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

Day Lewin

This could be tested. Some hardy volunteer could quell a struggling turkey, or three; and then climb a ladder to chop the top off a prickly fir tree. Meanwhile Volunteer #2 goes to a bramble patch and has a heated struggle with a woman. Each makes no attempt to save their hands from scratching, but also they mustn't try harder than usual to GET scratches.

Photograph the results.

Then get a local amateur to draw the scratches, from memory.

Compare and contrast.

Fact-finding mission.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887476#Comment_121887476

Well didn’t Gardai say they tried to replicate the tree cutting and couldn’t replicate the marks?

As I said above I got briar cuts (just a few) over the winter - they would appear very similar to the drawings so if the drawings are accurate then they’re more likely briars than trees- if it were turkey claws, to replicate the drawings they’d need to be multiple scratch motions all down the arm - I’d say near impossible .

I’ve got chaff marks from cutting back trees - but these tend to be more red blotches as opposed to the sort of scratches you see with briars

tobefrank321

I always thought the scratches on the hands were a weak part of the case and a tenuous link at best.

However, I have never heard of anyone suffering deep scratches from cutting down Christmas trees. Christmas trees are made of pine needles, and pine needles don't really leave deep scratches, they leave pin pricks at best.

So I would be sceptical of him getting the scratches that way.

Also climbing to cut down a Christmas tree, also a bit odd. Why wouldn't he just cut down the whole tree, and then cut parts he needed?

Day Lewin

And I have stood singing Christmas carols with the choir, mildly embarrassed by my hands being covered with light, small scratches, from cutting holly for seasonal decoration.

Never tried subduing someone beside a brambly hedge, but I've picked blackberries many a time, of course. Always a bit of bloodshed!

I really think someone should try this, just to see how it looks.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887548#Comment_121887548

There's multiple witnesses, including a dermatologist, whose evidence would suggest they weren't deep scratches at all, as covered in the DPP report.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887601#Comment_121887601

Sitka Spruce I believe.

Saffron Thomas was with him.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887633#Comment_121887633

To me that sort of rules out the turkey to a degree

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887663#Comment_121887663

The turkey is innocent! Killed for a crime they did not commit. Ah well, I hope someone got a nice Christmas dinner out of it... although earlier experts on the thread said they would have needed to be hung for longer and were killed too close to Christmas.

Disengage After Hours mode :)

It might rule out the turkey as being the source of the scratches, but it still seems reasonable for Bailey to say in the weeks after the murder, that he got various "wounds" and blame the turkey, or sometimes blame the tree\branch\stick, without being certain.

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887634#Comment_121887634

Given the gardai believed the scratches were a crucial part of the case, did they bother to get Bailey to show them the surviving part of the tree he cut down? Or did Bailey in turn offer to show them?

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887728#Comment_121887728

Nah,

you’d only argue he cut it down afterwards .

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887804#Comment_121887804

I've tried to be open-minded, but if you are going to take that attitude, why should I bother?

In any case, its stretching credibility to believe, although you probably do, that Bailey got these scratches from cutting down a tree or wrestling a turkey. Its entirely possible he engaged in both these activities, but I highly doubt he got the scratches that way.

Putting on my open minded hat here again, Bailey lived in the country, and its entirely possible he picked up scratches from briars or some other way. But he possibly decided it wouldn't look good to say so, so instead linked them to the tree or turkey.

Still can't believe he climbed a tree to cut the top off it though!

Mackinac

On another note came across this elsewhere, I did not know Sophie was so friendly with the Ungerers. The author must be mistaken I thought they had only met once or twice before.

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887633#Comment_121887633

Here's an excerpt from the DPP report.

‘Dr. Louise Barnes, a dermatologist (skin specialist) closely observed Bailey some five days after the murder. She states “at no time, did he strike one as being suspicious. As a keen observer of peoples appearance due to my profession I certainly did not notice any marks or injuries to his face or hands…”

Yet Jules Thomas alleged he had a noticeable cut to his forehead the morning after the murder, and Bailey from memory never disputed this cut, only that he got it from a turkey.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887827#Comment_121887827

There is no need to stretch any credibility for any poster on thread to believe it, when the DPP report literally states:

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

Now, you of course free to doubt that. But there's no basis for an "open minded" person to say that it requires a stretch of credulity to believe it has no basis.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887601#Comment_121887601

Sophie had cuts from literally the exact same briars on her person, she was caught up in them after all. Wonder why those have never been verbally compared to the scratches that were on Bailey, seems like it would be easy for someone to say, “this is what they looked like right here, on the victims pictures”. Instead we have childlike drawings and guesses about what they could be. The reasonable explanation is that they did not look the same, and therefore were not caused by the same briars at the time of the attack.

bjsc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887877#Comment_121887877

But this was 5 days AFTER the murder when we know he had the scratches.

