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

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891614#Comment_121891614

I generally agree with your first two points, I will say though that this is almost to the point of being obvious but of course should still be relevant.

We know that Sophie was in the house, and came out of the house at some point. Statistically it is almost certain that Sophie was in the house when she noticed something, perhaps >95% likely or more imo. Statistically as well, what she noticed was most probably located where she was (at the house 75% imo) or where she was found (at the gate area 20% imo), or somewhere on the line between the two. It really is very limited.

The morning theories are a little bit less clear. Imo opinion given that she had eaten 2-3 hours before she died, statistically, the least likely theory to me is she was attacked between the hours of 4-8 a.m. perhaps 5%. I also think it is unlikely she ate after she spoke to Daniel but before she went to sleep, which would reduce the probabilty of 2-3 a.m. but certainly not rule it out, and I also think that it is unlikely she ate before around 7 a.m. given that we know she was up until midnight. To me this means a higher likelihood of the attack happening at either around 9-10 a.m. or at 12-2 a.m., with less likelihood of 2-4 a.m. but certainly possible, and unlikely at 4-8 a.m. It is possible she woke up in the middle of the night for a snack, but seems very unlikely, what do you think?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891707#Comment_121891707

It was, if we assume 'vegetation' below relates to the brambles - in retesting in Yorkshire in 2002.

The second test was blood found on the vegetation at the scene. She checked 6 areas of vegetation “selected to avoid obvious bloodstaining”. 5 of these yielded a profile matching Sophie Toscan du Plantier. The 6th gave no result.

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

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891707#Comment_121891707

Is that correct? I am not aware that they didn't find her DNA on the brambles, I would literally be blown away if this is true. I mean there are pictures of the blood on the brambles, did they not test them? Have you seen the pictures, I would post them but it is slightly NSFW.

There is no doubt that there is DNA/blood on the briars, and that Sophie was scratched by them, they may or may not have tested them or found conclusive results, but if you look at the pictures it is exceeding evident and would definitely stand up in court without reasonable doubt imo.

saabsaab

Posters keep saying that there was no evidence DNA or other left behind by the killer. There must have been something left! Perhaps it wasn't discovered or detectable at the time. Could it still be somewhere on the collected items or is it in plain sight?

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891640#Comment_121891640

I'm not sure how there is any difference in the number of suspect for a morning murder vs another time, can you explain? It would be just about the same list of people as far as I can see.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891736#Comment_121891736

There was talk of re-testing the rock \ block with newer tech to try to pickup 'touch transfer' (skin cells) DNA from it ... but that seems to have gone quiet.

Forensics in 1996 would not have been looking for touch transfer DNA, but DNA from visible material such as skin pieces, hair, blood, saliva.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891746#Comment_121891746

I didn't say there was a difference

I'm saying a morning death is most likely someone very local, a neighbor

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891736#Comment_121891736

People are saying there is no evidence, not that there is no DNA. In legal terms this distinction is important. It is exceedingly likely that there was evidence left, just that it wasn't picked up at the time. Later on they did find evidence of an unknown male. Personally I believe that given the advancements in technology they should continue to test. If they did find DNA evidence of Bailey at the scene, it is extremely unlikely that the DPP would be able to prevent a case being brought forward, and it is highly likely imo that he would have been convicted by a jury, even if he did try to explain it away. This brings into question

The fact that they found unknown DNA over a decade later, if they believe Bailey did it, should have immediately kicked the testing into high gear! We have suddenly found evidence of other DNA at the scene, that means if we continue to test, there is a very strong possibility that we will find Bailey's DNA!!!

This brings up the question, why did they not continue to carry out further analysis of all DNA samples at that time? What do you think?

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891799#Comment_121891799

Fair enough, though evidence may still be present on existing evidence but not seen as such. I guess that DNA testinhg was reasonably new at the time not easy to do and expensive. That doesn't apply now as far as I recall the block was retested with the latest techniques but from what I hear didn't come up with anything?

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891799#Comment_121891799

There was testing done at different times

NI UK and France

Don't think anything much found. No treasure trove of evidence anyway that's for sure

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891772#Comment_121891772

Your statement:

"How many realistic scenarios and suspects are there for a morning killing at the gate 

One of the neighbours really that's about it"

My response:

The same number of scenarios and suspects as there are for an evening or middle of the night attack.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891554#Comment_121891554

The DPP at no point were suggesting that it wasn't a frenzied attack. Why do you persist with this stupid angle?

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891835#Comment_121891835

You've lost me

On the morning murder . A location like that .

How many scenarios are there where someone kills her like that

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891832#Comment_121891832

But there was something found, on her boot. This by itself indicates that all other areas of clothing that have any sort of stain should then undergo testing, would you agree? I don't know the ins and outs of what has since been tested, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was no follow-up, given there was no follow up on this specific DNA. I really, really hope that they do further testing during the cold case review, but I am not aware if they are. People shouldn't make the assumption that just because something hasn't been found, that something won't be found.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891843#Comment_121891843

How many scenarios are there where someone kills her like that ... at 3am, in a location like that?

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891832#Comment_121891832

Am I not correct in thinking that the DNA sample was found not to be Bailey's?

[source]

Day Lewin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891714#Comment_121891714

Ah thank you - yes, the DNA of the extensively-scratched Sophie was found on 5 out of 6 briers. But no other DNA on the thorns. Therefore a suspect having scratches....must have got them somewhere else.

The unknown male DNA was on her boot - an odd place, I think? Could it have been old?

