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

She probably wasn't there enough to be have much of an insight into , or be bothered, about these things.

Plus it was 30 or so years ago when she was visiting the area.

Where the same activities as prevalent then as they are today.

I did not disappear. I was working.

You have also disappeared from this thread on numerous occassions making you a hypocrit!

The errors on the first page of the DPP report are obvious. They shouldn't need explaining.

The DPP found in favour of Bailey purely because he submitted a blood sample yet he admitted there was no blood of the murderer to compare it to! Farcical! Tests only actually work when you have a control to compare it to!

Would a judge find someone innocent of drink driving if they submitted a urine sample alone? Of course not. It would actually have to show a positive result. This is a simple analagy by the way.

Your posts are becoming increasingly aggresive which is always an indication of a poster losing a debate!

Her neighbour, whos property she shared a drive way to and whose shed was close to her own house?

I think her interest in Alfie's little hash business court case is not unexpected.

I'm taking about her knowledge of the wider area being used as some sort of drugs gateway.

I doubt she knew much about it, being such an infrequent visitor.

There was a post here a few days or weeks ago suggesting that it could have been a group of people involved in the drug trade that killed her as she confronted them while they were retrieving stashed drugs from her property.

If Sophie's property was being used to store drugs it's a line of enquiry we would have heard about by now.

It would not have gone unnoticed to the local Gardai or public.

That's my point.

Just give us the name of one other suspect who you think is more likely than Bailey? And we will go through the evidence.

Bjsc has access to all statements and can provide anything you want to back up your case.

Off you go. The floor is yours Seth.

Among the "errors" in the DPP report was your claim about the DPP deciding on the source of a bloodstain on the door. Multiple posters pointed out to you there is not such statement in the report. Do you withdraw your claim now? Because you replied to this post first and did not reply to those earlier posts querying your remark. You did not withdraw the remark or support it with reference to the report. So in that sense, you are trying to "disappear" a false unfounded claim that was found out.

Again, you continue with another false claim about the DPP report. That is not the sole reason why the DPP made that assessment, nor did they "find" in favour of Bailey.

So on the one hand, you have tried to allege that the DPP assumed the bloodstain on the door was the murderers. Therefore - that was something to compare against (potentially). And in this post, you are trying to allege the DPP knew there was nothing to compare against. So from one post to the next, you completely contradict your own claim, without any withdrawal of the previous claim or acknowledgement it was incorrect.

The point is that at the time Bailey offered the sample, he did not know what would be found in subsequent tests. If Bailey was the murderer, how could he know for sure he left no hair, no fingerprints, no saliva, did not pick up any new scratches or scrapes at the scene, for a murder at close quarters and presumably in the dark? So that is not invalidated by the subsequent tests not discovering anything to relate back to Bailey or the murderer. You are failing to distinguish between what Bailey's knowledge at that point in time and the DPP's increased information at a later point of time.

And, that is not what a "control" is in relation to a test like this.

As for the rest of your remarks, then I refer you to your own previous post, which has not aged well:

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121889115#Comment_121889115

All land owners surrounding house, could all be considered suspects. When she was with Bruno she met a man who was french origin and also had his intentions to buy that house..and seemed annoyed he had failed that time to purchase it. Some hold grudges who knows. Land and property can cause serious issues as can right of ways , authority to drive ways , closing gates. All night appear light but I've seen numerous examples on rural Ireland of threating behaviour and especially towards people not from island.

Happy to help.

From the information you have seen, was there any statement from someone familiar with the gate confirming that the block was at the gate before the murder?

Or is there still a possibility that it was removed at same time as the murder?

Thanks.

There's nothing linking anyone else to the murder afaik

Bailey has been convicted of murder in a french court!!

Here we go again.

We all know there is not enough evidence to bring Bailey to trial.

But relative to all other potential suspects he stands out like a sore thumb.

Yet do people continue to insist that he doesn't.

Oh I would say a conviction for murder is a definite link albeit not to the same standard of proof required here

Is there anything linking anyone else to the murder?

The only mention of the block (sort of) is Alfie who says the gate was held open and closed with chicken wire. It.would appear that the blocks may have been missing for a while as other photos show brambles growing in the gap. The photo of Sophie from the home video appears to show a different block missing plus the lid is in place but I'm not sure what the date of that was.

My personal opinion, based on my experience and on the advice of former colleagues who specialise in blood pattern analysis, is that the block was in situ at the time of the attack. The blood on it is much more indicative, for the most part, of contact staining. It was used as a weapon to deliver the final blow, given where it was located in relationto her, then Sophie's blood stained body could not have come into contact with it after that time.