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

Gow do you get this;

From this;

??

Unless you believe that all the DNA found at the scene could only be either Sophie's or her attacker?

The DPP doesn't have to solve the case. They have no investigative role, not should they. Their role is solely to determine if the case that has been submitted to them merits prosecution.

In this case, on three separate occasions, the DPP has determined there was not sufficient merit for prosecution in what was submitted by the gardaí.

In terms of the briars injuries to both victim and alleged perpetrator, Shirley some comparison photos could have been taken - it wouldn’t be conclusive proof by any means, but it would certainly steer most people to disregard the turkey/tree cutting excuse if the injuries sustained were very similar.

I know the Gardai probably didn’t try very hard to replicate Baileys injuries but it would certainly be worth a try- use the same species of tree that Bailey used (I’m sure it was well known at this stage) - and simply carry out the same procedure he did- even if you only get a few scratches they should be similar to the hand drawings (assuming Bailey validated that the hand drawings were accurate in the first place

Ive snagged my arm on briars many a time - it’s not pretty - bloody “drag marks” is what best describes them - of course you stop instantly and try to detangle yourself- if you are forced to keep moving your arms /hands you’ll certainly end up with a hell of a lot of rip marks - shredded skin all over the place

Im actually surprised some armchair detective hasn’t tried this themselves already

Marie Farrell?

Another thing to add to the mix - handling pine trees can produce a nasty /oozing rash for some people

https://www.justanswer.com/health/0bv4n-bumpy-rash-arms-trimming-pine.html

The briars were cut and sent to a Forensic Lab in the UK for examination.

I’m so sick of seeing this rubbish she did not have an illegitimate child!

everyone in her hometown knows exactly what she is

she had a child with the man she was married to

how she is using that an excuse is pretty unreal it’s not like people don’t know

That's not how I read their point.

To me, they are saying that the contention by the gardai that Bailey received the scratches on his hand from the briars whilst attacking Sophie, is undermined by the fact that such contact with briars would leave forensic traces. As the briars were forensically examined and no such traces were found, the contention that the scratches are evidence of Bailey's involvement in the crime is rejected.

The DPP asserts nothing. They merely assess whether the evidence submitted sufficiently supports the case submitted, and it didn't.

Thanks.

But keep secret from who exactly?

Yeah we are being told by posters that the Guards had Bailey in front of them and trust their instinct that Bailey is the murderer.

The same guards had Marie Farrell in front of them and tried to pass her off as a credible witness. Corrupt or incompetent or both?

But they clearly destroyed their credibility for any claims about their 'instinct'.

The extension the Guards or some of the responsible Guards went to steer this case in the wrong direction would suggest they were protecting one of their own.

Bailey did supply his DNA early on, voluntarily, without a court order or anything.

His DNA wasn't found anywhere on the scene of the crime, not on Sophie, not on the brambles or briars, not on the house, not on the gates.

This there is nothing to kink Bailey forensically with the crime. This is totally unrelated how often he had beaten up Jules, how many drinks he had, or what other women he may have beaten up.

When people say there was no trace of Bailey's DNA found at the scene, I'm assuming a lot of DNA evidence would have destroyed by the weather, hairs blown away etc. Was there any DNA found at the scene?

Interesting. On her boot, are the sure it was someone's DNA or could it have been hers also but not a conclusive DNA profile?

The thing is, even if the DNA on the boot is identified, it will be uncertain, if this was from the time when the crime was committed, thus this is also hard.

Suppose the blood stain was from a couple of days before? Hard to prove the contrary.