Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed. **Threadbans in OP**
Comments
-
Is it correct that the blood stain on the door was tested and doesn't match Sophie or Bailey?
0 -
Looking at this it seems to have been identified as Sophie's:
The second testing was done by a scientist in the Forensic Science Laboratory in Wetherby, Yorkshire, UK. She used 11 STRS, and unfortunately the file does not record the profiles she generated, only her conclusions. She tested only two exhibits, the first was a blood flake (EG9) taken from the back door handle at the house. This time she had more success than the tests in Northern Ireland. She was able to generate a partial DNA profile from a blood flake taken from the door handle. Although this was a partial profile, she said the result provides “very strong support” for the assertion that the blood flake came from Sophie Toscan du Plantier.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderAtTheCottage/comments/vraf9q/forensic_tests_on_the_body_exhibits_and_crime/
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
7 -
This is a murder mystery which will to a high degree never be solved. Too much time passed, and too many possible witnesses died by now, same as possible suspects and key evidence is either lost or doesn't exist or never existet at all.
The whole murder mystery does have a somewhat personal conotation to it. This conotation is only strengthened that the killer must have known to a high degree that Sophie was alone, and not only alone but in a rather remote part of the world. Even more so, Sophie's trip around Christmas was totally out of the ordinary, she's never been at her cottage at Christmas, and as far as I know never alone?
This consideration would also eliminate the "random killer" motive and furthermore strengthen the idea there was some form of planning involved. The killer must also have known to a high degree that noise wasn't much of a problem, nor the chance of being seen. Most likely the killer knew that the Richardson's were not staying at their cottage, they could or would easily have been witness to whoever would be coming and going.
This automatically brings Alfie and Shirley into the picture and the question why didn't they hear anything? Was Sophie instantly dead never standing a chance, never making any sound at all or were Alfie and Shirley involved?
To me the murder mystery was about Sophie, Sophie had to "be dealt with", whether it's the ex husband sending someobody, whether it's a drug related matter or whether it's a sexual or relationship oriented matter, were the Guards or one Guard involved, we can only speculate.
Post edited by tinytobe on1 -
I'm not fully convinced they didn't get in during the day. As you say Josie Hellen had keys and the Gardai should have at least checked the house for a culprit or more victims. Josie Hellen was interviewed in the Sunday World on December 29th 1996 and she gave lots of detail about the inside of the house.
All the indications so far are that Sophie arrive last Friday, and that the person who killed her was known to her. The Sunday World spoke yesterday to the women who knew Sophie best. Mrs. Hellen, who was the caretaker of Sophie
Dunmanus West, said that she believed Sophie was by herself when she arrived on Friday.
Josie was one of the last people to talk to Sophie "I spoke to her by phone on Sunday night and we arranged to at around mid morning. "The awful tragedy is that this was our last conversation"
Stopped
"I was driving over to Sophie's house which is near my own when I was stopped by a garda. He told me he had bad news. He went on to to say that Sophie was dead.
"I didn't realise at that time she had been murdered " The area was cordoned off and gardai later came to see me. They brought me into the house to ensure that nothing was missing and everything was in order.
There was no sign of any struggle. I knew the layout of the house exactly as it was before Sophie arrived.
"All the indications were that somebody had been with her. I noticed two chairs drawn over beside the heater in the kitchen. That was not the usual position for them. "I also noticed two glasses that had been washed out on the draining board.
"And in the sittingroom on the mantelpiece over the fire, there was a wine glass with a small drop of wine left in it.
"I got the distinct impression that somebody had been with her in the house the previous evening," added Mrs. Hellen.Josie says "The previous evening" i.e. Sunday night implying she was let in on the 23rd. So maybe they took her inside before forensics showed up and the local Gardai just closed the door after and pretended like nothing happened? I think it's possible.
