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

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654424#Comment_121654424

You don't know how many people knew SDP was in the area, and that is not the same thing as the number of people SDP "knew" in the area.

So multiple times now, what you have stated as "facts" are not clear as such, or conceal ambiguities.

It is a fact Bailey had scratches. But scratches in and of themselves are not suspicious. Some very large number of people are scratched every day. When you have to resort to abuse of language like that, it is a sign of a desperate case.

It is a fact that a dermatologist witnessed Bailey several days after the event, and did not notice any scratches. According to 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.” Denis O’Callaghan saw Bailey on 24 December 1996 (the day after the murder) and he noticed multiple light scratches on Bailey’s arms. Such light scratches are not consistent with cuts by razor like thorns.

It is unusual to leave zero trace if you are claiming they were scratched at the scene though. You're saying the scratches are suspicious, then you are saying "if he wasn't cut" ??? You can't keep your story straight and are just discrediting your own points now.

Heads you win, tails I lose.

A sure sign of an "investigation" that is just engaged in directed thinking towards an outcome.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654424#Comment_121654424

Bailey said nothing about turkeys originally when interviewed by gardai

The turkey story was added to the christmas tree story later

A very unlucky man Bailey climbing pine trees and being attacked by turkeys around the same time 😁

orangerhyme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654499#Comment_121654499

I'm speaking in terms of probabilities and you're resorting to childish insults like "abuse of language" and "desperate case".

When a woman is attacked, there is a high probability she will scratch her attacker. When a body is found entangled in briars, there's a high probability the perpetrator will have briar scratches.

This is how criminologists think and work. They think in terms of probabilities.

"Abuse of language" is a meaningless phrase. Please refrain from using it in future.

When someone known to the victim, who lives nearby, has no alibi, has a history of violence against women is found to have scratches on his face and hands the days after a murder, that is suspicious, that is not "opinion". It doesn't mean he's 100% guilty, it means he should be treated as a suspect until he can be cleared.

When a woman is murdered, the murderer is most likely someone she's romantically linked with either in the present or past i.e. husband, ex husband, bf, lover etc. It doesn't mean they are 100% the murderer, it's just probability. It's how you conduct an investigation.

Ian Bailey wasn't linked romantically to STDP, but that doesn't mean he should be cleared of suspicion. But he did know her and where she lived.

If you look at her house on Google maps, it's a long drive off a main Rd.

Ian Bailey has admitted numerous times to having scratches on his hands and face. I don't see what the dermatologist disproves.

It is a "fact" she knew very few people in the area. Obviously I don't know how many she knew. How would I know that?

She had her heating fixed the day before. Maybe the tradesman did it. Someone was breaking into her house prior and using the bath. Maybe they did it.

I'm just saying in terms of probabilities, Ian Bailey is a strong suspect.

orangerhyme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654500#Comment_121654500

It's extremely suspicious. Maybe he's just unlucky.

paddyisreal

Bailey must be some man to go by foot pissed drunk over 3k in the depths of winter and murder someone without leaving any evidence. That alone makes it practically certain he didn't do it

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654639#Comment_121654639

Have you ever heard of "attacking the post" not the "poster"? I will continue to challenge your points as I see fit, and misrepresenting something as a fact which is not a fact is an abuse of language in my book. Typically a sign of an argument which has to over egg things. Please don't read more into it than that.

You continue to make a statement of fact that "Bailey did know her" or that SDP knew Bailey without proving it or clarifying what you mean. What do you mean by that? Do you simply mean Bailey knew of her and vice versa? I and other posters have challenged you on this point that there is considerable doubt as to whether they ever met \ spoke and you continue to evade the point.

It is not a fact that Bailey was known to the victim, therefore. And even if they were very briefly introduced once in the past by Alfie, it is debatable that meets the standard for what criminologists define as knowing the victim.

If you want to talk in probabilities.

You've said the scratches were suspicious. For them to be suspicious he must have received them at the scene?

The dermatologist testimony speaks to the scratches NOT being deep \ briar cuts received at the scene of the crime. For them to be consistent with Bailey's version of events that they were received from a tree branch. As the DPP notes:

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

So what exactly do you think the scratches prove or count in terms of probabilities towards Bailey's guilt?

You say:

When a woman is attacked, there is a high probability she will scratch her attacker. When a body is found entangled in briars, there's a high probability the perpetrator will have briar scratches.

But Bailey left zero evidence at the scene. So there the balance of probabilities are significantly in favour of his innocence, or at least, of the scratches not being suspicious.

As the DPP report notes:

"The Gardaí suggest that Ian Bailey is the murderer and was scratched on his hands and arms by the briars during the struggle. 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."

So what point are you trying to make?

