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

The DPP could have gotten many points wrong, but all he is looking for is evidences of reasonable doubt, he found multiple that he considered enough to kill the case. When a case is prosecuted many of these points would be brought up to the jury, one by one, over days, weeks probably for a murder trial.

I believe that some, perhaps not all, but some of the jury, would consider that offering up blood and hair samples early on would have convinced them of his innocence. Personally I think it wouldn't convince me, but I would probably think deeply on it if I was a juror. If you think of justice as a scale, it would tilt slightly in favour of Bailey in this respect imo.

There are many other good points the DPP brings up in the report though I will say, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. You should also consider the fact that before and after this case the Gardai would have prosecuted many more cases with this DPP office, they would continue to have a professional relationship for years and on to this day.

You clearly have no understanding of what the term "objective evidence of innocence" means nor did the DPP.

I will spell it out simply.

The DPP subjectively (in his opinion) decided the blood on the back door was the murderers.

Objective evidence would have been DNA evidence.

Do you now understand the difference?

Here's the extract from the DPP's report.

At page 23 of Dr. Geraldine O'Donnell's statement, she refers to light bloodstaining of human origin being found on the outside surface of Sophie's back door. (E.G.9) She was provided with an insufficient sample to identify the blood grouping.

Jules Thomas has stated that on 23 December 1996 (within hours of the murder) Alfie Lyons told Bailey about the bloodstain on the back door of Sophie’s house yet on 10 February 1997 while in custody Bailey willingly gave a sample of blood for analysis. At law he was under no obligation to do so. 

Nowhere does the DPP bother to establish who the blood belongs to and lazily guesses its the murderers. Dr. O'Donnell does not indicate who the blood belonged to. Not only that O'Donnell says she doesn't know who the blood grouping belonged to. Yet the DPP decides it must be the murderer.

So in fact not only was it a wrong assumption in hindsight, he jumped to the wrong assumption at the time with zero evidence to support his assumption.

The DPP doesn't know what "objective evidence of innocence" means, but we can rely on you? Someone who just above admitted they accused the DPP of an error, that was not actually an error but a judgement of hindsight?

Someone who earlier on the thread was critical of "armchair generals" on matters of police and judicial procedure, despite a police manual being cited to them and in response providing exactly zero supporting evidence???

I think when it is written out like that, we can clearly see how self discrediting your claims are.

In contrast, the claim made by the DPP is based on standing and based on foundation:

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.

I think that is a fair assessment of this point in the report.

This is the post where you used the phrase "armchair general much" I suggest you re-read it in light of the standard you just set.

It is my understanding that the DPP report came out in 2001 however the blood on the door was not identified as being the victim's own until 2002.

Now you've dropped the blood as proof of his innocence? If Bailey was the murderer he would well know he didn't leave blood behind, because again, no evidence of blood loss from the murderer has ever been found, despite extensive forensic investigation.

I've also done a quick search of the DPP report and I can find no mention in it of the term DNA. Another strange omission from a report supposedly based on evidence.

Yes this is true. But the DPP cites Dr. O'Donnell who says she doesn't know who the blood is from. The DPP then subjectively and with no evidence to back it up decides its the murderers. This was an extraordinary claim which turned out to be false. He should just have admitted he didn't know who the blood belonged to, and if he didn't know not use it as evidence for guilt or otherwise. So yes it is a glaring error in his report, a really big one.

If it came to trial in lets say 2002 or 2003 with the new evidence of it being Sophies blood, this part of the DPP report would have been found to be false.

There was no evidence of blood loss from the murderer. There was no forensic evidence of a frenzied struggle involving Sophie scratching the murderer. No evidence of the murderer being scratched by the briars was ever found either, since no DNA evidence apart from Sophies was found on the briars. Mostly the murderer is likely to have hit her with various weapons, without actually getting into a physical fight or struggle with her.

Thanks for responding, but you put a caveat on your answer, it is not absolute. I apologise if you find me tiresome, but I don't want to put words in people's mouths, or post false information for others, therefore I try to be thorough. These are the types of questions that are asked of experts and suspects every day of the week in court.

I totally agree there may be perfectly reasonable explanations for the DNA being left at the scene and in fact has said as much already, many times. I hope you don't mind that I shall assume by your response that you also agree there may be nefarious explanations for the DNA sample, having everything to do with the murder.

Getting back to your response yes or no. "By itself no" is not absolute, and also not logical. Let me explain myself further. The opposite of viable or feasible is non-viable or infeasible (unfeasible?, both seem to be valid). Somebody cannot be non-viable or unfeasible and then later become viable, it doesn't pass logic. They can only be viable and become non-viable by being eliminated. If they are non-viable, they could never be the murderer, if they are viable, more evidence should be looked for until they are eliminated. Currently we are in limbo with regards this candidate imo, sitting as a viable candidate forever.

Let me ask it the opposite way, more concisely, perhaps it is clearer for you.

In your opinion is this person infeasible as the murderer, yes or no? It's simple, just one word response will suffice.

Can you tell me exactly where as I too have read the DPP's report in its entirety and cannot find the passage to which you refer. Thanks

Look I get what you're saying and for the most part I agree, all I'm saying that it is fair for someone to take a different interpretation, in particular given that the perpetrator may have been familiar with the length of time that it takes for DNA samples to be run. They may have thought it an inevitability and used the opportunity to get the jump, it's a big risk but some people would consider it, especially if they are already convinced they could be found out, it's fair for people on this forum to take that interpretation imo, not that I agree with it per se. There are many other pieces of evidence discussed in the report, as well as those not discussed, that I think are more important imo, and I'd rather get hung up on them than this personally.

Reading this report, and knowing what we know, I personally do believe the DPP slightly overstepped the mark here and @tobefrank321 has a point albeit relatively moot imo. I imagine he did so because it is relatively common for innocent people to provide their samples, however I do believe there has been cases where guilty people have given up samples too, taking a risk, or banking on having the opportunity to get away, or just being plain stupid. Is is objectively indicative, but certainly not overly so, and he probably should have caveated this. Overall I think the majority of the report is sound and can be stood behind, but he may have made a couple of mis-steps.

We can speculate as to why, but from the tone of the report, it appears to me that he genuinely was frustrated with the gardai and truly believed there was nowhere near enough to convict Bailey, and tried to tear them another one in print. A little bit of unprofessionalism seeping in perhaps, he is human after all. I think on balance though, the guards were far more unprofessional imo.