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

tinytobe

It seems Alfie and Shirley's former house is still for sale, - and has been for a while.

The plot of land seems rather large, but the location is a bit too remote for the asking price, - in my opinion.

It's probably the market rather than the history of the former owner/occupier and the murder.

https://www.daft.ie/for-sale/detached-house-dreenane-toormore-goleen-co-cork/4669521

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120910435#Comment_120910435

You'll notice from the photos that the shed is no longer part of what was Alfie's property. It has since become part of Pierre's property. It's also clear that there was no access to the paddock where the shed is from Alfie's house without passing passing along the rear of Sophie's house, right by her back door, or up through Sophie's front lawn, which is where I believe her intruder was headed that morning; the red line on the photo;

Inkedshed.jpg

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120910581#Comment_120910581

I was always surprised that there was a dispute about the shed, if there ever actually was one? In reality it doesn't matter what the estate agent says, what counts is what is in the land registry, the deed, etc.. And that's the solicitor's job to explain not the estate agent's. Sophie must have understood that.

I don't think the murder was really about a property dispute or a gate kept open or closed. Apparently nothing is known about Sophie's son having had a dispute with Alfie and Shirley later on. However, suppose, Alfie was using Sohpie's shed for something ( and that something is drug related, plus calling local Guards futile as they are in on it ) and Sophie's trip to Ireland was unexpeted to Alfie? She caught him in the act. Not implausible.

If Alfie was doing something illegal, he must have known the schedulle of all his neighbours, when they were present and when not, and when not, he could practically do what he wanted.

I suppose, after Alfie's death Shirley must have gotten tired of all the speculations, husband gone, and family back in England, all motivations enough to sell and leave.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120910670#Comment_120910670

" However, suppose, Alfie was using Sohpie's shed for something "

It was never Sophie's shed.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120910699#Comment_120910699

In picture 23 of 24 of the daft.ie ad the shed is clearly Sophie's, that is if we're talking about the one to the west of Sophie's house. Maybe it changed hands later on? No idea?

The one to the north of Sophie's house belongs to Alfie and Shirley, or at least so it seems on that picture.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120910711#Comment_120910711

Yes, Sophie's son Pierre-Louis, acquired/ bought? it from Alfie about 8 or 10 years after Sophie's death.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120910729#Comment_120910729

Thanks, I didn't know that.

One interesting thing is Sophie's house had at the time of the murder rarely any curtains to possibly cover the windows. Apparently Sophie wasn't scared or worried about privacy. I find that unusual for a woman, but maybe that was Sophie's style?

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120901775#Comment_120901775

Also, why was that Guard from Bantry who had a Fiesta never investigated?

One leaves this thread for a period of time only to come back to it later to hear the same old daft speculation.

So the randy guard from Bantry that had a penchant for foreign women owned a Fiesta now ?

Put all the all the hearsay, gossip and rumours together and you can build your very own composite suspect for free.

Ms Robini

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120910731#Comment_120910731

Would you find it unusual for a man? Are women supposed to be / inclined to be / expected to be different when it comes to curtains and privacy? If the lady wanted to enjoy her home and and the setting in Toormore and she wasn’t worried about people spying on her or looking in at her - bully for her. So what?! And why comment about her apparent lack of fear in reference to her gender? She was a human being and a fairly fearless one by all accounts. In retrospect, it’s possible that if she had been less courageous she might still be alive - she might have been too afraid to open the door that night - so many things might have been or could have been different. I reckon Sophie was not particularly attuned to any small minds who may have been wondering why she didn’t have curtains (!) or to those who would make insinuations about women who aren’t constantly covering themselves as the only appropriate response to men who might look in the windows at them. She comes across as a pretty interesting person who had no truck with that kind of small mindedness.

Ms Robini

I only wish she had used the other side of the small axe on the killer, instead of hitting him just to try to scare him off. She was entitled to defend herself - if she had only realised sooner that her life was in danger. Striking him with the sharp end instead of the butt of the axe could have saved her life. It must be so hard to have the coolness to think that fast and that straight though when you’ve been asleep and then you are woken up and confronted by a drunken 6ft+ man who is violent and practically out of his mind.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120910945#Comment_120910945

Why not comment on something which one finds unusual? Also why call somebody esle as small minded if they don't share your thougts?

