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

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122185488#Comment_122185488

Yes,

Very difficult to see anything really convincing emerging after all this time.

It woud have to be something like, say, Bailey's DNA being found on the block or on Sophie's clothing, or, perhaps, solid evidence that the Frenchmen identified by Marie Farrell being proven to have travelled to and from Ireland at the time.

Hard to see anything like that being discovered now.

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122185719#Comment_122185719

Thye might have been wearing gloves. Not many Irishmen wear them but that doesn't narrow things down in this case.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122186233#Comment_122186233

But if that was the case, then that wrecks the theory AGS put forwards to the DPP that Bailey got his scratches in the struggle.

Mackinac

Possibly not many Irish men but a woman would.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122186233#Comment_122186233

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122186349#Comment_122186349

Cheap cotton gloves would prevent fingerprints but not protect against briars, but then you'd expect fibers to have been left behind.

Day Lewin

But it was the dead of winter, on one of the longest nights of the year. According to th'internet, sunrise would have been around 8.30 a.m. though there's usually a pre-dawn grey light before then.

I don't know how cold it was but it would still have been quite natural to wear gloves and a scarf etc. at that season, woman OR man.

Woolly gloves (which would have left fibres on the brambles) or leather ones - which would have prevented scratches to the hands, and avoided leaving fingerprints on the gate, too.

Mackinac

The smear of blood left on the door looks like it may have been left by a gloved hand.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122186866#Comment_122186866

"I don't know how cold it was but it would still have been quite natural to wear gloves and a scarf etc. at that season, woman OR man."

Temperatures on the night/morning were -2 to +2, dry, so probably light frost before sunrise.

Shirley may have worn gloves, but Alfie most likely did considering the cold weather agitated his damaged hand.

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122186866#Comment_122186866

Aye but most Irish country men don't wear gloves whatever the weather. Probably don't even have a pair.

nc6000

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122181061#Comment_122181061

He is likely convinced it was Bailey because that's what the Gardai were repeatedly telling them.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122185719#Comment_122185719

Not even that. It's all circumstantial in the end.

Bailey visiting Alfie and Shirley days before, touching the block, injuring his hand whilst being clumsy handling the gate?

Also just a trip to Ireland in the dead of winter possibly with a bottle of French wine also doesn't prove anything.

It would have to have been something like Bailey's DNA, hair sample, fingerprints etc on Sophie. Or murder weapon exclusively accessible to Bailey, his fingerprints or DNA identified, and then used to kill Sophie.

Something that can't ever be explained away beyond reasonable doubt.

There is nothing I could think of that would ever bring this case to a close, other than maybe a death bed confession.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122190774#Comment_122190774

True,

Its difficult to imagine anything conclusive being discovered. As you say, even new forensic evidence may be arguable.

The only one I can think of, who is still alive and who may know something, is Shirley Foster. Or, possibly, Jules Thomas - but I doubt that she would have covered for Bailey.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122190847#Comment_122190847

The cavity block was available to touch or to leave DNA on by anybody visiting and it would be rather hard to even trace the time as to when, especially since we don't even have a certain time of death. Suppose they would have found fingerprints or DNA of a French man on the cavity block it still wouldn't convict him. Just visiting doesn't prove murder. Suppose Sophie had a totally harmless but unexpected visitor the day before? Not impossible? Does this prove murder? Certainly not. It'll only spark another set of discussions.

The police only re opened the case for a cold case review because they knew that the public knows that they botched up the investigation and tried to move themselves in a better light by re-investigating.

As far as we know, there is no new evidence for a conviction in a court of law, there are no new revelations, as a matter of fact with many suspects dead the chances are zero.

Even if Shirley or Jules would say out loud that they both saw Bailey killing Sophie, the wouldn't be believed. They are too attached to the case.

In the end, the story is kept alive by film producers doing documentaries, and authors writing books. They all deny making money, but that's a lie, they all want money and being in the centre of attention, - with so called "new revelations" and "wanting justice"…..

