Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed. **Threadbans in OP**

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121698546#Comment_121698546

It's 4km from the Prairie cottage to Sohie's, so 8km round trip.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121698564#Comment_121698564

I would find it hard to believe someone would set off at 3am on a December night on a 4km walk to the house of someone he barely knew if knew at all on such a chance. Sophie's diaries, phone calls etc have all been checked, nothing to suggest any sort of previous encounter or familiarity that could lead someone to think a random knock on the door at 4am would be welcome.

If he had that much drink on him, how did he not leave any trace at the scene, we would expect clumsiness from that.

And if he didn't have that much drink on him, if you did get such a notion into the head in an impulse, you would think the walk in the cold December air would knock that impulse out of you.

If it was earlier in the night, or on his way home from the pub OR it was an old flame \ hookup... I'd give more credence to it.

So hard to believe yes. But I can't say it is impossible.

In the history of mankind, there have been many miscarriages of justice, and putting Bailey down as guilty on the basis of this weak evidence coupled with the Garda conduct on the case would be a recipe for one.

CuriousCal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121698565#Comment_121698565

I just can’t see Bailey walking this across that type of land and surely if he did there would have been more than just Marie Farrell’s sighting, a sighting then that was lies

she has placed herself near the scene it’s all so bizarre

EmmetSpiceland

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121697844#Comment_121697844

Not only that, according to a witness, he walked a couple of miles further away before returning home.

He also used a weapon that was sourced from a weaken part of a pump house a bit away from the scene.

Was the loose block common knowledge in the area?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121698908#Comment_121698908

Is it confirmed the concrete block must have come directly from the pump house i.e. have you come across anything to that effect?

There seemed to be some confusion in comments as to whether it could have already been moved to the gate to prop it open - along with another rock used for that purpose.

orangerhyme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121698918#Comment_121698918

The lid of the pumphouse was kind of torn a bit so the block was definitely removed that night.

orangerhyme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121698908#Comment_121698908

Assuming the killer knew the block was loose, that would narrow the search down further.

EmmetSpiceland

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121698918#Comment_121698918

I asked about the gate block before and was told that the block used was from the pump house.

I can’t remember the details but the user who answered my question used photos to illustrate why it wasn’t a block for the gate.

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121698555#Comment_121698555

Who has said she scratched him? The allegation is the scratches potentially came from briars or the barbed wire poor Sophie eventually got caught on, then again I'm not full convinced on the scratches issue. There's stronger circumstantial evidence than that as outlined above.

Re the hair, the hair was all Sophie's. I've read that it looks like someone might have been pulling at her hair and she was holding onto it, which is probably a natural reaction. The hair pulling is similar to the attack on Thomas.

The more I read and look at this case, the more the finger points at Bailey.

Regards the lack of forensic evidence, one possibility is the killer was forensically aware or with knowledge of crime scenes (and not an Irish garda before someone suggest it, as most seemed to be clueless at the time). And he may have tried to do some clean up. The washed glasses might indicate removal of fingerprints. The door appears to have been pulled shut, so possibly a return to the house, a bit of a clean up to remove evidence, pulled the door shut after with maybe a rag to prevent finger prints. But possibly they didn't see the smudge of blood in the dark. Just a theory.

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121698352#Comment_121698352

All he was short was to say Princess Diana did it in a fit of jealous rage.

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121699754#Comment_121699754

Very likely a clean up. No wild panicked exit.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121699730#Comment_121699730

block.jpg

pumphouse.jpg

gate.jpg

As can be seen in the photo the gate stays open without any block or stone.

It also looks like the block had only just been taken from the pumphouse.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121699754#Comment_121699754

Part of the Garda case is that Bailey was scratched at the scene. Typically that is because the victim has scratched the assailant. I was pointing out the Guards didn't overlook this. They checked under fingernails, they checked the briars. They found nothing. Something doesn't add up. It is possible Bailey is the killer and got the scratches as he says. But it removes an incriminating piece of evidence against Bailey.

And if they cleaned up like that... doesn't sound like the actions of someone in a violent drunken rage and out of control does it? Which is also part of the Garda case against Bailey.

No witness putting him at the scene, no forensics putting him at the scene, a motivation that is purely speculative and while possible is implausible.

So you're left with no actual direct evidence against Bailey, only indirect circumstantial evidence and the lack of evidence to exonerate him (e.g. a solid alibi).

redoctober

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121699829#Comment_121699829

The case is perplexing. Hence, why we're all interested I suppose. I'm in a similar mind to yourself. There's no concrete evidence to lead to Bailey. I'm pretty sure it's not him. Having said that there are a lot of unfortunate (for him) coincidences that could point to him. He lived within 4km. He could have been intrigued by a visiting French lady with movie/arts connections. His lack of alibi. The scratches etc.

