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

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122660633#Comment_122660633

I am not aware of a DNA profile found on the body of the victim. Only one found on her shoe. If there was a profile found on her body specifically, then that would be relevant and I am interested to hear about it. If there wasn`t, then it is yourself who is bopping about in the gymnasium. Either way, I`m not.

The DNA on her shoe is by and large irrelevant unless you can conclusively show when it was deposited there. They are old and worn shoes and the sample could have been present for some considerable time before the murder. It could also have been deposited afterwards.

bjsc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122660552#Comment_122660552

He died in Germany.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122660793#Comment_122660793

Thanks for your valuable judicial prowess @tibruit , if there was hundred of unknown samples of dna showing up you might have a point but go ahead and ignore the only forensic lead that showed up in the last 25 years of the case.

1. Find evidence,

2. prove that it got there through nefarious purposes,

3. only then should you investigate further

It is obviously a million times more efficient to cross-reference the dna against the people associated with the case, and ask them how it got there.

If you continue to pursue this ludicrous line of thinking I can only assume that you have no interest in finding true justice for Sophie, which includes by the way identify why this case is such a shitshow when it comes to those same investigative practices carried out by the Garda.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122660914#Comment_122660914

Well we can give Harbison a pass for that one so.

Thanks, though, I appreciate all your contributions

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122660791#Comment_122660791

He told Jules that he got the scratch from a stick. It`s in her statement. She disowned that under oath in Bailey`s case against the state. Then she contradicted that by saying he did say that he got the scratch from a stick when she was interviewed by RTE in 2017.

I never said he was the first to release that there was no sexual assault. I said he knew before Harbison made it public. I`m pretty sure that article was published on the 26th, so if he got that information from another outlet it would have to have been an article published on the 24th. No papers on Christmas day.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122661026#Comment_122661026

What was the point of mentioning Baileys report of it ? Should we suspect the Irish Times journalist too by your declared standard of suspicion? Well?

This article is dated the 24th.

"No attempt had been made to conceal the body, according to gardai, and there did not appear to be any signs of sexual assault."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/murder-investigation-as-body-of-french-woman-is-found-in-cork-1.118736

Bailey killed turkeys and cut down an xmas tree. He got nicks and scratches, some of which may have only become visible when healing, or if hair tidied away. You are trying to make a case out of whether what minor injury was caused by exactly what in the course of a hectic day… a stick or branch of the tree… or during the messy turkey killing.

You are reading way too much into thin gruel.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122660962#Comment_122660962

"3. only then should you investigate further."

Investigate by all means. But it is only of value if it belongs to someone who claims they never met Sophie and I`ve said this already.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122660793#Comment_122660793

It's strange how you readily seem to believe in Bailey's guilt despite a clear lack of convincing evidence against him, and yet you dismiss a potentially crucial piece of evidence just because!

The DNA may or may not be relevant. However, to dismiss it before we even know is pretty stupid especially when you have absolutely nothing else to go on.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122661074#Comment_122661074

By all means, wow, well thanks for that I’ll go and tell the gardai who’ve sat on their arse for 12 years on this evidence, and instead have been spending their time trawling the archives for a videotape of a supposed red herring meeting on a island, or talked to some random nobodies in France.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122661064#Comment_122661064

"Should we suspect the Irish Times journalist too by your declared standard of suspicion? Well?"

Absolutely. But only if he had a history of violence and was out and about in the vicinity on the night of the murder.

"He got nicks and scratches, some of which may have only become visible when healing, or if hair tidied away."

Well the first problem he has with the forehead scratch is his lack of consistency. He clearly first told Jules that he got it from a stick. Then he changed that story to say he got it from the turkey. The second problem he has is that nobody saw the scratch on the day he claimed he got it. Nobody within the family unit, nobody in the pub that night. He turns up in Jules`s bedroom the morning after the murder and lo and behold, Jules notices the scratch for the first time and even asks him how he got it.

"You are reading too much into thin gruel."

The longer it stews the thicker it gets.

PolicemanFox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122661074#Comment_122661074

That makes no logical sense. Imagine you had a magic DNA wand and you could find out who that profile was, would you not race up to that person and ask "where were you on the night of the 22nd of December 1996"?

Instead you would ask that person "Did you know Sophie?" and if that person said yes, you would walk away? There are lots of people who openly knew Sophie. They are not all ruled out as suspects.

The male DNA profile found on the body is the only forensic evidence linking anyone else to the scene.

