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

It would help to clarify if there's specific persons she has in mind or not

No need for names

If there's nobody specific the statement re: " others are more likely" doesn't carry much weight as it's merely speculative in that case rather than a specific suspicion

Personally I do have a specific person or people in mind as, I'm sure, have many of you. Be it Ian Bailey or someone else. But I have said on numerous occasions I am not so foolish as to name them on a public forum.

To be fair they did trace, interview and eliminate a lot of suspects. A lot of suspects had alibis that were relatively supported or provable, eg former French boyfriend. A small number didn't have alibis but were ruled out as not really having anything to indicate they were involved. To take one example of this, the German suspect Wolney had no alibi. But he denied ever knowing or meeting Sophie and there's been no evidence they knew each other or were seen together, or that she mentioned him in her journal.

One of the supposed pieces of "evidence" against him is a rumour that he told someone "I did something awful". But unless this is in a statement to gardai, its very weak. We've seen how easy it is to make up rumours on here, Shirley being allowed go to the dump, Baileys car forensically searched, etc. A rumour is not really evidence.

On the otherhand much of the evidence against Bailey came from Bailey's own mouth and was recorded from court appearances, forensic evidence, and his false alibi. But I'm open minded, if strong actual evidence is presented, eg another suspect who was shown to have fabricated an alibi.

It seems that no matter what I say it is either wrong or misinterpreted. I have made my position clear from the start and have never wavered from that. I am aware that you all want me to name names but that is not going to happen.

It's not clear how you would know persons weren't TIEd without access to the case file

The back and forth is for an obvious reason

I'm not trying to hammer you into submission or anything

You said they weren't tied and now maybe they were

From my experience of murder investigations it just seems to me that the TIE process was perhaps not as rigorous as it should have been.

And incidentally I have no issue with being challenged and am happy to admit when and if I am proved wrong. The failure to do so has led to many miscarriages of justice. But I am talking about facts not supposition and speculation.

Strange alright, there was no mention of calling an ambulance, and the word murder was over the airwaves before the first Garda car arrived.

I think if you are truly open-minded you should be able to think about this contemporaneously (instead of looking back from the present time), and then work your way forward through the days weeks and years and see if the conclusions drawn at the time made sense. You may not agree about there being more viable suspect(s) today, but I think there was a point early in the investigation (minimally at least the first couple of days) when there were at least a couple of more viable suspects than Bailey, and varying evidence on the scene that had not been tied to anyone at that point, including forensics. Without naming them, is this statement something you agree with?

Following this, some of this evidence could be tied to people who were higher likelihood suspects, but who then were eliminated one-by-one, some of them for (publicly at least) unknown, or what some people would consider, unsatisfactory reasons. As time went forward over the next week or so, the Gardai converged on Bailey as the prime suspect. It has never been clarified when/how each of the other suspects had been eliminated, and how Bailey emerged as the prime suspect, and ultimately (within a matter of only a few further days) the only suspect.

I think the point many are making here is that once Bailey had been identified as the only suspect by the people doing the investigation, then any further evidence would only ever further implicate him, so evidence (if there was any, I'm not saying there was) that may have further implicated another candidate was not looked at (this is also speculative though).

If we want true justice for Sophie (as per the title of the thread), that is not just having a belief in something and trying to convince others, it is proving the person who did it. In addition, should that proof not be forthcoming, the next best thing is identifying those who "purposefully" went around perverting the course of justice. This could then uncover further evidence. If it was Bailey who did it, there are individuals surrounding him who almost certainly perverted the course of justice to protect him. However, likewise, if it happens to not have been him, there are different individuals who perverted the course of justice to try to convict him. In addition there is the potential conviction of the true perpetrator (should it not be Bailey).

Alfie actually didn't think it was Sophie at first and knocked on her door to warn her not to come out. There is of course a slim chance she was alive, but there is also the possibility that she was very obviously dead. I believe the head injuries alone were very severe.

In any case people react in different ways to events like this, some, probably experienced first responders would keep a cool head, but outside of people used to it, there'd likely be confusion and panic, or alternatively adrenelin kicks in. People react differently.

I completely agree about how people react in these situations. There is something that you would expect someone should do vs what someone would do in these instances. From what I can gather Shirley and Alfie are mostly in the latter camp. Very few people are in the former, however to follow the thread for a moment what I would imagine one should do (if experienced enough) in this instance would be:

1. Look at the immediate surroundings for any threats or perpetrators, hidden or escaping
2. Investigate the body for signs of life and administer any aid you can.
3. Call for an ambulance, Gardai will automatically come in this case
4. Check on other people in the vicinity

If it was overwhelming evidence that someone was dead, then there is not much point in aid or ambulance of course.

Sorry, what was the gaurds reaction? Its been said this was the first murder in the area in 100 years. So would any of the gardai on the scene have experience of coming across a murder scene similar to this before?

As I said theres a chance she was alive. However the injuries to her head alone would have been severe.

I really think we need to move away from the armchair general perspective. Unless someone was specifically on the scene there and then, they are only surmising. Agreed?

No but they would have dealt with traffic collisions, suicides, cot deaths, accidental deaths and their first priority is to preserve life. The very least they should have done is to establish whether she was alive. And also to call an ambulance. The only person who can certify death is a medical professional. Until that time unless, as I said earlier the person is decomposed, skeletonised etc etc. no one has the right to assume they are deceased. People survive with horrendous injuries - you only have to think of Josie Russell - so no, I do not condone the actions of the police. I find your "armchair general perspective" comment patronising and demeaning so no I do not "agree".

The name of the thread is cold case review of sophie du plantier case to proceed.