But I don't think they did, I believe they took her inside on the 24th. The Gardai seems to have been very careful - too careful not to touch certain things, like the body, and maybe they decided not to touch the house either. Even so they were very careless with the scene. They drove Shirley Foster's car down the lane and then let her drive it away without forensically examining it. Alfie took Shirley down to see the back door of Sophie's house to show her the blood stain on the door. This happened on Monday, according to Shirley's statement taken on Tuesday, so Alfie and Shirley (and probably others) were poking around outside the house before the forensic team arrived. All the photos from the inside of the house look like they were taken at night, so Pat Joy probably didn't go inside, but can we be sure? The photo attributions are unreliable because the photos are all mixed up, like someone has shuffled the photos. Some attribited to Tony Byrne were clearly taken by Pat Joy.
3 -
"All the indications were that somebody had been with her."
Interesting that Josie's opinion differed from that of that Gardai, especially given she was almost certainly the most knowledgable of the layout and Sophie's habits etc.
It's also wild to me how people were happy to speculate and share their own versions of events to the press etc. early on in the investigation. I know this is fairly common, but man even though the guards were incompetent, the witnesses did them no favours at all.
6 -
Advertisement
-
Somebody could easily have been with her, but it would have been unclear if it was that particular evening and night, or the evenings or nights before.
The ultimate evidence to say who was there and who not would have been fingerprints, say on the empty glass of wine, etc… If nothing was found, and the caretaker's were only found together with Sophie's it would have been it from a police perspective. Unless the visitor cleaned up all possible prints.
This all would certaninly not have been enough evidence that the fingerprints would have been the murderer's. The visitor could have visited the night or nights before.
1 -
Fair enough but the fact is nobody has come forward and said they were with her on any night beforehand, correct? So it's just as suspicious either way, and they would be heavily suspected if that information came out and they didn't have a solid alibi. She was only there for a few days, and barely met anyone during that time. The police said no one was in the house, Josie strongly implied there was, big difference of opinion there.
Any fingerprints appear to have been deemed not suspicious, and it has never been shared where all were located as far as I can tell, save for a couple of released titbits of information.
7 -
Also, I believe Sophie's last known contact was when she spoke on the phone with her husband after she was ready for bed.
Presumably any visitor would be gone by then.
At least, it is strange that she didn't mention having had someone over. And no fingerprints or DNA ever detected that would point at a suspect. And then she is found murdered the next morning - not in her house, but in the entrance lane.
I take the point that Mrs Hellen knew the house best, but of course Sophie had been there a day or two, leaving washed dishes on the drainer, moving things around etc.
I don't think the case is very strong for an evening visitor.
7 -
I was looking through some of the pictures on the koude kaas site and noticed a bunch of tire tracks on the outside of the gate, I'm sure people have seen these before, but it reminded me of when @bjsc posted a while back. Similar look and perhaps even tread pattern on those closest to the gate as those closest to Sophie's body. Nothing conclusive of course, but would be interested to see if it was clearer in HD. Shirley's car was pictured in this vicinity but clearly did not make these.
Also you can see other tracks, tractor etc. further away again.
0 -
We will probably never know the answer to this one. Also two glasses of wine, doesn't mean two people were drinking. Suppose it was her both times, just taking a fresh glass and being lazy in washing them later on? Or pulling a chair just to rest her legs, not to have a visitor over? It could have been any number of reasons. And yes, as you said, if somebody was visiting her, he or her would never come forward voluntarily as he or she would most likely be suspect, especially if no alibi was there.
I often believe the reason for the blood stain at the door is that Sophie was killed then and there, or at least knocked unconscious at the the door, and later carried to the site where she was found and "finished off" with the cavity block.
The murderer may have come on foot rather than driven. Suppose, I was the murderer, if I would have come with a car, I would at least have taken the cavity block with me, disposed of it somewhere in the sea, water would have washed everything off the block, that is if the block would ever be found.
And then, why was she left clearly on the side of the road? Why not dump the body behind the brambles and briars? Alfie and Shirley would have just driven past, nobody would have suspected, only that she didn't return the rental car, or arrive at Paris at the airport. A cell phone rininging, Sophie not answering, I'd say it would have or could have been as long as maybe midday that the body would have been discovered at the earliest. The murderer would have had more time to get away.
