Ian Bailey RIP - threadbans in OP

The real tragedy of this case is that the murder of Sophie Toscan De Plantier still hasn't been solved. The longer it goes unsolved the more remote the chances of solving the case becomes. Whilst there was a self confessed suspect the case against him wasn't proved and he has died an innocent man re this case. None of us can say with any certainty why he would confess to an action he wasn't proven to have committed.

Regards the gardai botching the investigation, some did. The more professional forensic gardai did some tests however. They were unable to reproduce the injuries he said came from cutting trees. They also found evidence of burned clothes. And he also changed his alibi on at least one occassion with both him and his partner giving an initial false alibi. A false alibi alone would be considered a crime and raises question marks. There is more than enough evidence, circumstantial or not to put him squarely as chief suspect. But this case always lacked hard evidence, just as many similar cases have. But 9 times out of 10 the chief suspect is usually to blame once the hard evidence comes through or is presented in court.

Yes of all the scenarios about the murder, the french hitman with a rock one is probably the most farcical and one which least stands up to scrutiny. This murder was certainly not planned in France.

A couple of points.

1: Just because the keystone cops screwed up like a Laurel and Hardy nightmare during the investigation, doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do it.

2: Just because he was an abuser and allegedly said strange things after the murder (if the media reports are anything to go by), doesn't necessarily mean he did it.

They could have done with Jessica Fletcher, Columbo or Mrs Marple in this case.

Nobody will know the truth now unless something big happens.

My own opinion is that he's innocent.

As far as we know he met her once in passing.

So if you think about his movements on the fateful night, he went to the pub with his partner, meeting friends, getting ready for Christmas, writing his article etc.

I can't see what would've compelled to even think about STDP, never mind get the idea into his head to travel miles to her house on a freezing cold night.

If you meet someone once, within a week or month, you've completely forgotten about them and never think of them again.

There's a chance he became infatuated with her, but I doubt it.

I just don't see where he would've got the brainwave to head up to her house that late on freezing cold night, even if he was drunk and an eccentric. That's my reasoning based on putting myself in his shoes. I think his mind would've been preoccupied with his own life like Jules, her daughters, his friends, Christmas, writing his article etc.

If STDP had been an ex, then I could see him going up there.

Have you ever asked someone to do something and been told "I will, yeah."? Did you expect them to do what you asked?

But that couple did not go to the gardai after this supposed confession. Why didn't they go to gardai straight away, Why did they wait months?

Met him next day and had drinks with him in the pub.

Malachy Reed didn’t go to the Gardai either- they came to his school and picked him up. He took several lifts from Bailey afterwards.

All of these were run through in what is taken to be the DPP report online.

It deals with for example his alleged foreknowledge of the murder. He was a journalist, he lived in the area, very plausible he heard about the murder on the grapevine before he "should have". The DPP report sums it up as: "His behaviour is indicative of innocence."

It looks into the scratches. If Bailey was scratched at the scene, supposedly in a drunken rage in a violent assault in the dark, how did he leave zero trace - no hair, no skin, no fibres, no blood. If he received cuts from briars at the scene, why did a witness (a dermatologist no less) not notice any such scars only a few days after the murder? If you have been lightly scratched gardening etc the scars may not be visible until the next day when it starts to heal over. The DPP report concludes:

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

If you look at the reactions of the people who heard these so-called confessions, they didn't act at all as if they seriously thought they had heard a murder confession.

His alibi is all over the shop, but that is not positive proof of guilt. He may well have enough to drink he doesn't have full recall of all of that night.

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

This is the excerpt from the DPPs report about that "confession":

So the people he "confessed" to didn't even bother reporting it until 6 months after the event? It's hard to lend much credibility to theor statement based on that alone