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

No they didn’t - they stated that there were many people whom were worthy of further investigation other than Bailey but hadn’t been examined in the same detail as Bailey for whatever reason

The word facts are in inverted commas because some posters here claimed that Shirley was allowed to drive through the cordon unaccosted to the dump with a boot full of potential evidence.

That was claimed as a "fact" by some as part of their narrative that Alfie and Shirley had more circumstantial evidence against them than Bailey.

But since you have posted information that contradicts this "fact" continuation of the use of that narrative has disappeared from these pages.

Well spotted.

All I have ever tried to do is to bring some clarity to the debate and to point out where assertions are backed by facts and where they are not. When I have been asked to provide evidence I have, to the best of my ability, done so. I realise that some people may not like what I have to say but I refuse to indulge in speculation. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and whether I agree or disagree I have never disrespected one of you. So what gives certain people the right to disrespect me.

And don't forget, they called the gardai while their car was supposedly loaded up with incriminating evidence! Most people have discounted them as suspects, including the gardai. The gardai discounted most of the suspects for one reason or another, provable alibis, etc.

They focused on Bailey because of a number of incriminating statements, actions and suspicious behaviour before, during and soon after the murder which included giving a false alibi in a questionaire barely a week after the murder, before suddenly remembering the truth 6 weeks later when he heard his original alibi was no longer believed. Not suspicious at all!

He also admitted to having a feeling the night before to his partner and said this was true in a court case years later before later denying he ever said such a thing. And having a bonfire a couple days after a murder in the locality with clothes and shoes burned. If that doesn't raise suspicion, I don't know what does.

You are assuming they both had to be in on it. One can create a scenario for Alfie being the murderer as plausible as the one the Guards have outlined for Bailey. The point is not to state Alfie did it, but to show how easy it is to make a case against someone based on the same flimsy standard the Guards used against Bailey.

You are stating as a fact reasons as to why the Gardai discounted certain suspects, when you do not know - and the log of same has been tampered with.

What was the provable alibi of Karl Heinz Wolney?

Several of the "suspicious" items you have listed came to light after the Gardai seem to have identified Bailey as a suspect and focused on him. So they can be discounted as reasons for him being focused on, can't they?

@bjsc The files you got from Bailey, are these the files the Gardaí passed to the French investigators?

Was all the evidence just about Bailey, or was there any evidence around other suspects?

They are the files that AGS passed to the French Authorities. There is very little about other suspects but that is to be expected as the prosecution was against Ian Bailey. Had he been tried in Ireland he would have been entitled to see everything that the police held. However that did not apply in France.

Ok. Yes the routine thing would be critical you'd imagine. What time she rose, did she put down a fire most mornings, etc. Its possible she was getting fire wood when attacked, or something like that. We may never know. Establishing a routine seems like detective work 101.

Ah come on. He gave his first alibi 8 days after the murder which was 2 days after the article he was supposedly working on was published. He faxed in the article so the proof would have been on the fax machine.

He wasn't put on the spot as in an interview, it was a questionaire. He had plenty of time to consider and check what he was doing. Pretty important when there has been a murder near by.

8 days after the murder, he can't remember, but 6 weeks later he remembers when put on the spot, and only after his original alibi fell apart. Its almost cartoonish.

Why would anyone feel the need to falsify an alibi? You can understand why it raises suspicions.

It is.

We’ve been through this 1000 times on this thread - as I said earlier I’m not interested in going over this ground yet again- I’m just hanging around awaiting the next file to be submitted to the DPP or for the Gardai to announce a major breakthrough in the case - there’s no point in quoting me or responding to me- I’m really not interested in bonfires whiskey garbage bags or form filling exercises tracing movements - I’m just interested in the outcome of this current cold case review- that’s all .

But he also misremembered what he did the Saturday night.

His original statement on the questionare was that he went home after the pub, but he changed that a few days later and then told them he went to Murphy's.

Why did he do this ? it doesn't relate to the day/night of the murder, and it's not far enough in the past to confuse what weekend it was.

My personal opinion is that he wants to give the impression to the Gardai that he's not the type to be out and about at all hours.

He's trying to say he's the type that goes straight home after the pub, something that will make him less suspicious from the start.

But then he thinks better of it, he probably realizes that anyone at Murphy's could say he was there and then he'd have some explaining to do.

So he goes to the Gardai and clarifies it.

Nothing is ever straight forward with Bailey.

Like in the West Cork podcast where he talks about the busted alibi, he says he was "right here at this kitchen table writing that article" but he never mentions that he then had to go down to the studio to type it, it's the podcast presenter that tells us that.