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

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121765898#Comment_121765898

You're not even trying to debate the points put to you now. It is self discrediting of your whack a mole arguments.

The DPP has far more experience than any of us with regard to such interactions, I see no reason to doubt their conclusion.

If Bailey had murdered Sophie, he would have known that there was a definite possibility of forensic evidence such as blood, fibres, hair or skin tissue being discovered at the scene. His voluntary provision of fingerprints and a specimen of his blood is objectively indicative of innocence.

Field east

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121764767#Comment_121764767

What does the blood stain on the door tell us? Was it put there by Sophia having been initially injured - maybe outside the house- and then trying to get back in but failed and ran away again and finally finished off down the driveway. OR was it put there , on purpose by someone else ?. Being winter there must have been loads of footprints in the ground unless it was hard from frost/ frozen soil. A specialist could estimate footware size and type and weight of wearer.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121765935#Comment_121765935

I read this on reddit. Somehow I think if the prints matched Bailey's or his size we'd have heard all about it. So I'm going to assume they did not match Baileys shoe size. Therefore this is positive evidence Bailey was not the attacker.

Boot prints were found at the scene. These were photographed and measured. An attempt to plaster cast the print failed. Footwear was taken from various suspects in an attempt to match against these prints. According to Garda Eugene Gilligan only an approximate shoe size could be calculated.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderAtTheCottage/comments/vraf9q/forensic_tests_on_the_body_exhibits_and_crime/

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121765906#Comment_121765906

That's unfair

I'm making the point that Bailey likely had legal advise on the matter and may have had little option but to volunteer the samples pending enforcement

Also I made the point that Bailey may have presumed nothing of evidential value would be found which proved to be true

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121765952#Comment_121765952

You think a DPP is unaware that a suspect might have had legal advice about volunteering such samples? Is that "unfair" as criticism of the DPP?

You made that point about Bailey's presumption but backed it up by nothing. It requires more than that to be convincing given what we know of the circumstances of the murder and the allegations about Bailey's scratches.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121766021#Comment_121766021

I believe I made my point

Bailey volunteering samples is likely not all it's cracked up to be in terms of showing innocence

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121766104#Comment_121766104

You didn't "make" any point. You just keep re-stating it, as a presumption, providing zero supporting foundation.

You're entitled to hold to your own opinion, but when you make claims about what is "likely" in contradiction of the DPP report, that has no foundation.

So what in reality is more likely? Your presumption? Or the considered conclusion in the DPP report:

If Bailey had murdered Sophie, he would have known that there was a definite possibility of forensic evidence such as blood, fibres, hair or skin tissue being discovered at the scene. His voluntary provision of fingerprints and a specimen of his blood is objectively indicative of innocence.

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121765711#Comment_121765711

I'm not playing with you gus I'm just sorting the wheat from the chaff on this thread.

You made a claim about briars from the murder scene being sent to England to be forensicly examined 5-6 years after the murder, I asked you where you got that information from and you said it was in the DPP's report.

It's not, and you now know it's not.

If you put your hands up and said "oops I made a mistake" it would have ben no big deal but the way you immediately tried to bluff some other gibberish as being part of the DPP's report was quite frankly infantile, but nevertheless very amusing.

Mortified for you gus but I hope you have learned from this.

Here's a bit of playful banter just for you gus so you know there's no hard feelings....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHkymY6yKMg

tobefrank321

Bailey knew he wasn't scratched at the scene, so providing dna evidence was a safe bet. He knew his blood would also not be found anywhere nor any skin samples from him. Had he been near the body the following morning, he could have used that as a cover for hair samples, but then again hair samples don't generally hang around outside. To find them you'd have to sweep up the whole area. Easily done indoors, not so easy outdoors.

