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

"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.

The drawing?

What is your point exactly? That they never had a look at his hands?

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?

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.

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.

^^^^

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/clothes-worn-by-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-sent-to-fbi-for-new-analysis/a1848032106.html

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

" but Sophie herself, and in particular her pajamas and dressing gown. Very unlikely to be able to explain away."

Fingerprints of Josie Helen's family members were found in the house. Why would they be 'sniffing' around in her house?

I think we've seen in this case that even the most ludicrous assertions will be argued ad naseum. In the Joanne Hayes case the gardai literally argued that she had superfecundation, or chimera or whatever the hell when the DNA came back as unrelated. Mad stuff, some people just never give up.

Personally even if they identify the killer, Bailey or not, I still think that the case needs to be continued to look at how the hell it ever got to this point.

It's farcical that they didn't take a picture. Clearly the marks were gone, but it would still be evidence that could be used, just not used against Bailey of course.

The drawing, I just can't. If there is one thing in this case that could represent in a nutshell, the complete shambles, disastrous nature of the investigation, and those involved, the myopic vision of the gardai, and how anybody on the outside looking in can see that they are making a complete balls of it, that drawing is it.