Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed. **Threadbans lifted - see OP**

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122638862#Comment_122638862

Not been on this thread for a long time now, probably because of some of the typical A.H. bullshít posters. (Might be a bit better now it's in Current Affairs/IMHO?)

She did say Alfie had withered hand/wrist from old injury and suffered from breathlessness from years of smoking and had to give up working in the Arbutus bakery as he was struggling to knead the dough. A tribute here from the owner,

https://www.arbutusbread.com/single-post/goodbye-to-dear-friends

Interesting post linked here several times about meeting Bailey at Shirley's party.

I believe she is a mod over on Atheism & Agnosticism.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122638844#Comment_122638844

It’s funny you mention the “parking space” killing- I was thinking of just that when I posted yesterday - the brutality certainly fits some sort of psychosis - but let’s be clear here, the “parking space” killing was very much as a result of an established mental illness - now could they do such violence in such a state without leaving DNA behind? I don’t honestly know. If wrapped up in gloves coat etc I don’t see why not - but you’d imagine they would have been found wandering somewhere or that someone else would have had to look after them post murder - they certainly would have been in a major state that would have alerted “someone” .
I don’t think they could have presented to the world as “normal” that’s for sure.

While the above may fit your scenario, I just don’t see it as being likely that’s all- this wasn’t bull McCabe and his beloved field - it would have been over a gate - and anyway given the time of night or early morning it’s just not reasonable to think that would be a time when an argument would break out - throughout the day, morning afternoon, certainly - but at half past mad hour when most are still in bed? No doesn’t make sense.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122638844#Comment_122638844

The question on why Alfie and Shirley didn't hear anything is one that continues till this day, no matter if they were involved or not.

On speculation that the murder happened purely in a rage, there is only a limited choice of murderers who might fit the picture. Sophie was far to few times at her cottage to have any enemies ( just one or two weeks would be rather short to make strong enemies), so if the murder was caused by rage she must have made a real enemy over a longer time. To a strong likelyhood that was somebody she already knew.

Both Alfie, as well as Bolger as well as Hellens had brushes with the law in the past. The family of the latter she entrusted the keys, the other one was friends with her neighbour whom she didn't get on with and who had a clear drug history.

Also her visit around Christmas was out of her normal routine. It is speculatively possible that she "disturbed" somebody simply by her presence and was causing a rage to somebody else. It's also not impossible to speculate that the killer who was in rage, was a bit high on drugs himself…..

Certainly a rage can occur out of sexual rejection, but it's hard to imagine that, if there was no sign of rape or attempted rape. Clothes were still on, not torn around her breasts or further below etc…

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122638632#Comment_122638632

With an unknown weirdo / transient - you’d imagine theft would have occurred - money/handbag etc Most likely they would have had a mental illness of some description given their off the grid type existence - but again, post murder, they would have stood out - considering they would have been walking , someone would have seen them somewhere and they would have been in a fair state I’d say.

Which brings me back to Bailey and the sighting at the bridge - I wish to god we could get a definitive answer to just what did Farrell see or not see that night, when and where. For me that was one of the key reasons Bailey became and remained a suspect

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122639025#Comment_122639025

I think robbery and theft can be rather safely ruled out.

The problem is that the Gards coerced Marie Farrell, and the further insistance of the judge wanting to know the irrelevant question which man she was with that night made things even worse, thus it's hard to make out what she really saw and what not. The fact that she lied, was coerced, left the courtroom during a session makes her very incredible in every way.

It is my understanding that Marie Farrell stated at some time later that she's seen a man in a dark coat who was considerably smaller than Bailey.

Overall I think the Kealfadda bridge sighting is irrelevant here. Who cares if there was a man there or not, or even if it was Bailey. Alfie and Shirley would have been way closer to the murder site, at the time of the murder anyway. And presence at Kealfadda bridge simply never means murder.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122638994#Comment_122638994

 "this wasn’t bull McCabe and his beloved field - it would have been over a gate - "

The gate from the lane into Sophie's lawn was a boundary. The gate at the back of Sophie's house was a boundary. I believe someone crossed the boundary and was trespassing on Sophie's property, either across the lawn in front of her her house, or along the lane at the back of her house by her back door. The gate in the lane leading up to all 3 properties there was not Sophie's gate. She might in the past have liked it kept closed, but she had lately installed 2 new gates and a fence to secure her property. You're right, it wasn't a Bull McCabe row over a field, rather a row over a right of way to a field. IMO. As for the time of the attack, well it can be anytime.