There are alternative explanations for most of these. However, I can see why people would think they point to Bailey and also there would have been that frenzy of talk about Bailey in the aftermath, under the influence of the guards it seems, which may have led people to connect it all with Bailey.

As I said above, I don't think it was him as there's really no meaningful evidence. The one thing that makes me think is his attack on Jules. That's the only thing that sticks in my mind which places doubt. The viciousness of that assault was scary.

dmc17

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121699795#Comment_121699795

You'd wonder how easy it would have been to locate it in the dark of night, although there was a moon the same night, there may also have been some cloud cover etc. so hard to know how much visibility there would have been unless they had a torch with them. If it was previously removed to hold the gate open, that could easily have been confirmed by Alfie and Shirley I guess.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121700004#Comment_121700004

The only way that the evidence can be made to point to Bailey is if you take Bailey's guilt as the start point. If you do, then every known aspect can be twisted and manipulated to support the original belief. Hence the preponderance of "ifs", "maybe", "perhaps"," likelys", "possiblys" etc etc.

This, of course, is absurd logic.

If you start with an open mind, and examine the facts then its not only a stretch to implicate Bailey, its a giant leap.

The fact that he had shown himself to be a violent wife beating thug, seems to be the cornerstone of the argumemnt for those who have decided that he was guilty. Undoubtedly, he was all of those things and an obnoxious self obsessed narcissist to boot.

But that doesn't make him guilty of this murder.

The raw facts are that:

1) He had no known association with the victim.

2) There was no evidence of him being at the scene.

3) There was no evidence of contact with the victim.

4) He had no motive.

5) Despite the desperate efforts of the Gardai in West Cork, the best evidence that they could come up with was scornfully flung into the waste paper basket by the DPP.

Hence the need to promote a ludicrous, invented scenario, involving a drunken man suddenly getting an inexplicable urge to get out of his bed, trudge three miles through back roads on a cold December knight, attempt seduction of a strange woman, get rejected, lose his temper and beat the life out of her, take a concrete block and stove he skull in, trek the three miles back and carry on life as normal.

All without leaving the tiniest forensic trace at the scene, on the victim, on his clothes or in his home. It is worryingly similar to the logic applied to Joanne Hayes. She's guilty, so we need to construct a scenario that supports that belief. Its likley, probable, feasible, that she had sex with two men, got pregnant seperately from each encounter! She's guilty, so however unlikely the explanation, that must be what happened.

Elementary, my dear Watson!

The most worrying thing is that at least one senior Garda maintained that belief for nearly 40 years.

odyssey06

@Gussie Scrotch Guards are on tape admitting that all they have is weak circumstantial evidence. Yet they were still pushing the DPP hard to charge Bailey.

It seems like they engaged in unsafe practices and knew they had weak evidence yet were determined to 'get a result' ... possibly because of the high profile nature of the case.

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121699829#Comment_121699829

All of what you say there can be relatively easily refuted. As for motives, some of the daftest ones have come regards other suspects including from yourself in relation to Daniel and others in relation to Alfie Lyons.

Regards his motive, I've started to reassess the reasons and motives behind that in recent days based on the more information that comes to light on Bailey. I have come to the conclusion that Bailey was a seriously deranged and sick individual and a fantasist. And I would not put murder fantasies past him. It will be interesting to see what comes to light based on the garda search of his accommodation. He came within a whisker of killing Thomas. Not only did he almost kill her, he would not allow her be brought to hospital, and in his own words attacked her again when she came home. Only a serious mentally unwell person would do something like that. He showed he had no limits and was largely incaptable of empathy, a psychopath in other words. In his own words he was an animal and i truely believe he was.

As i said the scratches issue no-one can agree on, so best to leave it out. I would put it in the same category as Farrell, not very strong evidence either way. I don't particularly care what the garda contention was, you've said yourself or implied they were corrupt and incompetent. We are all pretty much in agreement on that one. Their investigation of Satchwell and many other cases was equally incompetent, but guess what, he was guilty. In other words because they mess up doesn't mean a prime suspect doesn't have questions to answer.

I answered what i believe were possibilities with the forensics, potentially a clean up. There is no forensics to put anyone at the scene, do you not think this is either odd, lucky of the killer, or indicative of some form of clean up?

I'm probably wasting my time though, you are convinced Bailey is innocent and are not open to anything else.

I will repeat though, lack of hard evidence does not mean lack of guilt and the Satchwell case is the best example of this. Some people actually believed Satchwell was innocent, despite circumstantial evidence indicating he was a strong suspect.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121700866#Comment_121700866

Who knows what the reasons were.

They were trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. And failed.

But for all the deviations and sidetracking, all the protracted debate about how dirty a bath was or whether there was running water at Alfies or wheteh Bailey was drinking whiskey or had two big black coats etc etc, the key points stubbornly remain - he didn't associate with her, no evidence of him at the scene, no forensics on him or her, no motive.

