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

bjsc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121784955#Comment_121784955

Pat Joy, Ger Prenderville and Martin Malone left the scene at 2.47 and Pat Joy (who was a scenes of crime officer) did not return until 09.30 the following morning.

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121784474#Comment_121784474

Whether the poster called Bridget is posting truthfully or not we don't know.

But there have been posters here who constantly ask why didn't the Gardai look further into Alfie Lyons and Shirley Foster.

The simple reason why they didn't look at them further is because in the days after the murder there was likely enough information available to rule them out.

So in the absence of anything to point to Alfie and Shirley people here started to construct their own evidence to point the finger at them.

Like the Gardai let Shirley drive through the cordon with a car full of rubbish to the dump, thus allowing her to dispose of vital evidence implicating Alfie and herself.

These sorts of stories work well here because they follow the narrative that the Gardai were too thick to spot that evidence was being destroyed.

Which is odd because the same thick Gardai have allegedly maintained an elaborate conspiracy for multiple decades.

Anyway, if what Bridget is posting is true, and we have no evidence to prove it is, then the whole theory that Alfre has more circumstantial evidence against him than Bailey is just dead.

tomhammer..

The French hitman theory and Alfie theory are mostly disproved

Very little concrete reasons to suspect either

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121785221#Comment_121785221

The Garda case against Bailey is mostly disproved and has exactly zero concrete evidence.

The point of mentioning Alfie or Daniel is to show how you can list circumstantial evidence and possibly innocent actions and view it suspiciously to make a flimsy case.

The Guards are on record calling their case flimsy and thats when they were trying to present Marie Farrell as a credible witness

I dont remember anyone actually claiming either of them did it (despite bad faith claims to the contrary) but they have either more motive and / or opportunity than Bailey.

tomhammer..

You think Daniel du plantier in Paris had more opportunity than bailey living down the road ?

bjsc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121784955#Comment_121784955

Eugene Gilligan and Tony Byrne, who have travelled from Dublin, arrive at @ 22.10. Gilligan gets the keys from Prenderville and attempts to open the front door but was unsuccessful as the keys were in the lock on the inside. He then gains entry by unlocking the rear door and notes that all the lights were off. So it would appear, without evidence to the contrary, that no one entered the house until gone 22.00 on the night of 23rd.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121785257#Comment_121785257

Nope. Thats why I used an or.

"they have either more motive and / or opportunity than Bailey."

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121785246#Comment_121785246

Of course,

The central thrust of that argument was that the circumstantial evidence against Bailey was very weak. So weak, in fact that you could take a set of similar circumstantial evidence and present it in such a way that it could appear to implicate Alfie/Shirley. That is not pointing the finger. I don't recall anyone actually accusing them.

Nothing changes thepoint made. There is no real, convincing evidence to implicate anyone.

tomhammer..

There's an assumption that alfie was motivated by a grievance and the husband by financial reasons

The same posters assume Bailey didn't have any motivation to visit Sophies house

The truth is we simply don't know whether Bailey had motive to visit Sophie that nite and the motive likely wasn't murder if he did

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121785303#Comment_121785303

Which is why posters quite reasonably state Bailey had no motive to murder Sophie... as in at 6pm on 22nd of December no reason to suppose any ill will on the part of Bailey towards Sophie.

And theres a world of difference between speculating on someone going up there at say 10pm versus 3am. And indeed versus 7am.

And we dont have an exact time of murder. And there are plausible indications the murder happened in the early morning and I have seen any scenario of any credibility where Bailey is the killer for an early morning timeline.

tomhammer..

It's incorrect to say that alfi and Daniel had more motive than bailey

Bailey's motive if any is an unknown

He may have had more motive than alfie or Daniel or no motive at all

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121785303#Comment_121785303

In terms of motive, the first question is who benefitted? Obviously Daniel must be considered as the person with most to gain.

Bailey's only plausible motive was sex, but there's no evidence of a sexual intention to the attack.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121785353#Comment_121785353

You're making a lot of assumptions there in that second sentence

Also off the top of my head I'm not sure the first question is who benefitted the most

That statement makes an assumption that the motive was financial gain

saabsaab

So rubbish bags taken out of the car and searched, maybe..

The car was allowed to drive through the scene possibly contaminating evidence just to get shopping..wasn't someone bring shopping there? This just shouldn't have happened.