So I strongly dispute the basis for stating he is a "strong suspect". I would say given that AGS investigated Bailey by fair means and foul, and all that they could come up with is flimsy, circumstantial, debatable evidence - on balance of probabilities points to his innocence not guilt.

orangerhyme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654713#Comment_121654713

He could've driven.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654644#Comment_121654644

Probably just bad luck😁

I'm sure theres loads of people climbing pine trees and getting attacked by turkeys simultaneously

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654713#Comment_121654713

Which takes more effort though

Getting out of bed after midnight drunk and leaving the house to type up a newspaper article as he claims or the above

I'd love to have a read of that article

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654800#Comment_121654800

And yet the car was checked thoroughly and nothing incriminating found, though supposedly he was bleeding and would likely have had blood on his clothing etc. It was dark, would have been very difficult for him to check that he or the car was spotless. None of the people at Jules house recall hearing the car.

orangerhyme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654727#Comment_121654727

He knew what she looked like. He knew where she lived. According to Alfie Lyons, they were introduced. By "knew her", I mean Ian Bailey knew of her existence and where she lived. That's a fact. He admitted. Beyond that we know nothing.

She bought the house in '93 and was killed in '96. It was a holiday home she visited now and again with her son. How many people in the area knew her and where she lived do you think? It must be very few.

I don't see what the dermatologist proves. He had scratches. We know that. The detective said they sent someone up the tree to see if they got scratched. He said pine trees don't scratch. They've no thorns. Briars do though. That implies Ian Bailey was lying about where he got the scratches. Again just a probability. If pine trees don't scratch, where did he get the scratches from?

No forensics were found at the scene. So it neither proves or disproves anything. Some DNA was found on her shoe but that's it.

I'm just saying in terms of probabilities Ian Bailey should be treated as a strong suspect. It's still possible it was a stranger like in the Sarah Everard case or the Moscow, Idaho murders. But based on the location of her house, it's probable it was someone known to her. Again probability, not certainty.

Alternatively someone was breaking into isolated holiday homes during Christmas to rob but her car was parked outside, so maybe that rules that out.

It's a moot point anyway as this case will never be solved without some forensic/DNA breakthrough.

I wonder if the briars are still in storage or her nail scrapings? Could they get something from that?

orangerhyme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654802#Comment_121654802

It's extra unlucky to get scratched by a tree with no thorns.

orangerhyme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654884#Comment_121654884

The car was checked weeks after.

They were asleep, possibly after drinking.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654930#Comment_121654930

There could have been hundreds of people who knew the location of that house, and over the years got to learn there was a French woman using it as a holiday home. How many people visited Alfie's house over those years? How many people did Sophie interact with over those years? We really have no idea, we can never know the real figure, it is total speculation. People could have come across Sophie in ways we have no knowledge of.

"Pine trees don't scratch" what does that even mean? It's physically impossible to get scratched? It just means the one person they sent up didn't get scratched that one time. It was meaningless theatre.

You don't see what the dermatologist proves, when the dermatologist didn't see any scratches on Bailey just a couple of days after the event? Yet supposedly he got deep briar cuts at the scene? It implies the cuts were not from thorns but were light scratches already healed away. The story doesn't add up, never has.

This is not merely my opinion, but I copy from what is taken to be the DPP report:

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

You said:

When a woman is attacked, there is a high probability she will scratch her attacker. When a body is found entangled in briars, there's a high probability the perpetrator will have briar scratches.

And it is a fact that no forensic evidence was found at the scene indicating this in relation to Bailey.

You said you wanted to talk into probabilities, yet don't seem therefore to follow the logic of those probabilities which indicate that actually Bailey was not scratched at the scene.

lbunnae

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654802#Comment_121654802

Hahahahaha

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654957#Comment_121654957

And nothing was found, visible or invisible i.e. forensic traces. And I don't see any report indicating obvious signs it had been deep cleaned.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121653816#Comment_121653816

Honestly I don't think I do

My work involves logical and clear thinking and problem solving in the main so I'm trained to look at the facts to hand and arrive at the most likely conclusion or solution to a problem not necessarily taking in all the available evidence unless necessary in order to save time.

My assumptions are as follows only using the facts I have immediately to hand without time consuming research

-The gardai will most likely determine a correct working assumption of the general circumstances of her death. In this case a late night visitor was rebuffed at the door , a chase ensued and she was killed in a violent rage.I concur with this theory.

-Bailey is the chief suspect . Is he guilty ?

Alibi believeable ? Unlikely imo

Explanation for scratches ? Possible but a bit of a coincidence and he didn't mention turkeys until later on

Violent temper ? Yes

Did he lie about meeting Sophie - probably

Any other relevant info - a quick read of senan Maloney's article today

Did Ian Bailey kill STDP - more than likely but not certainly

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121655043#Comment_121655043

So you dont think Marie Farrells lies or why she lied is relevant at all?