What would have been Sophie's motivation to even answer the door at midnight or in the very early hours? And to whom? Probably only to somebody she knew or expected? But whom? ( honestly, even as a man, I wouldn't have opened up the door to a stranger at night time) Wouldn't it be more likely to expect somebody in the morning, even if it was the early morning?
All questions we don't and will most likely never have the answer to.
3 -
Advertisement
-
I don't think the Gardai did any analysis on this. In this photo it looks to me like some are obviously tractor tires, going into the gate to left off frame. There are a couple of car tracks and because they are curving towards the gatepost, so they might be made by cars turning around. It could have been anyone, like the postman, Leo Bolger, Josie Hellen, and there is no mention of any forensic analysis on tire treads in the files, yet another omission.
Pat Joy took photos of skid and scuff marks on the lane, but they are in gravel, so there is no tread info. Some are clearly from tire skids and some look like they may have been made by somebody stumbling,. Garda Byrne also mentioned the skid marks in his statement from 1996. However in a later 2002 statement he wrote:
In relation to the skid marks, which I have already mentioned in my previous statements, these skid marks were located just outside the gate where Sophie Du Plantier’s body was found. These skid marks were just behind Shirley Foster’s car and it appeared obvious to me that these skid marks were made by Shirley Foster’s car when she stopped.
Now this is clearly false as the skid marks were inside the lane not outside, and there are no skid marks just behind her car, but perhaps Shirley Foster slammed on the brakes farther up the lane when she first saw the body. But this statement looks a bit like a CYA effort because the Gardai didn't do the tire/skid analysis when they were focused on Bailey and didn't believe Bailey used a car.
7 -
Just to clarify my position here, as I realise it seems I may be pushing an angle of someone visiting with Sophie the night before. I don't believe this to be the case either, I just think it is intriguing that Josie went so far as releasing this information to the press, giving her own opinion etc. Marie Farrell for example was a nobody, busybody, basically, sticking her nose in and causing trouble, Josie was a prime witness no matter what. Giving her opinion, and in addition counter to what the guards believe is extremely careless. Just another example of how the investigation got off on completely the wrong footing from the get go.
I think hiding the body may have been difficult, and also there was a lot of blood. I image that trying to cover up may not have been successful, and perhaps could have run the risk of being caught in the act. Shirley could literally have come down the lane at any point, especially if she happened to hear something.
Also the 'getaway' may not have been that far. Once you were out on the main roads, you're mostly free and clear. If you lived nearby perhaps you'd be home in 10 minutes, even 60 minutes would cover half of cork and Kerry. The risk/reward was not worth it imo.
6 -
Wow, poor statement. If I'm not mistaken the tracks outside the gate are definitely not caused by Shirley's car as there is a picture of it stopped, and it is away from the verge.
4 -
I remember Ireland of the 90ies as a place where illegal dumping was often taking place, so seeing something in a field near or behind brambles or briars would probably not have been too much out of the ordinary, - or only out of the ordinary in a cul de sac road setting, - nobody only those who live there come and go, and maybe the odd visitor.
I would agree that Josie would have been the only one who had a clear understanding about the house, what was there in terms of every item, and would have had a very strong idea on how she left it for Sophie, and how things looked like after the murder.
Marie Farell was the wrong person in every sense. Not credible, running a shop not known how profitable that venture was, seeking a bit of attention here and there, and seeing unshaven men in dark coats loitering while Sophie was visitng her shop, "seeing" a man at night out alone. Most statements from her are not credible at all, in every sense.
Josie at least had enjoyed the trust of Sophie, looking after the house. It's not known if there were ever arguments, shortcomings or differences of opinion? And even if, she was still looking after the house.
Apart from Josie I would guess her strongest bonds in the area would have been with the Ungerers. Apart from Josie, it would have been likely that the Ungerers were the only ones who knew in advance about her visit around Christmas.