Day Lewin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891835#Comment_121891835

Not at all - many people can't prove where they were at dead of night; but lots of people can point to witnesses they had breakfast with.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891799#Comment_121891799

The obvious reason is that they knew Bailey didnt do it and that there was no chance of ever finding Baileys DNA. It would make the gardai appear in a very bad light if another persons DNA was linked to the murder.

Personally I think it will never be solved now that Bailey is dead. It will suit the cold case team and all involved to still run with Bailey did it.

Sadly I do believe that there is a high chance that Bailey was innocent and had his life ruined by an incompetent and corrupt senior investigation team. I dont think we will ever know for sure unless there is a confession or an original member of the investigation team decides to reveal some information.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891843#Comment_121891843

I proposed the following earlier. Sophie was hit in the face by an object numerous times, she fell in the briars, painfully tried to extract herself out. Struggled on the ground, falling into unconsciousness, the perpetrator smashed the block into her head to try and ensure death. This event could have happened at any time during the time window proposed by the pathologist. It is independent of time.

When you're talking about a morning murder, I would say you are opening up the possibility of a greater number of suspects, not fewer, and a larger number of motives. The morning time has more people knocking about than in the middle of the night, many people could have come across Sophie and had a spontaneous conflict. Someone could have even taken a wrong turn, more people are driving about. Within the last few months in the U.S. some girls took a wrong turn into someone's land and got shot dead. (I don't believe this happened here, just giving an example.

In the middle of the night indicates a higher likelihood of intention imo, but there are some spontaneous possibilities there too.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891891#Comment_121891891

I'd say bailey was well able to ruin his own life

He was a disaster zone

All that will come out of the CCR now is a nod from the DPP if anything

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891876#Comment_121891876

I think saliva dropping onto the boot was mentioned as a possibility.

It could be old as in pre-date the murder. It could be the result of contamination during processing, the evidence bags were not sealed properly. Bit of a concern if objects are now being retested with more sensitive tech if they likewise were not stored \ handled sterile manner.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891886#Comment_121891886

Agreed very few people have a rock-solid alibi in the dead of night. As is the evidence on Bailey, someone can claim they were in bed all night, and for the most part this can easily be picked apart by a solid investigator. Personally I tend to get out of bed mutiple times a week, and I know my partner is fast asleep, and could never have known. If other suspects, who claimed to be in bed all night, with their partner or without, had to undergo 8 hours of incessant questioning, how many of them would have to change there story to say they perhaps got up to go to the toilet or, went down to check on a dog barking etc.

On the breakfast point, if you are under scrutiny, even that alibi is not iron-clad, depending on who is giving the alibi. This is where Jules' testimony becomes exceedingly interesting. It is evident that the police believe her, as she is still Bailey's alibi for at least a portion of the morning of the murder.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891911#Comment_121891911

A nod from the DPP for what? Do you really think that the DPP's threshold for basic evidence has changed since the previous occasions where the office was last highly critical of the rubbish that AGS supplied them?

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891917#Comment_121891917

I'd say there is a reasonable likelihood it is old tbh, perhaps greater than 50%. I would say it is a small likelihood of contamination after the event personally I would <5% chance, but definitely possible. The fact that the gardai prioritised non-contamination over signs of life indicates to me that they were really trying to be careful about not contaminating the scene and we should take that into consideration. I do think there is a strong possibility that another murder candidate left it there though. This is why it should be investigated further.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891956#Comment_121891956

No, the threshold hasn't changed and i agree there was insufficient evidence previously

All that can change is the case file

I don't think that information is in the public domain as to what's happening with the CCR

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891911#Comment_121891911

I don't disagree with this, Bailey almost certainly was the cause of his being put in the frame. Even if you think he had done it, if he had laid low, imo it is highly likely he would have gotten away with it. Once he put himself in, it was up to the police to take him out, and they were not willing to do so for their own reasons, a terrible limbo. He served almost the worst punishment possible for his personality worse than going to prison I think.

In fairness, knowing Bailey, and the way he was, it's even possible that he could have lived an even more miserable life without this infamy. There is a decent chance that if he just kept wandering around as a barely functional alcoholic with a terrible temper and a propensity for violence, without the incessant scrutiny he brought upon himself, he would have ended up killing someone else, like Jules.

Needless to say though, this is not how justice should be wrought, and for Sophie it makes no difference at all. Justice for her is black or white, and she didn't get it. She is who I think about when I consider this case, not Bailey.

Mackinac

Regarding the morning theory, the food set up in the kitchen ie. the bread looks as if it is just about to be cut. Something caught my attention in the post-mortem, the marks on the neck could have come from something serrated. A bread knife?

The blue fiesta with red plates seen driving recklessly at 7.30 in the morning - does anyone know how seriously this was taken? Was it referenced against the 50 suspects?

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891891#Comment_121891891

There are some possibilities in which nobody actually is being nefarious, the Gardai and the DPP are actually making a well-reasoned decision not to move forward with prosecution as it is not in the public interest or is not prosecutable.

For example IF Bailey was not the killer AND the attack was purely frenzied, spur of the moment, AND, they now feel evidence does not reach the standard of murder (an assault gone wrong), then it is possible that they feel their hands are tied, even if new evidence comes up and even if they knew who did it. They cannot back away from Bailey, as the can of worms that opens up means almost certainly and immediately other real innocent peoples lives will be affected.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121892127#Comment_121892127

The bread knife is still in the bread though, unless you think they wen't back to put it back in place. Not impossible, but highly highly unlikely imo, bordering farcical if I'm honest, much like the murderer trying to sneak bags containing evidence through a police cordon that they called upon themselves 😀