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

No. I just asked him on Twitter and he replied. It is possible the wine was sexed-up to champagne. But like I said before some French investigators noted he seemed to know the location of the champagne (lying against a wall) whereas the reporting has it on a coffee table. If the champagne bottle ever existed maybe the location of it is not in the public domain photos as it is circumstantial evidence.

When Sophie's parents explain the reason Sophie went at the unseasonal time, they say they had been to the cottage and reported to her the heating wasn't working. So she went to get it fixed. Is it feasible on this visit they didn't use the bath? Assuming it was some time between February 1996 and December 1996 they didn't move the magazine off the bath?

So either they are confusing Sophie preparing the place for a post-Christmas family visit 12 months before or it makes the heating repair story even more incredible.

The heating had already been fixed according to reports, and it’s unlikely Josie Hellen would leave an old magazine lying around like that.

The bag appears to contain a box, but I suppose it could be a bottle of champagne in a presentation/gift box.

I had the misfortune to look at his reply tweets, unpleasant viewing indeed.

The whole scenario is a bit Straw Dogs.

Looking at Baileys posts over the last year or so.. I would suggest he's not the full shilling.

I'm sure he is well aware that every post he puts up is being scrutinized, yet he still straddles the line of public outrage.

I still think, like I always did, that Bailey keeps himself in the public eye... He craves that attention, he needs the spotlight upon him!!

Bailey could easily have eliminated himself from the suspect list after presenting a voluntary dna sample... He didn't, he kept pushing himself back onto the radar..

He states he was on the path to be an investigative journalist, when in fact he was gutting fish and doing odd handyman jobs here and there.

I have little doubt that he has a narcissistic personality of the highest order, and maybe the media attention on him fed that disorder..??

But realistically, he's a failure.

His marriage failed, his reporting aspirations were never fulfilled, he was living in other peoples houses, drinking like a fish, and had delusions that he was a poet of note... He was a laughing stock, and known around the town as a pain in the hole....

Looking at the man back then... He was on his way to being a full blown alcoholic, was suffering from delusions of grandeur, and shacked up with a cougar up the road........

Does anybody really think he could have murdered Sophie in such a brutal fashion, and be astute enough to not leave one speck of evidence behind him...?

If he had known Sophie before the murder, he would have bored everybody to death about it.... The man is a clown! He was back then, and he is now. He is still trying to keep himself relevant in the investigation, his ego must be fed...

I do think the killing was premeditated. The killer must have known with certainty that Sophie was at home in her holiday cottage, a place she only visited for a few weeks in any given year. The killer must have known that he could operate with the certainty of impunity, for instance that the Richardsons were not at their house and Alfie and Shirley didn't see him. The killer must also have known with a strong likelihood that it was Sophie's last day / last night at her cottage, she was due to fly back to France. If so, how did he get that information? - There is no point for the killer to arrive at Sophie's cottage under the guise of darkness if the intended victim wasn't there.

The killer wanted Sophie dead because she knew something, seen something or was about to do something and needed to be prevented from doing that, or silenced forever. Whatever that something was, is up for speculation. Could have been drugs and Leo Bolger, or Alfie and Shirley and drugs, Guards being in on drugs, could have been something sexual or a former lover or her ex husband sending a contract killer, we don't know, but these are the general most likely motives. Regardless on how Sophie was murdered, the husband wanting to avoid a messy divorce would from a financial point of view by far have been the strongest motive. There were probably only a handful of people who knew with certainty she was there, including the Ungerers and the caretaker looking after the property. Did they talk to anybody about Sophie's arrival? Do they have shady contacts or a possible motive themselves? And then there is this German musician, was it Karl Heinz Wolney or some other character she might have gotten in contact in a local pub.

I never thought that Bailey did it. There is no evidence, no fingerprints, no DNA connecting him to the scene of the crime, nor was he seen there. He was drinking that night, and in the company of others, especially his partner Jules. We don't know how much he drank that night, but it's unlikely he drank only one beer. Taking a hike through the nocturnal charms of rural Ireland for one hour, killing Sophie, and then hiking back doesn't sound credible to me. Bailey also volunteered DNA evidence early on. Financially Bailey had nothing to gain from Sophie's death, - unless it's something we don't yet know about?

What I would find more plausible is that if Bailey did it, then Jules was in on it as well. Jules drove him to and from, Bailey confronted Sophie, killed her, in rage unplanned or planned, and then they cleaned up the murder site eliminating prints etc.. , drove back, cleaned up, washed up, and pretended everything was normal. Bailey's coat was later burnt behind the studio.