Bailey felt forensically he was in the clear. The shoes and clothes were a different story and could have linked him to the scene. By the time he was arrested as a suspect, they would have been long disposed of.

tobefrank321

Regards Baileys movements on the Sunday evening of the murder, are there independent witnesses to say he was in the pub with Thomas, and also that they arrived home at a certain time. The fact Thomas lied with the first alibi means everything about his movements are open to question, as mostly its only her word to back him up, and we know that wasn't reliable. Coming home from the pub he could have said to her, drop me at a certain place and I will walk home.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121766295#Comment_121766295

How did Bailey know he wasn't scratched at the scene? In a supposedly frenzied drunken attack in the middle of the night? Even if he was scratched earlier in the day, he could pick up more.

How did he know he left no hairs behind? He was behind the cordon - he was not near the body. Some hairs might be explainable depending on location - others not. His hair could be in Sophie's hand. Certainly there is nothing sufficient in what you have outlined for Bailey to think he would be 'in the clear'.

The area was checked, the briars were checked, clothes were checked.

There is no basis for Bailey to presume he was forensically in the clear - unless he was innocent. Or went there especially dressed such that unlikely to leave forensics behind, which is so contrary to all scenarios pitched for Bailey it can be immediately discounted.

You should tell the Guards they were wasting their time then testing Bailey's clothes.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121766184#Comment_121766184

I never said the info on the UK Lab was in the DPP report. That is documented in numerous places.

The info on the absence of forensic evidence was. And that was how I understood your question.

So I didn't make a mistake per se....perhaps misunderstood your rather clumsily phrased question " who told you that"

It is in any case a moot point. The briars were forensically checked and no evidence of Bailey's was found.

So the presence of the scratches is not evidence against Bailey. As the DPP explained.

tomhammer..

At the same time it's easily argued that ANother perpetrator would have been scratched as Sophie was

There was no ANother DNA on the briars either

So imo not conclusive but merely speculation by the DPP

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121767134#Comment_121767134

But Forensic evidence linked to Sophie was found on the briars.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121767472#Comment_121767472

Can you link to that info

Was it DNA from the scratches which is the issue being discussed?

Seems odd then that neither Bailey or ANothers DNA was found on the briars when Sophie's was

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121767568#Comment_121767568

https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderAtTheCottage/comments/vraf9q/forensic_tests_on_the_body_exhibits_and_crime/

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121767591#Comment_121767591

That's a Reddit thread

What's the forensic evidence? Fibres or DNA or what?

tomhammer..

The fact remains imo that lack of Baileys or ANothers forensics is no proof of anything

It's just they didn't leave evidence or it wasn't collected or whatever

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121766354#Comment_121766354

Did the gardai find a single hair, skin sample or blood from the murderer?

There was no frenzied struggle.

And I do not care what the gardai thought happened.

tobefrank321

Double post.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121768009#Comment_121768009

They found an unknown male sample on Sophie's boot that did not match Bailey.

On some items they performed blood group only testing, and the samples matches Sophie's blood group - there is a possibility some of those samples were actually from another person. Bailey is in a different blood group.

Well the Guards scenario for Bailey is a frenzied struggle. So let's be clear you are disagreeing with both the Guards and at times on this thread you have also disagreed with the DPP assessment. "There was no frenzied struggle" is your opinion only, and is not supported by any other authority and should not be presented as a statement of fact.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121764960#Comment_121764960

I can honestly say I wasn't scratched at the scene either. Should I be concerned that there's no evidence of my innocence?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121768327#Comment_121768327

At this time I have no grounds for stating that you are not the murderer.

And you seem to demonstrate a knowledge of the murder despite complaining about the Guards.

Dont visit France.

Oscar_Madison

I watched another “serial killer” episode the other evening - this time about the delightful chap, Michael Garguilo - you can read all about him in the article below.

Narcissism and psychopathy in bucket loads according to the psychologists interviewed for the programme. One of his victims was stabbed 47 times, another 17 times. There was deliberate attempts to destroy the features of some victims which I won’t go into here, but included the face in one victim.

