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

What's the question gusser?

I went back thought that was it

Maybe just post it would simplify matters

It is if you are the named prime suspect. Its not if you are guilty, but you aren't a suspect.

Why on earth would you want to reopen a case that could potentially lead to your door?

Cue some illogical theory from someone.

In any case, for Daniel to be guilty it would also likely have been a contract killing by a person with a rock and a block. This has been discounted.

There is no proof of Bailey at the scene despite the briars being tested. Not a speck of Sophies blood found on the multiple items of Baileys clothing tested despite the Guards lying and saying they didnt test his coat - then "losing" the coat.

Bailey voluntarily provided hair and blood samples. If he was the murderer and scratched at the scene why would he do this? How could he know he left no hairs? No blood? No saliva? Game over if anything found matching him.

Sophies DNA was found at the scene on the briars tested. Sophies DNA was found on the blood tested on the door. How would a lack of due diligence explain that?

The only unaccounted for DNA found at the scene is a male sample on Sophies boot that does not match Baileys profile.

We don't know when he wrote the article, we do know Jules saw it on the kitchen table in the morning.

It was 5pm on Mon by the time it was eventually filed,

Yes that's an odd opinion from the DPP. The murderer appeared not to be scratched at the scene and no evidence could be found for this.

So the scratches have always been a red herring, except for the gardai. They've always been contentious and the gardai should not have based anything on them, this was a mistake by them.

Because Bailey wasn't scratched at the scene, it doesn't automatically mean he wasn't the murderer. I would say more relevant is his self incrimination, lies, inconsistencies, false alibis and burning items in a bonfire soon after the murder. Also the playing out of the murder scenario with Fuller. And apparently a knowledge of the murder despite complaining the gardai weren't saying anything, and which other journalists didn't have. And a few bits more too.

This testing of clothes would have been carried out long after the bonfire, and we simply do not know what was burned in that bonfire. Its highly unlikely Bailey or any murderer was foolish enough to hand over to the gardai clothes relating to the crime scene or not disposed of them soon after the murder.

So why did the Guards test so much of Baileys clothing?

The Guards lied about not taking in Baileys jacket then "lost" it.

Nobody reports Bailey suddenly wearing new jacket / coat yet all eyes were on him.

It doesnt add up does it.

Yes those appear to be the 3 suspects people keep returning to, and not much else.

In the reports I've read, they deliberately picked vegetation (e.g. briars) without obvious bloodstaining to check for DNA, to avoid splatter type contamination. And of 5/6 samples they picked up Sophie's DNA. No others.

The picked up DNA sample from the boot and could identify that it was not Sophie's, male and not Baileys.

They picked up speck of blood from the door and could match it to Sophie.

If the assailant was wrapped up such as that and protected from cuts, that speaks against them being scratched at the scene.

In the Garda scenario for Bailey, the attack is supposed to have happened in some sort of drunken, frenzied rage. Not someone in a 'forensically aware' state of mind.

Therefore what is proof of Bailey's innocence, or points away from his guilt as per the AGS case is that he was not scratched at the scene. So basically that is one of the main planks of the Garda case gone. Marie Farrell, another main plank, totally discredited.

And further, what is evidence of Bailey's innocence, as the DPP calls out:

If Bailey had murdered Sophie, he would have known that there was a definite possibility of forensic evidence such as blood, fibres, hair or skin tissue being discovered at the scene. His voluntary provision of fingerprints and a specimen of his blood is objectively indicative of innocence.

Morning Gus and Happy Valentines Day.

When you get a chance and in your own good time, you might just clarify that the above post you provided is (or is not) from the DPP's report.

No panic if you're too busy with your loved one today and tonight, totally understand that.

Take your time, there's no hurry.

The man who made time made plenty of it.

This is also in the DPP report first paragraph, the conclusion to it:

If Bailey had murdered Sophie, he would have known that there was a definite possibility of forensic evidence such as blood, fibres, hair or skin tissue being discovered at the scene. His voluntary provision of fingerprints and a specimen of his blood is objectively indicative of innocence.

As it turns out there was nothing

There was a murder in Dublin a while earlier. The killer thought he was safe providing a dna sample

I did wonder if bailey had the same thought process

The killer in the Dublin case had looked up the info and thought there would be no DNA at the crime scene

That was my point

Other than that it appears to point to baileys innocence

Snippet from DPP report, unclear when \ how the first one occurred:

Bailey willingly gave his fingerprints and a sample of his blood to the Gardaí for analysis and examination. These specimens were given at a time when he was aware that apparent bloodstains had been found at the scene.

Following his original arrest in 1997, Bailey was interviewed by Pat Kenny on the radio and he indicated that at the request of the Gardaí he had voluntarily provided a sample of his hair because it had been stated that some hair had been found in the hand of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier. It would appear, however, that the hair found at the scene is consistent with hair originating from the deceased.

I don't see what you are basing your claim on in relation to:

Bailey willingly gave his fingerprints and a sample of his blood to the Gardaí for analysis and examination.

Why didn't the Guards just take the samples?

The DPP has far more experience than any of us with regard to such interactions, I see no reason to doubt their conclusion.