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

Apparently Bailey dropped in some food to Alfie and Shirley as they couldn'd drive into town while the end of their drive was being "preserved" as a crime scene.

The whole murder case of Sophie Toscan du Plantier shines a very bad light onto the French jucial system. Either it's flawed by design, or it's flawed due to influencial friends, - otherwise I can't explain it.

So Bailey was suspected and arrested because of a statement by Marie Farrell which was later withdrawn. She called it "total bullsh…." that she's seen Bailey on that night. She also stated that she was coerced to that statement.

And even if Bailey would have been out that night at Kealfadda Bridge it doesn't prove murder not in an Irish or a British court. Remember that Marie Farrell was out at the same time with a man at Kealfadda Bridge and nobody tried to pin the murder on her and that mysterious male compagnion.

Sophie's son believes that there is "hundreds of evidence" ( as stated in one video interview ) pointing to Bailey? Apparently he's putting this statement of his in context to Bailey beating his partner Jules not in terms of real evidence.

In Ireland the police may have done a bad job, but not the judge as there is no evidence at all to connect murderer to crime scene or victimg to ever convict Bailey.

I do understand that Sophie's son is upset that the murder is still unsolved. but is the French judicial system really that flawed?

The idea that under the French judicial system one can be sentenced to prison for murder without any evidence beyond reasonable doubt scares me. And even if evidence is withdrawn the French judicial system can still used it against somebody ? ( suppose it would have been myself being out that night at Kealfadda Bridge, or any of us….) Even worse that Sophie's son believes in that.

I still doubt to this day that the conviction for murder of Ian Bailey would have stood up at the European court of justice.

The way it works from my understanding is that they recognise that somebody did the crime, and therefore when all the evidence is gathered appropriately, and investigation is conducted properly, then whoever the 'bouquet' of evidence points towards is the highest likelihood killer. If there was no clear direction, the investigators would admit defeat and it would not be taken to trial.

In this case it is a mashing together of the Irish investigation team, and the French judicial system. They would say that the (Irish) investigating team felt there was more than enough to go to trial, and the evidence only pointed to Bailey. The Irish team did not admit any evidence that pointed elsewhere, and furthermore claimed they were convinced it was Bailey. Therefore it went to trial and everything was taken as gospel on the French side. It's a nonsensical situation, but the French felt that the Irish justice system broke down, and therefore they should take it on.

I don't remember seeing an "unopened bottle of champagne" in the kitchen photos, is that correct?