As long as there is no evidence, anybody could be the murder, Alfie, Shirley, Bolger, Sophie's ex husband, Bruno, the Guard from Bantry, another Frenchman, a German musician, anybody, even yourself & myself.

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122181061#Comment_122181061

I would also like to know what convinces the people that think Bailey is guilty. Sophie's son is convinced of his guilt, he seems educated and reasonable, what exactly drives him to think Bailey is guilty, is it to seek closure or is it that he was convinced by the Guards?

I don't think anyone here can legitimately say what we would or would not do or how we would feel if were in Sophie's sons shoes.

I've no idea what I would feel if my mother had been so brutally murdered and then there was an arrogant, brash, narcistic local guy going around the area telling people he did it and spending the next two decades basking in the notoriety of being the main suspect.

Plus the French justice system found the same guy guilty, say what we like about that trial but Sophie's son is French and he and the rest of the family naturally have respect and confidence in their own justice system.

I don't think he is too concerned about what Marie Farrell did or did not do, or what people think about some German musician who killed himself, or Alfie's cut hand, or some theory of a randy Garda from Bantry.

That up to us who have zero skin in the game to discuss.

Day Lewin

I wouldn't completely lose hope for the Cold Case Review. In recent years they have reviewed, for example, the Deirdre Jacob disappearance and upgraded what had been a "missing person" to a murder inquiry.

They have changed the direction entirely of the Annie McCarrick case - now focussing, apparently, on a man or men known to the victim; and also renewing interest in one missing item, a shoulder bag.

Both of these cases date from the 1990's, like the Toscan du Plantier case. Which lets me believe that a fresh look and a new angle can still sometimes get results, even decades later.

I admit there is dam' all evidence (that we know of) in this case. But technology may yet lift a fingerprint off that gate - (if anyone can find the gate) or identify the unknown DNA on her boot. (She may have just stepped on a cowpat - I know, I know!)

And deathbed confessions do happen, too. Has everyone told everything they know? I don't think so…

And Mrs Farrell of the mysterious passenger; I honestly think she started with the intent of being helpful. But soon got embroiled in a scheme to trap one particular suspect and was influenced to repeatedly change her story. It doesn't inspire confidence, but people in small country towns usually do know what their neighbours are up to; and the mystery man may yet come forwards. He could, at least, corroborate the Kealfadda Bridge sighting of a man in a long dark overcoat, who was earlier seen in Schull, and at first reporting was described as being about six inches shorter than Ian Bailey!

So, never quit on an open case.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122191829#Comment_122191829

I do see your point.

However suppose a man is really identified near Kaelfadda bridge it still wouldn't get a conviction. Anybody out and about at odd hours of the night doesn't mean he's the murderer at all.

Same as the blood on Sophie's boot? How do we know for certain, it's from the time the murder happened? Suppose it's from a few days before?

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122193194#Comment_122193194

Someone else's blood on her shoe? Especially someone who wasn't accounted for or not mentioned before would take some explaining.

head82

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122193194#Comment_122193194

The DNA on Sophies' boot was never specifically categorized as 'blood' … AFAIK. I believe it was identified as 'DNA of a male origin'. Which begs the question, 'if not blood, what else could it be?'

There was also a recent request.. probably from Jim Sheridan.. to have the 'ethnicity' of said sample to be tested again using more modern DNA testing techniques.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122193261#Comment_122193261

The problem is not only what kind of DNA it is, blood or something else, but also how did it get there and also when did it get there?

Theoretically the DNA could have gotten on her boot even as early as in France, before her departure to Ireland. Even if the DNA on her boot is ever identified, it doesn't mean that this individual would have to have been in Ireland as well.

It is sadly not that easy to prove anything.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122195198#Comment_122195198

Yes I agree.

But…..in the unlikely event of the boot DNA being Bailey's……..then that would be incriminating….

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122195250#Comment_122195250

The boot DNA was not Bailey's, or any person bloodline related to her i.e. her son, father etc.

Whoever owns the DNA would have to be able to explain it to the gardai, and if they couldn't give a reasonable explanation, not doubt they would be arrested on that evidence alone.

