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

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121895100#Comment_121895100

Looking through the Kouda Kaas website you can see a bunch of other cube shaped rocks lying around, posting an example here:

In addition though if you look at the home video, I think you can see block number 1 is already out of its location in the pump house, and block number 2 is still in place, pretty sure I saw this mentioned somewhere before, it;s hard to keep track.

bjsc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121895396#Comment_121895396

So if one block is already out of position is that the one by the body or is that the block that's still in situ in the photo.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121895396#Comment_121895396

According to this police sketch the block came from the field side of the pumphouse;

Having said that, they've got the pillar with the post box in the wrong place!

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121895404#Comment_121895404

You know looking at the picture from the aftermath, it looks like the perspective is a bit off, but in the home video, it appears block 2 is around the same size and shape. It's hard to say for certain if block 1 is, seems like it would need to be slightly smaller, to fit, but probably is about the same size as the others on the row.

Like each row has different sizes too, its wild how many sized blocks there are around there!

Zola1000

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121895340#Comment_121895340

Yes but in saying people said he met her but still cant confirm if this was case similar to Alphie on 90% theory. It's not defining that he knew her maybe he potentially met her...it still doesn't prove anything.

The case can still never reach a jury regardless due to lack of DNA. Whilst i still thinking building up file on circumstances where he could or may have met her and bring other evidence with it could be useful, it doesn't get us any nearer without DNA. This is where parts of case could have worked..had she written his name in his diary , had she told friends about meeting him etc..one friend in France said she had.. but was too many years later..so it never adds up in way information should.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121895428#Comment_121895428

The lower courses appear to be standard 4inch blocks on the flat, the top 2 courses are the larger cavity blocks.

If the Police sketch above is correct that is the corner that the gate closed on to.

Edited;

Edited

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121895059#Comment_121895059

Your claims about the DPP report have no credibility. You have demonstrated multiple times you have not understood the report, the scope of the report or role of the DPP and posted misinformation to the thread based on that.

I counted four posters (including myself) who asked you to clarify your claims about the bloodstains on the door. You failed to do so and just disappeared, then return to the thread making similar claims about errors about the report despite the total discrediting of your claim.

At one point you eventually conceded what you claimed was an error in the DPP report could not be their error in fact, as you judged it with benefit of hindsight and information they could not have known about. Yet... still return to the thread making the same discredited claims about errors in the first 3 pages.

Here we have a similar claim made without foundation... How do you know the DPP ignored the wound on the forehead? The DPP addresses the elements of the Garda case presented, based on evidence that could be presented to a jury.

How does the DPP report presented at a point in time (2001) know about what Bailey will say "down through the years"? Do they have a time machine?

Ms Robini

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121895741#Comment_121895741

You are claiming another poster lacks a proper understanding of the DPP/the role of the DPP. However, unless you have expertise in criminal law, which I don’t think is the case based on your posts, why criticise someone else for expressing their view on inadequacies in the DPP report doc. There are serious issues in that DPP doc, and it demonstrates concerning attitudes in the DPP Office during the relevant period. I don’t think it’s fair or reasonable to insult other posters because they are critical of a deeply flawed report.

tomhammer..

The DPP report is far from perfect

I said it here weeks ago

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121895802#Comment_121895802

Nope. This posts bears no relation to I wrote. Do you have an expertise in criminal law? So on what basis do you criticise my criticism? By the standard you have set in your own post, you have just invalidated your own criticisms.

Can you point us to posts where an understanding of the role of the DPP is demonstrated in the criticisms? Would you care to provide your understanding of the role of the DPP? If someone is critical of the DPP, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the office, how it is invalid for other posters to point this out?

If I in a post in a thread critical of an Irish judge in a case for not conducting an actual investigation during a trial before them - are you saying other posters should not point out that I don't understand the role of the judge? Are you saying you would let such criticism stand? And if a poster did so, would you consider that an insult? On what grounds? I think when written out like this, we can clearly see your criticisms to be without foundation.

Is someone allowed to make whatever claims they want about the contents of the DPP report, and not be challenged on them? Multiple posters have queried specific claims the poster made about the report, pointing out that having read the report no such claim could be found within it. Does that show a reasonable understanding of the contents of the report by the poster making the claim? How is that an insult to point that out?