It does not match Ian Bailey (reddit link).

The investigators were actually quite careful with the body (and the shoes/clothes!). Nobody touched it before the 24th - even to check if she was still alive, which I still cannot fathom. The body was wrapped in plastic before it was moved. The undertakers wore gloves, John Harbison wore gloves. It's the rest of the crime scene they were stupidly careless with. You quoted that eejit Eugene Gilligan, I can't take him seriously. This is the guy who said that because Sophie didn't have curtains upstairs "She was a French woman, she was comfortable with nudity" - WHAT?? - surely you must have had a double-take when you heard him say that - what does that tell you about the mindset of the Gardai?? I am surprised Netflix didn't edit that out. He is also wrong about the "teaspoon of blood", yes even in 1996, the DNA tests performed by the lab in Northern Ireland in 1997 got lots of valid profiles from the bloodstains on small pieces of Ian Bailey's old clothes. The Gardai told Bailey they had found these during his interrogation and he still volunteered a blood sample. Yes, they didn't have touch DNA at that time, but they didn't need a teaspoon. Also the Gardai were aware advances in DNA were coming, that's why they held onto the exhibits, that's why you always hold onto exhibits. The fact that they disposed of the gate before properly identifying the blood on it is inexcusable. (It's a lie that it was proven to be Sophie's)

Whatever way you cut it, this DNA profile is strong evidence of Bailey's innocence. It can't be ignored and if the Gardai are serious about finding the killer, they need to attempt to repeat this sample, and try to find who it belongs to. If they take your view - that it's irrelevant - then forget the cold case review, it's still a corrupt & prejudiced investigation.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122661144#Comment_122661144

In the case that Bailey did it, since he is dead, how would you hold the police or anyone else to account, who literally dropped the ball on a murderer who walked up to them out of nowhere 4 hours after he did it, admitted he did it, and still lived free in the community for 25 years. Criminal negligence perhaps, coercing of witnesses, and destruction of potentially crucial evidence, what do you believe, should they be prosecuted for their f*ck up? Bailey can’t be prosecuted, but they could.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122661078#Comment_122661078

I notice that you are now saying "lack of convincing evidence" but previously you were saying "lack of evidence." Small steps and we`ll get you there.

I didn`t dismiss the DNA evidence completely. I said it was by and large irrelevant and I also set out a scenario where it might be relevant but that would be undermined by it being impossible to establish the time of it`s deposition.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122661192#Comment_122661192

Should I edit my post to keep you happy? 🙄

Nobody here is saying Bailey did not do it but only a fool would believe the "evidence" put forward by AGS is of any value in terms of proving his involvement despite whatever nonsense you try and raise about scratches or teaspoons of blood & hair (none of which belong to the drunk & messy person person you allege was involved).

As for any evidence being undermined, it's funny how you fail to see how the "evidence" AGS use to point to his guilt has been undermined by the DPPs office. Even your star witness (Gilligan) appears to have undermined his own evidence by not even putting it forward for trial!

PolicemanFox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122661144#Comment_122661144

Except the longer it stewed the thinner it got! All the evidence which looked so good in February 1997 all fell away to nothing. From the Garda point of view I can kind of see how they were 100% convinced when they arrested him. They had bloody clothes!

The phone-times from Eddie Cassidy showed Bailey didn't know anything he shouldn't have.

The statements showed it was known to be a murder at 1pm, they showed it was known she was French at 2pm.

Editors of the Sunday Tribune backed up his story about cyberpubs article.

The DNA tests on Bailey's bloody clothes came back negative.

The "Murder he wrote" allegation was comprehensively disproven. He didn't reveal anything in his writings that he shouldn't have known, not in the papers and not in his diaries.

Four witnesses said he had scratches on the 22nd, before the murder. The Christmas Swim video showed no visible scratches on Bailey. None of the journalists or Gardai who saw Bailey and spent a lot of time with him on the 23rd saw scratches.

Jules Thomas retracted. Marie Farrell retracted. Patrick Lowney retracted. The Bandon tapes dropped proved the Gardai playing games with the evidence and playing psychological games. Tapes proved they were bribing Martin Graham.

I am sure it must have been frustrating for the Gardai, but they have only themselves to blame. If they focused on proper investigation instead of silly psychological games to "break Jules Thomas", they might have had more success.

PolicemanFox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122661236#Comment_122661236

I think you are being unfair to tibruit here. She/he is not a fool for claiming that Bailey is guilty based on the evidence. That's a bit insulting, tbh.

