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

I don't think this is true, he/she is supposed to only review the evidence associated with the charge being brought forward by the gardai, and only the evidence that the gardai provide.

However as people here are wont to ignore, these people know each other, and work on dozens of cases at any one time, and it is highly likely that the DPP has much more information about the general case progress and other suspects, than that which was in the public domain. This to me appears to be evidenced when you look at how vociferously the DPP rejected the gardai's proposal.

You need to make up your mind there one way or the other.

Totally incorrect.

When the Gardaí complete their investigation, they send a file to the DPP. The prosecutor must read the file carefully and decide whether there is enough evidence to put before the court.

It is only the information in the file that’s considered by the DPP- so why would Gardai place “evidence” in a file to the DPP that had no bearing on their case against Bailey? You have implied in your posts that the DPP receive every piece of evidence collected by the Gardai - that’s hogwash.

Yes, the way the DPP works is that the Gardai essentially ask the question " is there enough evidence to send Person A to trial". They dont send everything and ask if the DPP thinks its Person A or Person B.

I think you'll find that in real life things are not black and white, both are true at the same time, and together, in the same people.

If you work any sort of job that interacts with others you would understand this.

Best case Bailey was 18-21% more likely to have murder Sophie than an average person based on your own references, which is effectively meaningless. He definitely had some sort of condition, and it is reasonable for a professional to give their perspective on it in general, but at the end of the day, it doesn't make him a murderer in fact, and it wouldn't have been permissible in his trial.

There were other suspects within this some case who had propensity for violence, and of the people who lived within proximity to the location there was all manner of statistical outliers, and if you investigated each person as much as Bailey, I'm sure you would find many different conditions which could lead someone to murder. Doesn't mean they did it.

iirc the Irish government ok'd it, but I don't have a source for that to hand right now.

Here’s a 2008 article

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/sophie-justice-is-in-french-hands/26461468.html

The revelation came as the gardai -- following consultations between the Attorney-General, Director of Public Prosecutions and the Department of Justice -- confirmed that the Paris-based magistrate now leading the French probe into the December 1996 killing will be given access to the murder file.

Note that it says the word consultation, instead of approval….. I expect it was a constitutional grey area, ask for forgiveness rather than permission kind of thing. Probably didn't hurt for them that Bailey was English either.

It should be noted however that the precedence set by sending the file is extremely worrying for individual civil rights for people in Ireland, whether you feel it was justified or not. Remember how the French treated us in respect to their own citizen suspects in this same case…..

Sometimes questions like these are unanswerable by the current legal system, and require the individual taking a case to the Supreme Court for them to make a ruling.
I would imagine in this case however, facilitating the extra-judicial (in the context of Irish sovereignty) trial of a citizen or resident within our jurisdiction would be deemed illegal by the Supreme Court, and they would recommend there be formal processes put in place for the future. They would likely not hold anyone to account for it I would imagine though, just say don't do it again.

A lot of people on here get passed from pillar to post on whether Bailey did it or not, but also whether he should have gone to trial or not. These are two related, but very different things. Both questions should be considered when arguing points.

Question 1. Was there enough evidence to take Bailey to trial?

I think the majority of people on here, and most lay people, if they consider the evidence would agree Bailey should not have gone to trial based on the evidence presented to the DPP. Some people have concerns about the reasoning of the DPP, and whether there was more evidence to be considered, or hidden evidence, but overall I don't think it moves the needle too much really. One by one, a reasonable defence attorney could go through that evidence, and have a significant amount thrown out, and bring reasonable doubt to almost all the rest.

Question 2. Did Bailey carry out the murder of Sophie?

This is more where people are actually split on the issue. Some people look at all the circumstantial evidence, and it is good enough for them to say Bailey did it. Others look at it and see it is severely lacking.

A smaller group take that severely lacking viewpoint, and then reasonably reconsider the evidence to understand whether anybody else could have committed the crime. Many come to the reasonable viewpoint that more should be investigated in that respect, including witness statements, DNA, alibis etc. In addition they question the gardai investigation itself, and how the evidence was gathered, and what evidence was ignored, or never released. It doesn't answer the question one way or the other for sure, but it is what is required to achieve justice in this case.

Fully qgree re being unhappy about this.

It exposes a distinct lack of consistency in the system. The Irish Courts determined that he should not stand trial in France. Everything should have automatically flowed from this. No State officials should have assisted the French trial in any way. No information or evidence should have been provided.

Are we to go around this yet again? Very well.

"But at the end of the day it doesnt make him a murderer in fact, and wouldnt have been permissable at his trial"

Great. Thats not what its meant to do, I didnt post to convict him. I posted because the thread is looking for facts relevant to the topic, and apart from the much repeatedly mentioned boot there seems to be a general scarcity of facts, a dead end.

If you have details on other suspects why not drop them here, it would help clarify the subject of the thread. I would like to see them. Anything new and solid would be v interesting.

They dont even have to be 'hard evidence' or up to the standard of a trial. As we're not in court, we're in an internet forum, thats all. Dont lose the context.

I posted last year on this thread of a random American serial killer - he would literally cast his eyes on a female stranger, and that person became his target- he’d stalk her then kill her.

He was a loner, moving from town to town- his motivation to kill did come from a sexual origin although none of the victims were sexually interfered with - I believe the act of killing was some form of sexual gratification in itself. The killings were “brutal” .

A very unusual and quite unique case and person. It’s from that perspective I then look at Sophie - her killing was also brutal (yes I know all killings are brutal but this particularly so)- I think the nature of the killing is key to unlocking the person who did this crime -

Is it Bailey? I don’t believe it is - his violence was in his home setting. Brutal and all that it was, it was directed at a person he knew very well.

Absolutely no-one has provided “proof” that he knew Sophie - a “90% “ sure an introduction took place over a garden fence statement is the best anyone can do. I don’t believe Bailey was a similar character to the serial murderer above - he directed violence to someone he knew very well - why would he cause violence to a woman he didn’t know in any way shape or form of the word “know” - it doesn’t make sense.

The Garda statement of “this killer will kill again”- given my American example above and the brutality of it, I would agree. I just don’t believe that Bailey did it.