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

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120937337#Comment_120937337

Guy said Sophie mentioned him when Sophie and Guy met on 19th December to discuss some film project Sophie and Guy were working on (he was the film director) but he wasn't sure in what context she mentioned Ian's name.

Guy was aware of Ian Bailey being a suspect in February 1997 but yet he didn't think of contacting the Gardaí with this information until more than two years after that again.

Why the long delay in contacting the Gardaí if he was aware of a possible connection in February 1997?

There doesn't appear to be anything to indicate Guy mentioned this information to anyone else at the time.

Examination of both Ian's and Sophie's personal papers didn't show anything to indicate they knew each other or had any connection whatsoever.

Ms Robini

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120937491#Comment_120937491

A person like Guy Girard (a native French speaker living in France and not in Ireland) would not reasonably be expected to know that Ian Bailey was claiming he did not know Sophie. Therefore, it is not reasonable to expect him to have known in February 1997 that the information he had that indicated Sophie knew Ian Bailey stemming from the conversation he had with Sophie in December 1996 was information that would be useful to the Gardaí. In that context, it is very clear why Girard did not proactively seek to communicate that information to the Irish police in February 1997.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120937752#Comment_120937752

It is questionable why a murder victim mentioning the murder suspect's name shortly before travelling to where she was murdered and would have known few people would not have been considered relevant at the time, whether or not the murder suspect acknowledged or denied knowing the murder victim.

Ms Robini

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120938244#Comment_120938244

You might think so; but it is reasonable that a person in Girard’s position didn’t consider the fact of Sophie knowing Ian to be particularly material - I understand he believed their knowing each other was not in contention. Why would he contact the police and say ‘I know that Sophie knew Ian’ if he believed - quite reasonably - that their knowing each other wasn’t in contention.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120937752#Comment_120937752

"He added: "After about five or six weeks,( After the murder) I heard the name Eoin Bailey in the context of the investigation into Sophie's death and I immediately made the connection," he said.

Mr Girard did not come forward until more than two years later in March 1999, when he flew to Ireland to make a statement at Bantry garda station."

He "immediately made the connection" in February 1997

He claimed Sophie mentioned Ian or Eoin Bailey about 3 times, but could not remember in what context.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/film-director-is-key-sophie-du-plantier-witness-say-french-authorities/30242064.html

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120934044#Comment_120934044

I don't believe Bailey over every testimony against him. I apply the same critical view to all testimony, and like the DPP find the available information is tenuous, inconsistent and requires a substantial amount of assumption to build a case about any of the potential suspects.

The same can be said about other suspects there is nothing to place them at the scene of the murder on the night and nothing to show a motive.

Because people often seem to be trying to retro-fit testimony to the conclusion that Bailey is the murderer I often find myself playing devil's advocate to point out flaws in the testimony and reasoning.

Take the famous black coat for example. If he was wearing it the night of the murder how would have gotten scratches on his arms. If he wasn't, how come no dna from any of the scratches was found at the scene. It was supposed to have been seen soaking in a bucket or bath but yet he was wearing it the day of the swim. It was supposed to have gone missing but yet it was recorded in the evidence book and forensic examination of the coat yielded nothing.

The testimony is so full of such inconsistancies that it is impossible to reach any reasonable conclusion about anybody.

Padraig Mor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120937381#Comment_120937381

Lol, Bailey wore a hat to cover a wound - guilty! Bailey wears a hat nearly every time he's outside FFS. Just do an image search on his name.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120937381#Comment_120937381

It's all rather thin gruel isn't it to make a conviction out of?

You were asked what he did that was suspicious and you have come up with very little except reverse logic.

He tended to put himself front and centre so regardless of whether he was the murderer, we could have expected him to turn up at a crime scene, to be asking questions. He was that kind of guy. Nothing suspicious about a journalist who lived in the vicinity going to a crime scene and asking questions. He filed stories about the case.

He did things that were 'odd'. This was before the murder. So why would it be suspicious to murder if he acted oddly afterwards, regardless of whether he was the murderer? Maybe he is just 'odd'? Miscarriages of justice are more likely to occur to someone seen as a bit 'odd', and an outsider. Christopher Jeffries was a different sort of odd. Police forces fixate on these characters but there is a risk in doing so.

If he was trying to hide the scratches, why would we he be out about about without a hat before xmas day eg in a pub? So why is it suspicious he wore a hat in December that matched his coat???

He made no attempt to hide the wounds on his arms, either at the xmas day swim or in pub or other interactions.

Given the time of year, it would have been do-able to conceal them with gloves, hat and stick to that. Or just take to bed with a cold and a bottle of whiskey.

If he was trying to hide them, he didn't do a very good job did he?

Similarly the off the cuff comments can be read either way. An innocent person might make sarcastic type remarks without knowing what was to come that look bad in hindsight. A guilty person might be more circumspect.