iMac Hunt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122639009#Comment_122639009

Just on Alfie and Shirley not hearing anything I wonder was it ever tested if it was possible to hear screams from the gate area, as in have someone in the bedroom of Alfie and Shirley with the windows shut (presumably because it was winter) and then have someone down at the gate scream and see if that could be heard from inside the bedroom?

happyoutscan

Alfie and Shirley are a hell of a lot more suspect to me than Ian Bailey.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122639124#Comment_122639124

I would imagine one would hear screams if the windows were closed, provided that it was simple single glazing and an older window. However there was also a conservatory to one side as well. If it was tested or not, is not known to me. However it should have been.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122639059#Comment_122639059

it doesn’t make sense for it to be in the middle of the night- such rows would happen in day time if they were to happen at all.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122639138#Comment_122639138

My speculation is that under the condition that the motive for the killing was purely rage, it would hardly have been quiet. Thus Alfie and Shirley must have heard something at some point but don't want to admit that for whatever reason. That is if they were not involved themselves.

The cavity blocks at the pump house were also not so easy to dislocate. One would have to have used considerable force to do so, and also needed a bit of time to do so. This would imply that the killer was a stronger male who would think that getting at this cavity block was the easiest and fastest choice to kill somebody with. This would also imply that the killer hit Sophie with something else previously, to incapacitate her for a while, and then finish her off with the cavity block.

When it comes to the rage speculation, my gut feeling points more to Finbar Hellens than to Bailey. For once there was a connection between Sophie and the Hellens regarding the house and the caretaking. Also were they not using her land as well? grazing horses? Finbar also had a brush with the law once, about something concerning violence. Also the Hellens were long established in the area, Bailey was basically a blow in like Sophie, and as far as we know Bailey never met Sophie.

Regardless of speculation the connection between Sophie and Finbar was a lot closer than between Sophie and Ian.

nc6000

I thought Alfie's hand was bandaged because a dog he was minding bit him? 🤔

champchamp

Regarding hearing screams - I grew up in a country house on the side of one of our national roads. Our nearest neighbours were over a KM away.

One night a car crashed into a grader that was parked outside our house (the road was being resurfaced at the time) and unfortunately one of the occupants was killed. The window in our garage was cracked from flying debris and also there were emergency services at the scene (Ambulance, Gardai etc). Not one of us in the house heard anything or woke up, it wasn't until the next morning when we saw the devastation outside that we knew something had happened.

So I'd give Alfie and Shirley a pass on the "not hearing anything"...

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122639239#Comment_122639239

For me “connection” is everything - I don't see Bailey having the sort of connection that would bring him there in the middle of the night - I just don’t see it - and I don’t believe even with a “brief introduction” that that would have been enough - Bailey abused women he knew- whom he was close to - he didn’t form relationships by abusing that person on a first date -

I’ve no doubt in the early days of his relationships where he did eventually become abusive he presented first as a gentleman with perfect table manners.

It was only later that the violence came out. I’d say personality wise he was no different to any other domestic abuser - town angel house devil - until later years when drink and hash probably destroyed and took over his personality that even his town persona reflected his true character.

If he was sozzled arriving at Sophie’s house I’d say his first port of call would have been Alfie’s house to see if a party was going on- so Alfie would have reported Bailey knocking on the door in a drunken stopper - he didn’t.

If he went to Sophie’s house sozzled why on earth would she open the door to a strange man or someone vaguely familiar with , pissed out of his head. And if pissed out of his head, he wouldn’t have been in any condition to do what was done to Sophie and then go back home unnoticed appearing totally normal the following day

Which leaves the scenario of sobriety- if Bailey had indeed walked himself sober- even less likely he would have been motivated to behave in the manner that this person who killed Sophie did.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122639343#Comment_122639343

totally - it could well be argued if you’re someone who sleeps soundly at night a distant scream is not necessarily something that would rouse you from your sleep - that’s if it even came within earshot . And who’s to say there even was a scream in the first place.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122639357#Comment_122639357

I would agree with you that if Bailey walked or stumbled drunk towards those houses, his first port of call would have been Alfie's. He knew him, he did some work for him, they were aquainted and there was no feud I am aware of between them. However it would also have been 2 or 2.30 am if he'd arrived there, if there was no light on, no voices, it would have meant no party. He would possibly have turned around as well.

