Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed. **Threadbans lifted - see OP**

How can a case be sent to the DPP if it accuses a deceased person of being the murderer? Is there any legal precedent for that in Ireland? Irrespective of who is accused, I'm guessing many viable suspects are now dead, can anything be done by a DPP with such a case? Guessing that the right to a fair trial doesn't apply as the accused cannot defend themselves? And I'm guessing an accused suspect who is deceased is afforded the presumption of innocence?

I searched myself and could find nothing. I'm not in the legal profession. Perhaps someone here is, and could shed some light on the situation.

I'm almost certain the DPP couldn't proceed in anyway with a criminal trial. And like the CPS probably couldn't indicate if they would have proceeded if the accused were alive. To do so would essentially undermine the presumption of innocence.

I'm guessing though that any new evidence from the cold case review that is strong enough to implicate a deceased person could be used in a civil trial for damages against the estate of the deceased. Which is the case for Ian Bailey would be for the sum total of diddly squat. But a wealthy family like Sophie's could use a civil case as a defacto means of achieving justice for her murder.

Well done and funny that article looks familiar - not sure if you’re getting the same vibe I am - in that there’s a “Hope” that the DPP will actually make a decision - that “Garda sources” “believe” the DPP will make a decision.
Nothing definitive there is there although at first glance you could be forgiven for assuming it “will” happen - I’d be more confident of it if that came from an official DPP spokesperson TBH

The Gardai will get some ribbing if they send a similar file to what they sent previously that’s for sure. If the evidence is Baileys “dark” writings, or a “just remembered after 25 years “ hearsay statement from someone in France then they will have serious questions to answer around just what have they been doing.

I wonder how significant the timing of sending the items over to the FBI is, for forensic analysis. Are they at a point where they have a lot more circumstantial evidence on Bailey and want to see if they can obtain DNA etc- or have they stalled on that investigation and are now looking for new leads?

Weak evidence on Bailey such as they have provided to date, coupled with no significant DNA evidence at the scene, still means they have a weak case against Bailey- not finding any other DNA at the scene doesn’t strengthen their case against Bailey, but in my view, an unidentified DNA at the scene, especially if blood, greatly weakens an already weak case.

Naturally enough, DNA that cannot be explained away through let’s say normal interaction such as the housekeeper folding away her dressing gown, on the victim, if owner of this DNA is found, dead or still alive, could be a breakthrough and wouldn’t necessarily require a DPP “blessing” .

It’s just that I’ve always got the impression, rightly or wrongly, that Gardai are still fixated by stupid outbursts of Bailey allegedly confessing or ash remains of a fire that may or may not have taken place post murder - great if it’s progressed to that level of forensic evidence - we’ll have to wait and see though

But that one remark….that the Gárdaí now believe that Sophie was killed by someone known to her.

Honestly, this sounds like something genuine….and NON-Bailey. It sounds much more like a person that she had actually met and spoken to and knew the name of. She did "know" some people on the peninsula….though none particularly well, given how little time she actually spent there.

You could interpret it that way- except that Gardai have always believed Bailey met and knew Sophie - and have spent nearly 30 years trying to prove it 😀

If they have finally copped on and moved in a different direction then great maybe they’ll finally make progress.

I don’t think they ever claimed that Sophie knew Bailey though, just that he may have been infatuated with her from a single handshake. The way it is phrased indicated to me that it was clear she knew the perpetrator.

However it could all just be rehashing the same old stuff too.

Which article was that in, I missed it @Day Lewin

Yes, "known to her" implies she knew her assailant, not the other way around.

Dwyer was of the oppinion that the answer lay in the locality.

Of the locals, she knew the Hellens, the Sullivans from Crookhaven, the Ungerers, the Bolgers- well Leo anyway.

We have Leo Bolger's statement that he witnessed Alfie introduce Sophie to Bailey, but Alfie never fully corroborated this.

Bill Hogan the cheesemaker chatted with her a bit when she called into his shop.

As far as I can tell, that's about it. There's always the possibility that Sophie went down to the gate to confront a woman of course.

Yes, the term "known to her" does suggest, to some extent, a departure from the Bailey theory.

If "known to her denotes a suspect relatively close to Sophie, then it brings possible motive into sharper focus.

“Statistically and logically, it is far more likely that Sophie was killed by someone with whom she had some sort of association.”

Yeah I’m of the view he “knew of her” and that’s it - no relationship of any kind whatsoever -and essentially in 30 years, there’s been no additional evidence to the contrary.

And yeah I agree, given the viscousness of the assault, I don’t think this was a stranger killing another stranger, unless you adopt the assassination theory which essentially just someone she knows well outsourcing the act to someone else

Agreed, although I’ve never really understood why those who think Jules is covering for Bailey don’t believe it happened in the morning.
It seems to me that many of the decisions made by the Garda, were to reduce/limit the suspect pool rather than any sort of reasoned justification.

"Known her" would have meant, she easily would have opened up the door, she had a conversation with somebody, had time to put on boots, walk with him to the gates, still talking and not expecting anything. The killer struck her from behind, totally unexpected, not much noise. The killer may have had blood on his hands or arms, later returned to the house where the blood stain at the door would have been made. This would also explain why Alfie and Shirley didn't hear anything at all.

I always say, that those who "believe" should go to church on Sunday. Believing doesn't mean much in a murder investigation. It is only an indication that the Gardai is investigating into a certain direction based on the leads, or very few leads or old leads and some hearsay they have coupled with the general lack of evidence. They probably came back to this line of enquiry on whether Bailey knew Sophie or not as there is total lack of every other evidence.

We also don't know how that DNA re-examination is going to go, how long it takes to get results, and even if the results are credible. I would also guess loads of people, first and foremost Guards handled the matter in an unprofessional way, thus anybody's DNA could easily have been on clothes, gotten there later on, after the murder, etc…

Other than that, it's a fact that in the majority of killings, killer and victim knew each other or had some other dealing/ or whatever relationship / business going on. It would be the basis of a motive. But nearly 30 years on, we can all only speculate about the motive.

Bailey could have done it, but so could have all the others.

He said any noise was blocked by the conservatory I believe.

However he wasn’t deaf so he should have had deep questioning about things he did hear. Creaks, animals, car horns etc. their house was only half a km from a main road over the hill.

That he heard nothing at all isn’t credible imo. However anything he did hear could have easily been dismissed, which is more likely imo. Shirley in particular never made the claim she didn’t hear anything as far as I can tell