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

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121890804#Comment_121890804

Apologies, I misinterpreted the context of your post, even though it is pretty obvious looking back. Glad we agree on the broader point though.

@tobefrank321 do you agree that you were being a bit too loose with the facts, and will you retract that misinformation and concede the point? At the same time you can take solace in the fact that a fair few people agree with you that there were some missteps and oversteps by the DPP.

robwen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121890027#Comment_121890027

I was just reading about Bruno on a Facebook page dedicated to this case, the source for it is some guy called Phil Mather..

# Bruno

In Spring of 1992 Sophie met with Bruno Carbonnet, an artist-painter based in Brittany and began a two year affair with him. Daniel knew of this relationship. They were introduced by Sophie’s aunt Madame Marie Opalka and Sophie visited his studio and bought a painting from him. Here is Bruno’s account of the relationship

“It was during a workshop meeting that I had with her aunt and uncle Madame Marie-Madeleine Opalka and Roman Opalka. I had known these people for four or even five years before. These are people who work in art, he is a painter and she helps her husband. I got to know them because we had an exhibition together at Sao Paulo in Brazil where I exhibited my paintings during the Sao Paulo Biennial. Afterwards, we ran into each other from time to time thanks to a common friend. This is how they introduced their niece Sophie. This meeting was not planned. It was noon, I went to pick them up from their hotel and on the way to my workshop Marie-Madeleine asked me to go and fetch her niece Sophie. We went to pick her up from her home where she was waiting for us in front of her building. We all went to the studio and looked at my paintings. Sophie left for an appointment then joined us in a nearby restaurant. She asked me to come back to the studio the next day to look at the paintings again. So she came back the next day and bought a painting from me. She had indeed noticed this painting the day before and I had given her an idea for the price. So like I told you, she came back the next day to buy it from me at the price of 11,000.00 or 12,000.00 Francs. It is a dark painting representing a face that appears as in an opening. After buying it, I know she took it to her home because she told me that her husband did not like it.

A month and a half or two months later and after several visits relating to Art because she was interested in painting, our relations became intimate. She came one day around 2:30 p.m. to drop a letter at my home. It was a little ruse to make an appointment. When I heard her drop this letter I opened the door. We kissed each other. “Things" were pretty clear between us, but it couldn't have gone any further at that moment. I left because I had an important meeting at the Ministry of Culture. Before we left, we made a date at my home for the next day and that was the day I had sex with her.

Our relationship lasted with ups and downs for almost two years. For a year to a year and a half, these relationships were only episodic, they were dates or trips of two or three days. These meetings took place either at my place or at her place, not at her marital home on rue Taitebout but at her "bachelor pad" on rue Rambuteau which was a three-room apartment which also served as an office. It was during this period that I went with her to IRELAND. I have been there three times. The first time was during the February holidays or Easter 1993, during school holidays. It was a good week's stay. We did some work there. We were there to go in her father's car and by car ferry from Le Havre with return by Roscoff. The second time, it was by plane, a month and a half or two months later and the third time it was in July 1993 during the summer vacation period. We went there with my car from Le HAVRE and back via LE HAVRE. Each time we did some DIY there.

Our relationship deteriorated on the last trip to IRELAND because she wanted to have a child, moreover she already had chose the first name: Thérèse. Since there was no child, she did not have to choose a first name and I found this behavior narcissistic and only narcissistic. I learned that she had entrusted her child Pierre-Louis from birth to her mother. Besides, I was not ready to have a child. For me, it was out of the question given our relationship.

Faced with my refusal, there was then an attempt on her part to prove her commitment to me, to install me more comfortably and more precisely in the apartment on the rue de Rambuteau. At that time, I therefore helped her move her things from her marital home. It was a few paintings, her son's belongings, some of her personal effects. It all fit in a van. So I went to the marital home because she had taken advantage of her husband's absence to move out. As for me, afterwards, I went to get my things to move to rue Rambuteau. It was assumed between us that this situation was only temporary because I had told her that I would look for something in LE HAVRE because on the one hand I had a job there and that I was no longer going to have my painting studio and that on the other hand I wanted to leave PARIS

This situation lasted for two to three months. It was during this cohabitation that I realized that it was not going to work. So we came to a rupture. Our relations then became more and more strained, sometimes even leading to an exchange of words. For example, I no longer accepted looking after her son when sometimes she was away one night but gave me no justification.

One day at the end of December 1993, we had words because I had told her once again that I could not stand this situation any longer. I had informed her that I wanted to go. She then said to me in an almost contemptuous tone “what are you going to do, where are you going to go, etc.” as if she had some power over my freedom of decision. This attitude irritated me. I then told her that I could live anywhere and that was not a problem. The next day maybe, I went to work and when I returned, she was away from the apartment and she had left me a letter in which she said to me: “I left there where you have never been, there where you'll never go”. I never knew what that meant. I took this letter and at her express request, in February or March 1994, I returned all her correspondence, including this letter, and she then returned my belongings from Ireland (a computer, my paintings, etc...). Returning her letters was the condition for me to get my things back .