I don't think Sophie would have "enjoyed" a longer talk with a glass of wine with Bailey. Bailey drank Whiskey and Beer as far as we know and certainly wasn't good company, even worse if alcohol was involved. The "scene" at the cottage would have looked more like a fight soon after his visit, but these are all guesses of mine. I also don't think Bailey considered a sexual intention with Sophie, Sophie's visit around Christmas would most likely have been a surprise to Bailey as well. If he wanted casual sex, he would certainly not wait for 6 months. Again, it also could have been, but in my gut feeling it seems unlikely.
Many aspects were wrongly approached by the Gards in every sense. For instance, everyone understood soon that Sophie and Daniel's marriage was nearing an end. What would Sophie's plans have been in case of divorce? Would she have continued working for Daniel after a possible divorce? How much in child support and as a divorced mother would Sophie have been entitled to, and who would that from a legal point of view differ if she continued to be working for her then future ex husband? Did she consider moving to Ireland to the cottage as it was suggested by some with her son?
5 -
For me, it is the "odd" aspects of the case that are particularly intriguing and within which, some answers possibly lie:
It was odd that Sophie visited her holiday home, alone, at that time of year. She had not, afaik, done so before and the reason that was given was that she need to supervise the repair of the heating system. It seems to me that the Christmas period is a time to spend at home with the family rather than alone in a cold country house. And the caretakers could easily have managed the problem with the boiler.
It was odd that Daniel refused to go to Ireland to deal with what needed to be done and accompany his wife's remains home. It could be regarded as disrespectful. Most husbands would go immediately.
It was curious that neither Alfie nor Shirley saw or heard anything as a ferocious, prolonged, attack happened within sight and hearing of their door.
It was unusual that neither Alfie nor Shirley checked Sophie for a pulse/breathing. It would be the first thing that most people would do.
The blood smear on the door is particularly strange. Obviously it was there as a result of the attacker trying to open or close the door. It seems likely that the attack happened at the gate so why go back to the door rather than making good the escape?
6 -
These are all excellent points. I would guess, apart from Josie, the Ungerers, her husband and somebody at the pub nobody knew Sophie was even in Ireland. Maybe Bruno? Alfie and Shirley would probably have been surprised, a car parked, lights on, and a neighbour they didn't particularly like….
One would expect the husband to come and visit Ireland, if it's his wife, who just died, regardless of the state of the marriage. It's also understood that there was a life insurance taken out on Sophie and a rather large amount was paid out upon her death. It's a bit too convenient for Daniel, especially since he was already in bed with his next wife, whom he married soon after. Even the not too competent Guards in Ireland would have spotted this with ease.
Thus I always believed that there was some form of "French connection" to the case. Not impossible to think and examine.
Also Bruno's alibi is sort of vague, I think. Anobody posing as Bruno, any man of similar size and description, could easily give a signature to a telephone techncian, a brief look at a fake ID, and the technician wouldn't have noticed the difference anyway….
With only Sophie present and the Richardsons not there, one would expect that the nights in this area would have been dead quiet, maybe some foxes or other animals making noise, and every now and then the wind blowing. Anything out of the ordinary would have been heard by Alfie and Shirley. But they didn't hear a thing? Or were they involved?
Did the police ever investigate Alfie and Shriley's finances? Anything unusual, out of the ordinary? ( drug activity in mind, anything would have stood out rather obviously…)
2 -
The thing is, once they had honed in on Bailey as a suspect, and started the campaign against him they didn't just ignore other candidates, they also made any other suspect far less likely of being convicted but virtue of the activities they were undertaking.
Any issues regarding ruling out evidence (tire tracks) tampering with evidence (jobs book), witnesses coercion etc., would essentially prevent conviction of anybody, it undermined the whole case, not just Bailey's conviction. They shot themselves in the foot when they came up with the story they had, even if it was remotely possible of convicting Bailey, it could not be possible to convict anybody else. You don't really get a chance to turn around and change your mind in front of a judge/jury and get away with it easily. This is also why it is necessary to have a cold case.