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887882#Comment_121887882

And I am saying its not plausible. I don't care what the DPP said. Did the DPP make an effort to reproduce the injuries by cutting down a christmas tree?

I have clearly said its possible he engaged in cutting down a christmas tree. But its not plausible he got scratches that way. I am not buying it.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887877#Comment_121887877

5 days after the murder, and if you look at Bailey's hair in photos from the period, it would be quite easy for a 'nick' on his hairline to be obscured by his fringe.

And if he wanted to hide the scratches, he could easily have done so given the time of year, kept a low profile, when out and about hat and gloves. He took absolutely no steps to hide the scratches. As an innocent person who picked them up in innocent activities would do. Instead he is on video at a christmas day swim.

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887890#Comment_121887890

OK as I am at work, I don't have time to look for some of the statements, although you might be able to help?

Thomas said he had a noticeable cut to his forehead on the morning after the murder. He said it was from a turkey. But 4-5 days later a dermatologist noticed no such cut.

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887903#Comment_121887903

Thomas was able to see if clearly, but the professional dermatologist whose job is to see these things noticed nothing.

Something doesn't add up. I'm happy to be corrected on this one by the way.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887901#Comment_121887901

You don't care what the DPP says, and you have no understanding of the role of the DPP if you ask that question - but sure, it is not plausible. Says you, random boards poster.

That's your opinion, and you are of course free to disagree with the DPP report - but as the basis to make a statement such as "it is not plausible", it is entirely without foundation or standing.

And, an open minded person would not state "I don't care what the DPP said".

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887901#Comment_121887901

It’s not plausible that he got the scratches at the scene given we have photographic evidence of scratches from the same briars on Sophie’s body, and the Garda who saw both sets of scratches did not declare that they looked the same.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887901#Comment_121887901

It is not the DPP's role to investigate the murder or build a case against a suspect. The DPP's role is to use the evidence provided in a trial against an alleged murderer.

In this case, the evidence submitted was so poor that the DPP took the unprecedented steps making public their criticisms of the Garda evidence. Twice they did this.

And you already know this about the DPP so I'm not sure why you're asking this daft question again.

bjsc

Remember that at that time Bailey had long hair which flopped over his forehead so it's possible that the cut may not have been always visible. Also the scratches were right up his arms to his elbows. If he got them whilst committing the murder it would mean he either wasn't wearing a coat or jacket, on a night when temperatures were below zero, or he took it off to commit the murder.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887922#Comment_121887922

Asked and answered in the previous post: "If you look at Bailey's hair in photos from the period, it would be quite easy for a 'nick' on his hairline to be obscured by his fringe."

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887885#Comment_121887885

There is also the flip side of the suggestion that Bailey received whatever cuts or scratches in the struggle with Sophie. If this was the case, why was not one shred of his DNA recovered from the scene?

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887939#Comment_121887939

Its a simple question. Did Ian Bailey have or have not a cut to his forehead which was commented on by Jules Thomas the morning after the murder? Has Bailey in any of his statements referred to this same cut? And explained it away?

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887952#Comment_121887952

Sound.

So he had a cut then? Was it referred to in statements by Bailey?

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887959#Comment_121887959

That's three questions, not one.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121887967#Comment_121887967

It is not mentioned in the DPP report, and the reference I find to it is in the statement by Jules that she disowned and the Guards tampered with.

Edit - it is described here:

He said he had suffered just one nick while killing a turkey and some grazing to his hands when cutting down a Christmas tree on December 22nd, 1996. "I was putting the legs of one of the turkeys in this loop to take its head off - one of the legs came out and a talon of the turkey's claw caught the top of my hairline - it was on the scalp - I wouldn't describe it as a fullblooded cut, it was just a nick."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/journalist-says-he-was-at-home-on-night-of-murder-1.1195209

It is possible he had a nick on his forehead, and if you look at how he styled his hair back then, it is quite likely such a cut would only be noticed at certain times.