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

Padraig Mor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121740853#Comment_121740853

Taking your ball and going home because your arguments are being knocked down by logic? Odyssey has not accused Alfie of anything or even implied he's guilty - merely pointed out to those who insist that there is strong circumstantial evidence against Bailey that the 'evidence' against Alfie is considerably stronger - thus pointing out how ridiculous it is to claim that Bailey did it. I made the same point only a few days ago, and I don't believe Alfie did it.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121724047#Comment_121724047

Suppose it was the German musician. Suppose he'd met Sophie in the pub and she was kind of playing with him, he got the wrong idea, followed her, or knew where she lived, rang, made advances, she said no, and things went their course. Also possible. We don't know.

My gut feeling, this is more than Bailey. This is somebody having a real problem with Sophie. And would that be Bailey? Between a woman and a man, where the woman was hardly in Ireland anyway?

Seth Brundle

Another interesting analysis by The Phoenix mag...

https://www.thephoenix.ie/article/profile-ian-bailey/?twclid=2-5vwn99lt4r9llctm91m45qlxv

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121741890#Comment_121741890

A great article I must say. Im not sure I totally share the view that all Irish media are in cahoots with the Gardai on this - I’ve read a lot of independent journalists who have a lot of questions - but a lot are. And some of that media is that same media the public rely on for their news.

Phoenix magazine have done a lot of good work through the years and their article can’t be discounted unless you’re a total idiot or a troll

- again, I’m highlighting that this is about the death of Sophie- we’re way beyond 1997 style of investigation here- if the Gardai and indeed some of the media, are keeping this original narrative going, then we’re fcked as a nation - we’ve learned nothing - and our institutions are absolutely broken

There’s so many lines of objective enquiry, criminal behaviour body of crime knowledge no less technology to apply to this case before we go down the road of arguing over did some ejit see another ejit on a bridge some night -

I’ve still faith in the DPP- if this submission is a pile of bollox like the others were and like I’m expecting it to be- I hope the DPP shove it royally back up their arse

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121741890#Comment_121741890

Bit long to be reading ATM but looks like there's possibly a lot that can be picked apart in that article

tomhammer..

I noticed though the articles says the scratches were seen by witnesses before the murder ?

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121742131#Comment_121742131

So just ignore the key unanswered questions -don’t bother reading something that could be more truth than the pushed narrative by our beloved Gardai bless their cotton socks no less the lack of evidence against Bailey and side with a perceived consensus - ok at least we know where you stand. Someone gave you an alternative and you refused to read it .

But don’t worry - you don’t have to read that- but The DPP will certainly read the file submitted - I wouldn’t be surprised if you don’t appear on this thread whenever the DPP gives their view on that file - it will be bloody- very bloody.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121742142#Comment_121742142

To be clear, this is what the article says. It is not a claim the article originates.

The DPP document referred to witnesses – some close to and supportive of Bailey, others not so – who saw the scratches before the murder.

There is no question on the subject - the DPP document does indeed refer to those witnesses.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121742183#Comment_121742183

I'll be reading it and will report back

Just not tonite

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121741890#Comment_121741890

Upon a cursory read the article appears be a rant .

I'm not seeing anything new to me , except the scratches were apparently seen by witnesses beforehand ?

Bolger getting light touch justice, maybe I don't know ?

Stuff about Maloney making sh1t up , hell ya that could be true based on his recent article

Marie Farrell , the dodgy french trial , corrupt gardai none of it news

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121742245#Comment_121742245

Surprising no-one to my knowledge has ever argued this point here on the scratches which have been debated ad infinitum

Isn't there counter witnesses to this claim , I believe there is

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121742480#Comment_121742480

The point has been debated multiple times over the course of this long running thread.

There are witnesses who did and did not notice the scratches at different times.

The DPP report covers the different accounts and concludes:

Bailey’s explanation for the scratches is plausible, consistent and is supported by other direct and credible evidence.

