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

'all of the physical evidence'. Can you list all of this evidence please?

Senan Baloney strikes again…

One former DPP Eamonn Barnes, took measures to bring the DPP memorandum to the attention of the courts considering Ian Bailey's extradition.

The DPP memorandum was then publicly defended by another DPP James Hamilton, when the French were commenting on "failure" by Irish justice from the French kangaroo court who were in the process of embarrassing themselves. They even pretended to believe Marie Farrell's testimony.

In 1999, following my appointment as DPP and having considered the result of those further enquiries, I decided that there was still insufficient evidence to prosecute Ian Bailey. Before making that decision I had the benefit of the advice of senior counsel who had arrived at the same conclusion. My decision was subsequently reviewed by me again some years later following a Garda re-examination of the case but my decision remained that the evidence was still insufficient to warrant a prosecution…

My reasons for the decision not to prosecute were fully set out in a memorandum prepared in my office and approved by me which was sent to the Garda Siochana and my decision was never challenged by the Garda to me. That memorandum was provided to Ian Bailey's solicitor when his client was at risk of being extradited and has, I believe since entered the public arena."

The memo referred to is the now infamous 44-page critique of the Garda's evidence.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/former-dpp-rejects-criticisms-from-french-authorities-that-ireland-failed-to-prosecute-ian-bailey/38171032.html

If it were that simple a resubmission 25 years on would sort it -again complete and utter poppycock from Maloney and anyone who pedals this bullsh1t

At least 6 pieces of physical evidence in the public domain which have not been publicly explained, and therefore should be considered as evidence from the perpetrator.

1. Unknown DNA from Sophie's dead body
2. Tire tracks around her person (visible in many photos)
3. Doc marten Boot print on the ground by her body
4. Doc marten boot print on her neck (in the opinion of the pathologist)
5. Fingermarks in the house
6. Fingerprints in the house

Feel free to dismiss these pieces of evidence, but I know already that you will only be able to do so by speculation and opinion, not by any investigative result, or information in the public domain.

Instead you prefer to look only at the circumstantial evidence.

What's with all the straw manning around here? And speculation and opinion is all we have. How can you possibly claim otherwise?

How many of those 6 could be from Bailey or Jules? How many of those 6 could have had no relationship with the killing of Sophie?

That leaves us in the same position, Bailey is still the leading suspect.

Physical evidence is not straw man. Circumstantial is speculation, physical evidence is not. Each should be investigated thoroughly, before circumstantial is tied to anything. None of the items were included in the file against Bailey, and in fact all were specifically excluded from the evidence presented to the DPP (except the DNA profile which had not been identified at that time), even though all were identified in the gardai investigation.

There has never been any explanation for why any were not further investigated or excluded. The DNA in particular is the most glaringly obvious first line of investigation in almost every murder case in history since DNA profiles have been examined. It has been identified as a male, that is not Bailey, or members of Sophie's family.

Dismissal of this is directly counter to proper investigative practices, and demonstrative of someone who is not interested in justice for Sophie.

Do you know what a straw man argument is? It's making an argument against a point that was never made. It's all over this thread. All I'm saying is that Bailey is rightfully the leading suspect, you have done nothing to refute that.

You've reduced your 6 points down to 1 and you failed to answer my questions:

How many of those 6 could be from Bailey or Jules? How many of those 6 could have had no relationship with the killing of Sophie?

The DNA found could be completely unrelated but of course everyone would love to find out who's it is and an explanation. How did you conclude otherwise?

This is thread about the cold case review of Sophie's murder. Straw men are arguments that have nothing to do with the point of the thread, no matter how you try to frame the window of discourse to suit your own point of view. Please stick to the thread theme when accusing others of bringing up straw men. The evidence for Sophie's perpetrator, is not just circumstantial, in fact there is physical evidence which you are wont to dismiss. It betrays a lack of interest in true justice.

The DNA argument is the opposite of a straw man, it is about the most relevant point in the whole cold case "everyone would love to find out who's it is and an explanation", except seemingly the only people who can provide this information, the gardai, who have sat on the evidence for over a decade.

DNA is generally considered BOMBSHELL evidence in almost all cold cases, except seemingly this one, for some reason. Bombshell. Please focus on that first and foremost, when framing your response, but since you asked, the boot marks were not bailey's, nor were the tire prints, nor were the fingerprints, as evidenced by the fact they were not included in the evidence file to the DPP on Bailey.

Again, you don't seem to understand what a strawman argument is. You're arguing against a point I never made.

Where's your source that says the Gardaí have sat on the DNA evidence for over a decade? You seem to be implying that they don't want to find the owner of the DNA, how can you know this?

And now you're changing my questions and answering that. Here's what I actually asked:

How many of those 6 could be from Bailey or Jules? How many of those 6 could have had no relationship with the killing of Sophie?

I didn't "fail to counteract it" because there's no case to answer. There's no point in addressing any of it. No hard evidence . Only pub talk and gossip. That's why it didn't go to trial.

You'll get it eventually.