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

If it was clear that he had a preoccupation with her then it would change everything.

Phone calls, leaving gifts, constantly talking about her in the pub etc.

A motive is now on the table and Bailey would have a case to answer.

Mercifully, we live in a country where someone accused of murder is not obliged to prove anything, least of all prove a negative- that he never had any interaction whatever with the victim.

In fact, and this is where the Gardai came a cropper, it is up to the prosecution to prove all elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The Gardai fixated on Bailey and went far beyond normal policing to get him. Here’s a measure of their desperation - Marie Farrell was their “star witness” . Imagine if Ian Bailey had been imprisoned for life on her evidence!

I agree completely.

People seem to be content to convict someone based entirely on a hunch that “he seems like just the type.”

And like you say if we are comfortable with a justice system that affords this then we must live with the reality that a lot of people would be serving long sentences for crimes they didn’t commit.

Exactly, so this actually becomes the strongest evidence that Bailey had no relationship whatever with Sophie and particularly not through his poetry.

If Bailey had any sort of relationship with the glamourous wife of a French movie producer, he would have made sure everyone west of Ballydehob heard about it. Bailey had tried to interest his neighbour John Montague in his poetry but he never mentioned Sophie to him. It is simply inconceivable that Bailey would not have used Sophie as his trump card with a Francophile like Montague who could have made Bailey’s dream come true - getting his poetry published.

Once you accept that Bailey did not have any relationship with Sophie, you must accept that he is not the murderer.

The tragedy is that her family will never have closure, despite the French court verdict. If you wonder how that verdict could happen, Anatomy of a Fall is an eye-opener on the French criminal justice system. If it wins an Oscar, it will be as an exposé of a bizarre legal process.

The lights not being on in the house is very suggestive, though, surely?

If anyone is woken in the dead of night by an unexpected caller, the first thing they would do is put on some lights!

If they weren't lit, that does suggest next morning. And two days after Winter Solstice, the sunrise must be around 8.30 ish, I think.

A car at the gate and an argument....it IS possible. Were any unknown cars seen speeding out of the area?

Some say Yes...

So Bailey is suspect because he’s snooping around and he’s suspect because he’s not asking questions. He’s damned either way.

The DPP disposed of the claims that Bailey had any knowledge of the case that he could not have acquired as a journalist.

I’ll come back to this thread next Christmas - her 28th. anniversary - just to see the pot being stirred.

Nobody is trying to convict anyone here.

Everyone knows that there was never enough evidence for a trial, any right minded person would see the French trial as a sham.

But what people like myself are doing is looking at everything and coming to the conclusion that Bailey was a good, if not great, candidate to be the prime suspect.

Its not only the lights being off.

Her stomach contents were indicative of her having eaten some breakfast.

There was an uncovered cut loaf on the table with a breadknife.

The pathology report showed no alcohol in her blood or, even more importantly in her urine.

The first responders Garda and doctor reported the appearance of fresh blood on her face and neck.

Lastly, would she have walked own to the gate in darkness?

That plus all the talk of Bailey being violent when drunk doesnt really work for 8am. Fits more with a post pub drinking timeline.

The scenario for Bailey at that hour is speculative and implausible. That counts double for an early morning timing.

Presumably... why?

I saw no reference in the available information showing Harbison factoring in when Sophie is last reported to have consumed alcohol. He may have just reported what he found - no alcohol in system.

You tell me. Where in the information in the public domain do you see anything from Harbison indicating factoring in the reports of Sophie having a glass of wine at the Ungerers?

The alcohol angle was mentioned by the retired forensic officed in the Independent article wasnt it?

It was literally mentioned on the thread.

So why are you misrepresenting this as something invented by random internet posters? Do you as a random internet poster know more than a retired forensics officer with 28 years experience?

Well? Do you?

Harbisons job was scientific - to report factual evidence he uncovered via his analysis. She had no alcohol in her system and the window of time for the death was between X and Y etc. Its up to the guards to apply these facts to the evidence and witness statements they compile.

Physical/scientific evidence is interesting. If a fact is established, it is not trumped by any number of witness statements.

Some posters on this thread have said that a nearby family claimed SDTP drank wine with them the evening before. Either this family are mistaken or the murder took place in the morning.

It's not a scientific fact at all that the lack of alcohol determines TOD as morning

The forensic scientist merely said it's one of the factors making an alternative TOD a possibility

That's what I was thinking

More money in putting forward a different viewpoint

6😮 they can't all be wrong