Maybe he is the culprit, but it would be a highly implausible scenario if it did pan out that way. And not just the scenario, but for him not to have been seen, heard by the neighbours in such a brutal attack; or leave any trace at the scene. Despite it supposedly being unplanned, chaotic and done in a drunken rage. Anything is possible - maybe he did get the scratches from the turkeys and is still the murderer.

But having looked at the evidence, and the spotlight AGS shone on him by fair means and foul, and they came up with so little. That's why I think the spotlight needs to be shone elsewhere now.

tinytobe

Why is there so much discussion if Bailey knew Sophie before the murder? Knowing someobody or even telling a lie of knowing or not knowing somebody doens't prove murder.

Same about his scratches? If Bailey's DNA wasn't found on Sophie or at the murder scene, Bailey's scratches simply couldn't have com from murdering Sophie.

Bailey must have gotten these scratches somewhere else, and his DNA would be somewhere other than on the victim or the murder scene.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120938792#Comment_120938792

What does to know someone even mean in this context. Even if Bailey was briefly introduced to Sophie - and the evidence is dodgy - is that enough to say you know them?

Or does that just mean to just know of them / know who they are.

It shows how weak the evidence is against so much time spent on indirect, circumstantial points.

chicorytip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120935820#Comment_120935820

Well, write me a better one than my own given, as you point out, there is no evidence to disprove it.

Any of you who are experts at interpreting body language might recall the interview the stone cold sober Bailey once gave to Vincent Browne for TV3. At the very end Browne, in typical fashion, asks Bailey : "Did you kill Sophie Toscan Du Plantier?". His startled expression and stuttered denial would not give the impression of him being an innocent man.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120939522#Comment_120939522

I don;t recall the interview but I giess if I was thrown a question like that on national tv, I'd probably react in a similar manner with a startled and stuttered reply

Ms Robini

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120938634#Comment_120938634

Apologies if you feel I didn’t give enough examples of the suspicious circumstances surrounding Ian Bailey in the aftermath of the murder - I’ll attempt to give examples here again now:

The scratches to his hands and lower arms which closely resembled the scratch marks observed on Sophie

The wound on his forehead over his right eye observed to be fresh and have blood on it the morning of 23 December 1996

The burning of his clothes in a bonfire on or about 26 December 1996

The statements made to Florence Newman at the Christmas Day swim about putting his trust in God and that he had nothing else to say and she could contact his solicitor

The changing of his account of his movements during the early hours of 23 December 1996

The lack of alibi for the time when Sophie was killed

The multiple confessions and admissions where he told people he had murdered Sophie and outlined the motive for going to her house that night

The information he had about the murder before that information was known by anyone else

The articles he wrote about the murder and the attempts he made in those articles to discredit Sophie and to portray her as a woman who had taken several men to her house in West Cork for sex

The statement made at Russell Barrett’s house about being found guilty but insane for having murdered Sophie

Steadfastly denying knowing Sophie or having been introduced to her in circumstances where numerous other people have given statements that they were known to each other

Exerting pressure on Marie Farrell to withdraw her statements as witnessed by Geraldine O’Brien

Not being able or willing to give a straightforward answer in recent interviews when asked what he thought should happen to the person who murdered Sophie

One of these factors on their own might not be enough to suspect him but when taken together, he is a Good Suspect. I don’t think these reasons are the only reasons to suspect him - but those are some of the reasons I can think of right now, based on how he behaved after the murder and continues to behave to the present day.

Ms Robini

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120939522#Comment_120939522

I must watch that Vincent Brown interview, thank you for reminding me of it.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120939647#Comment_120939647

The scratches on the hand we specifically discussed in detail in the previous post and I pointed out how easy to hide them. Now you can disagree with those points, but why would then re-list in an example??? It's just beating the same dead horse. It's not debating, it's just a gish gallop.

The DPP looked at the evidence. All of the points you have made. Either dismissed the points as irrelevant, or accepted Bailey's version of events (on the scratches\wounds, so called confessions, so called advance knowledge of the murder or knowing about it before he should) or inconclusive.

How is a journalist writing an article about a crime suspicious??? How many journalists wrote about that crime? Well?? This is absolute desperation stuff to list that as a piece of evidence. Sure lock up every journalist who covers a murder then.

It is just reverse engineering something to fit a prejudged decision. A recipe for a miscarriage of justice.

You don't seem to dispute that the DPP was correct not to press charges.

So it all comes back to, the evidence against Bailey is indirect, and not sufficient to even warrant a prosecution.

And that despite a huge Garda spotlight being shone on him, using fair means and foul.

Ms Robini

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120939755#Comment_120939755

My point is that it is suspicious that Bailey sought to portray Sophie in those articles as someone who was promiscuous and it is suspicious that he should go to the bother of making that up. Why would he do that???