Even if they did offer an explanation, it would behoove the Gardai to go over their story with a fine tooth comb, the evidence against them would be stronger than against any other person, including Bailey.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122195316#Comment_122195316

OK, how do you know it isn't Bailey's?

I doubt very much that it was, but I haven't seen it stated officially.

My point is this: If the DNA was Daniel's, then it could have been put there in France, before she set foot in Ireland. Ditto if it was Bruno's.

If it was Alfie's, or one of the Ungerers, then it may have been put there when they had some interaction earlier in the week, etc. etc. If it was found to be Bailey's ( not disputing your assertion, but I am not aware of it being dismissed) then no such explanation would wash?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122195357#Comment_122195357

It was tested, and the sequence did not match Baileys.

The male sample does not correspond either to Sophie Toscan du Plantier blood sample (also differing in sex chromosomes) and does not correspond to the STRS from the Bailey blood sample. Therefore this is a third person. As the French tests included sex chromosome testing, this profile is male.

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

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122195361#Comment_122195361

Ah. OK. Missed that or had forgotten.

Thanks for this.

Then its hard to see how this might be a game changer.

I suppose if, by chance, there was a match on the DNA database, and that match was to a person in the West Cork area, hitherto unconnected to the investigation, or just on the periphery, then it may be important.

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122195361#Comment_122195361

Were the boots ones that she left behind in the holiday home?

I mean people often leave boots near the door of their country house that don't travel with them.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122195392#Comment_122195392

Yes that is often done but alas I don't know if they were always left there or brought with her.

They seem to be mentioned as the boots Sophie was wearing when visiting Tomi Ungerer.

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122195416#Comment_122195416

Would Bridget know?

Day Lewin

Mrs Hellen the house-minder probably would know, since she went up to the empty house to get it ready for occupation.

It was she who the police asked to identify if anything was missing; and she told them, if I recall correctly, that possibly the poker from the fireplace, and the little hatchet from the porch, were no longer present; (but I think she wasn't absolutely sure when those items were last seen.)

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122195614#Comment_122195614

I believe the boots she wore out and about were different and located by the door of the house, suede, Tomi mentioned them in his statement too, and maybe the barman. There was a collection of other footwear in the house too.

The boots she wore to the gate were older boots that she could slip on without tying the laces. There was some debate I believe from Mrs Hellen about whether she wore them around the downstairs of the house also to prevent having to walk on the floor barefoot.

I presume that the boots she was wearing when she died were probably older worn out ones, they certainly look that way in the photos. It's probably not known whether she bought them in France or Ireland, or whether she wore them a lot in the past etc. Presumably there were a few opportunities to pick up DNA of some sort, but having said that you would think it should be cross-referenced against all available samples + anyone who was on the original list of suspects. It's pretty incredible to me that that loose end is left open, but not really that surprising all the same given the myopic nature of the investigation.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122195975#Comment_122195975

Tomi Ungerer said

"She was wearing some type of black leather expensive looking pants, brown suede hiking boots, a white/cream ribbed polo necked sweater and a beige wool blazer and a navy blue wool jacket with belt and a navy wool cap and red suede gloves, wine/red gloves. She was dressed very well. She had her hair tied back.”

https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderAtTheCottage/comments/1cp589p/sophie_v_final_days/

There's a blue jacket/coat on a chair in the kitchen.

Bluue Jacket.jpg

Brown suede boots at the foot of the stairs, and a beige wool blazer on the bannister post,

suede shoes and beige jacket.jpg

Outdoor footwear in the front porch.

outdoor footwear.jpg

If she chose to wear the brown suede boots at the foot of the stairs the laces would have to be tied.

All the outdoor footwear was in the front porch, so the boots she pulled on were probably there as well.

So, as I see it, she came in through the front door and went through to the kitchen and took her blue coat off. Had something to eat and washed up. Went upstairs leaving her boots and jacket at the foot of the stairs. It was a strange place to leave the boots though, right at the bottom step of the stairs, a certain trip hazard if coming down the stairs in the dark and in a hurry.