Bailey's main problem was alcohol and what he did to Jules. However cheating and chasing other women, in the sexual sense wasn't even part of his life, as far as I know.

The matter of "connection" and Sophie would even go further than that.

Sophie was in my mind totally naive and blinded by love for a country, bought a house in a foreign land surrounded by people she didn't know and very few she could trust.

Apart from the Ungerers and maybe Shirley ( if she wasn' involved ) everyone she had a connection with had some kind of issues prior in their lives.

For Alfie and Bolger it was drugs, Finbar Hellens some violent incident prior, his wife looking after the house, a couple of corrupt Gards involved in giving drugs to transients or coercing a witness would let one think to believe what else would these Gards be capable of... And then there could have been the odd sexual preditor taking an interest in a single woman travelling alone, staying alone in a house.

Her presence in Ireland was also always way too short to make any meaningful and decent friends and aquaintances, most likely this was also limited due to the remoteness and the choices of people.

So if it wasn't her husband Daniel sending somebody, it would have to have been one of the mentioned other shady characters in terms of speculation.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122639486#Comment_122639486

And I’m not saying Bailey didn’t belong on a list of suspects- he did- but so too did those other shady characters

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122639357#Comment_122639357

If he went to Sophie’s house sozzled why on earth would she open the door to a strange man or someone vaguely familiar with , pissed out of his head. And if pissed out of his head, he wouldn’t have been in any condition to do what was done to Sophie and then go back home unnoticed appearing totally normal the following day

…which also raises the question, why would she take off her slippers and put on her boots if she was just answering the door (regardless of who was at the door)?

head82

Didn't Shirley state that on the morning she discovered the body while driving to the dump, she stopped the car and shouted for Alfie but he didn't hear her so she had to traipse back to the house to alert him?

If Alfie couldn't hear Shirley at that hour of the morning when I assume he was awake, I suppose it's safe to assume that any sound of a scuffle or scream at the time of the actual murder could potentially go unnoticed.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122639653#Comment_122639653

Not sure it makes it any safer?

Either you believe both or doubt both comments... same source and no independent verification.

head82

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122639612#Comment_122639612

I believe Sophie was in the habit of wearing those boots while walking around the tiled floor downstairs as the floor would have been cold and apparently those boots never went upstairs. She did have slippers but they were for upstairs use only and found at the side of her bath.

She need not have necessarily put them on to stroll down the laneway.

tinytobe

What I've been wondering:

Is it known to whom the Guards spoke to during that trip to Paris?

Is it known in which or what kind of relationship he was to Daniel or Sophie?

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122639612#Comment_122639612

Good point - yeah something brought her outside - a noise, arrival of a car, a shout - or else as some said someone known to her was present in the house -but then fingerprints, DNA , “something” would have been left there.

I’d be well open to it still being Bailey if some massive piece of significant new evidence came about - not necessarily a smoking gun like DNA but even a stack of love letters or diary entries talking about Bailey - then I’d absolutely be open to it being Bailey as that would completely undermine his stated lack of knowledge of her in terms of any meeting.

I do hope whatever goes to the DPP this time has some level of credibility and that it’s just not yet another square peg being forced into a round hole- that would just be an insult to everyone’s intelligence, especially Sophie’s family

nc6000

At this stage I doubt anything will be sent to the DPP to be honest. What could they possibly have uncovered after all these years?

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122640027#Comment_122640027

Well I assume they would like to at least summarise the latest and most accurate pieces of evidence they have and close this part of the investigation - at least if there is a reopened investigation after new evidence is presented in some way, the investigating officers will have a clear base from which to start from.

But I do not in anyway believe either they are expecting or that the DPP will agree, that whatever they present would be solid enough to go to trial on, if Bailey had still been alive.

Most posters here have laid their hats on one “theory” or another - and that’s perfectly fine for this level of discussion and debate - but if all Gardai have is a “theory”, it’s no better nor worse than any other I’ve seen here - evidence is the only way forward.