Gilligan could surely have done a better job but he was a Garda, it's not his job to put evidence to a trial.

You say nobody is saying Bailey didn't do it. Not true. I am saying Bailey didn't do it. Like anyone I could be wrong, but that is what I am saying. I am saying he doesn't fit. We've tried to make him fit, but it doesn't work.

EDIT. I would go further and if someone has watched all the documentaries and read the books, read the papers, it is perfectly reasonably to believe Bailey is guilty! I would say most people would believe that. The problem is that they are all biased, they leave out important caveats.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122661173#Comment_122661173

"the DNA tests performed by the lab in Northern Ireland in 1997 got lots of valid profiles from the bloodstains on small pieces of Ian Bailey`s old clothes."

Good for them. Unfortunately they didn`t get the clothes he wore on the night of the murder because they went into the bonfire.

"The Gardaí told Bailey that they found these during his interrogation and he still volunteered a blood sample."

Of course he did because he knew that they would find nothing because the clothes he wore on the night of the murder had all been burned in the bonfire.

"Whatever way you cut it, this DNA profile is strong evidence of Bailey`s innocence."

Don`t be ridiculous. Unidentified DNA, deposited on an old shoe at an unknown time. Come back when you can conclusively show that DNA got on that shoe on the night Sophie was murdered.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122661324#Comment_122661324

Ah thanks Scoobs.

chicorytip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122659865#Comment_122659865

Bailey is no Graham Dwyer.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122659924#Comment_122659924

Well, that would be motivation for a violent narcissist to impose himself into the existence of his fantasy figure by virtue of a late night visit or stalking behaviour.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122660370#Comment_122660370

Remember, there was nothing logical or planned about this killing.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122661564#Comment_122661564

Dwyer got life- Bailey didn’t even reach a trial

Zola1000

Weather we approach any angles or one angle. I think bailey committed the murder and I think he didn't commit the murder. In end what we definitely can say be true..is that this was botched investigation. So being sole focus on one individual seems plausible for many merits given his behaviour at time..I probably would have ended up doing the same if in AGS , it yeilds nothing when this focus turns into obsession..to make it stick. It makes zero difference now as it has been nearly 30 years ago..with lack of witnesses remaining the skued evidence, statements and ultimately everything else in between. Is piece of DNA relevant on boot?.. absolutely anything is vital.... Scrutinized as if lifes of those depended on it in looking for justice for sophie

Somebody clearly wanted her erased... someone she knew.

In many ways as state we have failed. Failed in our processes ..failed in how we conducted ourselves. Maybe we have failed IB...whatever happened till innocent till proven guilty..most don't want to know. What about our failed legal system..the failed french legal system. Nothing works for victim..they are forgotten in end ..it's all procedures processes extraditions..etc etc. as dwyer said the truth always comes out in end..im not so sure....more worryingly id say wherever this statement originated from may certainly not be applied to everything.

To leave the body waiting lifeless for hours upon end on waiting of state pathologist is perhaps start of downfall...the ultimate disregard for human life and welfare of those we should hold dear. Unable to confirm time of death..unable to confirm anything in end.

Day Lewin

Regarding bloodstains from this crime:

it is just remotely possible that the clothing of the killer did not catch much blood-staining; unlikely, given the violence used, but just possible.

However it is almost inconceivable that he didn't get blood on his hands, though; he pushed open a gate, struggled with a woman who was close enough to that gate to get HER blood on it, pulled her off a thorny hedge with enough force to half drag off her pajama top, and used several implements to bash her head in. Conclusion: he MUST have worn gloves!

If he wore gloves, he wouldn't have been scratched. If he didn't wear gloves, he would have left some DNA or fingerprints.

Take your pick!

But equally unlikely is that his footwear was left clean; there were pools of blood. He MUST have stepped in it. Ergo, the footwell of his car would have revealed blood traces. Impossible to completely delete. I am sure that the guards must have tested at least Bailey's car, and hopefully all others too, for blood traces. Easy chemical test.

There is nothing to place Ian Bailey at the scene: no eye-witness, no trace.

Nor anyone else either, unless the police locate that car, or identify that DNA. Both very long shots.

dmc17

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122661673#Comment_122661673

Has it been confirmed that the killer was male?

