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

Typical Mirror reporting, Bailey's article was in the Daily Star on Wed 26th. Irish Times and Independent and Daily Telegraph had it on the 25'th. Post mortem was on the 24'th.

These are facts Tommy, don't bother asking for links etc. do your own research.

Bailey changed his story and so did Jules

All highly sus.

He had arrived back to Jules bedroom the morning of the murder and would have had a busy day that day, but he misremembered he had been gone for the nite

Jules also misremembered

Been discussed to death

Who else would have changed story if the Guards had presented a fake witness like Marie Farrell?

Who else would have had their claimed alibi fall apart if the Guards had properly dug into it?

What was Marie Farrell's alibi?

What was her husband's?

What was the alibi of the 'man' Farrell was with?

That's on a level of 'sus' leagues above Bailey.

You're talking rambling nonsense

Farrell's husband and ANother man are leagues above Bailey in the suspicion stakes ?

@drury.. are you interested in justice? This usually involves the pursuit of people who are unknown? There are at least 3 people who have a higher amount of suspicion than Bailey, and it could be the same person in fact.

1. The unknown male DNA that was discovered on the boot of Sophie. This was not compared against the 50 persons of interest. Why is that, and who are they? They can re-test all the rest of the blood DNA with modern technology too.
2. The person who left the Doc Marten boot print. How many of the 50 people owned Doc Martens. No doubt a number of them, plus persons unknown. Bailey wasn't one of them.
3. Tire tracks from the skid marks, they are visible on the ground. Were they compared against the 50 persons of interest? They didn't match Bailey/Jules car.

Then you may get to mystery men, of which Marie Farrell's driver is one, and a bunch of others etc.

It could all be inconsequential, and Bailey could be the perpetrator, but you will always have reasonable doubt before the above are answered. If you don't believe those questions should be answered, or dismiss them with speculation, then you are not interested in justice. Are you an anti-justice warrior?

I don't know what these 2 mens alibis are for the nite or whether these alibis are confirmed

An unconfirmed alibi is no indicator of suspicion whatsoever. It happens

(My dispute was that almost all 50 have questionable alibis which I don't believe is the case)

So it is a giant leap to suggest these 2 men are leagues above bailey in suspicion without further reason

It belongs in the realm of wild speculation

So you can't answer the questions that were put to you about their alibis.
Do suspects \ persons of interest have questionable alibis or not?
And from the point of the view of the early stages of the investigation, all alibis are questionable. The point is how thoroughly they were 'questioned' and whether their declared alibis probed.

Let's take one example, is Alfie's alibi "questionable"?
If Shirley and Alfie didn't hear the murder as they claim, which happened next door, it is hardly a solid alibi as to each of them being able to account for the other's whereabouts during the night in question.

If you accept that MF was out with a mystery man that night, well what were they actually up to?
What is the mystery man's alibi for the rest of the night? He was in the vicinity of the murder.
So that is levels beyond a 'questionable alibi', that is a man in the vicinity of the murder on the night, out and about, with his whereabouts unaccounted for for most of the night. A man whose identity is unknown.
And remember the Guards at least publicly presented MF's evidence as credible, so they have a man placed near the scene, identity unknown, no alibi. And all they did was sent a Guard on a wild goose chase after a dead man.

What was Marie Farrell's husband doing? MF can't alibi him if she was out and about, whether alone or with mystery man.

Now, I doubt MF was out with a mystery man that night, but if she was out, I'm sure that the name she gave the Guards was nonsense. And any competent police force would likewise.

Any competent police force conducting an investigation of integrity, rather than one engaged in tunnel vision and a fit up job.
Is the Guards conduct in this case suspicious?
Remember we also have documented evidence of tampering with evidence trail, with lost pieces of evidence, with some very dubious remarks captured on tape.

If you don't accept that MF was out that night, and made up 'mystery man', that leads to more questions.
Well what is the alibis for the Farrell's that night?
Because the husband can't alibi MF, if she is claiming to have been out and about and officially the Guards accepted that.
And MF can't alibi her husband either.

So the entire situation with the Guards interactions with the Farrells is far more suspicious to me than anything on Ian Bailey. This was not a safe investigation, as the DPP office called attention to.

Can you clarify what specific aspects of those questions are "wild speculation"?
So no, I'm not going to add a disclaimer to what are entirely valid questions and reasoning about the situation.

Would Sophie’s family have rights to request any original files on the case that were not handed over to Bailey for the French trial I wonder. It’s believed these were cherry-picked and did not include any statements etc. that may have pointed away from Bailey, and towards other suspects.

I’m afraid I’m not up on what access rights they have- but I bet they have no”rights” per se - the Gardai supposedly gave “everything” to the French prosecutors - I am personally dubious about that but even if they did, a lot would have got lost in translation I imagine - maybe the family might have better chance getting the “French” version?