Being honest you are not coming across as a logical or clear thinker at all - you seem to be ignoring how the gardai behaved in this case, you are ignoring Sophies husbands odd behaviour, you are ignoring Alife and Shirleys strange beheviour after discovering their neighbour murdered.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121655043#Comment_121655043

-The gardai will most likely determine a correct working assumption of the general circumstances of her death. In this case a late night visitor was rebuffed at the door , a chase ensued and she was killed in a violent rage.I concur with this theory.

That argument makes no sense on any level.

There's abundant cases of miscarriages of justice, or police forces not finding the culprit in a murder because they went down the wrong track. The number of unsolved murders speaks to that.

You have absolutely no factual basis to make such a statement.

The circumstances of this case were atypical.

I have asked for on this thread, and I've never seen a similar murder scenario outlined.

Therefore, the idea that AGS would most likely determine a correct working assumption in general and specifically in this case is extremely dubious.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121655091#Comment_121655091

Don't know the details but assuming the gardai worked to fabricate this piece of evidence which I think I heard is what happened ?

The gardai didn't have enough evidence as I outlined above and fabricated this additional witness evidence in order to secure a conviction of their chief suspect who they believed to be the killer

The above assumptions don't change anything I posted above

Imo bailey is still the likely killer

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654822#Comment_121654822

"I'd love to have a read of that article"

Google it, and while you're at it Google Marie Farrell's part in the affair. Her evidence (later retracted) played a huge part in the Gardaí case against Bailey.

The newspaper article was hand written, not typed, Jules saw it on the kitchen table in the morning.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121655129#Comment_121655129

Right you say you dont know the details which makes your views irrelevent. You cannot say you think Ian Bailey is guilty without understanding Marie Farrells part and the gardai's part in this investigation.

I suggest you do some reading up and listen to west cork podcast to familiarise yourself with all the facts and events. Until you know all the facts your views are not worth considering.

tomhammer..

The evidence against bailey, basically everything contained in the Maloney article today isn't enough to convict but points to his guilt

The gardai concoct the additional witness evidence needed to secure a prosecution and likely conviction

Is that a fair summary?

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121655043#Comment_121655043

....and your initial premise is unfounded from the start.

The time of Sophie's death is uncertain. It could have been any time from when she was confirmed to have been seen or spoke on the phone around midnight on the 22nd to shortly before she was found around 10:30 a.m. on the 23rd.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121655165#Comment_121655165

What are you disagreeing with ?

Am I correct in that the Marie Farrell evidence is concocted ? I don't honestly know

What do I need to read about Marie Farrell if her evidence is invalid and inadmissible?

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121655043#Comment_121655043

Well lets look and another theory - logically and clearly.

Did Bailey definitely have an association with SDP? - no

Did Alfie Lyons definitely have an association with SDP? - yes

Did Bailey have a plausible motive to attack Sophie? -no

Did Alfie have a plausible motive to attack Sophie? - yes (they were in ongoing fractious dispute.)

Did Bailey definitely know that Sophie was at home? - no evidence that he did

Did Alfie definitely know that Shirley was at home - yes

Was Bailey definitely present at the murder scene - no

Was Alfie Lyons definitely present at the murder scene - yes

Did Bailey have an alibi? no

Did Alfie have an alibi? -no

Did Bailey have suspicious scratches - yes

Did Alfie have suspicious scratches - yes

Why did Alfie and Shirley see and hear absolutely nothing on a clear cold night with no background noise?

Why did Shirley drive their car to the dump after discovering Sophie's corpse?

Also, there is a distinct possibility that the attack happened in the morning, rather than at night.

I don't think Alfie did it. But I do think that of the limited amount of evidence available, there is at least as much pointing at Alfie/Shirley as there is at IB.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121655091#Comment_121655091

I'm ignoring Alfie because I believe the working assumption that the gardai had was the correct one

So he's not relevant to my posts

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121655185#Comment_121655185

You are the one that said that ' you dont know the details' - so how can you have an informed opinion if you dont know the details?

You need to familiarise yourself with all the events - Bailey was originally arrested based on Marie Farrells alleged sighting of a man fitting his description at Kilfada bridge . She then backtracked on this and said it wasnt Bailey, that she was forced to say things by the gardai. She was a key witness who told lies - Why did she lie and what did she gain by telling the lies?

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121655171#Comment_121655171

I didn't mention time of death. The time window

doesn't change anything I posted

My assumption is a late nite caller at what exact time I don't know

Late nite fits into the time window between midnight and 1030

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121655196#Comment_121655196

The problem being that there is no evidence to support that assumption.

Stacking one unsupported assumption on top of another repeatedly does not make any sort of a reasonable case.