Regarding the Guards, the kind of corruption and collusion is just a bit too much and pointing in the direction that they were behind it. Paying transients and giving them drugs to get close to Bailey or coercing witnesses, losing evidence and the Bandon Garda station tapes speak a very clear language which can't easily be dismissed.

If the murder was pre-meditated or not pre-meditated seems to split us in this thread as well, probably even what pre-meditated or not pre-meditated means.

Suppose the murder wasn't pre-meditated, then the murderer must have visited Sophie's house by accident? And just by accident Sophie was home, when the murderer dropped by? Why would he have done that? Did he know it was a holiday home and the house was empty most of the time? And if the murder took place some time after midnight to the early hours of the morning, then the murderer just dropping by, didn't come in form of a social call, - at clearly unsocial hours.....

It surly looks odd to me, if the murder wasn't pre-meditated. The time or suspected time of the murder doesn't fit for a social visit, a chat among old friends, same as the house wasn't lived in all year round. The murderer clearly came under the guise of darkness, and apparently after midnight or in the early hours of the morning.

Even if the murder wasn't pre-meditated, the murderer must have known Sophie was staying at her cottage, and the suspected time of the murder must have meant the murderer didn't come on a social visit. He must have had a strong motive for calling. ( the only other houses were Alfie and Shirley and the Richardsons, and he clearly didn't go there, he went to Sophie's)

Yes, it's possible something gotten out of hand, and he killed her unplanned, but his visit to her house must have been planned.

No, I don't think so. What would he have been doing there? There were only three houses served by that road, so any caller would only come to visit any of these residents in these houses.

Remember the door leading to her house had a stain of blood. How did it get there?

This means at least that either some form of violence perpetrated by the murderer took place there, or the murderer returned to Sophie's house to retrieve something or look for something and left it by accident and failed or missed cleaning it up?

Sophie apparently didn't make it back to the house that night, so it's possible the killer made the stain of blood on the door during the process of retrieving something, or possibly cleaning up the site?

I suggest the murderer was known to Sophie:

1) She took the time to put her boots on - This indicates she was intent on going outside, further than the front door vicinity.

2) Whoever she seen - She had no fear of engaging with them in person (as opposed to a shadowy figure in the dark)

3) The kill scene is by the gate - Indicating that Sophie had made her way down to the gate. Was she prepared to confront somebody regarding an on-going dispute? Again, this would suggest a familiar person.

4) Did the row result in a flash rage? The person known to Sophie lashed out, threw a rock, caused a significant injury (not -fatal) to Sophies head? Was Sophie bleeding heavily but able to make her way back to the house via the grassland at the front / side of the property?

5) I believe blood droplets were found on the grass area between her cottage and the gate (place of assault)

6) Given her straight talking bluntness, did Sophie threaten to sue and finish her assailant legally & financially? Did she threaten him with imprisonment?

7) The assailant may have been walking 'back up' the passage way at this time... In fact, he might have been besides the pump house, the exact area were the concrete block was taken from? Did he become more irrational? See his future serving a prison sentence, being ruined financially, did he decide there and then that he couldn't allow that ho happen?

8) If Sophie had made these threats, she had to be silenced.

9) The only reason she would have to be silenced, is because she could identify her attacker.

So much of this case points to the locality... There was three properties in that area that night, one of those was empty.

Whoever was up there that night / morning, could only have been there to see the residents of them two properties.

It was the middle of winter, a terribly cold, wet winters night. We know Sophie was on the phone around midnight.. Whoever she met at the gate on the night or morning of her demise ..

She knew them.

I think the blood stain (from what looks like a gloved hand) came from someone going back to the house to retrieve something - no idea what though. Was it a woman who happened to be wearing gloves on a cold winter night? If one of the people involved was wearing gloves it might help to explain the lack of fingerprints.

I don't think the murderer went back to the house to retrieve something...

He must have been dripping with blood, even to walk a few feet inside the door would have left some contamination..

His footwear alone would have been bloodstained, and I assume the weather was wet and wintry, so gravel and earth would have been trodden all over the kitchen floor as well (not to mention the risk of leaving footprints - And an indication to the size of the footprints...)

I suggest the murderer returned to the cottage and closed the door.. The blood streak found on the door would tally with a bloodied sleeve swiping the door in a downwards motion as the killer pulled the door too.

Of course, that opens up a whole new can of worms...

Why would the murderer be that bothered if the front door was open or shut? Would making a hasty exit not be at the forefront of his mind?