so seriously rattled now youre replying to yourself 
Just thinking out loud mate, but if youâre vexed enough to intrude upon a private internal monologue, so be it.
MURDERED French woman Sophie Toscan du Plantier ripped some hair from her killerâs head as she desperately fought for life.
French authorities now believe this evidence may help them bring the 38-year-oldâs killer to justice.
In a confidential report by Prof John Harbison, who performed a post mortem examination on her body, the former state pathologist said the mother-of one had been killed between the evening of December 22, 1996 or early on the 23rd.
He said the cause of death was due to laceration and swelling of the brain, fracture of the skull and multiple blunt head injuries.
Prof Harbison reported that he took trace evidence from Ms Toscan du Plantierâs hands and fingernails.
He wrote: âIn doing this a number of hairs, almost a dozen, were adherent to and even wound around fingers of the right hand. Because of died blood these were removed with difficulty and some of them parted. I found one long one and one very short hair adherent to the back of the left hand.â
The chemical pathology unit at Dublinâs Beaumont Hospital conducted a full toxicology screen on the victimâs blood and urine which showed no sign of any alcohol or drugs.
When she was discovered by neighbour Shirley Foster, Sophie was wearing a pair of cotton longjohns and a cotton top with socks and heavy shoes. The longjohns had been ripped on a nearby barbed wire fence, but there was no evidence of any sexual assault.
Prof Harbison said that there was a âstrangely located bow knotâ on the left boot.
Shortly before she was murdered at her house near Schull in West Cork, Ms Toscan du Plantier had eaten some fruit and possibly nuts.
Prof Harbison said Ms Toscan du Plantier had âput up a considerable fightâ having suffered âsevere defensive injuries to both hands.â
Prof Harbison said that a cavity block at the scene and a large stone could have been used during the attack. "The deceasedâs injuries were largely those caused by one or more blunt objects. One of these was fairly light in view of the minor injuries in such places as the arms.
âAnother at least was heavy in view of the depressed fractures of the skull and fractured skull base, which normally requires considerable force.â
He also said it was possible, but less likely that the killer had used a pair of Doc Marten boots.
A copy of Prof Harbisonâs report has been handed over to French authorities to assist in their investigation.
Ms Toscan du Plantierâs body was exhumed earlier this week and has undergone a second post mortem.
But French authorities will not have access to the hair samples found by Prof Harbison during his examination.
Members of Ms Toscan du Plantierâs family hope that the new examination will provide enough evidence to bring a prosecution against the murderer.
English journalist Ian Bailey has been arrested twice by gardai in connection with the murder, but no one has yet been charged with the crime.
ah right, i thought youd succumbed to a bit of mid morning drinking
Mid-morning batters
Bailey was in UCC studying Law when I was there so I was interested in this case nearly from its inception. I had read the DPP report previously and skimmed it again. It was unprecedented for a DPP report to be as long as this and would usually be confined to no more than a couple of pages which possibly is the reason as to why it reads so poorly and is very incoherent at various stages. Names were parachuted into sentences with no semblance of who they were or context given. This report was to remain private but was leaked and became public information. Maybe there was good reason for it to remain private. I havenât read too many DPP reports in general so I bow to the expertise of the legal eagles on here, but I would have thought they would be quite concise, matter of fact and to the point. You do get a sense from reading the DPP report that the writers emotions resonate and the report itself is laced with frustration, disbelief, dismissiveness, etc. But this has to be tempered with the fact that the office of the DPP were under savage pressure from public and moreso the guards who were applying pressure to go to trial. Also it was undoubtedly a considerable challenge to collate all witness statements together given hopscotch nature in which they were obtained. The guards of the day had standardised questionnaires which would elicit specific responses but possibly information falling between the cracks of what was not asked. Personally I thought there were stages where I found that the author found fault in every witness that incriminated Bailey and conveniently omitted others but I satisfied myself that he was probably looking at this through the lens of how a defense team could dismantle a prosecution and that a potential trial would not stand on its own 2 legs. Iâm sure it is a source of professional pride if a DPP can adjudicate that there is sufficient evidence to go to trial and subsequently obtain a conviction. Another thing with the DPP was that they stonewalled the son (Pierre Louis) of STDP when he wanted to get some info on the report and basis for not going to trial. This is obviously how the DPP operate. But contrast this then when the French took it upon themselves to examine the case and how indignant office of DPP were and how they felt disrespect from the French authorities because they did not consult with them. I found this very interesting.
