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

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122142052#Comment_122142052

The file is in the public domain.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122142050#Comment_122142050

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122142052#Comment_122142052

So you're trying to imply that the gardai have evidence against Bailey which the public are unaware of but was never sufficient enough for them to charge him with?

I'd recommend reading the last 50 or so pages of this thread rather than reading rumours in a tabloid. Much of what went against Bailey (who was a woman beating scumbag) was propogated by a fat-too-cosy relationship between the media and AGS

Summitatem

The dpp isn't infallible....FFS they reckoned Gerry Hutch was to be charged with murder and there was NO evidence whatsoever.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122142100#Comment_122142100

Nobody is saying the DPP is infallible, but you appear to be basing your views on rumours in a book by a journalist instead of the considered opinion of multiple DPPs reviewing the evidence. Including one who was scathing of the Garda investigation.

Self discrediting isn't it?

Summitatem

I wouldn't consider anything I've said to be self discrediting.

AGS having evidence that the public are unaware of is completely plausible btw....you reckon it isn't...that's fairly self discrediting in itself really. I won't add a question mark.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122142229#Comment_122142229

You can't even remember the name of the 'chap' who you are relying on for information, accepting their information without scrutiny - while casting aspersions about the judgment of the DPP. That is self discrediting.

The DPP report is in the public domain, information sent to the French in their kangaroo court trial - the level of information that the informed public are aware of about this case is extensive.

You plainly are ignorant of basic information about the case, just come in here making claims about "well known" points that are in fact without foundation, and on which you have already been corrected several times.

You claimed Bailey's DNA was "all over the scene". There is no such information either in the DPP report or in the French information. You are unable to offer any evidence to support this claim though you made it as a statement of fact, and your claim is contradicted by multiple sources.

Given your inability to subject such rumours to basic scrutiny, you have given exactly zero reason to doubt the DPP's conclusions about the evidence on Bailey or conduct of the Garda investigation.

Summitatem

Thanks for that chief.

We actually aren't in a court of law but you stated as fact that AGS are to reveal all to the public?

Let AGS know all their info is to be ran by you going forward ....

I can imagine you lashing out another long winded reply ...lol lol lol

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122142229#Comment_122142229

If the Garda are in posession of incriminating evidence against Bailey, then I can think of no reason why they would hide it from the DPP. Given the admitted flimsiness of the evidence thay did present, it would be inexplicableto do so.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122142354#Comment_122142354

I can think of two possibilities, however I don't believe either is likely in this case

1. Evidence was obtained through illegal methods
2. Evidence pointed to Bailey's guilt, but also pointed to one of the other limited suspects, reducing the overall number of suspects, but opening up the possibility that somebody else did it too

saabsaab

I can't see why many don't see the possibility of more than one killer. Sophie looked fit and would have been hard to chase down as seems to be the case.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122142442#Comment_122142442

OK, possible. But, as you say, only just possible.

From what I understand about the case, the only evidence that could sway the DPP would be either something that showed a definite association between Bailey and Sophie, a plausible motive for Bailey to have walked nearly three miles on a Winter's night to visit her, or forensic evidence which placed him at the crime scene.

If there was any meaningful association between them, I cannot see how no one else in the area was aware of it.

If there is forensic evidence linking him, then I don't see how that could fit into the categories you describe.

The Garda themselves classed the evidence as "flimsy" and the DPP dismissed it completely.

I would have thought that, had they any real evidence, they would have moved heaven and earth to move the DPP from that position.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122142502#Comment_122142502

Agreed, on the flip side if there is any evidence on any other suspect the guards would have kept it lock tight as their only goal generally is to get the conviction. There have been many cases of miscarriages of justice due to withheld evidence. In this case there is clearly lots of other suspects who would have just as flimsy alibis as Bailey for example. And some people with no alibi, but the gardai would never release that information or anything else pointing to someone's guilt.

In fairness I wouldn't want them to either as at this point, unless it was slam dunk evidence, as it would just be a witch hunt for someone else who may also be innocent. If they were able to pin the DNA on someone for example, even if that person was innocent (Alfie through prior contact say, then their life would have been turned upside-down obviously.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122142498#Comment_122142498

I think that people see it less likely there would be two murderers as such, but you would think it would be possible that there could have been another participant. Say as an example one person started the altercation, but then the other person took it to murder, hit her from behind or something, past the point of no return.

Or alternatively maybe the second person was also afraid for their life, or protected the murderer. In this case, as time passes, it would make it more likely for someone to confess, say when the murderer died. Is there a statute of limitations whereby a witness would be able to come forward?

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122142642#Comment_122142642

There is no statute of limitations for murder in most countries, if that's what you mean.