Day Lewin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122661708#Comment_122661708

No indeed. My supposition. It's more a male type of crime, perhaps, but there's actually no evidence to show who the killer was - man, woman or child, local or foreign, old or young. Probably not anyone weak or infirm, since physical force was used, but outside of that, could have been anyone.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122661708#Comment_122661708

We can't even assume that it was just one person involved. Until we know for sure, we can't really assume anything.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122660914#Comment_122660914

I realise you were talking about Wolney here, or did Pecout also die in Germany?

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122660688#Comment_122660688

Well, I find it a rather "interesting sideline" in terms of business affairs, if one has a career writing children's books and illustrating them, and also does books and paintings on BDSM, even travels to Hamburg Germany to visit a certain "lady of the night" specializing in "certain pratices". No desires were an embarrassment in her establishment, I take it….

Apparently also Bailey had paintings on certain sexual pratices which he brought to paper himself. Makes one wonder if Bailey and Ungerer had a common interest here?

And yes, you're correct, it's certainly not evidence for murder or killing Sophie.

PolicemanFox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122661378#Comment_122661378

After at least three sets of DNA tests the only foreign profile found doesn't belong to him. It wasn't any old shoe. It was found on the victim, who was wearing the old shoe, the night she was murdered.

Nobody has to conclusively prove the DNA found on the body is the killers. That's not how it works. Until we know otherwise, it is more likely to be the killer's DNA than anyone else's, because he was the last person to touch her without gloves. Burden of proof is on you.

Saying he burned his clothes is just special pleading. No evidence on his clothes so he must have burned them!

Except his coat, he didn't burn that. He didn't bleach it either, he wore it on Christmas Day and New Year's Eve and it was taken in evidence. It had no evidence of damage or blood residue. What about other clothes? The Gardai recovered many of the clothes he wore that night including his waistcoat, scarf, and hat. No damage or blood residue was found on any of these items. I suppose we could say he changed clothes before he went out, I suppose we could say he had two black coats or wore a different coat etc. It goes on, more special pleading.

I get that you and others want to believe. But when you go through everything piece by piece all you end up with is that he could have done it, if he knew Sophie was in town, if he got up in the middle of the night hiked 12km there and back leaving no physical evidence whatsoever and fooling everyone in the house who lived with him.

Then we are left with is character evidence - he was a bad man, violent, boring, boorish, but that just made him easy to hate, and easy to fixate on. And it's just not enough.

It goes back to the same choice. If Bailey or someone else killed Sophie, he did so in a chaotic and completely unplanned way which would have left him covered in blood. It would be in his house, or if he traveled by car, in that. Even if he cleaned the car, it would have been detectable months later. You either have to credit Bailey with being a criminal mastermind or being spectacularly lucky. I can't believe either of those scenarios, at least not without some spectacular piece of evidence.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122661378#Comment_122661378

So let me get this straight,

1. We have tested forensic DNA from an unknown male on the clothes of a victim after a murder (the boots, not the skin which is the bar you propose, which probably represents 5% of the exposed surface, and doesn't absorb DNA), and you say "ah sure that's irrelevant" versus
2. The possibility of DNA on the clothes that a suspect may have worn, that may have got burned in a fire which itself had no visible flames, and no smoke.

In the words of @tibruit , "you couldn't make it up"

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122661026#Comment_122661026

"I said he knew before Harbison made it public. "

So did everyone else at the Garda press conference after the post-mortem on Tues 24th.

(Harbison's report was not published until 3 months after the murder)

This article appears to have been penned on Tues before the body was removed to Cork.

By IRISH TIMES REPORTERSTue Dec 24 1996 - 00:00

GARDAI began a full scale murder investigation last night after the body of a French woman was found on a remote roadway in west Cork yesterday morning. Her head had been battered by what appeared to be a blunt instrument.The woman, Ms Sophie Toscan Du Plantier (38), had arrived in Ireland last Friday or Saturday to spend Christmas in her holiday home in Dunmanus West, about three miles from Schull. She was on her own, according to neighbours and friends who saw her shopping on Saturday.Separated from her husband, she is believed to be the mother of two children who, on a number of occasions over the past four years, have stayed with her in the dormer cottage overlooking Dunmanus Bay.Gardai do not yet know if she was murdered at the place where her body was found on the boreen a few hundred yards from her home or if she was attacked elsewhere and was trying to get help before she collapsed and died.
No attempt had been made to conceal the body, according to gardai, and there did not appear to be any signs of sexual assault.

