Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
The killer in the Dublin case had looked up the info and thought there would be no DNA at the crime scene
That was my point
Other than that it appears to point to baileys innocence
But how could Bailey, as the murderer, know that when he volunteered the information? That's the point the DPP makes.
The Guards had very little on Bailey at the time.
But if something was found that's game over.
As it turns out there was nothing
There was a murder in Dublin a while earlier. The killer thought he was safe providing a dna sample
I did wonder if bailey had the same thought process
Your initial attempts at playful banter were mildy amusing, but alas, it has now settled into a predictable, boring pattern.
This is also in the DPP report first paragraph, the conclusion to it:
If Bailey had murdered Sophie, he would have known that there was a definite possibility of forensic evidence such as blood, fibres, hair or skin tissue being discovered at the scene. His voluntary provision of fingerprints and a specimen of his blood is objectively indicative of innocence.
Likewise you might please clarify where your certainty that Sophie and Daniel were happily married and weren’t getting a divorce comes from.
Use of external sources may be helpful.
Morning Gus and Happy Valentines Day.
When you get a chance and in your own good time, you might just clarify that the above post you provided is (or is not) from the DPP's report.
No panic if you're too busy with your loved one today and tonight, totally understand that.
Take your time, there's no hurry.
The man who made time made plenty of it.
Near enough the pint I've been making on the DPP report first paragraph
In the reports I've read, they deliberately picked vegetation (e.g. briars) without obvious bloodstaining to check for DNA, to avoid splatter type contamination. And of 5/6 samples they picked up Sophie's DNA. No others.
The picked up DNA sample from the boot and could identify that it was not Sophie's, male and not Baileys.
They picked up speck of blood from the door and could match it to Sophie.
If the assailant was wrapped up such as that and protected from cuts, that speaks against them being scratched at the scene.
In the Garda scenario for Bailey, the attack is supposed to have happened in some sort of drunken, frenzied rage. Not someone in a 'forensically aware' state of mind.
Therefore what is proof of Bailey's innocence, or points away from his guilt as per the AGS case is that he was not scratched at the scene. So basically that is one of the main planks of the Garda case gone. Marie Farrell, another main plank, totally discredited.
And further, what is evidence of Bailey's innocence, as the DPP calls out:
Regarding the lack of forensics belonging to the killer the main issue is likely pure happenstance caused by the location and nature of the crime along with improper/inadequate sampling allied with less sensitive analytical techniques. The crime took place at night (or vey early morning), outside, in late December. Due to the cold weather the killer was likely fairly bundled up, perhaps even a hat and gloves, which would have immediately limited the potential for skin and hair transfer for DNA profiling along with lack of fingerprint traces. The killing took place outside and the body was in situ for roughly 24 hours before examination in what I imagine is fairly damp and breezy weather. This would have contributed to degradation of any samples present. The weapons used would have made sampling difficult. There is speculation an object such as a poker may have been used , but this has never been identified. It appears rocks may have been used to smash Sophie's head. Rocks wouldn't be an ideal surface to either get traces of fingerprints (if killer wasn't wearing gloves) or hold DNA traces very well. Other nearby material such as earth or plant material such as briars are not ideal vectors for sampling.
In relation to taking swabs for analysis there is also the difficulty for the crime scene investigators to choose what to swab. Sophie suffered a violet death, with her blood spread about. When trying to choose a likely surface with DNA it is (and indeed was) much easier to find surfaces/objects with her DNA rather than the killer, which makes sense when you think about the murderer being bundled up and using objects to hurt her, thus displacing very little skin/hair/blood relative to the victim. Analytical techniques weren't as sophisticated then as now, I'm not certain whether it was possible to even parse out mixed DNA profiles back then.
Due to this the lack of Bailey's DNA at the scene is not evidence of his innocence as DNA of no one besides Sophie's has been identified at the scene thus far.
Yes those appear to be the 3 suspects people keep returning to, and not much else.
We have Jules word for that. And she was wrong about other aspects of his alibi. Fact is she never actually saw him write the article.
So why did the Guards test so much of Baileys clothing?
The Guards lied about not taking in Baileys jacket then "lost" it.
