Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
You can't say that definitely at all
It's easily argued that Sophie was scratched and therefore the killer was likely scratched and should have left forensics but didn't (excluding the foreign DNA on boot)
Therefore it's not proven that baileys scratches weren't caused during the attack
The whole case against Ian Bailey is highly speculative.
In the absence of evidence a proper case cannot be made against any potential suspect. The perpetrator may even have completely avoided suspicion. Without evidence it is impossible to tell.
If Bailey was scratched by the briars, then there would be forensic traces left on the briars.
Are you disputing that?
Not sure why it is likely / should have. It is possible.
But Sophie could have been scratched trying to run away and couldnt get through. Doesnt mean the pursuer(s) entangled in briars. They could have been wearing more protective clothes eg leather.
Who is to say that he didn't leave forensic evidence on the briars?
Correct
There was nothing found
No real proof of anything there
Nearly equally likely another suspect should have left DNA on brambles considering Sophie was also scratched
The briars were examined in a forensic laboratory in England.
No forensic evidence was presented to the DPP.
And despite AGS being confident that Bailey was their man and the alleged briar cuts would play an important role in his downfall, they didn't think to take a photo of his hands. They did however manage to get themselves a kids colouring set and set about drawing his scratches. Clearly, AGS knew the evidential value of the scratches was deemed to be worth FA at the time!
Also remember that the scratches were so insignificant that the dermatologist didn't think anything much of them.
Who told you that Gus?
Exactly. Think of the number of cases without any perpetrator identified.
I have seen documentaries where only through random stop searches and luck a stranger on stranger killer was caught. Without that luck killer would have gotten clear away.
Its stated in the DPP report.
You didn't answer my question Tom.
What does that tell you ?
Ian Bailey didn't commit a frenzied attack?
There was no frenzied attack by AN other ?
Thee was a frenzied attack but no DNA?
It tells me that the scratches on Bailey's hands were not caused by the briars at Sophies gate.
Can you link or quote exactly what it says?
Its in the first section of the report.
So you don't know who said it?
First paragraph of the DPP report caught my eye immediately
Now i didn't read all of it
No forensics belonging to bailey found therefore bailey didn't commit a frenzied attack causing his scratches
Sophie was scratched and the killer may have been scratched therefore there may have been another DNA present (which there wasn't except for DNA on a boot)
And was the standard of evidence gathering high ? I assume not so was DNA missed ?
. Lack of Forensic Evidence linking Ian Bailey to the murder scene.
Sophie Toscan Du Plantier was killed by a person who battered her to death with a rock and a concrete block on 23 December 1996. Some fifty wounds were inflicted upon her.
Photographs of the deceased show her body as being scratched by briars in the area.
The Gardaí suggest that Ian Bailey is the murderer and was scratched on his hands and arms by the briars during the struggle.
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.
Equally applies to AN other murderer though
There should be forensics
Seems there was only foreign DNA on one of her boots
You still haven't answered my question Tom.
You might be a gent there Gus and point out the part where it says the briars were sent off to England and tested in a forensic laboratory.
3.2 DNA Testing in Yorkshire 2002
The second testing was done by a scientist in the Forensic Science Laboratory in Wetherby, Yorkshire, UK.
She used 11 STRS, and unfortunately the file does not record the profiles she generated, only her conclusions. She tested only two exhibits, the first was a blood flake (EG9) taken from the back door handle at the house. This time she had more success than the tests in Northern Ireland. She was able to generate a partial DNA profile from a blood flake taken from the door handle. Although this was a partial profile, she said the result provides “very strong support” for the assertion that the blood flake came from Sophie Toscan du Plantier.
The second test was blood found on the vegetation at the scene. She checked 6 areas of vegetation “selected to avoid obvious bloodstaining”. 5 of these yielded a profile matching Sophie Toscan du Plantier. The 6th gave no result.
Is that from the DPP's report Gus?
What's your question?
You asked twice i must have missed it
Were they?
Seems strange to say that when they were both conducting extramarital affairs and that Josie Hellen is quoted from January 1997 stating that Sophie had left Daniel and was in the process of divorcing him before her death.
Is that the question?
Possibly. Don't know but there was nothing found due to lack of diligence or otherwise
Also likely another perpetrator would have left DNA on brambles considering Bailey and Sophie were scratched
No proof of anything really imo
You might get back to us when you're ready Chocolatier regarding how you know this.
No hurry whatsoever, tomorrow is another day.
You still haven't answered.
Its OK. I understand how difficult it would be for you. Sorry for putting you in a corner.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