I've often thought, that maybe there were two of them, one doing the killing the other cleaning the murder site and "preparing" it for the police. It could be one explanation on why no evidence at all was found.

That's also another mystery here: It's a bit hard to imagine that Sophie didn't try to defend herself, if it came down to a struggle? Unless the killer knocked her unconscious with the first strike? However her scratches from the brambles and briars would suggest a struggle? Not sure now, if she had any scratches?

Suppose it was Alfie together with Shirley and they were drug related coerced by somebody to kill her?

Also, could it have been Bailey together with Jules? I'd say Jules probably would have tried to hinder Bailey from doing it, she strikes me as the most honest one here.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122142677#Comment_122142677

It's surprisingly easy to knock someone unconscious, or completely daze them with one good strong unexpected blow. I know someone who was knocked completely unconscious with one hit from behind, unprovoked, and then while they were out, further blows were struck, and just by the luck of someone pulling the perpetrator off, I'm sure they would have been killed. They had no prior relationship, and it could have looked like a brutal murder. Some people are just plain psychos when they see red. This victim was a tall strong highly trained martial artist.

It doesn't matter how much "fight" Sophie had, or how "feisty" she was. One good hit, and she could have easily been knocked down, into the briars, with no possibility of defence.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122142677#Comment_122142677

Sophie had numerous " defensive injuries" to her hands and arms.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122140061#Comment_122140061

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122140737#Comment_122140737

A lot of assumptions without evidence that the murder had anything to do with any of the attributes you mention - attractive, french, woman or that her killing was rage filled.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122141614#Comment_122141614

Indeed that d1ckhead of a guard Gerry O’Carroll should have been sacked for being such a dumb ass continuing touting that theory to people with the same low count brain cells as he had - long after the science proved otherwise

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122142677#Comment_122142677

Is there a statute of limitations for manslaughter, or for assisting the cover up of a murder?

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122142740#Comment_122142740

I believe in this case it was that the injuries demonstrated that she was holding her arms up to block, not that she was aggressively defending herself (i.e. landing punches etc.), however I may be mistaken.

Day Lewin

According to the post-mortem, several of Sophie's fingers were broken, there were cuts to both hands and numerous scratches on the fore-arms. So it looks as if she did try to defend herself.

Dr Harbison does not try to guess what caused the injuries, in most places, but it reads to me like Sophie might have actually grabbed at some sharp thing, slicing off some skin on her hands.

Day Lewin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122142502#Comment_122142502

The idea of Bailey walking to the house, committing this crime, and returning home on foot, makes no sense at all. The gate across the lane was wide open, and left open. A pedestrian does not need to open a gate in that way; almost certainly a car was used.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122142843#Comment_122142843

I should clarify what I mean, based on what Dr Harbison says, that all the injuries were defensive, but he couldn't make an assessment that she landed any blows in defence, injuring the perpetrator say.

I think it is possible, and based on the lack of DNA evidence, and use of weapons that the perpetrator did not receive any injuries themselves at all, no briar scratches, no cuts, no bruises etc. or perhaps at best they had some bruising on their fists.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122142869#Comment_122142869

I agree, someone probably drove through the gate in the lane, but how would you explain the other gate, the one into Sophie's lawn being wide open in the morning?

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122142869#Comment_122142869

True,

But, after such a violent event, the attacker must have had some blood on his hands, clothing shoes etc.

And, assuming that the gardai checked his car with a fine tooth comb, no such evidence was found. Ergo, if Bailey was the perpetrator, he didn't use his car. So he must have walked.

You're absolutely right….it makes no sense.

Xander10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122143017#Comment_122143017

Problem there is, you are assuming a degree of competency to the local Gardai.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122143145#Comment_122143145

Yes. I am.

But given that they went through the ashes of his bonfire with a teaspoon, and searched his house, taking several articles of clothing away for forensic analysis, its not unreasonable to assume they checked his car too.

Xander10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122143165#Comment_122143165

No Evidence the car was impounded for forensics

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122143183#Comment_122143183

No, not to my knowledge.

Day Lewin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122142957#Comment_122142957

I am well intrigued by this question. I can't recall seeing anywhere if the gate onto Sophie's back lawn was usually open or closed? Or even what it looked like.

While a simple Joe Public in their car would have been able to open the gate across the lane, and drive through, and on up to the three houses served by it, the gate to Sophie's lawn gave access only to an area of rough grass with a shed at the far end. One might use that lawn as a "short cut" on foot to Sophie's or Alfie's house, but I can't see any reason for a car to drive onto it; and as far as I know, no car tracks were found on the grass. (Surely we'd have heard all about it, if any had been!)

So why was it opened, when, and by whom? I mean, it could be very innocent. Did the postman notice anything the previous day?