Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
"Stop trying to diminish and dismiss"
Go tell the cold case team. They don`t seem to agree with you either. Bombshell!! Main suspect!! Fierce dramatic stuff altogether.
Stop trying to diminish and dismiss. It warrants detailed investigation and ruling in or out. It is exceedingly obvious that unknown DNA on a dead body, clothes or skin, or hair or anywhere on a victims person, would be Bombshell evidence in almost any cold case. Until such time that it is explained, or more conclusive evidence is found, the person who left the unknown DNA evidence is the chief suspect.
"Rather than dismissing the conclusions of a published doctor as 'pub talk'."
Interesting.
What's this doctor's name, and what did they conclude?
if you go back through the thread you can read about the fact that the manner of Sophie’s death was fairly typical (>50% of female homicides are overkill) and almost 90% from a close acquaintance or family member. Your statement about Baileys personality is reasonable but statistically less relevant than you make it out to be, especially in the context that there was other DNA found on her person, which you continually ignore and paint as a straw man, in a cold case murder investigation thread. no less.
The sample wasn`t on the victim`s body. It was on her shoe and it was an old shoe. You cannot establish when it was deposited.
All these antics just because I came into a thread and offered an insight into the match between Baileys psychology and the nature of the crime.
If you were as logical as you let on you could see it too and simply accept it.
Rather than dismissing the conclusions of a published doctor as 'pub talk'.
I'm not surprised that the French justice system appeals to you.
seriously what?
Don't need to, the point stands.
Ok. Well my point still stands, A male who leaves DNA on a murder victim is almost always the perpetrator of the crime.
RIP.
No. Its not gossip. Court professionals established as much. And it formed part of his conviction in the French courts.
"Ian Bailey was a man with “narcissistic and megalomaniac traits” and a “sexual inclination” who most likely killed Sophie Tuscan Du Plantier"
or "pub talk and gossip" according to internet user Rooks.
Come back once you have established that DNA was deposited on the shoe on the night Sophie was murdered.
May he rest in peace, and a tragedy that he never got to see justice for Sophie in his lifetime.
Seriously? 😑
I thought you may be suggesting a type of dna.
i.e. semen.
In the case of a sexual homicide by criminals with certain psychological disorders they can still fulfil the sexual motive without orgasm.
(i believe baileys condition is one such disorder).
More pub talk and gossip. I'm growing weary of this. I've already made myself clear. If you have nothing to say about the actual evidence at hand I'd ask you to stop responding to me, thanks.
Of course I can accept a lack of evidence against Bailey.
Maybe you can remember that I have at no point accused him of a crime.
I came here to point out an indisputable consistency between the crime and Baileys psychology.
Its not a speculation. Its a verifiable truth.
Your position is illogical because you can't accept that.
Or you confuse it with an accusation.
Look carefully now. And dont add to this or take away from it.
Bailey was a malignant narcissist, a thankfully rare condition, and the crime which happened in his community is in line with his disorder.
Thats all.
Thats it. You cannot debate it. You cannot deny it. You cannot trick or game your way around it.
You will live with this fact (and it is a fact) now.
I note that Sophies father, Georges Bouniol, has died in Paris...
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/sophie-toscan-du-plantiers-father-dies-in-paris-aged-98/a196896567.html
May he rest in peace
If you are not aware there was unknown male DNA found on Sophie's person, which is confirmed as not being from Bailey, or any members of her family.
I don't see the value in speculation based on gossip and pub talk, which is most of the circumstantial evidence against Bailey. It's so easy to dismiss.
No, I won't join you in conjuring up a suspect. Not without sufficient evidence. All we know is that none of the hard evidence points to Bailey. But you cannot accept it.
Also, I can't believe I have to say this *again*, but I believe that a high standard of evidence is required when accusing someone of murder. That is the most logical position to take.
what dna?
The male who leaves DNA on a murder victim is generally the chief suspect in almost all murders.
Physical evidence is not necessary for suspicion.
I haven't accused Bailey at any point.
Maybe learn to differentitate the two.
I gave solid reasons for why Bailey is a very good suspect in this crime. Thats why I entered the thread, knowing that he fits a certain profile consistent with the crime, I gave reasons for why he makes a good suspect.
People are always going to suspect him, and he'll remain the chief suspect by far, with very good reason.
If you have a problem with that then maybe offer up a better suspect, contribute a better theory, or a better something, enlighten the public. I dont think you can. I think you have nothing new of any value to add, or anything in any way convincing to offer.
You asked me to list the physical evidence and I listed them, and I said you were dismissing it. Where is the strawman?
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.
The lying about his whereabouts? The injuries? The motive? His confessions? His history of violence? The fire? And so on.
You can try to ignore that all you want, you've failed multiple times to counteract any of the evidence against him but the cold case team are not ignoring it!
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?
What evidence? It's a load of nonsense conjecture. I'm not wasting a second of my time on it.
Hard evidence only. No DNA? No way!
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