We’ve seen Garda appeals for witnesses to come forward who may have felt they couldn’t whilst some people were alive but are now deceased. That, or a breakthrough in DNA analysis, are likely the only two routes to even attempting to “solve” this case.

chicorytip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122617440#Comment_122617440

Of course he had motivation to do exactly that. He regularly roamed about in the dead of night and the prospect of sex was in the offing. As for work, he didn't have any.

chicorytip

Yes, but the perpetrator would have had to open the gate - which was usually shut at night - in order to walk up the track to Sophie's door. Nothing suggests he used a car to travel there from wherever he came.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122640143#Comment_122640143

It was only known that Bailey would go out at night and howl at the moon. However infidelity and cheating was not among his known traits at all. He didn't seem to have an awfull lot of sexual relationships at least what we know. It seems he was with Jules for something like 22 or 25 years? Married and divorced once, something short term maybe here and there, and after Jules he was with a women roughly 20 years his junior?

I honestly couldn't see any man hiking for one hour after a night of drinking to meet a woman he hardly knew to demand sex, whilst his Jules could have accomodated his desires way sooner in the comfort of the same house.

csirl

Listened to an interview with SDTP's son on the radio this week.

He mentioned that 17 guards had given evidence in the "trial" in Paris.

Given that Irish State decided after lengthy legal cases that it wasnt going to cooperate with the Paris trial, why were the Guards there? Who gave them permission to attend? A guard or any other State employee cannot give evidence in an official capacity without consent.

Surely their participation only served to undermine the State?

Day Lewin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122640179#Comment_122640179

On the contrary. Why would the perp have pushed the gate wide wide open, as far as it would go….if not to drive through?

Pedestrians would only need to push the gate back far enough to walk through. A metre at most.

and there were tyre tracks left in the mud of the lane - and such was the poor quality of safeguarding the crime scene, they were all driven over the same day the body was found. A few faint photos survive. Not all were identified, as far as I know.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122640179#Comment_122640179

The gate would have only had to be opened a foot or two for someone to walk up the track. Opening it fully, back flat against the ditch on the hinge side, would suggest a vehicle of some sort.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122640143#Comment_122640143

Do you have a source for that, 'regularly roaming' - especially all year round?

Evergreen_7

regards the posts about the killer leaving no DNA, it’s really not because the murderer was a genius who managed to clean up the scene or whatever else has been posted.

The reason is simple; it was an outdoor scene. At the very best of times, even with modern technology now, outdoor scenes are tricky to get forensic evidence from. The first 24 hours are crucial and we know that in that time the scene was contaminated by cars, multiple people, and finally a tarp thrown over Sophie’s body for the night. It would have been a miracle if any DNA was found. There probably was forensic material that was lost before Harbison eventually turned up.

Bailey, imho, was just lucky.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122640413#Comment_122640413

Against that DNA from Sophie was recovered though, including from vegetation.

Evergreen_7

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122640425#Comment_122640425

it was blood spatters mainly, which would survive. Touch dna from the killer on Sophie’s body would not.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122640434#Comment_122640434

But the Garda case against Bailey is he was scratched etc at the scene. That would leave much more than touch DNA for forensics to work with.

Evergreen_7

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122640537#Comment_122640537

Sophie’s dna was found in her fingernails, no one else’s. This means that she can’t have scratched the killer. Perhaps he was wearing gloves.
Touch DNA is where the entire body is tested with basically tape, and any dna is collected. It wasn’t around in 1996 afaik.

Like I said. Lucky.

odyssey06

..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122640553#Comment_122640553

You said it would be a miracle if DNA survived... you didnt say touch transfer DNA specifically.

So I brought it up because forensic evidence and DNA did survive the conditions. And it is a central piece of AGS case against Bailey that he was scratched at the scene, gloves are irrelevent to that and that would leave far more than only touch transfer DNA to find. So it doesnt add up.

Not sure what % of murders occur outside but that would equal a lot of lucky murders pre development of touch transfer DNA testing.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122640619#Comment_122640619

"Our forensic laboratory at the time was only starting to get a DNA system and you need a lot of physical evidence, near to a teaspoon full of blood." Eugene Gilligan.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122640757#Comment_122640757

Source?

Bearing in mind said individual has contradicted sworn statements given as a Guard in evidence when discussing the case in the media.

DNA was rechecked in other laboratories subsequently so regardless the above is superseded by events.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122640774#Comment_122640774

"Sophie, A Murder In West Cork," Episode 1

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122639683#Comment_122639683

But if she was woken by someone knocking on the door in the middle of the night (as per the Bailey theory), then common sense would lead us to believe that she'd have kept her slippers on (if indeed she opened the door to a stranger in the middle of the night!)

