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

ive every right to post here - you don’t have to jump on every post I make-

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing.

It was a question, I'll rephrase it;

Do You think both Alfie and Shirley went to the dump..?

Also that 'fact' you posted is incorrect. There was forensics there that day.

Det. Pat Joy attended around noon, he had forensic and crime scene management training. He took the early photos of the scene, easily distinguishable from the photos taken later by the Dublin team who arrived around 9 or 10 pm.

Once again it's pure Bailey.

Nothing is straightforward.

Why on earth would he not tell the truth about where he was the night before the murder?

Exactly

Just the type of carry on that helped make him and kept him prime suspect.

I'm seeing any outstanding questions and I'm not here to answer questions designated by you

There's little point arguing with u anyhow

You're claiming that forensics were at the scene that day at 12

It's a dishonest and disingenuous posting style common to a few posters on this thread

Well what I was referring to was the people who have said here that there was far more evidence to suggest that Alfie and Shirley were the killers rather than Bailey.

This far more evidence usually included the notion that Shirley was allowed to drive through the cordon unaccosted to the dump with a boot full of potential evidence.

That has now been debunked and the people pushing the narrative that there is more evidence to point to Alfie and Shirley as the killers have gone quite on using that narrative.

Which is fine, it makes sense as you suggest, but what is most interesting is that the narrative itself was based on misinformation, not facts.

And that's the problem around here, some people are far too willing to ignore the facts that we have and come up with their own facts or repeat misinformation to try and come up with some narrative that others have more valid reasons to be viewed as suspects than Bailey

I'm a firm believer that Ian Bailey was the best suspect for the murder based on the facts that we know.

Here's some of the facts around Bailey that can really be refuted, since some of them he admitted to himself.

His first alibi was false, bad memory or not, it was false. He never sought to correct this false alibi until he was arrested and only changed it when he heard his partner withdrew that alibi.

He 100% had a bonfire. Forensics examined it and found evidence of clothes and shoes were burned.

He admitted to having a feeling the night before the murder that something bad was about to happen. He wasn't a clairvoyant, we know that. He admitted to having this feeling on numerous occasions, most notably in court.

3 facts that can't be argued against, although some will try.

Aside from that there are other facts that managed to draw attention to him. Now he was either guilty or innocent but did a first rate job of shoe horning himself into prime suspect position. Either way there is no doubt he deserved to be a suspect and either way he brought that prime suspect status on himself. Messing around with alibis for example is always going to raise suspicion.

The idea that Bailey should never have been a suspect is laughable. There were about 50 suspects initially and he was one of those, but eventually 49 were able to rule themselves out only for him to remain due largely to the facts I mentioned.

He was a man unquestionably capable of using extreme violence when provoked or in a certain mood, especially when he had whiskey taken. There's no real evidence of such violence used by the other 49 or so suspects, unless someone can provide it. Its another reason for him being a suspect alright.

I can't remember if it was this thread or the 'RIP Ian Bailey' thread but a poster put forward the theory that the mistress of Sophies' late husband Daniel was of eastern European origin. I think it was also mentioned that the mistress was also pregnant around the time of the killing and Daniel was in financial difficulties.. notwithstanding alimony payments from previous marriages etc. A photograph was also posted of the mistress and her brother in an embrace. The brother bore a striking resemblance to the photo-fit which I assume was the same one provided by Marie Farrell. (In fairness, it also resembled Ian Bailey). This 'hitman' theory was quickly dismissed as being ridiculous.

In light of Jim Sheridans recent comments/findings.. requesting AGS to check ethnicity of DNA on Sophies boot and a connection between this unidentified individual and Daniel.. perhaps it's not so ridiculous after all!

Personally, I don't subscribe to this 'hitman' theory. However. it does provide much food for thought.

Sorry.... You have a list of these other 49 suspects?

Please share...

And you personally know none of these potential suspects had a penchant for domestic violence..?

You are of course aware that most cases of domestic violence goes unreported?

I'm not sure about the hitman theory myself, although I do think a hitman if hired here would attempt to stage the scene to look like something other than an assassination.

To me it looks more plausible that went there without murder in mind but perhaps to threaten Sophie, or someone they thought was there (such as the mysterious French citizens hiding out in West Cork), and things got out of hand.

Since you suspect these other suspects the onus is on you to provide evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. There's no rush since we've already been waiting 27 years for a rival prime suspect to Bailey.

I'm also still waiting on you to tell us when the forensic examination of Baileys car and house took place, seeing as it's a central reason for your belief he was innocent.

Murders unsolved for years, are often solved by chance/luck and the perpetrator is often someone who was never under suspicion - usually it’s a partial DNA match to a piece of evidence left at the scene decades previous that enables the breakthrough and often that DNA match comes not from the perpetrator themselves but from one of their relatives arrested for some other crime, and then linked back to the perpetrator.

To “demand” a list of suspects from other posters if they don’t agree that Bailey should be the only one is complete and utter childish tosh and doesn’t merit a reply.

Forensic science is likely the only process that has a chance of solving this case but even then is reliant on a lot of dependencies.

Im not interested in playing school kid games so if you’re one of those posters who jumps on every post demanding things, go sling your childish hook somewhere else - I’ll just report your post for badgering me yet again

For goodness sake. This is becoming a farce. You have no problem having a go directly or indirectly at others but as soon as someone responds to you or even defends themselves, you cry foul and claim they are jumping on you or badgering you, while throwing personal insults at them.

If you can't handle people responding to you, this is not the thread for you. Its a discussion forum not a soap box.

Rubbish. Theres nothing wrong with the quality of my responses. They are generally reasoned, well argued and mostly supported by evidence and facts.

Contrast that with Oscar whose spent the last few days telling us he's no interest in going over it all again and people should stop badgering him.