For example with Shirley and Alfie, I don't imagine any judge would have signed off on a warrant to look into their finances. I imagine that would be required no? Information can still be volunteered of course by any witness.
2 -
One of the most obvious lines of enquiry in the absence of any DNA or fingerprint evidence would have been following the money. Looking for any unusual financial transactions of all the neighbours or people Sophie knew and was in contact with.
Anybody, from Bruno, her husband Daniel, Alfie and Shirley, even the Ungerers and Josie. I think this alone could have lead somewhere. What was their normal income and what was out of the ordinary? Or even large withdrawals as well…. However I haven't read anything in this case about this. Only that Daniel avoided a costly divorce and received a life insurance payout upon his wife's death is known.
The general incompetence by the police must have surprised everyone, especially Bailey. Compared to the UK they were far inferior. Bailey volunteered his DNA, to eliminate him. His thought processing was logic, if his DNA wasn't on the scene, it simply wasn't him. Period, case closed for him. However Bailey was wrong about that one. I am sure he didn't expect that. Furthermore, Bailey had no local support, other than his partner Jules he wasn't liked, nobody stood up for him, etc… He was easy prey for the incompetent Gards.
3 -
Just a few points which I have come to believe…..cannot, of course be proven, but from the many many hours spent reading all that I could find on the subject:
- Sophie was killed in the morning…in daylight.
- It was, probably, not a planned killing…..a planned killing would almost definitely include disposal of the body eg. throwing her off a cliff edge or similar. However, it may be that it started as a planned killing and subsequently went wrong. But it was much more likely to be a confrontation that escalated to violence.
- Bailey was not involved.
- Sophie left the house with the intention of meeting/confronting someone at the gate. She did not flee the house in a panic.
11 -
I wonder did anyone else volunteer their DNA, or in fact if even more interesting would be if anyone refused to do so? I wouldn't be surprised however if the guards just didn't bother following up on anyone else. What is unfortunate is the timing of the results. They likely thought that it was going to come back positive for Bailey, and once it didn't (6 weeks after his arrest/questioning I believe) the window of opportunity was well closed.
1 -
Advertisement
-
I would agree with point 1 and 3. Especially point 3, Bailey is clearly lacking a motive in order to justify a nocturnal 2 hour hike in some stage of alcoholic haze. He would not have benefited from Sophie's death in any way. There is no indication that he fancied her sexually. Also Bailey wasn't known to have cheated on Jules.
Regarding point 2, there must have been some planning simply because Sophy was rarely at the cottage anyway, and even around Christmas was totally out of the ordinary for her. Somebody must have known she was there, and at least planned to confront her with something. It's also possible that the cavity block was used intentionally to make it look more unprofessional, unplanned, even random, but her rare presence at the cottage would contradict that as well.
Regarding point 4, I would have a different opinion, simply because of the blood stain at the door. This would imply that she may have been injured right at the door, knocked at least unconcious. and later carried down the road, and finished off with the cavity block. That is if the killer didn't return to the house for some other reason, we don't know. But that's more gut feeling and guessing from my part.
What about Sophie's diary? Was that ever found? Did the killer have an appointment? - Then she may have noted it down? The killer would certainly have to make sure, his name wasn't written down, - one motive to go back to the house…. Another interesting theory.
Also a good question which is to date unanswered. I would expect that the police would have required DNA but didn't follow up on that one as well?
They did travel to France during the cold case investigation. They visited a French man, apparently a friend of Daniel's. Did they get his DNA? Did this man admit to travelling to Ireland around the time in question? He would probably say no, unless the police could establish otherwise? As there was no news on that, I would guess they didn't get anywhere with this friend of Daniel's. At least nothing that can be proven in a court of law.
4 -
Just revisiting the blood stain. When I look at it again it appears to me that it maybe came from the sleeve of a jacket/jumper rather than a hand. The position is basically off the end of the handle, which is not where you would typically put your hand when pushing down on it.
Also there doesn't appear to be any blood on the handle itself, indicating the hands/gloves were clean at that point (perhaps gloves taken off etc.), or perhaps they tried to clean up both the handle and door, but the door held onto the blood easier than the metal handle perhaps.
