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

Evergreen_7

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121652558#Comment_121652558

Paywalled

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121652809#Comment_121652809

It's a 'free' article on IT but we only get 3 of these a week :(

This is the only piece from AGS in it:

In a statement on Sunday night, the Garda said the investigation into the murder remained “active and ongoing” with assistance from the Garda serious crime review team.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121652809#Comment_121652809

https://archive.ph/luvit

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121651967#Comment_121651967

The notion of a drunk clumsy idiot hiking cross country on a cold December night/morning to knock on a strangers door for sex, murders her and then leaves not a shred of evidence despite being drunk is also very far fetched.

Evergreen_7

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121652838#Comment_121652838

Thankyou

Hangdogroad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121651082#Comment_121651082

There have been numerous cases before the courts where women sided with their childrens abusers, so "maternal protection" is greatly exagerated. Not saying this was the case with Jules Thomas but your argument is very weak.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121652861#Comment_121652861

Almost as far fetched as getting out of bed drunk to write a news article for the following Sundays paper

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121653237#Comment_121653237

Theres lots of far fetched tales in this mystery - There also was mother of 5 supposed to be not in her bed with her husband that night but out with another man in the middle of nowhere on a cold night- Whats your opinion on the bold Marie?

lbunnae

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121652861#Comment_121652861

This has been said a few times. This case is “far fetched” literally no matter what happened.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121653298#Comment_121653298

No idea , was there some fabricated evidence in the mix , not too familiar with the Marie part

I assume the gardai were trying to build the case around their working theory and suspect

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121653469#Comment_121653469

not too familiar with the Marie part

With her differing versions of events, I don't think she is too familiar with her part either!

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121653544#Comment_121653544

I'm not overly familiar except I knew that piece of evidence was dodgy

I've no issue believing the gardai tried to build the case around their chief suspect by means fair or foul

Adding everything we know up , the alibi evidence , the scratches evidence , the Garda working theory(the rage crime theory), etc leads me to conclude that it was probably bailey

And of course that is merely my opinion

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121653380#Comment_121653380

There might be a simple and obvious explanation, found in the locality. An Occam’s Razor, that had nothing to do with Ian Bailey.

tomhammer..

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HFl77eI3KQ4

😁 No not his french hitman theory

A mystery suspect now deceased

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121653469#Comment_121653469

Well if you are not familiar with Maries stories than you know very little about the entire saga surrounding this murder. I think you need to listen to West Cork podcast.

lbunnae

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121653703#Comment_121653703

how is there simple and obvious explanation for this murder? Like what would an example of that even look like? But yeah of course it might be not have been Bailey but he is the Occam’s razor in this case, that’s if I’m understanding the term I’ve just read haha

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121653818#Comment_121653818

Occam's razor theory contends that the solution which makes the least assumptions is most likely to be correct.

There is no proposed theory in this case which doesn't make asumptions. As to which makes the least...that's a matter for debate.

To me, the evidence as presented to the DPP for a decision on prosecution was

a) purely circumstantial

and

b) weak/contrived.

lbunnae

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121653990#Comment_121653990

So no theory from you then. Cool! The main theory is that Bailey did it. Therefore that theory makes the least assumptions no?

orangerhyme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121653990#Comment_121653990

According to Occam's Razor, Ian Bailey is the prime suspect.

He knew the victim.

He knew where she lived in a hard to find location.

He was nearby and awake at time of the murder.

He had access to a car to drive to her house and back in time.

He has no alibi.

He has a history of violence against women.

He had scratches on face and hands which is suspicious considering the victim was found entangled in briars.

He knew information about the murder before it was made public.

He admitted it at least twice.

When a journalist phoned him to say a French woman was killed, he knew which house immediately.

These are facts, not assumptions.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121653994#Comment_121653994

There are a number of theories.

1) Baily

2) Arranged by her husband.

3) Alfie Lyons/Shirley Foster

4) Bruno Carbonnet

5) The locally based German, who subsequently comitted suicide.

6) The Garda

7) Dr drug runners

I don't really have an opinion on who actually did it. There's simply insufficient evidence to incriminate anyone.

But I do have an opinion on who didn't do it. I have read and studied the evidence presented against Baily and have fromed the opinion that he was not involved.

I am not aware of any similar book of evidence regarding the other theories so I have not formed an opinion.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654055#Comment_121654055

Nope.

For starters, there is considerable doubt as to whether he knew the victim, unless you simply mean he knew of her existence in that cottage.

Lots of people in the area tick many of those above boxes OR there are perfectly innocent explanations for them. The net you have cast is so wide you have hundreds of innocent people in it, of which Bailey could easily be one. That is not Occam's Razor. That is reverse logic to arrive at a pre-ordained answer.

You have stated the above are 'facts' not assumptions, but then you insert your own opinion as to what is "suspicious", which is not a fact.

All of the above points are debateable, were examined by the DPP and found to be insufficient

csirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121653990#Comment_121653990

The theory with the least off the wall/improbable events is that it was an aggravated burgalry gone wrong. SDT went out and approached some unexpected visitors.

