Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed (Threadbans in OP)

No. It doesn't sound familiar.
In order to have a wrongly convicted man you do normally need a conviction.

The recent to and from discussion in this thread just goes to demonstrate the adage “You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.”

You're the one who said it would be defying the odds for the only DNA sample to be found on a murder victim to be the perpetrator. What odds are those, or are you just making it up as you go along?

And you can speculate all you want, you may want to familiarize yourself the actual facts. The French did extensive testing of over 100 different locations on items taken from the crime scene including the victim’s clothes, the concrete block, the slate block, a small stone & fingernail scrapings, and they found almost every signature was Sophie's and nobody else, except for one unknown male profile, and they sure as sh*t didn't find Bailey.

Could it be random, of course it could, but it has not been investigated, and until it has been formally ruled out, it is ruled in.

It’s not an elaborate explanation. It’s about as simple as they come, and it’s only meaningless when it is ruled out. The fact that no other dna was found means it is even more meaningful.

Anyway it is evidence, and it is ruled in, as you say. Meaningful evidence of a possible different perpetrator.
More meaningful than a Bailey confession? Well that’s just a matter of opinion.

Fair point, and a good way to contrast conviction from suspicion. We all have the right to suspect anyone of anything.

We do, however so much is known about the shoddy investigation, dubious methods, unreliable witnesses, and of course the legal experts at the DDP and their view on a file that we have not seen. Surely you can consider the possibility that Bailey could be a potential victim of a miscarriage of justice, as per examples provided?

In your own words, if one is being logical…

I don't claim to know much about DNA or forensic extraction of it.

But Sophie was wearing night-clothes; (and possibly house-shoes rather than ones worn in town, etc)

If the clothes had been laundered and were washed and ironed before travel, it is quite possible that no-one but Sophie HAD touched them. She might have just pulled them out of the suitcase to wear and there was no boyfriend or husband or family member present at the cottage to actually touch her night clothes or sleep in the same sheets as her.

So is ordinary laundering enough to remove all traces of human DNA from clothing? If it is, then that explains why only her own traces were found on the items. And if anyone else's DNA is found, then that would indicate that they were in very close proximity indeed to those previously very clean garments. Just my tuppenceworth!

"They did not find any trace on Sophie of all the people that she interacted with over the weekend, or on the boots"

You don't know all the people she interacted with over the weekend, or briefly otherwise encountered.

Sophie touched her boots (and I presume tied/touched the laces). She had been out and about over the weekend, this allows her to pick up strangers dna on her hands (or on purchased objects which she'd later handle), and then to transfer it home and to the boots.
Even cash will do the same. She touches her cash then some hours later touches her boot. A complete randomers dna is now on her boot. Same with a newspaper which I understand she bought, she definitely touched that.

So to summarise, 473 pages and still no clue? Just the merry go round of “it was IB” “no it wasn’t, insert theory here”

I don’t have the article to hand but I am sure I read in an article last year that the housekeeper had laundered/put away her night clothes.

Josie Hellen's fingerprints were already found in numerous places around the house, which is often enough to leave a touch DNA trace. It's not clear who else's was found, but multiple other members of the Hellen family were identified as leaving fingerprints. Josie has a high chance of being found on the clothing too, just by the nature of being her housekeeper. This is why just finding DNA alone might not be sufficient indicator of a perpetrator, but who left it and why is a bigger question.

Finding Josie's DNA on the clothes can be explained, finding Bailey's or a lot of other people's cannot.

Finding DNA mixed with Sophie's blood would be very hard for anyone to explain.

It should be noted that it was 100% not Josie's DNA on the boot (or Bailey's for that matter) as it was an unknown male.

Well ultimately I fail to see how anything can be progressed. I'm upbeat for the power in Mvac in general but I still fail to see how legal logic can ever be applied.

For example for some of the DNA that can be explained away for that DNA that might crop up that cant be as easily explained.. We are still grappling with idea that lot of these suspects could now be deceased as well adding further to that already layered process of difficulty of validing evidence. I agree it can then maybe a certain family can be investigated too associated with DNA, but it just seems like a process that again can take such long time.

I just always feel deep down in Ian B scenario, jules daughters would always have had that opportunity to put their neck on the line for their mother had it really come down to it that they knew it was Ian and could have ended that abusive relationship there and then.. I always think that was key area in IB innocence as well..why would they all have covered for him.. If they knew there was strange behaviour around the time.

There is just so many what ifs and he said she Said in entire case. For me and its only my opinion but It's as wide open today as it was in the days after the murder as to who may have committed this.

I totally agree. Like it's very unlikely..but there also seems to be very little commentary on these angles or is that just me.

When the police issued the "will kill again" plea, surely at that stage Jules and her daughters were all at risk, why hadn't police taken them under their protection or surveillance at the time if they had that concern for family.. But there was no concern from what I see but stand to be corrected.

If there was any hint of doubt in any of daughters minds, I don't think they would have covered for bailey of murder..like it would have just been much easier to focus on protection of their mother and themselves and whilst Bailey would have control somewhat over jules, there is no way that would extend to all the daughters. Bailey had nothing to bargain with to bide himself time.. Any of the daughters could have made a confession based on strange behavior. Wasnt the relationship with Bailey and daughters at times fraught and possibly little conversation?

The daughters gave statements supporting how Bailey got the scratches, something that was always ignored by those baying for Bailey's blood. The daughters don't appear to believe him guilty and it's a stretch to think that there is some conspiracy of silence in Jules' family.

Yes that's exactly true. There is just no possibility of keeping a veil of silence over it for such long period with so many involved to keep that held with daughters. But very little response in AGS or others to such credibility of the fact that this is further proof of potentially innocent IB in this scenario