Nobody reports Bailey suddenly wearing new jacket / coat yet all eyes were on him.
It doesnt add up does it.
Thats why imo all we have suggests the answer lies elsewhere with person or persons unknown.
There is no real direct evidence against Bailey, Alfie, Daniel or say Karl Heinz Wolney.
As has been done on this thread, we can build a speculative, circumstantial case for each of them based on motive or opportunity or lack of alibi. Bring a suspicious eye to their conduct or past history. But all of it is weak.
This testing of clothes would have been carried out long after the bonfire, and we simply do not know what was burned in that bonfire. Its highly unlikely Bailey or any murderer was foolish enough to hand over to the gardai clothes relating to the crime scene or not disposed of them soon after the murder.
All we have points to bailey
There's Alfie I suppose the bandaged hand and drove to dump didn't get on with Sophie apparently
The husband may have stood to gain if divorcing
Not much else
Yes that's an odd opinion from the DPP. The murderer appeared not to be scratched at the scene and no evidence could be found for this.
So the scratches have always been a red herring, except for the gardai. They've always been contentious and the gardai should not have based anything on them, this was a mistake by them.
Because Bailey wasn't scratched at the scene, it doesn't automatically mean he wasn't the murderer. I would say more relevant is his self incrimination, lies, inconsistencies, false alibis and burning items in a bonfire soon after the murder. Also the playing out of the murder scenario with Fuller. And apparently a knowledge of the murder despite complaining the gardai weren't saying anything, and which other journalists didn't have. And a few bits more too.
It is certainly no proof against Bailey.
Which is the point of the question from GS you keep dodging.
So no forensics. And the only witness putting Bailey anywhere near the scene Marie Farrell entirely discredited.
So when you remove those the flimsy case against Bailey is even more threadbare.
We don't know when he wrote the article, we do know Jules saw it on the kitchen table in the morning.
It was 5pm on Mon by the time it was eventually filed,
No idea I don't be hanging off Gus every word
Lack of DNA on the briars is no proof of anything here imo
I posted before Bailey was a smart cookie
I reckon he knew a public enquiry would work in his favor
Lack of evidence, Garda shenanigans, Marie Farrell, DPP etc , that would only go one way
Baileys way
There is no proof of Bailey at the scene despite the briars being tested. Not a speck of Sophies blood found on the multiple items of Baileys clothing tested despite the Guards lying and saying they didnt test his coat - then "losing" the coat.
Bailey voluntarily provided hair and blood samples. If he was the murderer and scratched at the scene why would he do this? How could he know he left no hairs? No blood? No saliva? Game over if anything found matching him.
Sophies DNA was found at the scene on the briars tested. Sophies DNA was found on the blood tested on the door. How would a lack of due diligence explain that?
The only unaccounted for DNA found at the scene is a male sample on Sophies boot that does not match Baileys profile.
OK, just once more.
I contend that had Bailey scratched his hands on the briars at Sophies gate, he would have left forensic traces on the briars.
Do you dispute that contention?
It is if you are the named prime suspect. Its not if you are guilty, but you aren't a suspect.
Why on earth would you want to reopen a case that could potentially lead to your door?
Cue some illogical theory from someone.
In any case, for Daniel to be guilty it would also likely have been a contract killing by a person with a rock and a block. This has been discounted.
I think Gus is mistaken when he states that it's in the DPP's report that the briars were sent off to England to be examined in a forensic laboratory.
I could be wrong of course but he provided a quote from the DPP's report that didn't back up his story in the slightest and then on top of it he hasn't answered me back when I asked him where he conjured up the last quote from.
The briars would have been about 5 years old at the time he claims they were sent to England.
Something just doesn't add up but it's been a long tough day for Gus.
Tommorrow is another day.
What's the question gusser?
I went back thought that was it
Maybe just post it would simplify matters
You still haven't answered.
Its OK. I understand how difficult it would be for you. Sorry for putting you in a corner.
You might get back to us when you're ready Chocolatier regarding how you know this.
No hurry whatsoever, tomorrow is another day.
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
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.
What's your question?
You asked twice i must have missed it
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
