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

You mentioned a number of times that the DNA was found on the body, they're the cases you are referring to when a high percentage of the time the culprit is the person who left the DNA.

The DNA found in this case was on Sophie's boot, not on her body. The DNA could and most likely was transferred at a different time to the night she was killed. The DNA is important but it most likely it will only rule someone out as they weren't in Cork.

As I said, you're putting far too much weight into the DNA. There's no indication that it was related to the case. It's important to find out for certain one way or another though.

For some reason you think the DNA on Sophie's boot was left there on the night of the murder. I don't know what has led you to that conclusion but it has not been backed up with any evidence at all.

The truth is, there more than likely was DNA left elsewhere at the scene but the botched investigation means that we haven't been left with any of it.

The evidence that backs it up is that it was found on her dead body. Unknown DNA found on a dead body. What do you want, a selfie of the perpetrator dropping the block on her head?

It is physical evidence at the scene of a crime. It demands investigation. This is basic stuff, like fundamental rule 1 in investigative practices. Until such time that it can be dismissed (and perhaps it can), the person who left the DNA is the chief suspect. Physical evidence is way more important than circumstantial.

It wasn't found on her body, you keep repeating that. If it was found on her body, that would indicate that it had to come from the murderer. It was found on her boot, it wasn't semen or blood. You've convinced yourself it came from the murderer but the reality is, the DNA could have come from a huge number of people.

Yes, the original investigation was a shambles. I've always thought that since then, we'd need a confession of some sort to find the murderer.

Ah don’t be putting us all down - we’re published too - everytime we post here 😀

I haven't convinced myself of anything. It is totally logical for someone to think that DNA from an unknown person found on a victim is likely to be from the perpetrator. Is it as damning evidence as hypothetical, blood or semen, no. But it's all we have to go on in terms of DNA, we don't have the luxury or perfect evidence. In my opinion it is more damning than the circumstantial evidence. It is your choice to disagree with that, totally fine, but it is very reasonable doubt of Bailey's guilt. I would push it into the more likely than not of his innocence, it seems that you wouldn't go that far, which is fine, but it seems that you also dismiss it, and focus solely on Bailey, which in my opinion is not fine, given this evidence.

In addition it is demonstrative that there is more DNA evidence to be found. Whether it came from the perpetrator, or the priest, the fact that it was found at all, indicates more could be found too, in fact I would say it likely would be found, if they looked.

Its exceedingly better to have physical evidence that you must work to exclude, than to not look at all.

If you want to call a science taught in universities worldwide snake oil then ok.

A separate study by a psychiatrist and (iirc) a different psychologist had similar findings.

No, it's not logical in my view. The DNA is far more likely to be completely incidental. Think about it, this was a very violent murder with a lot of injuries to the victims head. You seem to believe the only DNA transfer was to the victims boots. There is no damning evidence there at all. Hopefully they find the source of the DNA but it's likely it will be just to rule someone out and if they had more DNA samples, I'm sure they would be looking into them. I don't think there is.

What separate study found that he was the most likely killer based in certain personality traits?

What was the basis for these diagnoses anyway given they never met him? His Garda statements?

A team of 1 psychiatrist and 1 psychologist (iirc) assessed him based on his diary writings, criminal history and other records and testimony.

A search finds:

"Bailey had a ‘borderline personality’ based on ‘narcissism, psycho-rigidity, violence, impulsiveness, egocentricity with an intolerance to frustration and a great need for recognition.’

The words were written by psychiatrist Jean Michel Masson and psychologist Katy Lorenzo-Regreny, who both concluded that there was ‘no reason why Bailey could not have committed a criminal act."

It's absolute nonsensical pseudoscience. Babble like this gives good psychology a bad name.

So in the other study you mention they concluded that

‘no reason why Bailey could not have committed a criminal act."

Do you regard that very non commital conclusion as a flashing red arrow so?

Or "overwhelmingly suspect". You are all over the place mate.

We're back to the question I asked you before. Do you think it's possible the DNA on the boots could have been transferred at another occasion apart from the night of the murder?

You may not answer that but I can tell you that of course it could have transferred at another time and it could have been transferred by a large number of people. In all probability, it was incidental.

It's not the smoking gun you think it is, no matter how much you repeat it.