It leaves questions..

tomhammer..

Somehow I doubt the investigators were trying to determine who benefitted the most from her death

It simply wasn't that type of murder case

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121785344#Comment_121785344

Implicitly it is a statement based on the information in the public domain, information you have not challenged.

At 6pm on the 22nd for motives for wanting Sophie gone...

For Bailey there is nothing.

For Alfie and Daniel we can at least make a case.

So my point stands in essence.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121785358#Comment_121785358

I don't think so. In terms of plausibility of motive, the sex is the least plausible simple because there is no evidence to support it.

The disagreements with Alfie are less plausible and purely speculative.

Daniel was saved the cost of an expensive divorce and, I have read somewhere ( can't remember where) that Sophie did have a life insurance policy.

So, although he is probably innocent, he was the one who stood to gain.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121785386#Comment_121785386

Bailey's motive if any is unknown

Therefore you assume there is nothing

I would assume bailey may have had more or less motive than the other 2 as it's unknown

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121785402#Comment_121785402

There is no known motive for Bailey at 6pm on the 22nd. None. Zero. Nada.

So it is entirely reasonable, when people talk of likely suspects to mention that others had more plausible motives to want Sophie gone.

Bailey had no known motive for murder or harm towards Sophie.

Therefore I, as others have done, will continue to point out the flimsy circumstantial nature of the case against Bailey and how easy it is to use such a flimsy standard to implicate others.

bjsc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121785213#Comment_121785213

Can I ask why you struggle so much with what I am saying. Everything I have posted is taken from statements which are contained in the French file. I have no agenda, no axe to grind, I am merely trying to correct some of the misconceptions which exist around this case. I think perhaps I should withdraw from this forum. It is depressing and disheartening.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121785395#Comment_121785395

Sex is the least plausible motive ?

Do you believe the killing was financially motived or not

You said the first question is who stood to gain

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121785432#Comment_121785432

Please don't do that Bridget.

Understand that there are some posters who are totally convinced that Bailey is gulity to the point that there is an emotional element to their position. To be fair, they may actually be right but there can be a reluctance to consider other possibilities and to dismiss anything that challenges that narrative.

Your input has been valuable and refreshing. It is also balanced and objective. I think you have more to offer.

robbiezero

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121785402#Comment_121785402

How can you not grasp that a concrete motive is more of a motive that an "unknown" motive?

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121785444#Comment_121785444

Sex is the least plausible because there is no evidence of it.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121785466#Comment_121785466

Maybe you're not grasping my point

He may have had more or less motive as his motive if any is unknown

Posters make an incorrect assumption that he didn't have motive

Posters believing the first question is who stood to gain most when nothing points to a financial motivation

Anyway that's me for now I'd be going round for hours with gussy and odyssey

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121785489#Comment_121785489

TFFT

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121785213#Comment_121785213

People were coming up with theories based on minimal information. Now in defence of same people, they unlikely have the time or access to read all the statements.

I think bjsc is credible and has access to statements we don't have and is helping to piece together the jigsaw.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121785601#Comment_121785601

People are coming up with theories simply because the one put forwards by AGS (and has been discredited by the DPPs office at least twice) is quite unlikely and has been tainted by the same Garda incompetence and corruption which marred several other high profile murder cases resulting in innocent people being blamed and imprisoned and also in one person being murdered as a direct result.

That some readily accept Bailey's guilt based on this absence of credible facts is what is most surprising.

tobefrank321

At this point, maybe makes sense to stop talking about suspects (including Bailey, Daniel, Alfie, etc) and just get an understanding of the facts, statements, and forensics.

There hasn't been a single credible motive offered by anyone for this murder, and anyone who says they know the motive is fooling themselves.

tobefrank321

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121785627#Comment_121785627

Right, so posters on here making the same mistake as the gardai, naming suspects based on dodgy theories which are later disproven, is ok?

Just look at some of the evidence on here to name suspects. Neighbours supposedly allowed go the dump with a car full of rubbish, then bjsc was able to clarify from knowledge of statements it didn't happen.

Husband as a suspect, despite him demanding the case be reopened.

Its just going around and around with the same nonsense. Some of the "detective work" on here make the gardai of 1996 look like detective masterminds!