People being killed or seriously injured in this type of crime was unfortunatetly common enough in that era.

lbunnae

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654098#Comment_121654098

That’s fair enough you’re entitled to your opinion, it’s not the same as mine.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654055#Comment_121654055

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654055#Comment_121654055

According to Occam's Razor, Ian Bailey is the prime suspect.

He knew the victim.

There was no known association between Bailey and Sophie. Alfie Lyons was 90% sure that he may have introduced them briefly. A brief introduction does not constitute an association. There are no witnesses who ever saw them together, no evidence of any communication between them, no correspondence, telephone records etc etc.

On the other hand most of thje other possible suspects knew her well

He knew where she lived in a hard to find location.

So did her husband, Alfie, Shirly, the Ungerers, Bruno etc.

He was nearby and awake at time of the murder.

There is no evidence whatsoever that puts Bailey at Sophie's house. And Baily was an hour's walk away.

On the other hand, Alfie and Shirley were definitely at the scene.

He had access to a car to drive to her house and back in time.

His car was forensically examined. No links to Sophie or murdere site were found.

He has no alibi

Neither did Alfie

He has a history of violence against women.

Not evidence of involvement in this crime.

He had scratches on face and hands which is suspicious considering the victim was found entangled in briars.

He was observed climbing a pine tree to lop the top off to use as a christmas tree, and dragging it home. A dermatologist observed him shortly afterwards and reported nothing unusual.

Also Alfie Lyons had a bandaged had when interviewed by Garda Prendegast that morning.

He knew information about the murder before it was made public.

He did not. And a poster on this site (Bannasidhe) who was a personal friend of Shirley and Alfie was informed of the murder at 12:00 that morning.....so the word was out much earlier than the first radio/tv reports

He admitted it at least twice.

He made ill advised black jokes which the DPP correcxtly dismissed as just that.

When a journalist phoned him to say a French woman was killed, he knew which house immediately.

He certainly knew of her. So did many others.

Most importantly. The only plausible motive for Baily was sex. So it is necessary to make the assumption that sex was the motive, to incriminate Bailey. And , again, there is no evidence to support such an assumption.

orangerhyme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654109#Comment_121654109

STDP knew very few people in the area.

She lived in France and would visit once or twice a year.

Ian Bailey said he knew her in the sense that he knew what she looked like and where she lived. Alfie Lyons said he's 90% certain he introduced them.

So it's a fact that Ian Bailey knew her, not in an intimate sense but they weren't complete strangers.

It's not "opinion" that scratches are suspicious, it's a fact. When women are attacked they often scratch the attacker. Also her body was found in briars. The fact that he had these scratches at the same time as her murder is suspicious, it's not opinion.

It's not casting a wide net either. It's a sparsely populated rural area. Her house is very hard to find, way off the main road. She rarely visited Ireland. How many people in Ireland knew her and where she lived? Very few. Less than 10 if I had to guess.

The big assumption is that the person who killed her actually knew her, rather than it being random, but the majority of assaults and murders and rapes are done by someone known to the victim.

So if you narrow down the list of suspects to someone who knew her, knew where she lived, was nearby, has no alibi, has a history of violence against women, had scratches on their person just after the murder, you land on probably just one person.

Also how many people knew she was in West Cork at the time? Very few. I don't Ian Bailey even knew this.

lbunnae

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654266#Comment_121654266

He has a history of violence against women.

Not evidence of involvement in this crime.

You think this means absolute nothing in the context of the murder of a woman do you?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654291#Comment_121654291

You don't have a clue on most of those points how many people it applies to. It is unknown. You have absolutely no idea. You are casting a net you don't even know the size of. It is desperation stuff.

You are just reverse engineering these points to arrive at Bailey.

So you simply don't know how many people knew those things. When you then start picking figures, they are plainly out of thin air. They are not facts.

Narrow down the list of suspects. What suspects? What's the list of all the people who knew SDP was in the area, had access to a car, and no confirmed alibi? Well? You don't have a clue.

It is not a "fact" that scratches are in and of themselves suspicious. That is just meaningless abuse of language.

What's the Occam's Razor on Bailey supposedly carrying out this murder at night, supposedly in a drunken rage, supposedly scratched at the scene - and yet leaving ZERO trace, and yet several days later when witnessed by a dermatologist having no signs of briar scratches???

orangerhyme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654350#Comment_121654350

That's how investigations work.

You start with people closest to the victim and work outwards. With women you first look at husband's, bfs, ex's etc. You look for people with motive.

It's a fact that he had scratches. Ian Bailey admitted it. Jules Thomas said it. The Gardai said it but instead of taking a photo, they did a drawing.

It isn't "desperation stuff" to say she knew very few people in the area. It's been stated numerous times.

And yes it is a "fact" that scratches in this instance are suspicious.

It's not unusual to leave "zero trace". The murder weapons were a rock and a block. If he wasn't cut, what trace would he leave?

It is unusual that no dna was found under her nails though.

tomhammer..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121654055#Comment_121654055

If ya took a poll on OJ Simpsons guilt ya'd probably get a large % saying not guilty

Same here so much pointing towards Bailey as chief suspect , well summarised by senan Maloney today and there's a large percentage adamant he's innocent

Gussie Scrotch

It is evidence of his capability to resort to violence. No more than that.

And, sadly, there were many more men capable of domestic violence in west Cork