And then would you spot someobody in the darkness outside, if you had you lights on in your house? Probably not? But somebody outside would have seen you, that is, if the lights were actually on.

Annascaul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120910945#Comment_120910945

Well you certainly don't want any creep watching, even from a distance with binoculars, when you're getting out of the bath tub or shower. And certainly not when you're a woman.

Some rooms seem to have curtain poles fixed above the windows, but no curtains, one seems to have a curtain hanging, one some kind of rug or carpet functioning as a curtain.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120910951#Comment_120910951

This is all just speculation \ a scenario. It might be how you think it played out but it is misrepresentation to present it as a statement of fact as though it is what actually happened. It just further muddies the waters describing it like that when there is no way you can know that is actually what transpired.

Ms Robini

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120911768#Comment_120911768

Thank you - I will take your feedback as I can see from your posts that you are expert in the act of misrepresentation.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120911768#Comment_120911768

It's actually the other way round. If you're using the butt of the axe you're "more successful", especially if it's about hitting somebody on the head. I only know this from the movie "Escape from Sobibor".

We don't know if the axe or any hatchet was used or the fire poke, to either kill or defend.

Ms Robini

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120911821#Comment_120911821

A blow to the head with the sharp end may have had a better chance of putting an end to his attack on her - she may have hesitated in using potentially lethal force, after all she was not intoxicated to the extent her attacker was, it’s natural for a person in full possession of their senses to recoil from the use of brutal force. Whereas he was blind drunk - and had a history of serious violence against women - including inflicting serious head injuries on women - when intoxicated.

I agree there is a lot that is not yet in the public domain... Let’s look at what we do know. We know that an injury was inflicted on Ian Bailey which left a wound on his forehead above the right eye. We know that the small axe usually kept inside the back door was observed to be missing from the scene. We know that an axe head was found in the remains of a fire at a neighbouring property to Jules Thomas and Ian Bailey in the aftermath of the murder.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912158#Comment_120912158

We also know Alfie Lyons had an injury so I take it you are giving him the same scrutiny that you are giving Bailey.

Can you send me a link for where you read that an axe head was found in a neighbour's fire - I haven't heard this before

tinytobe

Alfie would have been a bigger suspect at any rate than Bailey.

Alfie was known to be a drug user, Alfie had an injury, Alfie didn't have a good neighbourly relationship with Sophie and Alfie would have been together with his wife completely alone during that whole night of the murder.

Was Alfie ever tested for drugs after the murder? Not that it would have lead anywhere, but it's not impossible him being in a rage under the influence of drugs.

Regarding the poke / axe / hatchet, we don't know if it was used in the crime at all. We only know that it is missing, same as Sophie's diary. To date, I think the murder weapon would be the cavity block and a stone.

Musicrules

We know Alfie wasn't capable but we also know he had no history of this sort of violence. Bailey seriously injured Jules just months before the murder, so we know he had violent tendencies. He had opportunity and his own explanation of how the murder happened is a very plausible theory. He saw her in spar, he fancied her, he was under the influence, he left his home that night, he received injuries that he's attempted to explain with very flimsy excuses, he talked about something bad was going to happen in the area that night, he visited the scene to check what way the investigation was going, he had a suspicious fire behind his house, the list goes on. It may not have been Bailey but it's clear why he is the number 1 suspect.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912382#Comment_120912382

All of which the DPP looked at. You think the excuses were flimsy - the DPP did not.

So I could just as easily say the evidence against him is flimsy and circumstantial. It's clear why the DPP didn't proceed with a prosecution.

No motive. No evidence at the scene.

He visited the scene. So did how many others??? He was a local journalist. If he hadn't visited the scene it could have looked equally 'suspicious'.

And we don't really 'know' Alfie wasn't capable. We have no independent verification of that.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912219#Comment_120912219

"Can you send me a link for where you read that an axe head was found in a neighbour's fire - I haven't heard this before"

I wouldn't bother with it, it's nonsense. Mrs Jackson, Bailey's neighbour found an axe head in the remains of her bonfire. She thought it may have been used in the attack on Sophie. This would mean the axe was lying around near Bailey's house for 2 months just a mile from the Atlantic ocean. It wasn't a kindling axe.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912860#Comment_120912860

Thanks for clarifying.