Anyway my takeaways were that the report focussed on few key areas.
Ultimately why a case wasnât brought against Bailey was because of 3 issues outlined extensively in the report
- Fruit of the poison tree evidence alluded to in report where evidence obtained unlawfully would be inadmissible in courtâ Jules Thomas unlawfully arrested for murder of STDP where she mentioned that Ian had left the bedroom the night of the 23rd. This prompted Ian Bailey to change his version of events when confronted with Jules Thomas admission under interrogation. This vital piece would have been inadmissible in court as it was obtained unlawfully.
- Forensic evidence. There was no forensic evidence to link Ian Bailey to the murder. But then again there was no forensic evidence to completely exonerate him either. The latter part is rarely given airtime and it is especially convenient when she was lying out in the elements for 24 hours in an Irish winter and ineptitude of guards in collecting evidence.
- The chief witness Maria Farrell who gets a whole chapter in the report would have lead to the trial collapsing as she was simply not credible. Not credible is the understatement of the century. This was a highly probable outcome given how she had walked out of court and made a beeline for Heuston Station previously. There was a libel and civil case against Bailey in the early 00âs and she walked out of one of those when pressed on who she was driving around with on the night of the murder so in retrospect the DPP was right. What always puzzled me was why were the guards so fixated and determined to track down the fella she was in the car with when he could potentially contradict Farrells sightings of Bailey and they would be back at square 1.
Anyway those were the key facts. There were plenty of instances in the report where the veracity of witnesses was brought into question. The writer seems to work under the auspices that people cannot be imperfect and so the evidence they give is not credible. He also makes numerous references to peoples levels of suggestiveness and how the area was living under the stranglehold of fear. His latter assertion then offers a blanket rationale or basis for discrediting all other witnesses. Then he broaches the possibility that witnesses were corruptible. There were parents of a son who was caught in possession of drugs, there were speed and other motoring offense notices. He introduced inconsistent arbitrary statutes of limitation with regards to statements that were given after a certain period of time had elapsed. This broad brush then was used to disregard other witness statements. It made me wonder just what kind of minimum threshold of righteousness an upstanding citizen would have to be attain in order for their evidence to be sound. Chapter 15 of the DPP report is fairly strange and one wonders how it would read in todays politically correct climate. In any case he arrives at the right conclusion. There is no way Bailey would have been found guilty and there would have been a mistrial. But it doesnât mean that Bailey did not commit the murder. I think there is more than a weighty circumstantial case against him.
4 Likes
Ah here, thereâs no forensic evidence exonerating you either ffs
Exactly, Iâm sure there was forensic evidence which could easily have been used in latter years only for the cops incompetence (the clump of hair) and cover ups (garden gate).
As I said previously, Bailey was a hard drinker in those days and there wasnât a hope that he was clearheaded and calculated to commit what was a crime of passion without leaving a shred of DNA behind him.
Sure he couldnât kill a turkey or fella christmas tree without tearing himself asunder.
4 Likes
So the guards were busy playing games from the very start?
1 Like
The clump of hair was her own. Chapter 15 of DPP report is short and examines potential crime of passion.The DPP rule out a similarity between Jules Thomas injuries from Domestic violence and STDP injuries which is fair enough as the latter was struck with a concrete block. But cross reference Jules Thomas facial injuries with those of STDP. What struck me when reading about Jules Thomas, clumps of hair pulled out, lip Split. Baileys diaries are also interesting in that in them he states that death was close to Jules Thomas in one of these episodes. Remarkably he offers that you need to read these diaries in the abstract. Bailey also surmises that if he didnât know he wrote them, he would think Dylan Thomas wrote them.
youve done a fair impression of the DPP with that post.
