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

I take your general point on if there was any other DNA at the scene, that is why I include the caveats, in this case too we are talking specific evidence, facts:

"a reason for their DNA to be there". There are a load of people who this could apply to, investigating Gardai, also people who may have been close to Sophie's boot before she was killed or after, Bruno for example, (I'm not sure how old the boot was). It should be noted though that people were really afraid to touch Sophie after she was killed, we have evidence that most of guards did not touch her to even check for a pulse, but likewise if this is not the case then:

"they can verify that they have an iron-clad alibi": This becomes a much higher bar than a standard alibi once your DNA is on the scene, just having another person say you were with them is not enough imo, they could be in cahoots, and should then be investigated further, much like Bailey and Jules were. Iron-clad would be something like numerous unrelated people saw you at a location, and could verify your location, or perhaps there is video evidence etc. Put it this way, if it was Bailey's DNA he would have been locked up long ago, even if he had never put himself in the frame imo.

You mention about the cavity block, it is a similar story, however if DNA turned up from somebody who had never been "coming and going" in that area then it would be a major major finding. Therefore I believe it should be analysed and until it is established who it is, and why it is there, that person is top of my list tbh.

Just thinking about it a little further, 1. beyond Sophie actually potentially surviving and there being no murder at all, or 2. when she did die therefore also it would pin down critically the time of death therefore boxing in the time of the attack (at most 2-3 hours beforehand base on food), it would 3. have additionally given more indication of the type of attack/attacker. Looking back now, although extremely unlikely that it was a hit job as such, a hitman would almost definitely confirm death before he/she left, whereas a spontaneous murderer would probably not. This would have helped steer the investigation away from France in the early days and saved any energy spent upon it (not that I imagine there was much).

I also have no horse in this race, except for the justice for Sophie herself first and only. The only reasonable credibility I give, is to those who are like-minded. I believe you are also, and many others on here, including some who may appear to disagree with you. I appreciate all you have done to move this conversation forward.

Unfortunately though you are correct some people are just entrenched in their view, some people are just straight up contrarian about many things, but also others are actually opposed to finding justice, as it would affect them, or people they know, or a system or situation they are a part of. It is hard to tell sometimes which of them you are dealing with. To paraphrase "It is hard to convince somebody of something when their livelihood depends on them not believing and/or understanding it."

This is all not to say people should not be sceptical of any and all evidence, quite the contrary in fact, you should be able to stand up to this scrutiny, this makes the evidence stronger, you should take solace in that.

All good points.

Since Bruno was mentioned. I never believed his alibi was tight. The signature could have been forged by anybody remotely resembling the size and age of Bruno. The telephone technician would not have remembered after having seen many clients that day. Even a fake ID shown to the telephone technician could have been part of that.

You can check on whether someone is dead or alive without contaminating the scene. It is not remotely the same thing as driving a vehicle over the scene.

Police forces and medics manage it all the time. The police handbook has already been cited to you. In response you have provided exactly nothing to support your argument.

As for "armchair general", from someone who earlier today said they didn't care what the DPP report said?

So by your own standard, your own words, you're entirely self discredited yourself by being an "armchair lawyer".

You wouldn't come barging into a shop all 6" 3 of you looking for yesterdays Times newspaper with 2 (obvious) coppers in the shop.

Early on it was probably provocation. Then it went all Pete Tong for Bailey.

Its amazing how people forget the overkill nature of this murder. Its been commented on ad nausium. The murderer didn't just kill her, they went much further than that, killing her several times over if you know what I mean. Unfortunately there was no hope of Sophie surviving. While I don't believe the hitman theory myself I can somewhat see how people would go for it. As whoever killed her made very sure she was dead.

So no, checking for signs of life in this instance was pointless, maybe in other less violent cases though.

Have you not read the article I sent you?

You'll have to tell us what DNA by anyone apart from Sophie was left at the scene as a starting point here.

You did not find 3 glaring errors. You completely misinterpreted it by applying knowledge from years later to assessing its statements as false. The glaring error was the failure in your post to account for the passage of time and read it from the perspective and knowledge set of the participants at the time.

So over the course of today, you have tried to rubbish the DPP report and failed, highlighting only your own lack of understanding of the report in the process. And multiple posters have asked you to support your claims about police procedures, and you've provided exactly nothing, ignoring the police handbook information given to you.

But sure, other posters are "armchair generals" just not you.

Its a great mystery to me why the DNA on the boot was never properly analyzed. However, there is also nothing to link it to the crime unfortunately. When a DNA expert when to look at the boot, they found the evidence bag to have been opened. Not best practice really.

I'm 3 pages in and yes already 3 points that don't stand up to any scrutiny, albeit one that doesn't stand up to scrutiny today, and is redundant.

Only 41 more pages to go!

You are making utterly false claims about the DPP report, and police procedures that are without foundation.

You just repeated the claim about "3 glaring errors" in the DPP report when you already knew at least one of them depended on knowledge from years later. And this has already been pointed out to you on the thread earlier today.

Why would I admit to any such canard from someone who by their own admission, is happy to make claims they know to be false about the DPP report?

Bailey shared blood and hair samples. In the circumstances of a brutal physical attack in the dark at close quarters, how could he know he left no DNA behind, no hair, no skin, or anything. A blood sample provided by him could be matched to DNA from skin or hair or saliva found at the scene.

It is exactly as the DPP report 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.

It was the assumption of the DPP that the blood on the back door was the murderer's. This was a completely false and erroneous assumption. It was false when he wrote the report, it is false today. Therefore it was not objectively evidence of innocence. It was subjective evidence of innocence, the DPPs opinion, based on a completely false assumption.

I see no such assumption in the DPP report.

And it does not matter that it is false today, that just demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of the report and completely invalidates your criticisms of the report. The report must be read in the context of the knowledge of the participants at the time the actions in the report happened.