If she was already wearing her boots, then this would lead us to believe that the murder is more likely to have happened in the morning when she was up and about.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122640774#Comment_122640774

Was he contradicting sworn statements or was he merely elaborating? "DNA was rechecked" is a very unspecific thing to say. Whose DNA are you referring to exactly or are you talking about briar samples that were sent away to Britain which were always going to be far more miss than hit? If the Garda forensic team required a teaspoon of blood to make a match in 1996, they certainly weren`t going to be finding a trace of Bailey in blood samples based on the descriptions of his scratches.

odyssey06

In the media Gilligan lists more specific items eg from bonfire remnants

than in his sworn statement of evidence.

Documented on this thread.

That is more than mere elaboration. The sworn statement should be a complete account of what was found.

And also documented on this thread are subsequent forensic tests outside this jurisdiction.

So the limitations of 'our' laboratory in 1996 is a total red herring.

Gilligan clearly cannot be relied upon to give a full account of the facts with these selective additions and omissons.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122640841#Comment_122640841

Based on what I`ve read on this thread, he elaborated on what was in his statement. He didn`t contradict it.

There clearly was no significant hand to hand struggle. Nothing under her fingernails, only her own hair in her hands. They required a teaspoon of blood to identify the assailant and they had no chance of finding that amount based on the scratches evident on the suspect. What are the chances that they selected the specific thorns that inflicted those scratches? Miniscule. The DNA on her boot is worthless because it can never be established when it was deposited.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122639343#Comment_122639343

Yes, perhaps.

But it is a pivotal point.

If what they say is true…..that in the stilness of a frosty night, a vicious, attack occurred, within hearing distance and two people who were definitely present claim to have neither seen nor heard anything……then its true.

But if it isn't?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122640893#Comment_122640893

He contradicted it. Or he failed to give a complete account at the time.

Either way, it is not a good look.

In selecting the samples, the 'teaspoon of blood' angle is irrelevent. They would have been looking for hairs, fibres, blood traces.

They would have been taken in the knowledge that tech was evolving and should be preserved for future testing.

And indeed subsequent testing did occur.

So the limitations of 'our laboratory' at a specific point in time have been entirely superseded. For Gilligan to mention that and omit the subsequent tests etc is entirely deceptive.

So again thats another red herring.

Any media comments from Gilligan are therefore highly dubious and it is clear a full account of the facts will not come from that source.

It is as deceptive as Dwyer's comments about Baileys coats and neglecting to mention items were taken in evidence.

A lie of omission.

head82

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122640815#Comment_122640815

If we are to accept that the boots were only worn downstairs then it's reasonable to assume that she was up and awake when the disturbance at the gate took place. As in 7am ish as opposed to early morning of 2am ish.

I'm not convinced the altercation at the gate was as a result of it being left open or not closed properly. It was a shared access and as such, it could have been a guest of Alfies who accessed it and Sophie would have no justification in reprimanding anyone over the use of it. However, if someone was interfering with her pumphouse.. adjacent to the gate.. well then it's easier to see how she might be prepared to confront the infiltrator.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122640815#Comment_122640815

There are many factors which point to an early morning rather than late night scenario for the incident.

tinytobe

I would suppose and speculate that Sophie and the killer had a walk towards the gate and a conversation. The killer tried to talk some sense into Sophie, tried to convince her, she couldn't be reasoned with. The subject of the conversation we can only guess and speculate about. At some point and not noticable to Sophie the killer picked up a stone, - possibly whilst walking behind her?

If Sophie's blood was on the gate, she probably was attacked right then and there possibly unexpected and from behind, or injured, bleeding in the process and tried to climb over it? And later on, she may have staggered to the location where she was found, at that location the killer may have finished her off with the cavity block.

The odd thing is that the DNA under her nails and the hair in her hands are Sophie's however she would hardly tear out her own hair, or scracht or injure herself deliberately? Possibly the killer did this with Sophie's hands?

The killer may then have returned to the house for whatever reason, and left the blood stain. That's the most common speculation I take it. Why would the killer return to the house or risk returning to the house to be seen by Alfie and Shirley? Obviously the reason for returning to the house was very important to him? Some evidence incriminating him?

No idea? One mystery raises another set of questions and results in the next mystery.