Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
That's oddysey again arguing some point I'm not even making
The DPP asserts that if bailey committed a frenzied attack there would be Baileys forensic material lifted from scene
Therefore it follows that if ANother committed a frenzied attack there would be ANothers material lifted from scene
Assuming there wasn't then it follows DPP is saying it wasn't a frenzied attack
I believe he's clearly wrong to assert this
"No forensic evidence linking Ian Bailey to the scene was found despite the fact that the
murder of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier was the direct result of an apparently frenzied
and furious attack upon her in a briar-strewn location. If in fact the attack was carried
out in a frenzied manner one might have expected that the assailant would have left
traces of blood, skin, clothing fibres or hair at the scene. No such material was discovered "
No, Odysse's interpretation is correct.
If you read it in the full contex, the DPP are refuting the Garda claim that the scratches were a result of Bailey attacking Sophie in the briars.
The briars were taken away and forensically examined in the UK and no forensic material was recovered.
Had the scratches been caused by the briars, then there would have been forensic traces left.
And because there wasn't, the arssertion is rejected.
It does matter, because it is the contention that Bailey was scratched at the scene.
Read the report.
The Gardaí suggest that Ian Bailey is the murderer and was scratched on his hands and arms by the briars during the struggle.
The above evidential matter indicating that Bailey was scratched at the scene was not collected at the scene.
Therefore the DPP is not wrong, they are pointing out a lack of evidence to support the Garda suggestion.
Answer my point
Was the above evidential material collected from the scene ?
Doesn't matter whether it's from Bailey or ANother
If not the dpp is wrong
Read it in context.
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121743768/#Comment_121743768
"If in fact the attack was carried out in a frenzied manner one might have expected that the assailant would have left traces of blood, skin, clothing fibres or hair at the scene. No such material was discovered."
Suggests to me no such material from any person was discovered at the scene . I believe this to be the case .
Gusset and me and others I'm sure agree that the attack was frenzied
That would suggest DPP is mistaken if as I believe no such evidential material was discovered
Can anyone contradict on the evidential material from anyone being discovered at scene
If not my point is correct
Right, yes I see it.
Its specific to the scratches....ie. if Bailey's hands were scratched as a result of him attacking Sophie in a briar strewn location, then there would be forensic traces present. No such traces were found and therefore we reject the assertion.
If you read the full section in context it is clearer imo:
No forensic evidence linking Ian Bailey to the scene was found despite the fact that the murder of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier was the direct result of an apparently frenzied and furious attack upon her in a briar-strewn location. If in fact the attack was carried out in a frenzied manner one might have expected that the assailant would have left traces of blood, skin, clothing fibres or hair at the scene. No such material was discovered.
No, the Bantry Garda theory, ( for which there is absolutely no evidence ) did not originate with Bailey.
That particualar rumour was circulating at a very early stage.
We're going round in circles
I was underwhelmed anyway with my cursory reading of his report . I'll leave it there.
OK, I see what you mean now. The way the sentence is structured could lend itself to that interpretation.
However, I don't believe that anyone could dispute that the attack was frenzied.
And the point they are making is clear. Essentially, had Bailey been involved, there would be forensic evidence to support the contention.
On the West Cork podcast Bailey produces a letter that was sent to him suggesting it was a Bantry Garda.
The letter writer goes on to say that if Bailey wants more information then he would have to "make it worth his time"
So from that I am concluding that the Bantry Garda story is coming from none other than Ian Bailey.
If you have been hearing about it in west Cork then it's probably because Bailey has been spreading it.
Don't think so
Last sentence says assailant . I don't believe that's Bailey specifically
Could be wrong
So was there blood skin clothing hair found at scene ?
I don't think so
No Tom. They didn't say that.
I thnk your misinterpreting the text.
? From the report.. No forensics he says ..
"If in fact the attack was carried
traces of blood, skin, clothing fibres or hair at the scene. No such material was
discovered."
The point about the DPP report is that the Garda case is that it was a frenzied attack, and that Bailey was scratched at the scene, and that Bailey went up there with a sexual motive. That is the case the DPP is critiquing \ assessing.
The DPP rightly points out if Bailey is supposed to have carried out the attack in a frenzied manner, and scratched at the scene - yet there is zero forensics tying him to the scene. Not on Sophie. Not on the briars. It doesn't add up.
Similarly the DPP rightly points out there was zero evidence of a sexual element to the attack.
?
DPP believes it wasn't a frenzied attack
Careful now Tom.
I agree that it was a frenzied attack.
I do not agree with your view on the DPP analysis.
I'm not sure that's true. I've gone down to West Cork regularly for over 25 years and I have heard the story about the Bantry Garda since very early on.
This is also the predominant view of people I have spoken to in Bantry which tells you a lot about that particular Garda.
No idea what point you're making
She was battered to death with a concrete block
Yes I believe it was frenzied . Even Gussie agrees with me.
"Nonsense from the DPP"
Nope.
There no evidence of any sexual element to the attack. None.
You either haven't read the report in full or haven't read it with understanding.
It is the Garda case it was a frenzied attack and Bailey was scratched at the scene. The DPP is rejecting it (the part in bold) because there was no sign of Bailey being scratched at the scene.
Yet you somehow try to twist that as a criticism of the DPP!
It's not the DPP's theory. It is pointing out the contradictions in the Garda scenario tying Bailey to the scene.
If in fact the attack was carried out in a frenzied manner one might have expected that the assailant would have left traces of blood, skin, clothing fibres or hair at the scene. No such material was discovered.
No, I do not. And what you are saying is incorrect.
There was plently of forensic evidence. Just none of it linked to Bailey.
You agree it was a frenzied attack
There was no forensics of Bailey or AN other found either
Therefore you agree with me that the DPP was wrong his assumption
Do you follow ?
If you are aware of any evidence that this was a sexually motivated assault, I would be interested to hear of it.
Of course there is.
Bailey could have been witnessed trying to pester her in public. Letters sent to her house, drunken phone calls made.
All of these would have legitimised the theory of a sexual motive.
Also with respect Tomr
I think you're misreading the report and Odyssey's comment.
Of course it was a frenzied attack, that's obvious.
And if Bailey was involved in such a frezied attack, then its reasonable to expect bloodstains, hairs fibres or somesuch evbidence on his person or on his clothes or, evidence of his presence. As nothing was found, despite exhaustive efforts, it undermines the Gardai case against him. And supports the theory that he wasn't there.
What if the dermatologist's report said Bailey appeared to be a nervous wreck and was picking at his skin until it bled?
You misinterpreted the excerpt you quoted.
No evidence of a sexual motive Odyssey?
More nonsense from the DPP imo
Theres hardly likely to be such evidence unless Bailey has stated same
Odyssey with respect, you don't seem to argue the specific points I make , but merely change the discussion to make a point
Do you believe the murder of Sophie was or wasn't a frenzied attack ?
It's clear to me it almost certainly was
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e68aa2b0e039b12ade8384a2f42841c6.svg)