Do you think it is fair and reasonable to criticise a report as flawed and containing errors, as a criticism of its preparation at that point in time, when the criticisms are written with benefit of hindsight based on information that only emerged years later?

Do you think it is fair and reasonable to criticise the DPP report, for not discussing certain information, when the DPP report can only assess the evidence presented at that time by the Guards? Do you think that shows a proper understanding of the role of the DPP?

Do you think it is fair and reasonable to criticism the DPP report for not conducting its own investigation into points of dispute? Do you think that shows a proper understanding of the role of the DPP?

The DPP report can be criticised, but for the criticisms to be fair and reasonable, they must reflect an understanding of the role of the office and the information available in presenting the report.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121895440#Comment_121895440

Bombshell! I am blown away seeing this, I hadn't realised that the block was on the inside corner (where the field is). I had presumed that it was the same side as the missing block from the video. This all starts to make sense to me now.

Why would the roof be ripped up and the block be taken from that side, when there is literally exposed blocks on the other side?

Because the block is on the line-of-way between where Sophie is, and the back of the house from the perspective of coming down the hill from the house.

Why was there a stain on the door, and blood in the field?

I surmise that the killer knocked Sophie out/almost unconscious, went up to the house to check if there was anyone else there, a witness. At this point it is assault, a vicious assault, but not murder, if there was a witness, you may well just fess up, say it was self-defence or whatever. Jail but perhaps even a suspended sentence.

Why use a block from the far side of the pump house when it is furthest away from the body, and other blocks are in the vicinity?

Because it is the first large block you find when walking back towards the body from the house.

Upon finding out there was no witness, the perpetrator came down lifted up the roof, picked up the block, and smashed it onto her head to ensure she died, cold, calculated, murder.

tomhammer..

I believe the altercation started at the house

Therefore there was no witness as he would already have been involved

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121895989#Comment_121895989

How would the perpetrator be sure there was no witness without checking, they would likely have been asleep in bed, and this was the first time she ever travelled alone.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121896022#Comment_121896022

If they're asleep in bed they're not a witness

Anyone alerted to the altercation would already be out the door

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121895340#Comment_121895340

My point is this evidence wouldn’t get a look in by the jury - whilst they may convict on something very clear like Baileys DNA at the scene, or very credible eye witness statements amongst other things, it would never act as a piece of evidence to sway a jury - the stronger pieces of evidence would always be front and centre and if these don’t stack up, they wont convict -

meaning this evidence will never be a central point of consideration for the jury- they will always treat this with caution - if they agree guilt based on the stronger evidence it may act as reassurance for some (or may not) but it will never be something they will rely on to make their decision in the first place.

Might it encourage them to find a guilty verdict? Possibly initially for some jurors with limited skills of decision making but my view would be the defence as well as the judge may set them straight on this testimony and warn them around the challenges of making a decision based on this.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121896054#Comment_121896054

You see @tomhammer.. , this is where people may interpret you as being closed-minded, as you are not putting yourself inside the mind of the killer. It's not clear to me whether you are choosing not to, or unable to.

In the mind of the perpetrator, wherever the altercation initially happened, it is possible that there was somebody fast asleep, that woke up after the altercation kicked-off. The perpetrator did not know if there was a person and/or if they were a witness or not. All options are possible at that moment in time, and they had no way to know. If there was a person asleep, and they woke up and saw the altercation in process, they then become a witness. The perpetrator would have had to check if there was a witness, before they took the fatal blow, imo.

Also, if that person was a little kid, as an example, maybe they would try to stay hidden, under the bed, afraid. The killer would want to know.

They looked, and saw that there no witness.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121896105#Comment_121896105

Play the ball not the man

I'm not believing that sequence of events

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121895950#Comment_121895950

That he would take a break from a rage fuelled attack

The risk that Sophie would get away

That he would hand himself into police if there was a witness at the house

I don't believe that theory

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121896221#Comment_121896221

I wasn't trying to play you, I was providing feedback for you, if you take that as a personal attack then I apologise, it was not intended that way.

Do you believe that the sequence of events is possible though?