Going back to December, after finding the letter, I waited for her because I wanted to say goodbye to her son. I had even bought Christmas presents, a bicycle for her son; it was the thing he wanted the most but his mother would not allow him to have one because he had been hit by a car and she was very apprehensive about it. I spent more than two weeks alone in this apartment. I did see her again during this period. At the beginning of January 1994, I went to give my lessons at Le Havre, she called me and said "you must understand that it is over". I returned Le Harve, the apartment locks had been changed, the majority of my belongings were on the landing. When my exhibition was hung in January 1994, she came to meet me at the gallery and we made love at the hotel. This was the last time we were intimate. It was she who wanted this meeting and I never knew why.”

Sophies friend and confidente, Alexandra Lewy said that Bruno did not take the break-up well. He violently damaged his own paintings in a gallery and one time waited for her in her apartment building. When she came back and put the light on he pushed her up against the wall and she couldn’t breathe. She got a fright but that was all. Lewy also claimed he sent a large screw to her in the post and a roll of his own paintings cut into pieces.

Sophie’s uncle Frederick Gazeau met Bruno and commented that he found him a timid, introverted person but also quite likeable. Gazeau said that they broke up immediately after moving into an aparment together. He said Sophie found him too depressing to live and was afraid of him following the incident outside her apartment.

Six weeks before the murder, Bruno contacted Sophie for the first time since they broke up. He asked Sophie for a loan of one of his paintings for an exhibition. Sophie readily agreed.

Bruno gave a statement on 28th December 1996 to French police, and two further statements on 16 January 1997 when he was arrested and detained him until the next morning. His flat was searched and he provided multiple pieces of evidence as proof of alibi, including a receipt for the installation of a telephone and ATM transactions.

Day Lewin

A very interesting read! A new light on Sophie's personality.

She appears to me now as a person who liked to do her own thing and keep her own counsel.

May she rest in peace, and may justice be found.

jesuisjuste

@bjsc , I've been thinking further about the information you shared regarding Sophie potentially still being alive, it actually it's not clear from the previous posts when exactly she was officially checked for signs of life & "declared" dead. Do you have that information, apologies if it has already been asked & answered.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891033#Comment_121891033

PhilMathers "Murder at the Cottage" over on Reddit has a lot of stuff on Sophie ;

https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderAtTheCottage/

His "Bailey didn't do it" is interesting, also "The Harrying of Jules"

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121890499#Comment_121890499

@tobefrank321 , I can see you make numerous points, and in fact can agree with many of them, but when it comes to the DPP I'm unsure of what your overarching thesis is on them? I often feel like you have a general point, but are unwilling or unable to articulate it. To clarify perhaps you could answer the following, yes or no of course. By the way, this question does not even require you to read or assess his work, and is valid even if you believe that Bailey did it:

Do you agree with the DPP's general assessment that there was enough "reasonable doubt" with the evidence that it was unsafe to move forward with a prosecution?

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891150#Comment_121891150

It's some phenomenal work, if you can find it, I encourage you to read his work on the unknown DNA. It is because of people like Phil, and bjsc I truly believe this case could be closed, if only people like them were allowed to see all the available evidence.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891296#Comment_121891296

I think this is his reddit link on the forensic tests.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderAtTheCottage/comments/vraf9q/forensic_tests_on_the_body_exhibits_and_crime/

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891328#Comment_121891328

Yes that's it exactly, really phenomenal work, I would encourage everyone to read it. To me this information alone creates sufficient reasonable doubt about a prosecution, and should be further investigated. @bjsc I hope you had previously known this information, or perhaps had already come to the conclusion based on you own reading of the evidence.

tomhammer..

I posted on this before but the below from the DPP report makes no sense

It was clearly a frenzied attack

He's saying Bailey would have left evidence

If the killer was ANother , well he left no evidence either

So it doesn't indicate either way whether it was bailey or not but the DPP implies different

"No forensic evidence linking Ian Bailey to the scene was found despite the fact that the murder of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier was the direct result of an apparently frenzied and furious attack upon her in a briar-strewn location. If in fact the attack was carried out in a frenzied manner one might have expected that the assailant would have left traces of blood, skin, clothing fibres or hair at the scene. No such material was discovered."

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891453#Comment_121891453

To me this statement means that the DPP believes there is no evidence that the attack was "frenzied", but I'd appreciate others interpretations

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891453#Comment_121891453

This was already discussed on the thread. You need to read it in the context of being an assessment of the Garda case presented at the time, which was alleged to be... an apparently frenzied and furious attack upon her, in which Bailey was scratched at the scene.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891479#Comment_121891479

I think if people just consider for a moment the motivations of the DPP, it is pretty obvious why he is making these statements, albeit he could have done it in a more consistent and concise manner.

If and when the case goes to trial the gardai will present a scenario around the attack, in that it is frenzied, and propose Bailey as the killer. A jury may look at the evidence and find reasonable doubt with the Gardai's proposal around it being frenzied. In this specific instance, the reasonable doubt is that there is no evidence that it was a "frenzied" attack, therefore undermine a little bit the Gardai's case against Bailey.

