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

He was too handsome for his own good, and that's a fact.

And even if he DID have a cut at the hairline, what then? Was it inflicted by a murder victim in the throes of a death struggle? (a human one, not a turkey)

If it had been, the DNA would have been on hands of the victim; or if by a weapon - what weapon?

(And where is the hatchet that used to hang by the back door of Sophie's house, now missing?) - I've always been puzzled by this - and it gets no traction, barely a mention.

I believe Sophie had a relatively friendly relationship with Yvonne and passed by and chatted to her numerous times, perhaps even been into the house when Tomi was travelling etc. She periodically had saluted Tomi, perhaps said hello in passing, however she had only just recently actually sat down with him and had an extended conversation. They lived at a location she liked to walk at three castle head.

We don't need to reproduce the injuries, there is already evidence of briar cuts at the scene on the victim. If the cuts on Bailey's hands do not match the briar cuts of the victim, then they must have happened another way.

I would say most people, who are working out doors, doing handyman work etc. would have some cuts and bruises the majority of the time. They wouldn't even pass notice to them unless specifically asked. The way they got them is could be any number of things. He probably even had more cuts that couldn't be seen.

Bailey can legitimately answer a number of activities he had carried out over the previous days, there were probably many more tasks he could have mentioned too by the way. Does referencing these activities in combination with the fact his scratches did not look like those of the victim prove he is innocent, no, is it plausible, yes. Is it reasonable doubt, yes, imo. Do you agree?

Agreed, this puts even more scepticism to the scratches being meaningful. Someone could legitimately say why is there no one else's DNA on the briars either. I would propose that nobody, except the victim got scratched by the briars. When we put this together what does this imply. I would propose the following:

The fact is the body was found right beside the briars with her clothes caught up in them. This means that the briar scratching of the victim happened at the very end of an ongoing confrontation after coming down from the house, when Sophie was at her weakest point just before death. There would be no need for the perpetrator to reach in there to help her out, and likely they waited and watched her struggle to break free tearing herself up in the process. Maybe as they did this they had the time to grab a block, ready to finish her off. It is reasonable to expect that the perpetrator was able to avoid getting scratched altogether imo, and this is backed up by the lack of forensic evidence.

Where is that reported?

This was discussed earlier on the thread, and that claim was queried before too.

There's no mention of the cut to the head in the DPP's report. There's no mention of Jules Thomas's account of the cut or her retracting it. Bailey has admitted he received the cut to the head from the turkey. Thomas said in recent years he said he got the cut from a stick or a turkey.

Yet there is no mention whatsoever in the DPP report about this cut to the head or scalp.

Also rereading the DPP report again, Yvonne Ungerer is another who reported Bailey told her he met Sophie.

Yvonne Ungerer at p.3 of her statement no. 46B says that "in another conversation I had with Bailey he said he knew Sophie the deceased, that he had met her when he was up at Alfie's one day. I don't know for sure if he saw her one day at Alfie's or met her another day or whether he met her the day he first saw her while he was working at Alfie Lyons'."

I wouldn't say this is gaslighting as such.

Scepticism is necessary and should be carried out in good faith and the person having that scepticism should be willing to change their mind about that specific concern when presented with evidence that runs counter to their opinion.

This doesn't mean anyone has to change their mind on any specific point, but if there is a track-record of never changing their mind on anything, then it is reasonable to propose that they are not arguing in good faith, or not willing to change their mind, and therefore there not truly being sceptical, just contrarian. Not saying that is the case on this occasion.

Within the DPP report the guards would have presented what they felt was the best available evidence to convict Bailey, they also would have excluded evidence that they felt would not help convict Bailey, this is not unusual. There would be loads of evidence that is inconsequential to the investigation of Bailey. Was there any evidence that they felt would have undermined their case too? It is reasonable to assume so.

Interestingly some of the evidence they included they thought would help make their case, actually helped undermine their case. Stellar work right there.

Furthermore some on this forum seem to think that it was more important to preserve the scene thn to check on the poor woman.

The Gardai is not a single minded entity, this is evidenced by the exceptionally critical response of the DPP to what are effectively colleagues in a different section of the same workplace, the Irish justice system. Many may have had differences of opinion, many may still have those opinions to this day, many may have their own viewpoints on the evidence, just like we have here. There probably is a bunch of other evidence that points one way or another. I believe there is probably enough to revisit in a cold-case review that could bring this information and these opinions to light and truly get justice for Sophie.

Unfortunately the normally very high bar for prosecution, which they were miles away from, is actually now pushed even higher in this case, probably close to impossible to reach, as we have now clear evidence of the court of public opinion having no issue with completely devastating many people's lives, whether they did it or not. If even a sniff of evidence pointed elsewhere then, the person who it pointed to's life could be completely f*cked to put it lightly. Everyone down there would feel a collective responsibility not to say anything about anyone, unless they were 100% sure. It is also why bjsc is not willing to put names out there, and to be honest, nobody on here should be either imo. It's a horrible situation.

This is just one of the many logical reasons whereby the guards and other people in the location would not want to release information to the public, are not following up on other leads, and are ok with the questions remaining unanswered. It is why there is complete silence from some individuals associated with the case, and it is also why people are pretty much only willing to discuss evidence against Bailey.

If you are referring to me, again none of us were there on the day, including yourself. If you think some of us are monsters who wouldn't check to see she was still alive, that's blatently false. It would have appeared to those who were actually there, there was no chance she was alive.

Have you seen the photos of her head by any chance? Do you think there was the remotest possibility she was still alive when the first garda arrived?

And what effect do you think driving an ambulance over the scene would have?

I'm all for justice for Sophie. The boot print beside her body is one of the few clues we have to go on, and was thankfully preserved.

As I said the other day, time of death without hard clues is utterly meaningless. This is basic logic.

Just on your first point. The blood on the door was not identified until years later when DNA analysis had improved. Therefore, in 1996/7, there was no way of knowing that it wasn't the suspects' blood and it was believed that said suspect must have been injured. Geraldine O'Donnell's report, which states that the sample was insufficient for grouping, was not written until long after Bailey had given a blood sample. Indeed she didn't receive Bailey's blood sample until 19th February.

Maybe there was confusion with Harbison's report, he mentions rigor mortis;

Examination of the body

the full report here;

You are wrong - but I won't waste any more time arguing the point. And yes I have all the scene and post mortem photos and I absolutely stand by what I have said.

You weren't on the scene that day. Its not the same thing. You are just surmising. Those actually on the scene formed the opinion she was dead.