Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
No, I agree with you. In that event it would also convince me personally.
But there is an argument……however unlikely. And that argument would be presented. Whereas if it was Bailey's DNA , and this is my point, there is no argument.
It's possible many others DNA could be found on her person, or the surroundings. This is where the type of DNA becomes very important. If there is a blood splatter from someone mixed with her blood, it will be a slam dunk whomever they are. If it was skin cells found on her dressing gown or boots from someone like Pierre, it would obviously have a reason to be there.
There would still be some grey area for people who were acquainted with her, but it would be diminishingly small, and they would likely have a lot of 'splaining to do. Many people may have brushed the briars, or touched gate at some point (which is lost anyway), but Sophie herself, and in particular her pajamas and dressing gown. Very unlikely to be able to explain away.
If Bailey's DNA turns up though, that will be enough.
In any case, in my opinion, the fact that both Bailey, and her father passed away in the last year, when this testing could have been done prior to these events, is a massive injustice in itself.
Extremely unlikely given it was her dressing gown - in fact beyond reasonable doubt in my view - any male DNA on her clothing that can be linked to a known local and there’s serious explaining to be done - it certainly doesn’t get the likes of Alfie or others off the hook because they had interactions with her in the past - far from it- and if it’s blood then that’s just damning - I wouldn’t give those who said otherwise the time of day
You're right, two Gardaí, Culligan and one other, visited Bailey at home 8 days after the discovery of the body, he was already a suspect at this stage. The purpose of the visit was the questionaire that everyone in the area got. From the 24th or 25th on-wards Gardaí had asked locals to look out for things like strange behaviour and scratches etc. As part of this routine visit they asked to see Bailey's hands. He took off his jacket and rolled up his sleeves and they noticed scratches on his hand and arm. When asked where he got them, he told them about the christmas tree and turkeys. They obviously didn't think the scratches were signaficant enough to corroborate his story with Saffron who went with him for the tree . So instead of getting the police photographer to photograph the hands, they went back to the office and one of them drew
from memory.
This was the 31st Jan and nobody had mentioned anything about scratches and marks in the week up to then. Bailey had turned up at the murder scene on Monday and chatted to Gards and press including Malone who noticed Bailey's appearance, dress and behaviour, he could have been wearing gloves, but he had no hat on. If he thought then that Bailey's behaviour was strange you'd think he'd look a bit closer, maybe there was nothing to see. Nobody who saw Bailey in the pub and out and about at the Christmas swim in the week after the murder said anything about scratches. Someone decided this sketch of the scratches was vital evidence and "back they went again and again to get what they wanted" Florence Newman, for instance who filmed the Christmas swim chatted away to Bailey who can be seen waving his gloveless hands around in the video on Koude Kaas. later when prompted she said she had gotten a fright when she saw the scratches - some fright alright!
"So it is understandable why they might say they remember scratches on the 22nd even though whatever might have been there on that day might have been fairly innocuous compared to what was on his hands on the 23rd."
So he got some scratches the day before the murder and more serious ones that night?. His skin must have been shredded.
Blood on the concrete block would be incriminating -yes.
But say, skin flakes or a hair on her clothing could be argued to be the result of cross contamination from previous presence in the house. Picked up off furniture for example. Or even off the gate, which both regularly used.
Tenuous, I know, but that would be the argument, whereas anything from Bailey would not be explainable.
In terms of Lyon’s etc Depends where the DNA was located and nature of it -a blood splatter in the concrete block crevice- that’s game over as far as I’m concerned regardless of who’s it is - no doubt someone will come forward and say that Finbar or Alfie did building work on the land - but I’d let them off with their mad cap theories - I’d close the book on the case in my own mind at that point . Even their DNA on her clothes- I’d doubt she was on hugging terms with either of those two individuals so again I’d be closing the book on the case
So how would you justify these men’s DNA on her night clothes?
Yes, but if, for example, Finbar Hellen's or Alfie Lyons DNA was found, then there may be plausible reasons for that, whereas the presence of anything retated to Bailey, would be unarguable.
I don’t think even the most hardened poster here who believes Bailey likely wasn’t involved, would disagree with that- it might lead to a few conspiracy theories of evidence planting/early on cross contamination of some kind, but those people likely to be in the minority overall
On the other hand, any DNA or other forensic trace found belonging to him, would be a clincher.
And look I should say, we don’t actually know what contact and consultation the Gardai have had with the FBI through the years- but certainly it’s welcome news.
Thinking out loud for a moment, if none of Baileys DNA is found in this latest investigative exercise, whilst it doesn’t totally prove that he wasn’t involved, it certainly points towards in all probability he wasn’t - if the wounds on his hands were created by briars etc at the scene, and if the block, Sophie’s clothes and other items are examined and no trace of his blood is found, then it certainly reduces the likelihood of his involvement.
Either the killer wore gloves and his arms were well protected, or they weren’t - people who believe Bailey likely did it can’t have it both ways- the key piece of solid evidence against Bailey right now for those who say he was likely involved, are the scratches on his hands and arms.
Amazing news, finally! The tears are interesting, these days “touch dna” is capable of picking up results even from minimal samples, a few skin cells. This is the best progress to happen in this cold case, it’s mind boggling that it hasn’t been done before now, but better late than never!