I think it is reasonable for people to look at the evidence and believe that the attack was frenzied, I think it is also reasonable for them to look at it and believe that it was not frenzied, a jury of 12 people would probably be split somewhat on the issue to be fair. By the Gardai choosing an absolute statement "the attack was frenzied" they could well have lost half the jury on this point. I think this is what the DPP is calling out, and I believe he is right to do so. What do you think?

tomhammer..

I would say it was clearly a frenzied attack

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891511#Comment_121891511

Nobody is disputing that. What the DPP is clearly challenging is the claim that despite it being a frenzied attack in which AGS are alleging Bailey received the scratches, Bailey somehow managed to leave no DNA at the scene (which you'd expect during a frenzied attack).

I really don't know why you continue to misinterpret this obvious excerpt.

tomhammer..

There was pretty much nothing got from the scene so the lack of evidence isn't pointing either way

Bailey or ANother

I've no issue with the DPP refusing a trial

There clearly wasn't enough evidence

His report reads somewhat amateurish, sure he's only human

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891526#Comment_121891526

If Bailey received scratches form the briars, why isn't any of his DNA on them

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891503#Comment_121891503

Yes, I think that is a good way to approach it from that jury perspective.

I would also add, the reason why the Guards needed to push the 'frenzied' or rage type attack, in the scenario for Bailey, is their lack of a motive for him. And going with the angle of losing temper when drunk and lashing out.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891532#Comment_121891532

Sure there was only 1 bit of foreign DNA got from the scene afaik

Sophie's hands were scratched afaik and to suggest it wasn't a frenzied attack is stretching credulity

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891511#Comment_121891511

Frenzied: "feeling or showing great or abnormal excitement or emotional disturbance"

What does frenzied really mean in this context. To be honest when I think about it, I think that the Gardai are misusing the word, and the DPP is reflecting their language back to them, and I think everyone else on here is also referring to the word in the same way. Semantically, it is difficult for almost any attack to not be frenzied, with the exception of an extremely psychopathic or professional killer. Almost all murders would have some degree of frenzy. In this context, the attack being frenzied, is essentially a moot point.

What I believe the Gardai are implying by the term frenzied, in this context, is both "uncontrolled" and "sloppy" or "haphazard", and I think that is also what the DPP is referring to. I believe he is calling out that there is no evidence to back up this context. I can understand why people may have a varying opinion on this point.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891554#Comment_121891554

I believe Sophie was scratched all over in fact, from the briars, it is likely this did not require any input from the perpetrator, she struggled to get out imo. Remove the briar scrapings, and you are left with numerous hits to the head with a rock/object, and use of the block.

The use of the block is almost certainly not frenzied, it is cold and calculate imo. Would you agree?

Therefore we are left with the hits to the head, is that frenzied as per the literal meaning? probably. Is it sloppy and uncontrolled, not necessarily. Would a jury find reasonable doubt about this proposal, there is a fair chance imo. What do you think?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891578#Comment_121891578

Well put, and I would add by my understanding of how the report uses the word:

frenzied = uncontrolled \ emotional disturbance \ sloppy, it would be done without regard for whether you were getting scratched from briars, or leaving forensic evidence behind.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891524#Comment_121891524

What exactly is a “frenzied attack”?

tomhammer..

I agree with senan maloney

There was an encounter at the door ,she ran and a rage killing ensued

The morning theories don't stack up for me An attractive woman battered like that points to the garda theory being correct for me and Bailey the likely killer

Anyway there's so many unknowns in this case . Even if the DPP gives the nod to the case file the debate will continue

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891544#Comment_121891544

I mean they are trying to build a case, and I can understand why they interpreted it that way and are pushing that angle, but it was unnecessary and stretching when presenting to the DPP, even if one believes that Bailey did it. I don't think they needed to push that motive, they could have left it open. There are many murders that have happened where one person momentarily loses the head, realises what they have done, and decided to "finish the job". This is especially true when the perpetrator does not have a direct relationship to the victim, and has a high likelihood to escape scrutiny in the investigation.

tomhammer..

How many realistic scenarios and suspects are there for a morning killing at the gate

One of the neighbours really that's about it

Beats her to death with a block

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121890838#Comment_121890838

In case anyone wondered what Bruno looked like..not sure what year this is..born 1958 looks about 55 in this.

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891467#Comment_121891467

With 50 or so wounds and at least two weapons it's hard to be sure unless there were two. One with a smaller weapon or rock in a frenzy or panicked state and the cold deliberate use of the large concrete block to finish perhaps another?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891640#Comment_121891640

The scenario presented for Bailey at 3am isn't "realistic" either, if by realistic we mean has comparable real world examples.

The Guards did not seem to properly the morning timeline, and what that meant for what suspects should be considered - which was the point of the original article in the Independent from Bridget Chappuis / bjsc.

Day Lewin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891602#Comment_121891602

If Sophie was "scratched all over" from the surrounding brambles, then why wasn't any of HER DNA found on them?

We are left with the unsettling conclusion that either the thorns were not tested for DNA at all, or else, bramble thorns don't retain DNA (skin, blood etc) in spite of having scratched several people. FWIW, I find this unlikely.