The attacks were deemed sexually motive even though no inter course was found to take place - the violence alone was sufficient “satisfaction” for the perpetrator.

These victims were picked at random in the main - lived close to where the killer lived- that was their only “crime”- but they were stalked in advance to a degree, likely to simply determine when they were home alone or without partner present.

Also, no DNA evidence left at scene- until a final attack which thankfully was unsuccessful and he left his DNA and other evidence behind!

Im pretty bored of pouring over the little facts of this case that we know or playing guessing games on “who done it” .

But this programme certainly gave fascinating insights into the “simplicity” of a murder- how quickly it can occur- how motiveless it can be - how no DNA or other clues are left behind .

Interestingly every time this person committed murder, they moved on weeks later to somewhere else.

I do believe that the brutality of Sophie’s death is significant- it may well point to the type of person that featured in this programme. It may well have been a “motiveless” crime in that the person was simply being their “normal” psychotic and narcissistic self.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gargiulo

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121767631#Comment_121767631

It just proves there was likely little or no physical contact between the two, apart from the boot imprint when she was incapacitated.

This tallies with Baileys version to Fuller, ie she was chased and taken out by a rock to the back of the head, and was injured before reaching the gate (drop of blood on stone in field). No one has really given this account of how she was attacked from what i can see apart from Bailey. The gardai believed (I think) there was a chase, she got caught in briars, then a frenzied, up close struggle where Bailey is scratched by either the briars or Sophie or both. They were wrong in this.

Baileys version matches the forensic reports more closely, which show it wasn't an up close frenzied attack.

That said she had defensive woulds, so what weapons caused those its hard to know.

Frenzied struggle is a vague term anyways, its a poor way to describe this murder. All we know is its almost certain given the lack of dna under sophies fingernails and on the briars, the murderer is unlikely to have been scratched at the scene.

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121768327#Comment_121768327

Yes you should. I'll get you the number of the cold case team now. They love hearing from internet randomers.

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121768172#Comment_121768172

You're contradicting yourself. Was Bailey scratched at the murder scene or not? The "frenzied struggle" narrative by gardai was to fit in with Baileys scratches. But there is little forensic evidence to support this.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121768513#Comment_121768513

You are completely misrepresenting what Bailey said to Fuller, filling in gaps in what was said with your later knowledge of the murder.

Bill Fuller also said this:

"Mr Fuller said Mr Bailey had told him that he and his partner, Jules Thomas, had twice had Ms Toscan du Plantier around to their home for dinner."

No mention of this in Sophies detailed diary.

The guy is a fantasist up there with Marie Farrell, who humiliated himself at the thought he glimpsed Bailey from halfway across a field. It is obvious he has been out to get Bailey since that humiliation:

"On the 20 February 1997 Bill Fuller, his partner and child had gone to the causeway at Kealfadda Bridge in order to pursue his own investigation of the murder. He was with his wife and child. He saw a man whom he thought to be Bailey and this caused them to run away in blind panic believing the man had seen them. They ran a considerable distance until they reached Toormore Beach where they ran along a lane way which led out onto the roadway to Goleen. Screaming and roaring they ran in front of the first car to approach them."

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121768633#Comment_121768633

I'm only misrepresenting it if you believe Baileys version which was nonsense. Bailey didn't deny he uttered those exact words. But he claimed its what others said to him. Who were these others?

What happened on the bridge is irrelevant. In fact much of what you've said or implied on here has been irrelevant, eg Shirley going to the dump being suspicious, Daniel potentially hiring the hitman with a rock, and using discredited garda theories to prove Baileys innocence. Its almost like you're stuck on a continuous loop at this stage.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121768624#Comment_121768624

There is no forensic evidence to support a anything you have said, a total absence of evidence.

And you are now contradicting both the Guards and the DPP so I think that your speculative theory can be discounted by the standard you expressed earlier on the thread for such theories.