Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

It is true that the Gardaí didn't take a statement from Arianna some two years after the murder. A huge part of the reason why a trial never occurred is because they spectacularly screwed up in some ways. In this locality of the country murders rarely happened. Local gardaí were indeed locals and many were inexperienced. Ireland was a different country then. Even Prof Harbison (whose birthday was apparently the day the body was found, 23 Dec), the Chief State pathologist, didn't even arrive until Xmas eve 1996 - possibly some 30 hours after the murder was committed. By them contamination of the scene was considered to have occurred to the point that Harbison couldn't even give an accurate time of death.

I'm not sure if there is any evidence that Jules's daughters did not like Mr. Bailey at the time (there certainly is now). But one person did like him at the time - and that was Jules herself. That may seem odd given the violence which had occurred in their relationship prior to the murder but there's none so queer as folk.

Therefore it could easily be argued that, given their youth, they would have done as their mother required.

The DPP has 'no idea' what evidence will hold up in court?

Not from reviewing thousands of evidence files and case outcomes?

No one can know for sure, but it's the DPP's job to look at the evidence including witness statements and determine if a prosecution is warranted. They looked at it, with their experience of such decisions, and concluded that "A prosecution against Bailey is not warranted by the evidence."

Their verdict on the scratches:

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

I could 100% understand that when the gate was finished with and the Guards probably said "do ye want to come down and pick it up?", the answer would have been to dispose of it. No way I'd like that gate back at my property!!!!

Anyway I doubt anyone will face a trial for the dreadful murder of Sophie.

The DPP report mentions the people who didn't notice the scratches because it goes along with their theory that he had light scratches on his hands not deep briar cuts on his hand and face & that they healed up quickly like scratches not slowly like briar cuts. It is quite plausible for someone having a casual chat with Bailey to not pay attention to hands depending on whether Bailey was wearing a jacket or if his arms were visible.

The DPP highlights discrepancies in the Garda statements:

Gda. Kelleher says that he noticed Bailey’s left hand and could see scratches on the wrist. He described the scratches as being light and extending all along his left wrist. The evidence of D/Gda. John Culligan and D/Gda. Denis Harrington demonstrate more discrepancies in the Garda evidence. On 31 December 1996 D/Gda. Denis Harrington noticed that Ian Bailey had a lot of scratches on the back of both hands. A few days before most of the scratches were meant to have been on the left hand... It is interesting to note that the Gardaí did not ask Bailey to show the scratches to a medical or any other expert witness in order to obtain an opinion as to causation. This request was not made despite the fact that Bailey though under suspicion at the time was prepared to co-operate with the Gardaí. 

And concludes:

Bailey has consistently stated that he received scratches by climbing up a twenty-foot tree with a bow saw in one hand, cutting the top off the tree and pulling it down through the branches... Bailey’s explanation for the scratches is plausible, consistent and is supported by other direct and credible evidence.

As someone who was on the Jury of a fairly bad and gorey case, I will say that you weigh up all of the evidence very carefully.

Plenty of people in the Jury room change their opinion as the trial goes on and the witnesses are heard.

But at the front of you mind is that you have to get it right because there is a lot on the line for people, so you will weigh up the evidence fairly. Anyone in the room who starts making opinions that are not in line with the evidence soon gets that knocked out of them.

You actually even end up arguing with your self too in the jury room :)

Exactly.

The DPP may personally think that someone is guilty of a crime but thinks within the confines of the law and the likelihood of a conviction. They are not passing a judgment on the innocence or guilt of a person. They are passing judgment on the value of the evidence obtained and the methodologies and timeline involved in obtaining that evidence.

Some posters on here seem to think that the DPP is on Bailey's side.

Of course, it's possible to not leave evidence, but if the theory is that Bailey carried out the crime in a frenzied attack and received the scratches at the scene, then it would be expected he left traces.

This is not nonsense, this is from the DPP:

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.

The issue with DNA is that it was a new technology at the time (1996)

People refer to DNA in 2021 as if it were in widespread use in 1996. It wasn't. My understanding is that the first DNA case resulted from a murder on Marilyn Rynn in December 1995 in Dublin and the perpetrator then was only caught due to the excess amount of DNA available from semen following a concomitant rape.

In 1996 it was old-fashioned techniques that were being used to try and convict a murderer.

That's basically what I stated.

You can choose to agree with the DPP or you can choose not to.

One does not prove innocence. One is assumed innocent unless proven guilty.

The DPP's repeated experienced opinion has been that there is not evidence to support prosecuting anyone for the murder.

Have all the other fifty or so initial persons of potential interest, including the six or more unidentified people I previously listed, all proven themselves innocent? Nobody needs to prove their innocence, they are innocent by default.

Except Rudy Guede wasn't supposed to have been scratched at the scene, which was the point of my post, and the section in the DPP report. It undermines the Garda case for how Bailey carried out the murder and the connection to the scratches and the infamous jacket - which they were using to put him at the scene. They aren't looking for evidence in the open 'air', i.e. anywhere in that outside space but on the briars in the area of where the attack is supposed to have happened.

Nothing was found. Not even talking about identifiable usable DNA piece. Not talking about swabs.

No hair, no clothes fibers, no blood traces, nothing. The area was examined for such evidence and nothing found. Yet supposedly Bailey got scratches on his arms and head and tore his jacket there. The only thing ever found was a piece of blood on Sophie's boot from an unidentified male (not clear if that means the DNA quality was poor and only its maleness could be identified, or if it belonged to someone not in the Garda database).

The reason why people don't have to "get our heads around it" is because it's there in the DPP report as a reason why the Garda theory is unconvincing. And without that they have nothing to place Bailey at the scene. The only eye witness, Marie Farrell, put him in the area not at the scene and was then thoroughly discredited.

So we're left with, no evidence linking Bailey to the murder and no motive. Bailey's movements on the night are unclear but he had been drinking. Lots of people can't account for all their movements. Without a motive or witness or evidence putting him at the scene the lack of an alibi is not nearly enough to warrant a prosecution.