0 -
It's quite possible that the killer made the stain, upon return to the house. Maybe looking for something like a diary or a notebook or something? This would indicate that at least the visit was planned and Sophie may have noted something down? Then he found the expensive bottle of French wine, Sophie most likely brought it with him, and he decided to take it with him, he left via the area in front of the house, but decided to dispose of the bottle somewhere in the grass as it would have tied him to the crime scene. All within the realm of possibilities. The police missed the bottle in their incompetence?
2 -
Thanks for the reply.
With regard to your comments on point 2: I think it was possible that the attacker was not aware that STDP was at home/in residence, that the attack was completely unplanned, and that the event arose from a dispute at the gate.
If your theory is right, and it was a planned assault, then it would follow that someone wanted her dead for a reason…..and that points to Daniel or Bruno. I also think that a planned attack would have incorporated some attempt to make it look like an accident.
On the exact location of the attack: I think the walking boots demonstrate Sophie's intent to go outside. Had she been attacked inside or at the door, I would have expected her to be in her slippers.
I cannot think of a reason for an attacker to carry her from the house, down to the gate.
1 -
It's just one of many possible theories.
Suppose, just to examine the matter further, Sophie was killed with a gun with say, a silencer. Then the modus operandi would have clearly looked like a professional hitman and pointed to an ordered kill with a clear intention and a clear benefactor of Sophie's death. This would have pointed to Daniel in an instant. The hitman with the firearm also would either have been local, from Ireland, otherwise he couldn't have smuggled the gun through airport security.
If Daniel was behind it, and hired a friend of a friend with shady connections to do the job it would have been somebody from mainland Europe, and that would have meant no firearm during the trip. Too risky, even in the suitcase….. And then there would have been strangulation, easy, "results oriented" and silent as well.
This is all another line and direction of enquiry and thoughts, all hypothetical of course.
The cavity block makes it look unplanned, unprofessional, emotional with strong anger and at the spur of the moment as part of a heated argument.
But what was the argument about, if it was an argument? To kill somebody over an open or closed gate is a bit a strong overreaction.
In absence of real evidence, one can only examine motives. Most crimes and murders are always about either financial gain/money/greed, drugs or sexual/jealousy matters.
2 -
I mean we have heard Sophie was somewhat feisty, and it would just take another hot headed person and some significant disagreement for things to escalate. Things like road rage etc, are pretty common causes of murder. I would think that in the escalation the perpetrator maybe began getting physical, and then realised they may have taken it too far. If they knew Sophie at all, and she could recognise them, they might be willing to murder them, hence the block. A lot of murders happen due to reputation control, not necessarily financially motivated.
0 -
I agree with your line of logic. An obviously professional hit would have immediately put the spotlight on Daniel. It is possible that it was a planned hit made to look like a "spur of the moment" thing.
I think a sexual motive can be ruled out.
The only person with a financial motive was Daniel.
A petty dispute which escalated to violence cannot be ruled out, and such cases are not, in fact, uncommon. People have been killed over car parking disputes.
2 -
Looking at the pictures again, in one of the few home videos that was released Sophie is sitting on the chair by the window in the kitchen looking out in the direction of the gate. Ominous really, quite chilling.
Note in the forensic photos the chair is actually turned 90 degrees parallel to the window, which would make it even easier to sit on and look out. I wonder was she observing things out the window down at the gate and then went on down.
1 -
In same video above you can see the fire tools, looks like one of them could be a small headed hatchet, second from left, hard to make out. Definitely tongs on the far left, with bellows and another tool on the right. It doesn't seem to show up in the forensic picture, the bellows and tongs do along with a shovel.
5 -
Advertisement
-
@jesuisjuste I'd guess it's more like a fireside set of tongs, shovel and poker near the bellows. An axe, even a light one, would have a much sturdier handle.
The taller object at the right of the bellows is more difficult to figure out but again the handle, although heavier, is too light to be an axe.
3