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

And the gardai still never established anything beyond some circumstantial evidence and unreliable witnesses that the DPP didn't find their was anything close enough to going to court on.

@Fr Tod Umptious If that would be reason enough for Ian Bailey it would be reason enough for any other man. But there is nothing to support the supposition.

You even contradict yourself in your reasoning - saying "He did go there to violently rape her" while also saying "he expected her to concent easily because he was so charming"

Typo

I fixed it now

"He didn't go there to violently rape her."

Yet he was so drunk he was able to get to the cottage, going across fields in the dark in winter.

On the off chance this woman might be there alone, and might be interested, at 3/4/5 am in the morning.

So drunk as to not be acting rationally, yet not leave any trace at the scene.

It doesn't add up and never has.

And didn't leave any DNA evidence of any kind? A drunk man basically leaving not a trace behind? On top of this, we've got posters referring to his injuries as circumstantial evidence but still nothing? That really begins to start sounding implausible.

There is evidence to suggest Ian Bailey was in the car with Sophie on Friday 20 December 1996. Let’s say that he was in the car with her that Friday - if that can be established, that means he would have known she was unaccompanied on this trip, that she was staying in West Cork alone.

"There is evidence."

None that you have produced, so your claim has no standing or credibility.

If wishes were horses...

Yes, let's just say Bailey did it, and build the evidence around it. And you will be or would have been the willing little helper of the corrupt police back then to make that happen. And yes, being in the car with a victim does make one murderer and any judge will believe that.

Does anyone seriously think Bailey, if he was involved with Sophie before the murder, would have been able to keep it quiet?

It certainly doesn't fit with any other descriptions of his character from those who argue he is the murderer.

Yep. And to add, Sophie's near neighbours would recognise Bailey on sight instantly.

No....it wouldn't.

I agree with you.

But if......and its a big if.......there was an association of some kind between them......then that sheds a slightly different light on some of the other "circumstantial evidence"

Basically, I regard the circumstantial evidence, as presented to the DPP by the Gardai, as, at best, extremely tenuous, at worst, trumped up hearsay and conjecture. The only reason, as far as I can see, for the sexual motive being suggested, is that it is the only possible motive for Bailey.

I can see no motive for Bailey, no evidence of any association between them, no evidence of his presence at the scene, no forensics....nothing. Without one or more of these, the case against him is non existent. And the DPP report explains this very well.

This article mentions a garage owner who thought he served Sophie in Skibbereen, and saw a man in the car.

Bailey is not identified. Just the man was tall, had an anorak top (?) rolled up and could not make out face.

So could be Bailey, could be another tall man, could be the garage owner is mistaken.

“The guards who I gave the statement to said that it couldn’t have been her as she was spotted in Ballydehob buying firewood close to the time I gave that day. We didn’t sell firewood at the time and that’s why I think she stopped there later on. Apparently, the man in question was no longer in the car with her.”

I'm not saying anything as if it were fact.

Just my opinions on what may have happened and the reasons why I think Bailey should be a prime suspect above all others.

There is obviously not enough for a trial, that has been established for decades at this stage.

Suppose Bailey was in Sophie's car, I'd guess the Gards would have found fingerprints or maybe a hair sample? That is if the Gards really checked the car, which I presume they did? Or didn't and then just said, they didn't find anything? We don't know that one. Bailey would hardly have wiped the car in presence of Sophie when he got out....

Did Bailey own a car? I think he did? Or did Jules drive him? And how would Jules have reacted if she found out Bailey ran around with Sophie? Also news would have travelled fast in rural Ireland, no real secrets there.

Bailey woud not have benefitted in any way from Sophie's death. Even if he was looking for contracting art work for Sophie, killing her wouldn't have gotten him an employment contract. He gained nothing from her death, not financially, and certainly didn't inherit anything. Whatever way I look at it, I can't find any material benefit Bailey would have gained if he killed her, and he certainly didn't rape her or attempt to rape her.

So finding a motive for Bailey is still hard for me. A history for beating up Jules is certainly no motive for killing Sophie.

And re tracing steps is also hard, more than a quarter of a century later. Who spoke with whom, who knew whom and how well and who was seen with whom is all a bit impossible by now to get a secure answer, only circumstancial evidence at best, even worse getting an alibi.

I am wondering how many cars the likes of Sophie's came by that petrol station, how many women drivers, and guys sitting in the car? Probably a common occurance, I'd say.

And even if the station attendant was alive, he won't remember, he'd be lucky if he got the year right or the day and then it certainly won't prove murder.