in front of the house. Suppose the killer was so careful not to leave any DNA evidence ( and the police was really diligent in gathering all the evidence wich is also a bit in doubt) he would certainly not have left it in the field near the house. He would have destroyed it quickly, or drunken it quickly and in the company of none.

Also, as far as we know the bottle of wine doesn't prove anything. By today's chances it would be likely that the bottle was bought in France after security control in duty free, or in Ireland at the airport, but back then, - in pre September 9 -11 one could easily bring a bottle from anywhere in France on board a flight and in hand luggage.

Sill, it is odd and out of place. It's a lose end and it's too valuable and too expensive and too close to the murder site to be unanswered. No fingerprints on the bottle at all? - Then it is likely that it wasn't there by accident and whoever placed it there didn't want it traced to him.

The problem is that in absence of evidence one would have to focus on motive. No matter what way you look at it, the motive for Bailey is totally weak, it's not even clear if there is one for him at all. The problem I also see is that those who believe Bailey did it, always insist the motive was sex. Sophie certainly wasn't raped, nor was it attpemted rape. The other problem I also see is that those who believe Bailey did it, draw parallels to Bailey beating up Jules. However Bailie took it out on Jules not other women? Or was he in the habit of beating up women in other places or circumstance, like in the pub, or under the influence of alcohol? No, it was always Jules who had to take the hits and beatings.

Most crimes are about financial gain or financial loss, something in relation to drugs or something sexual. You can do your own guesses where Bailey would fit in. Some of us just find it odd to unlikely, that a man like Bailey hiked for 1 hour after several drinks in the pub to visit a woman at 2 am at the earliest, to have sex with her.

This initial evidence will be taken into consideration and weighted and evaluated

Of course it will...and thats my point. You say "taken into consideration, weighted and evaluated. Thats what I say too. I used the word led.

Detective work is a wider picture than blindly following evidence

I never used the word blindly, nor would I.

Using wordings like "blindly", "la la land" or "holywood scripts" is totally out of place.

It's easy to get into a disagreement.

The interesting thing is that there isn't much to disagree on, as there is so little evidence. And none of us was there at the night of the murder so none of us know.

As there was no DNA or any other evidence on Sophie's body it will be impossible to link the murder to anybody.

Thus it's unlikely that the murder will ever bee solved.

It's more the stuff people like Jim Sheridan et all are to make money off with some documentary or some book, and apparently "new discoveries" which are in reality old theories we've read here over and over again.

If only those vital pages hadn't been cut out of the investigation's jobs book maybe we would know why the investigating Gardaí thought Ian Bailey could be the murderer.

I posted these links earlier

It is quite clear that Ian Bailey didn't have inexplicable information about Sophie's murder, either in terms of what he knew or when. His reports on the murder often contained material inaccuracies, sometimes repeated eiher from other reports or a common source. The DPP article forensically examined when Ian Bailey knew information about the murder and found nothing that he knew anything earlier than could be innocently explained, yet it is still brought up as 'evidence'.

It is tenuous enough when a case is built upon assumptions about facts, but when it is built upon assumptions about falsehoods or fiction it becomes complete nonsense.

But why do people believe the Gardai "abandoned any other potential leads" ?

People assume that just because Bailey was the only suspect that the Gardai ditched every other possible suspect.

But maybe the reality is simpler.

The Gardai didn't abandon other potential leads, they investigated them but found nothing at all of substance.

The problem I also have with the theory that Bailey did it, is the mere thought that Bailey lived with Jules in the area all year round. If the motive wasn't rape, what kind of threat would Sophie have been too Bailey that he needed to kill her?

Bailey knew of Sophie, he may have met her, but apart from some possible fleeting encounter their lives never really crossed any paths.

Also from an experience point of view, how many crimes do exist where the initial motive was rape, but the killer ended up killing the victim, and never attempting rape. To me this would simply stand out if it happened that way.

And we do know with certainty that she wasn't raped or even been attempted to get raped.

So what motive would Bailey have had to hike for one hour at night to discuss with Sophie, if he didn't want sex with her? And if he wanted to discuss business with Sophie, Bailey would rather have come during the day.

Was wondering that myself.

My theory is that Bailey went to Sophie to have sex with her, she rejected him (very early on) he flew into a rage and killed her.

Without being crude he saw her in the village earlier on the weekend, fancied his chances, and while drunk on Sunday night decided to try his luck.

He didn't go there to violently rape her, he expected her to concent easily because he was so charming, but she didn't and he killed her in a rage.

Bailey even described such a scenario himself.

It doesn't matter that there was no evidence of sexual assault, he was not interested in having sex with an injured or dead woman.

It doesn't matter that he had a partner at home, Sophie was " fresh meat", apologies for being crude.

And it doesn't matter that he trekked so far to her house, he had been drinking whiskey and it's well established that he was prone to acting strangely after drinking whiskey, not to mention that walking the roads in the dead of night were already his thing.

I think all of that stacks up better than some randy Garda, a French hitman who uses a concrete block, or a frail neighbour (Alfie Lyons).