So, That's put that rubbish to bed

Oscar_Madison

The source if the DNA on the boot - any speculation or indeed confirmation as to what form this took? Blood or some other bodily fluid?

Considering Sophie was alone for this trip and assuming that she hadn’t been in the house for some time before that and considering that she wasn’t nursing babies or looking after young children, the circumstances of where when and how ANYONE would receive what is a considerable blotch of human origin liquid substance on their boot or shoe, are quite limited let’s face it.

Ask yourself, when was the last time you had a noticeable stain or substance on your shoe that was as a result of human bodily fluid landing there?

For that reason alone, this piece of DNA is crucial and if the owner is ever found, depending on their relationship with Sophie may very well bring the investigation into an entirely different trajectory .

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122662304#Comment_122662304

"So did everyone else at the Garda press conference after the post-mortem on Tues 24th."

Really. And you know this how?

"This article APPEARS to have been penned on Tues before the body was removed to Cork."

APPEARS then. The only thing that article does is show how poorly informed that particular journalist was about details of the case in the early days after the murder. So poorly informed that he was speculating about sexual assault and probably had no Garda source. Bailey had no Garda source either at that point or any point as it turns out. It can of course be argued that he too was speculating but in his case he was a violent woman beater, who lived close to the victim and who was out wandering about on the night of the murder. It never gets put to bed.

Day Lewin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122662412#Comment_122662412

How do you know he was wandering about? A source for this?

Also, he wasn't the only drunkard who assaulted his partner, in the area. There's no village in Ireland without a few of these.

As far as we know, Bailey never assaulted anyone else except his partner. No history of getting into brawls.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122662412#Comment_122662412

Please enlighten us all with the formal, legal process that was followed, or even should have been followed in the case of information being distributed to the public from the gardai via the press. Oh right there was none.

As soon as information was discovered, it was out. That is the level of sophistication in the investigation.

No signs of sexual assault. This was evident by the afternoon of the 23rd. Nothing else happened with Sophie's body until Harbison came along, except for periodic looking under the tarp by nosey gardai

No evidence of sexual assault. This was confirmed on the afternoon of the 24th, after the post-mortem

As soon as this information became available to the gardai, it became available to everyone else down there. Journalists immediately take breaking news and publish it as quick as they can, because the news cycle turns quick, and information loses value as soon as someone else publishes it.

If you can show evidence that Bailey knew about signs or evidence ahead of the two timelines above, please show it. If you can't I can only continue to assume you have no interest in justice for Sophie.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122661811#Comment_122661811

"It was found on the victim, who was wearing the old shoe, on the night she was murdered."

Unfortunately she was probably wearing that old shoe every day she was in Ireland for a few years before she was murdered. When she was not wearing them she appears to have left the shoes at the bottom of the stairs, where every visitor who came to stay would have walked past them multiple times per day.

"Saying he burned his clothes is just special pleading."

No it isn`t. There was a bonfire burning on the 26th. It was later established by Gilligan that a "coat", "boots" and "jeans" had been burned in the fire. Now somebody else within the family unit could be responsible for the fire but none of them has said so. Who`s telling the lie and why?

"Except his coat, he didn`t burn that. He didn`t bleach it either. He wore it on Christmas Day and New Year`s Eve and it was taken in evidence."

There were minimally two coats. One that was burned in the Christmas fire and a different one that the Gardaí later took. Now which one went into the fire? The one that would have had Sophie`s blood on it or the one that didn`t have Sophie`s blood on it?

PolicemanFox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122662412#Comment_122662412

It didn't just APPEAR to have been penned, it was PUBLISHED on the 24th, which means it was written on 23rd. Sure, the journalist was ill-informed, but Bailey would have read this article, as did plenty of others. Everyone was asking the Gardai this question, and when the post mortem was done, one of the Gardai must have said something, because it appeared in ALL the papers, in their next editions, in Ireland, UK and France.

The Daily Telegraph said the same on the 25th, the Irish Independent on the 25th/26th/27th. The Examiner on the 27th, Le Monde and Le Parisien on the 27th. We know the Gardai leaked, because lots of other details came out - hair in her hands, skin under her fingernails. Most of this was garbled from the post-mortem. The Bandon Tapes recorded two Gardai complaining about JP Twomey leaking to Eddie Cassidy. The Gardai leaked - a lot. That is beyond dispute.

For instance, the hair in the hands is something not even the killer would have known about, it was reported as a "clump" but it was only a few strands. It was discovered by Harbison in his meticulous check of the body, only he, his assistant and the Gardai present (5 of them) could have known this.