Iâd say a lot of peopleâs opinion of bailey has now been coloured by the cops activities against him in the early days of the investigation that could easily taint the testimony of the witnesses.
I cant say this enough, bailey is entitled, as anyone is, to a presumption of innocence. he willingly gave samples of DNA, blood etc in the immediate aftermath of the crime taking place in the perhaps foolish thoughts that this would exonerate him. its worth noting that âProf Harbison reported that he took trace evidence from Ms Toscan du Plantierâs hands and fingernails.â and that âProf Harbison said Ms Toscan du Plantier had âput up a considerable fightâ having suffered âsevere defensive injuries to both hands.ââ. its inconceivable that there was no physical evidence left by the attacker in those circumstances and the hair and trace elements under the fingernails indicate there was. the forensic evidence actually exopnerates bailey in spite of what you say as it wasnt a match of any of the physical evidence found on STDP quelle surprise.
secondly, the report was mentioned in several sets of proceedings and was finally discovered to baileys legal team an incredibly long time (years) after it should have been. the DPP had been the subject of a number of approaches that went seriously beyond the pale and the DPP quite rightly rebuffed these approaches. again a symptom of AGS malpractice.
there is tape recordings in respect of the cops coercing witnesses with or encouraging witnesses with dropped charges and/or finding them drugs. in respect of the âstatute of limitationsâ, he is absolutely right to question the timing of the witnesses as would any decent defence barrister.
in short, the case was a total clusterfuck of malfeasance and malpractice and there is zero credible evidence to suggest that bailey did it.
1 Like
Bailey willingly providing samples and the fact samples taken from the scene went âmissingâ has me leaning towards a cover up, most likely a cover up of incompetence rather than to protect the murderer. The decision in the Civil case brought by Bailey was also a farce.
Great work by @artfoley and @johnnysachs
You are quoting a 2008 article in which the word inconclusive is the judgement passed on this DNA evidence. In this 2008 article they say future tests may provide a clearer picture. So since 2008 have they established a DNA profile from these scrapings etc? If they did then this would have cleared Bailey 100% and stopped wasting everyones time for the next 20 years. By the way plenty of suspects provide DNA voluntarily in which there have been matches.
1 Like
yes i am.
given the conduct of AGS in this case, you honestly think the results of the DNA and hair was inconclusive?
DNA testing has moved on considerably since the mid 90s so Iâd have no doubt that if it was baileys hed be in the CCC the next day on a charge.
do you think some Garda trained in Templemore that probably checked car tax in Bandon and dog licences in Schull was responsible for collecting the DNA from her fingernails and hairstrands from her body and then testing it in an independent laboratory. The guards ceiled off the site and a tarpaulin tent was put up. Then the forensic science team came. Are the people in forensic science Ireland and dept of Justice all in on this big ruse of framing Bailey. Give me a break.
jesus lad, you cant even spell sealed. there was a delay in the forensics and harbison getting to the scene.
GPSU interviewed gardai across 12 divisions and found 81% were involved in the taking of DNA samples, however, only 55% said they had received training on the taking, retention and destruction of DNA samples.
I apologise for the spelling mistake. So now you are quoting an unrelated article from 2019 and using it to support Garda expertise or lack of in collecting DNA back in 1996. In any case a Guard would be bagging and SEALING things like knives, guns and other items found at a crime scene and not taking samples of skin which is what we are actually discussing here. This would be done by an independent forensics team. They would not have a motive to frame Bailey. Iâve already mentioned that there was a delay in Harbison getting to the scene. He was responsible for autopsy in CUH to determine cause and time of death. The latter of which he was unable to determine.
There either was DNA evidence which was lost or bodged (hair/gate etc), or their wasnât.