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121700004#Comment_121700004

Yep Sophie was viciously attacked. It looked like she was dragged by the hair, she had her lip torn off, multiple injuries to the face, and scratches to her face.

Now if only there was a suspect within the locality who had committed a vicious assault like that a few months earlier? Couldn't be Ian Bailey now could it. He'd never do anything like that. Only he could and did.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121700892#Comment_121700892

If anything the theores for Daniel & Alfie are less 'daft' than the one for Bailey.

Husband with a pregnant mistress hires hitman to "rid me of this troublesome wife" - happens. Doesn't mean it happened here, but it happens a helluva lot more than the scenario outlined for Bailey.

Neighbours come to violence over build up of what seems like minor issues - happens. Doesn't mean it happened here, but it happens a helluva lot more than the scenario outlined for Bailey. Or, if Bailey could be obsessed about Sophie, why couldn't Alfie be obsessed about the attractive exotic woman next door.

Yes, it is remarkable the lack of forensics tying anyone to it - other than a rogue sample on a boot that did not belong to Bailey.

A clean up is possible, so is deliberately using implements, wearing gloves in the attack in such a way as to not leave forensics. These do not seem plausible for Bailey because of (a) scratches and (b) drink taken, implied violent rage. Those are not the actions of someone committing acts in a state of being "seriously mentally unwell" and out of control. If you look at the (heinous) attack on Jules, Bailey's forensics would have been all over her.

What I'm convinced of is that any prosecution of Bailey based on the available evidence would be unsafe and multiple DPPs were 100% right to not proceed with a trial and it was correct to reject the French request for extradition (that whole extra judicial angle should be removed at EU level).

I think on balance of probabilities Bailey is innocent, based on what weak evidence a Garda investigation by fair means and foul was able to drum up on Bailey.

CuriousCal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121700972#Comment_121700972

I actually think it’s very plausible that whoever Marie Farrell is covering for is the one responsible

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121700993#Comment_121700993

A man who the Guards claimed to believe was in the area... who has never been traced... but something something something it must be Bailey because everyone else was thoroughly checked out and nobody else could have done it and trust us we're the Guards and we must be on the right track.

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121700972#Comment_121700972

This is just getting daft. There isn't a shred of hard evidence to point to either of those suspects you mention but the lack of hard evidence doesn't stop you pointing a finger at them, but it does stop you blaming Bailey. Logic fail much?

And you're back to pointing the finger at Daniel even though its been pointed out to you that Daniel was the one who wanted the case reopened. Why would he want this when it was closed and Bailey very publicly named and shamed. Daft does not even begin to cover your contention.

As for Alfie, virtually everyone has written him off as a suspect, including the guy that was referenced on reddit. There was nothing to suggest for example that Sophie knew anything about the weed farm and similar daft suggestions for a motive. There's also nothing to suggest he was capable of committing the type of assault on Sophie, there certainly is with Bailey, it was well documented.

Bailey is an infinitely more credible suspect for this murder than Alfie.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121701050#Comment_121701050

There isn't a shred of hard evidence pointing to Bailey.

Which is the point. Daniel and Alfie therefore are as likely \ credible as suspects when you can fill your boots with circumstantial evidence, and speculative motives and "well they could have...."

See how easy it is for point the finger of suspicion at someone?

People talk of Bailey as "likely" as a suspect, when the entire scenario outlined for him is highly implausible.

I stand over these points:

Husband with a pregnant mistress hires hitman to "rid me of this troublesome wife" - happens. Doesn't mean it happened here, but it happens a helluva lot more than the scenario outlined for Bailey.

Neighbours come to violence over build up of what seems like minor issues - happens. Doesn't mean it happened here, but it happens a helluva lot more than the scenario outlined for Bailey. Or, if Bailey could be obsessed about Sophie, why couldn't Alfie be obsessed about the attractive exotic woman next door.

CuriousCal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121701031#Comment_121701031

The man Marie Farrell was supposedly out with was never questioned or even identified anyone she named was dead which was convenient for her so there’s another person at the scene who was never identified

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121700787#Comment_121700787

Your points 1 and 3 are the same. Multiple witnesses in Ireland and France have said otherwise. In any case, how well he knew her isn't exactly a factor in determining his guilt or innocence. He could have known her well and killed her. He could have barely known her at all and killed her.

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121701089#Comment_121701089

And we're back to the hitman with a rock theory.

Jesus wept.

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121701096#Comment_121701096

Or she wasn't out that night and nowhere near the scene which is probably more likely, based on her apparent lack of knowledge of where Sophie lived, as mentioned in the Jim Sheridan documentary. Farrell had serious credibility issues which is why many people don't rely on her evidence in any way. I could go further, but the laws of libel forbid it!

CuriousCal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121701174#Comment_121701174

I just don’t understand why she hasn’t faced charges herself!

there’s a lot that’s been coming out about her she’s a very shady character no more than her husband