See Sections 1 and 10

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/QKG4P4PPKMOV/dpp-report.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwij3Yfm4JyEAxXCaEEAHcpwCXoQFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0Y18JXOyBX9FuV8chct-WL

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121741735#Comment_121741735

But there is no evidence against Alfie that is the problem! There's nothing, nada, zilch.

Even in the last few pages we've had evidence to prove why Alfie didn't hear the murder take place! His wife screaming and blowing the horn to alert him, yet he couldnt hear her! Proof once more that when asleep he would have heard nothing.

All the other allegations against him are rumour, unproven, false, or conjecture.

Whereas with Bailey it is 100% proven he had no alibi, beat his partner almost to death (his words) in an attack which shared similar traits to the murder, admitted there was something very wrong with him. Lied about his premonition when it didn't suit. He was also witsessed burning stuff in the days after the murder, forensics found evidence of burned shoes which potentially could have linked him to the crime. A judge found on balance he lied about knowing SDP. Its also a fact he knew the laneway where Sophie lived and was very familar with the area.

Its not in doubt why Bailey is a suspect nor is it in doubt that his supporters would try to muddy the water by pointing fingers elsewhere, a tactic he also employed from day one.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121742887#Comment_121742887

" His wife screaming and blowing the horn to alert him, yet he couldnt hear her!"

Who wrote that rubbish?

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121742887#Comment_121742887

But there is also no evidence against Bailey. There's nothing, nada, zilch!!!!

There is just very weak circumstantial evidence which proves nothing.

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121742081#Comment_121742081

The most likely outcome of the cold case review will be the closing of the case as the only arrested suspect is now deceased, no new evidence will come to light and certainly no forensic evidence will come to light. With no new suspect there is no reason for the DPP to get involved. The pressure has mostly come from the Du Plantier family to keep this case open ans in the spotlight, but the son now seems ready to let it go and move on, so he won't be too concerned if the case is closed. Gardai have limited resourves and cold case reviews are timely so I can see it being brought to a close soon enough.

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121742914#Comment_121742914

A changing alibi is not weak circumstantial evidence when you are a suspect. When a judge finds you lied about a key element that is also not weak circumstantial evidence. Ditto when you lie about other key elements of your story, first saying in court under oath you had a premonition or forewarning of something happening but then saying later you don't know where the story of the premonition came from. And showing a previous capacity to almost murder someone is not weak circumstantial evidence.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121742916#Comment_121742916

I'd say you're correct. But I think they also arrested Jules at some point?

What I know is that the police interviewed somebody in France who was either a friend of the family or otherwise close to Daniel. But that's about it.

I also find the Du Plantier family a bit suspicious, especially what their influence in France is concerned.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121742887#Comment_121742887

None of that is direct evidence against Bailey in a case of murder.

Bailey had a bonfire - Alfie \ Shirley went to the dump. Burning shoes isn't evidence of murder. Potentially could have linked - nope, that's not actual evidence. Two can play that game, forensics potentially could have linked what was in the rubbish bags to Alfie - had they been checked!

Alfie had no real alibi for the murder. If Shirley didn't hear a violent murder next door, she is not much of an alibi for Alfie now is she?

Confusion about a 'premonition', when it is not even clear if you can see the property from the place being discussed, is not evidence of murder.

It is also a fact Alfie knew where Sophie lived and was very familiar with the area.

So in your evidence against Bailey you have literally listed a piece of "evidence" that also applies to Alfie.

Your post contradicts your own points.

So either that's not evidence against Bailey, or there is evidence against Alfie? Which is it? It cannot be both unless you admit the total double standard your post demonstrates.

tomhammer..

Glancing through the DPP report. It seems more amateurish or speculative than i was expecting.

Page 10 I think

A dermatologists opinion on baileys demeanour makes it into the report

Really ?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121743322#Comment_121743322

You mean the dermatologist who didn't notice the famous scratches on Bailey's hand just days after the murder, or any marks on him ... therefore indicating they were not briar scratches from the scene?