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121896264#Comment_121896264

I didn't take it as a personal attack

Nearly everything is possible in this case because of the amount of unknowns

Somehow I don't believe he'd be taking a break from the attack and going back to house with the intention of giving himself up if there was a witness

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121896248#Comment_121896248

At the point where Sophie is not dead, she is a witness to assault. He would have been handed in to the police regardless.

At the point where she is dead, there are no witnesses to assault, but there may be a witness to murder, the killer would want to know.

I've put the theory out there, you don't have to believe the theory, but do you believe it is possible? Yes or no.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121896276#Comment_121896276

With all due respect, nearly everything is not possible, and the possibilties have varying degrees of likelihood, we should look at the various possibilities, and weigh up their likelihood. That is purpose of an investigation, that is the purpose of a cold case review.

Anyway, that's my thoughts, and I'm totally ok with other people having their own opinions, as long as those opinion are held in good faith.

Zola1000

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121895802#Comment_121895802

It still makes no difference. The DPP are only as good as information supplied to them. The information as we know it is from totally flawed investigation process focussing solely on one individual which the DPP in it's only role review that evidence and confirm if it's liable to bring or warrant a case for conviction. Everyone keeps saying the DPP didn't do this or didn't do that...but they only act on information provided. It's did guards do this or do that is what issue is..and in lost cases that guards didn't do required. So we are not here to criticism on any party but reality is the evidence gathering people are guards and we do not have enough evidence so that's it. Maybe as we have said multiple times new significant evidence comes to light...Ie DNA , most of all other material we have is circumstantial which again won't sway DPP enough.

Zola1000

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121896022#Comment_121896022

The answer here could still be where she was being followed? Days leading up to murder if perpetrator knew her which was still highly likely..knew she was alone on this occasion and then would have made his appearance that night. The idea of him going back up to house to check if someone there would be further risk on them but knowing already prior is more likely.

tomhammer..

Bailey could easily have heard that she was alone

Zola1000

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121895819#Comment_121895819

Yes this is true. Where did information come from in DPP report ..it's is from information gathered by AGS

Day Lewin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121896409#Comment_121896409

And so could anyone else. That is, if they were at the end of a sequence of conversations starting with say, Sophie herself, or maybe Mrs Hellen.

Don't know who else would have spread the word. Was Sophie being discussed at the pub that night? (BEFORE the attack?)

By all accounts, she usually brought a companion; and her car was outside the house.

If I'd got into an ugly fight outside someone's holiday home, and seriously injured or killed a person, I would definitely have looked up at the windows and the car and wondered, Hell, is there anyone else in the house?

I find the back door open, I go in and I check. Whew, nobody here.

(But possibly take a few items as I pass through. Poker? Hatchet? Bottle of wine?)

Then flee the scene by the way I came in, pulling back door shut as I go. I run back down the field to where I left the victim...

(and then, what?) (had she crawled away from where she first fell, and I panicked, thinking she might tell...finished her off with brick?)

DROVE away? Was my car in the lane while all this was happening?

So many unknowns!

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121895950#Comment_121895950

We're assuming the police sketch is accurate, but the blue pillar is out by a bit, see the edited sketch below;

The blue gate in the police sketch is a common gate and Sophie would not be interfering with anyone using that gate- it wasn't her gate.

The red gate on the other hand is Sophie's gate. It's her private access onto her private property. It closed onto the block pumphouse and probably latched onto where the missing block came from. Finbarr Hellen installed that gate and a second gate up at the back of her house near the back door. There's also evidence of a fence erected along Sophie's eastern gable, so her property was secure. Apart from Alfie, that is, who would have access to his barn and field along the rear of her house, close to her back door. He wouldn't have been using it very often and it appears Sophie was ok with this. But how did she feel about others accessing her property? I don't know if the gates were padlocked. Sophie would have had all her gates closed, but her red was wide open on the morning along with the blue gate in the lane. The gate at the back of the house is closed in the photos taken next day. I believe a tussle started at her her gate- a bit of pushing and shoving, maybe trying to stop someone from coming onto her property or trying to push them back out. The stone with her blood on it is just there where the gate would swing .

Edit, I'll post the sketch again;

Zola1000

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121895874#Comment_121895874

This is very well posted and is exactly correct.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121896409#Comment_121896409

Again, you appear to be trying to fit Bailey to the crime. Start and continue with an open mind!