Take a look at the Irish Times article on the 27th - there is a lot of detail and they could only have gotten this from the Gardai.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/gardai-seek-lead-in-cork-murder-case-1.119078

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122662442#Comment_122662442

"How do you know he was wandering about? A source for this?"

Ian Bailey.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122662515#Comment_122662515

No smoke, no fire.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122662519#Comment_122662519

I would presume Bailey's "Garda source" would have been a radio tuned to the Garda frequencies. Back in the analogue days lot's of journalists and newspaper men listened to the police frequencies to stay ahead of things.

Day Lewin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122662538#Comment_122662538

If this is just self-reported, you'll have to decide how much you trust anything that is self-reported but not confirmed by another source.

Anyone who claims they spent that night peacefully asleep in their own little bed could be lying….unless confirmed by another person.

I personally don't think that Bailey's self-reporting is at all trustworthy - he was a journalist as well as an amateur poet, drinker and and loudmouth.

I'd want anything he said about anything to be confirmed by someone else. Whether incriminating, or exonerating - still needs to be cross checked.

Who can confirm that Bailey went anywhere that night, whether on foot or by car? Any reliable eye-witness? Sadly, no, there are none.

chooseusername

post deleted

Sorry @odyssey06, went to edit and deleted by mistake.

Oops, forgot to come back to this;

"So did everyone else at the Garda press conference after the post-mortem on Tues 24th."

Really. And you know this how?

It's how it works. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

Bailey had no Garda source either at that point or any point as it turns out. 

Really, and you know this, how?

chicorytip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122661673#Comment_122661673

You assume the killer travelled by car to and from the scene. I think that's unlikely. Bloodied footwear could easily be cleaned in, say, a nearby stream or in wet grass before being destroyed later. We don't know how bloodied the actual murder scene - i.e. where her body was lying when it was discovered - was. Blood could spray in different directions in such circumstances and not necessarily form in pools at the killers feet.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122663750#Comment_122663750

I'd suggest none had real alibies for that night. The pubs were already closed and most walked or stumbled home in whatever state of drunkenness. I would bet that half of the population on the Mizen peninsula would be unable to really account for the hours that night, most stating that they were in bed, or found their bed in whatever state, and slept until the morning. And if they were with someobody that night, it's also hard to believe how credible that statement would have been. The closest answer to reality would be how many drinks they've had the night before….

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122664447#Comment_122664447

Anybody hitting and killing Sophie that way would have had blood all over, no matter how "careful" one was. Clothes would have to be changed afterwards, and disposed off, unless on was wearing some kind of protective suit.

This idea alone makes me think that the killer was a loner, somebody who didn't have a wife or girlfriend waiting at home that night. Nobody asking where you've been, why do you shower so long and what happened to your clothes, kind of questions. That is unless she was in it too, as the Alfie and Shirley theory / speculation would go. ( Alfie could never have killed Sophie without Shirley noticing, if it was them )

Bailey or not, or somebody else like Bolger or Hellens, returning home would have been a problem and challenge on it's own. Avoid being seen while hiking, and avoiding the car, or leaving staines in the car, and avoid being seen by a partner once arriving at home. An awful lot of things that either took either careful planning or left to chance and sheer luck?

These thoughts of speculation would point to Alfie and Shirley. They would both not have had to face these challenges, their house was just up the road, plus they were completely alone with Sophie that night……

chicorytip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122664523#Comment_122664523

Returning home in that condition would not necessarily been a problem for Bailey either, even if Jules noticed something. Given what week know about the nature of their relationship he may well have threatened her in order to ensure they both sung off the same hymn sheet in statements given to Gardai. We know that didn't go to plan so either one or both of them told lies.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122666249#Comment_122666249

That really is far fetched

chicorytip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122666323#Comment_122666323

In what sense?

csirl

The 12km hike that the Gardai rely on just doesnt make sense. Many young fit people in their 20s would stuggle with a walk of this length and would feel the after effects for days i.e. cramp, tired etc.

oceanman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122666249#Comment_122666249

so why has she not come clean all this time? especially now that Bailey is no longer around.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122666249#Comment_122666249

" he may well have threatened her in order to ensure they both sung off the same hymn sheet in statements given to Gardai. We know that didn't go to plan "

There was no plan, if there was it would be easier to just stick to it.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122666331#Comment_122666331

Believability that it happened