Sure, I guess labelling something "amateurish" and "speculative" is about all you can do when the DPP has credible witnesses refuting the Garda case.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121743334#Comment_121743334

My point on the dermatologists opinion of baileys demeanour being included ?

On the other point about my labelling of the report . I'll try expand on that if I can, but that was my initial impression, yes.

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121743320#Comment_121743320

Bailey had a bonfire - Alfie \ Shirley went to the dump

With Bailey though there's always a twist, always an ambiguity, always something not adding up.

Bailey and Thomas claimed the bonfire was October or November and at the latest early December.

But their neighbour Delia Jackson, who told Gardai about it, said it was in the days shortly after the murder.

How was she so sure?

Because she lived in London and was home for Christmas.

She wasn't around in October, November or early December.

So while the bonfire itself is not evidence of anything the fact that someone is contesting Bailey's story of when it was just is another bad look for Bailey.

tomhammer..

Another excerpt from the DPPs report to add to my above point about speculation etc.

The below(excerpt) is highly speculative imo. Because there was no forensics found the attack wasn't frenzied ? Really ?

FFS like she was battered with a concrete block

Very hard to take the report seriously based on my 2 points

And that's after a mere cursory perusal

"No forensic evidence linking Ian Bailey to the scene was found despite the fact that the

murder of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier was the direct result of an apparently frenzied

and furious attack upon her in a briar-strewn location. If in fact the attack was carried

out in a frenzied manner one might have expected that the assailant would have left

traces of blood, skin, clothing fibres or hair at the scene. No such material was

discovered. "

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121743447#Comment_121743447

What's speculative about it?

AGS are claiming Bailey killed Sophie in a frenzied attack, fuelled by drink and\or rage at rejection of his sexual advance. That was the case they put forward.

So are you saying AGS are speculative? The DPP is not being speculative, the DPP is rebutted the speculative case put forward by AGS.

AGS claim Bailey was scratched at the scene. Sophie's fingernails, briars were all thoroughly checked. Sophie had multiple wounds from different attacks, and from briars. And yet, absolutely zero sign of Bailey found at the scene. It doesn't add up, and never has.

Very hard to take your objections seriously, given the level of 'evidence' you seem willing to accept against Bailey.

Here is the DPP calling out the Garda speculation:

The Gardaí attribute a sexual motive to Bailey allegedly going to Sophie Toscan du Plantier’s house in the early hours of the morning before she was murdered. They say that he killed her because she rebutted his sexual advance... In fact there is no evidence of a sexual motive in this case. References in the Garda Report to a sexual motive are pure speculation.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121743463#Comment_121743463

Odyssey with respect, you don't seem to argue the specific points I make , but merely change the discussion to make a point

Do you believe the murder of Sophie was or wasn't a frenzied attack ?

It's clear to me it almost certainly was

tomhammer..

No evidence of a sexual motive Odyssey?

More nonsense from the DPP imo

Theres hardly likely to be such evidence unless Bailey has stated same

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121743322#Comment_121743322

What if the dermatologist's report said Bailey appeared to be a nervous wreck and was picking at his skin until it bled?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121743447#Comment_121743447

You misinterpreted the excerpt you quoted.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121743508#Comment_121743508

Also with respect Tomr

I think you're misreading the report and Odyssey's comment.

Of course it was a frenzied attack, that's obvious.

And if Bailey was involved in such a frezied attack, then its reasonable to expect bloodstains, hairs fibres or somesuch evbidence on his person or on his clothes or, evidence of his presence. As nothing was found, despite exhaustive efforts, it undermines the Gardai case against him. And supports the theory that he wasn't there.

lee_baby_simms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121743514#Comment_121743514

Of course there is.

Bailey could have been witnessed trying to pester her in public. Letters sent to her house, drunken phone calls made.

All of these would have legitimised the theory of a sexual motive.