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

Thats much later in time though.

What police practice manual states that?

You miss my point - she may well have been dead but someone, anyone should have checked.

Can you show me where AGS used the Met rulebook in 1996?

I ask again, were you there, or just surmising like others?

Last week you were giving out about the gardai ruining the crime scene by driving a car over it. Today you're giving out they didn't walk all over the most important part of the crime scene to check on an obviously dead woman, thus potentially destroying vital clues such as a boot print. And if they drove an ambulance there, you'd no doubt be giving out about that too. Armchair general much?

He's only became an expert in protocol in the last few days from what I can see. He never mentioned this before.

My frustration with him is he's critical of everything the gardai do. They are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they don't check, they are damned. If they did check, he'd likely say they contaminated the scene with footprints. Its tiresome at this stage.

The protocol has just come to light for many of the people on here. The frustrations people have are borne out of things that haven't quite seemed right for decades. Fortunately that is why protocols exist and it turns out we can now, instead of just giving our opinions on what we feel are right, point to something that tells us what is right. We can identify why those frustrations are there and we should all be able to get behind the protocols as the standard to which we compare the activities of the police.

This is the solution to your tiredness with the situation, do you agree we should do this moving forward?

There was dna on the boot. This has never been stated to be blood. There is no conclusive evidence of the murderer being scraped or suffering any blood loss, and nothing has ever been found to indicate this.

Regards DNA, nothing found either pointing to this. No evidence of the murderers dna or skin on briars for example. There is no evidence of a frenzied struggle either.

So yes the murderer potentially got lucky or else was somewhat forensically aware.

The boot print is the only possible clue from what I can see, which was thankfully preserved and photographed.

I appreciate you taking the time to answer, and to be honest I do appreciate that you have a general scepticism on numerous aspects of the case. Scepticism should work both ways. I'll ask it the question again though, regarding the DNA:

If the person could be identified and that person was capable of carrying out the murder, if they did not have an alibi or a reason for their DNA to be there, then they almost certainly would have been convicted on that evidence alone.

Would you agree with that statement?

You shouldn't need a handbook.

It's basic human instinct to look out for your fellow being

Again, unless you were there, you are just surmising she might have been alive. Realistically looking at the timeframes and the fact Shirley believed she was dead, and the first garda didn't arrive until about 40 minutes later, and the nature of her injuries, its fairly safe to say she was dead. The blood loss alone would indicate this.

If there was a strong indication she was dead, would you walk up to her and start doing some checks? Given that you might disrupt evidence. Even something as simple as a hair sample can stick to a persons shoe and be carried off. And a footprint could be destroyed. Its a fair question.

Thanks for your response. If you take anything away from this response and respond in kind, I would appreciate if it prioritised by the question highlighted in bold below.

I agree that raises question marks about Bailey, it's not a great look. Like almost all the evidence against him, he's his own worst enemy. Every time I hear him talk about the specifics of the case I bristle a little tbh. I imagine the Gardai felt the same way, and it could have influenced their decision-making. The recommendation of any lawyer worth his salt, and any policeman who is honest, is don't say anything at all to the police if you are accused of a crime, don't give anything away that you don't have to, whether guilty or innocent, are you aware of this? They will only use your statements against you, never to help you. Do you think that is reasonable justification, albeit risky, for holding it back?

Regarding the DNA though, with respect you're creating a straw-man argument.

DNA has been used to convict many people in countless crimes. It is about the most valuable evidence there is tbh aside from a video or photo of the person carrying out the crime. Whether it is blood or not is fairly meaningless in this context. The most important evidence when it comes to DNA is not if it was blood, it is that the person was in extremely close proximity to a murder victim and could have done it.

That person imo shoots to the very top of the viable suspect list, right to the top in this case, above Bailey, unless or until they can verify that they have an iron-clad alibi, or a reason for it to be there. There are many legitimate innocent reasons for it to be there, but there is one extremely illegitimate reason it could be. You may not agree with me, and that is ok, but do you think that this person is at least a viable suspect?

I agree the murderer would have known that they did not bleed at the scene, and it is reasonable to criticise the DPP report in that respect. He's not the pope though, and is fallible, just like the guards, and everyone else, both parties made mistakes, but we're stuck with them, there is no one else going to come along to save the day.

However, even though he doesn't mention it, his reasoning is correct when it comes to giving the sample as the perpetrator would have to have known he did not leave any DNA at the scene, as blood includes much more powerful DNA evidence. "Didn't leave any DNA behind, safe to give a blood sample", a far higher bar of knowledge imo.

If he was so forensically aware Bailey would have realised that after such attack it was probable his DNA was left at the scene regardless of how careful he was. The idea that during such an attack the perpetrator is mindful of not leaving DNA evidence is unrealistic.