It does highlight though that it was completely normal in the 90s for people to light fire's in their gardens to get rid of rubbish. Some people seem to think Bailey lighting a fire was very odd behaviour - it wasn't unusual at all at the time. It seems Mrs Jackson also liked to light outdoor fires

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912454#Comment_120912454

You think the DPP are infallible, I don't think they are.

There's no evidence for anyone at the scene so that's meaningless really. He stated the motive, he saw her in spar, he paid her a visit and was rejected, lost control and murdered her. That's from his mouth.

How much of a journalist was he really? How many articles had he published around that time? We've seen in other cases, the culprits like to get to the scene of their crime for various reasons. He got there early, earlier than he should have known based on some reports.

He also had the very recent case of extreme violence, he had a premonition that something bad was going to happen that night in the area of the murder, his whereabouts were unknown during that night, his story changed, he received injuries, he had the suspicious fire behind his house and so on. You can try to ignore all of these if you want but again, it doesn't mean he's guilty but it shows why he's the main suspect.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912936#Comment_120912936

Who says it was unusual? Didn't Bailey say he never started a fire behind his house? It wasn't just that a fire was started, it was what was burnt that caused suspicion.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913293#Comment_120913293

The DPP isnt infallible but they have more credibility than you for starters. So your description of flimsy excuses for injuries holds no weight when the same evidence was assessed by the DPP and Baileys version of events was accepted by the DPP.

Theres no evidence for Bailey at the crime scene yet you seem to think Bailey was injured there. Catch 22 and the DPP pointed this out.

Similarly the DPP looked at claims Bailey knew about things before he should and found nothing suspicious.

Yes he was a journalist and he filed stories about the crime.

Do you want to list all the people who went to the crime scene? You seem to think its evidence of something. So come on then give us the list? It means absolutely nothing in and of itself.

Well how many innocent people were at the crime scene?

And you think this is evidence???

You have absolutely no answer to the point it could have been viewed as suspicious if he didnt turn up.

So he turns up or doesnt turn up... sign of guilt!

So basically being at the scene, not being at the scene - it means nothing.

'Suspicious fire'? Its only suspicious cos Bailey was the one who lit it. It seems to be a common thing to do in the area.

This is confirmation bias not a rational assessment.

What about people in the vicinity with records for violence?

You dont even know do you?

Again - demonstrates the confirmation bias in your entire line of argument.

It is a recipe for a miscarriage of justice which is why the DPP multiple times has not proceeded with charges.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913293#Comment_120913293

So you would lock Bailey up based on all the above? Are you for real.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913329#Comment_120913329

Some people seem to think by burning clothing etc he must have done it. You yourself seem to think the fire was suspicious and unusual as mentioned in your 7.28 tonight. I'm pointing out it was normal for people in the 90s to burn all rubbish and unwanted goods. There was no such thing as a bin lorry going around to collect the rubbish. Shirley was on her way to the dump with her rubbish the day she found Sophie's body. Mrs Jackson also lit fires as I would imagine all people in the locality did. Why the fixation with Bailey's fire? I'm damn sure he wasn't the only one in the area to light a fire outside that week.

What was burnt that you think was suspicious?

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913353#Comment_120913353

So you agree that the DPP could have been wrong. That's a good start. Christmas tree scratches and a vicious turkey attacking Bailey are flimsy excuses.

There's no evidence for anyone at the scene so again that's meaningless. How early he showed up at the scene is in doubt. How many articles had he published in the months up to the murder?

We've seen numerous cases of culprits returning to the scene of their crime. Ian Huntley for example even went on a search for his victims.

If he didn't turn up or have whereabouts unknown on the night or have injuries or a history of violence or a suspicious fire behind his house or say he murdered her and so on, then there wouldn't be any suspicion. But he did, that's why he's the number 1 suspect.

It's suspicious because of what was burnt. Clothes, mattress, shoes. Again, you want to brush the violent tendancies, the lies, the motive he stated etc under the carpet but they're the reason he has remained under suspicion.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913383#Comment_120913383

What are you talking about?

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120913414#Comment_120913414

A fire isn't suspicious. A fire started so soon after a murder burning clothes, shoes etc added to all the other lies, dodgy stories, motive etc is suspicious.