To be fair, we have different opinions. You think the examples I’ve given are ‘desperation stuff’ - I often read the points you make and find them risible.

chicorytip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120939661#Comment_120939661

You may have difficulty finding it. I couldn't find the particular clip anywhere online. I was just recounting from memory.

chicorytip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120939548#Comment_120939548

Yes, maybe. I just thought a man who was completely innocent would have responded in a more convincing manner.

Padraig Mor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120939647#Comment_120939647

Y'see, this is the problem with this thread. Every couple of pages someone lists out similar to the above as some sort of 'gotcha' when in reality the various points run the gamut from 'in a certain light, this could indeed be taken as circumstantial evidence', through 'a complete misrepresentation of events' to 'that's simply untrue'. Nearly need a sticky at this stage.....

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120939831#Comment_120939831

Its not remotely suspicious.

Sex sells.

Lock up every tabloid journalist for murder if this is suspicious.

eightieschewbaccy

I'm a bit lost on why scratches are being used as proof. If there was no DNA evidence, it's pretty implausible that they arose from killing her. The fact that individual pieces of evidences fall apart so quickly isn't a great sign of how credible the case is.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120940219#Comment_120940219

Myself as well.

I think most things here discussed is due to the absence of real decent evidence. There is simply nothing, even though some refuse to believe that, and still believe they all point to Bailey.

Since Bailey's DNA isn't on the brambles and the briars, or on Sophie's body, or her fingernails or anywhere in the house, Bailey doensn't even have to say where he got the scratches. It's irrelevant where he got them, as they can't be linked to the crime scene.

It's more plausible Bailey got the scratches from a fight with Jules and Jules didn't want to implicate him again, and killing the turkey and chopping the tree is just made up. All possible and all unrelated to the crime of murder.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120940219#Comment_120940219

If he was wearing a coat how would have gotten scratches on his arms? or are we to believe he went walkabout for two or three hours in winter in a tee shirt? and if he did how would it be relvevant whether his coat was soaking in a bath (or bucket) of bleach, but magically dry enough to wear the day of the Christmas swim, but burned in a fire, but recorded in the evidence book and forensically examined. The more you look at it, the more nonsensical it all seems.

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120940248#Comment_120940248

How is it possible that the only DNA was Sophie's? On fingernails, brambles, the door, the gate, clothing etc. How?

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120940973#Comment_120940973

There was a spot of unidentified male blood on one of her boots and unidentified fingerprints in her house though it can't be certain either belong to her murderer.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120940973#Comment_120940973

Either the Gards were so incompetent to collect any DNA, or DNA was collected but it was tampered with by a corrupt Gard, or there was simply no DNA and the killer was very careful or had time to clean up thoroughly.

Suppose Sophie didn't get the scratches by defending herself, but the body was dragged or the scratches were administered after the murder had taken place to lead the inviestigation in another direction. All possible.

We don't know the answer here.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120940973#Comment_120940973

You never know, in light of the recent Nora Sheehan case, the murderer, if they're still alive, must be worried.

It's the luck of the draw, I suppose. I mean what were the chances of a forensic scientist holidaying nearby and preserving the DNA that finally caught Noel Long;

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/revealed-how-justice-was-finally-served-42-years-after-murder-of-cork-woman-nora-sheehan/a98103886.html

Ms Robini

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120939993#Comment_120939993

What for? Beating people to death with it?

Ms Robini

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120940054#Comment_120940054

It’s suspicious that he sought to portray her in that light. It wasn’t true, it had no basis in fact, he made it up. Why? To make her look bad? To make it look like in some way she had it coming to her and to suggest that one of her many lovers probably did it or that her husband was sick of her and so he did it or arranged it? The stuff Bailey put in those articles he wrote about Sophie made her out to be someone she wasn’t and he did that deliberately. A journalist (using the term loosely) who made these things up about a murder victim is suspicious in that it was dishonest and questionable behaviour and would make you wonder what possible motive he could have had for writing it and - given all the other things about him which are suspicious - whether he was involved in her murder.

FishOnABike

@Ms Robini Sophie had stayed at the cottage with Bruno Carbonnet previously and had stayed there with her husband and family on other occasions. That might have caused local tongues to wag a bit, especially back in the Ireland of 1996.

Multiple reports have also said that she was thinking of divorcing Daniel and remarrying her first husband.

Limited divorce had only been legalised in Ireland barely six months earlier following the slimmest of mragins in a referendum the previous November.

There's no need or cause to ascribe any malicious intent to a journalist writing about aspects of Sophie's life that were very much topical at the time that might have been relevant and we're very much against the social mores of a then very conservative Ireland. Over 75% of female murder victims are murdered by someone they know well - partner, family, friend or someone else they know.

There's nothing suspicious about a journalist writing about one of the biggest breaking stories in the region.