^^^^
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/clothes-worn-by-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-sent-to-fbi-for-new-analysis/a1848032106.html
Finally! I thought this would have been done years ago - obviously there was an impediment somewhere along the line or is it that the technology used by the FBI is relatively new and breakthrough in nature? I’m not holding out hope though - if gloves were worn then unlikely FBI will find anything but certainly worth a try - if Bailey did get those scratch marks from the attack on Sophie then there’s a possibility his blood or DNA will be found in the crevices of the concrete block - but it’s a big if in my view- I would have thought his DNA or that of the killer would have been uncovered at this point had it been there
Just shows there’s a bit to go yet in this investigation -quite possibly no file to DPP in 2025
Yes, but, without excusing them in any way, its likely that they were under extreme pressure to come up with a result, which may have driven them to the point of desparation. Despair is a poor foundation for rational decision making.
As has been said elsewhere on the thread, it is worth reading Mick Clifford's book Who Killed Una Lynskey just to see the mentality of some gardai who fixate on a suspect and manage to convince colleagues and witnesses that their suspect is guilty (despite evidence to the contrary) and the world will be safer if they're locked away.
motoring on even once the DNA proves the theory wrong and concocting a more and more absurd story is exactly what happened to Joanna Hayes as well.
I would say the knew they fucked up when the DNA results came in and didn't show Bailey's in there (or anyone else of course), which was a few weeks later. After the interviews I'd say a fair few of the gards thought they had a gotcha, but once the DNA came back with nothing, many would have realised their story fell apart altogether.
It blew apart the idea of defensive scratching, hair samples, all the different blood sources etc. Nothing from the perpetrator. They never revisited their assumptions at all at that point, and motored on with no evidence, looking at diminishing returns, extraordinary claims and a more and more absurd story (doesn't mean it didn't happen that way though). If they had of stopped and revisited some of the original suspects, and ideas (time of murder, use of transport, alibis etc.), perhaps they would still have had a chance, but also perhaps not, since it become so high profile.
Not a single camera was used, not a roll of film was wasted, on recording something that might have turned out to be the deciding evidence in a murder case.
A drawing, from memory. How professional is that?
It's obvious that Bailey's scratches didn't look like Sophie's scratches or they would have said so, not gotten someone (a kid?) to draw a childlike picture. Unless you believe that he had thicker skin (literally, not metaphorically)….
What is your point exactly? That they never had a look at his hands?
So they went to examine Bailey's hands for scratches and asked him to hold out his hand while they sketched the scratches?
The drawing?
" until the guards came around looking to examine his hands"
The thing is they didn't "come around looking to examine his hands" though, did they?
"But their support is based on what they believe, not what they know to be factually true."
Thanks for also explaining in your own words how the gardai are not necessarily involved in a conspiracy either. That was my overall point.
As for the scratches oh man, now we've got Bailey being scratched on two occasions, and wearing two coats, and no DNA on the briars, and no DNA on the coats. The lengths that Bailey went to, are as absurd as the lengths that the gardai didn't.
"it`s really a conspiracy vs a conspiracy no?"
No.
"Jules and her family all support his innocence"
They don`t know where he was for several hours around the time of the murder. They`re not conspiring. But their support is based on what they believe, not what they know to be factually true.
"scratches etc"
It is apparent that there was some kind of a mark on one of his hands in the pub on the night of the 22nd. But it is also curious that nobody from the pub remembers seeing the level of scratching that was clearly evident in the days after the murder. For the patrons of the pub that night that is a very specific event set in time i.e. the night Bailey was in playing his bodhrán. For Jules and her daughters, the 22nd is less specific because they were in his company for several days while the scratches were evident over the Christmas period. So if someone asked him, lets say at the Christmas dinner table, what happened his hands, his reply wasn`t going to be that he got the scratches as he killed Sophie in the briars. He was always going to say that they got scratched doing something before the murder and it`s clear he cut down the tree and killed the turkeys. So as far as everyone in the family was concerned, he was scratched when the tree was cut down and the turkeys killed on the 22nd and nobody gave it a second thought until the guards came around looking to examine his hands. After that I imagine a bit of siege mentality began to set in. So it is understandable why they might say they remember scratches on the 22nd even though whatever might have been there on that day might have been fairly innocuous compared to what was on his hands on the 23rd.
Yes, they knew they fúcked up on the 10th feb 1997 when they failed to break Bailey and Jules. But they doubled down and bashed on regardless for the next 25+ years. They didn't waste the golden hour, they wasted two decades.
Unwillingness to admit to a major f**k up is also a possible factor. Once they'd bet the farm on Bailey it was difficult to hold up their hands to a big mistake. As with the example of Joanne Hayes, mentioned by Irishspiderplant. Even when it was obvious that they got it wrong, they only, very reluctantly, backed down when they were cornered.
it’s true, I actually don’t believe at all in a ‘conspiracy’ more the incompetence you describe. I don’t think anyone set out to ‘pin’ the murder on Bailey, more to do everything in their power to get the man they truly believed had done it.
Watching The Traitors on the BBC at the minute and it just goes to show you the risks inherent in people ‘following their gut instinct’.
It's not ever worth entertaining this point, as you're following a logical fallacy somebody who only sees two possible scenarios. There are a lot of different scenarios that could have come to pass.
Within the middle-ground for example is that the gards just totally derailed the investigation without any conspiracy due to their initial incompetence (which is a fact), and the likelihood that this incompetence scuttled the chance of prosecuting anyone. Inaction, or lack of motivation does not require a conspiracy, and in fairness is probably the standard mode of operation for a lot of people in life, Garda on no.
why would a conspiracy be so far fetched, not uncommon within the Gardai, look at what happened to Joanne Hayes just down the road from Schull.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
