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

I've often thought of the possiblilty that the killer wasn't alone and had help. The lack of evidence at the crime scene would support that speculation.

Bailey with the help of Jules or Alfie with the help of Shirley?

I also often thought if the cavity block would mean something as a murder weapon. As long as one could lift it, it would possibly imply that the killer was weak and not strong. A strong man would maybe have resorted to a different murder weapon. But that is all speculation.

I would say the opposite re: rage. If you were out of control in a rage you would just batter away. This seems more calculated re: use of cavity block.

I am only speculating here.

I suppose, any strong and tall man would probably have considered something the likes of a baseball bat, or any other blunt object. Maybe knocking her out with his fist, may have done it with certainty.

However making use of a cavity block could mean getting even more leverage, possibly indicating that the murderer was not tall, not strong and needed something big to increase leverage and certainty of death when hitting the victim.

What also comes to mind, is if the murderer had entered the house, he would have been in the kitchen at first, with possibility of grabbing a knife rather than anything else.

In the end, it would seem the killer grabbed whatever he or she found rather close at hand. At the gates and near the pumphouse, the cavity block was the closest to grab.

This would also go into the discussion on whether the killing was planned or unplanned. Also this is up for debate. I would still be inclined to think this murder was planned, at least to the degree that the killer knew that Sophie was at her cottage and wanted to prevent Sophie from doing something, and the ultimate thing of preventing her or getting to refrain her from doing something, was killing her.

The problem is also, none of these speculations would indicate Bailey. What would he have to have gained from silencing Sophie forever?

However one may choose to read the evidence here, it is all pointing one way.

No in the absence of any real evidence incriminating someone, the Guards pointed what flimsy evidence they could find at Bailey, in a classic case of tunnel vision and confirmation bias.

And the DPP saw this and rightly did not put it forward for prosecution.

This is all highly speculative on my part. Rage can take on many forms. Discussing that would probably be more philsosphy than anything else.

I would only be guessing that if it was real rage, the rage would have started right at the doorstep of Sophie's house. Rage would also not have been silent, Sophie would have run, screaming at the top of her lungs to the gates, thus Alfie and Shirley must have heard something, - if they weren't in it themselves excluded.

Would Sophie have had time to lace up her boots if the murderer was already in a rage? Not sure about that?

And then there would have other methods to be considered. Alfie and Bolger were friends, both were in on drugs, we also know that the Gards supplied drugs to ex soldier Graham Martin to get close to Bailey.

Suppose if "somebody" wanted to send Sophie a message, break her windows in her absence, even arson, with help of gasoline, all sorts or criminal and mean things, all things inteded for Sophie not to come and stay at that house, anything but not murder. The same corrupt Gards would have "investigated" but nothing was found, Alfie and Bolger carried on with their "little carry on" as normal, Gards didn't bother them, and the Richardson's weren't that often there as well. Sophie may have repaired the damage, after 3 months, another based in window, and eventually Sophie would have been convinced to sell, - a buyer would have turned up, conveniently and all problems gone.

In light of all this, I'd say, No, the killer came with intention of something and wanted Sophie silenced forever. An airline ticket and a departure back to France or her eventually selling the property wasn't good enough, she had to be done in. I also think the killer used the cavity block to make it appear unprofessional.

None of this incriminates anyone by placing them at the scene with a motive. There is no real incriminating evidence.

It points to Bailey because that's the way the Guards were pointed. You have also entirely ignored any evidence whatsoever pointing to other people.

Other people had motive. Other people had wounds. Other people had no alibi. Other people had previous convictions for violence. Other people knew Sophie.

It is an entirely bad faith argument.

All of it is debatable, either for relevance or in fact.

The DPP looked at the scratches - accepted Bailey's version of events and pointed out that if he got the wounds at the scene as is argued, why was no evidence of him found at the scene. If you accept his version of events as the DPP did, then the blood on clothes is explicable.

Lots of people burn clothes in bonfires. In that area. It is not positive proof of anything.

That someone has committed some other entirely unrelated crime is not direct evidence, otherwise we would lock up anyone guilty of domestic assault for murder. We don't.

Not having a solid alibi for the time of a crime is not positive direct evidence of your guilt.

The DPP likewise accepted Bailey's version of events with regard to when he knew about the murder, and in some of the statements he made some people have jumped out as confessions.

Innocent people end up in jail through miscarriages of justice. Expressing a concern you might end up in jail as a victim of that is not and cannot be proof of your guilt.

Absolute desperate stuff.

But regardless, none of it is direct real incriminating evidence of murder.

And that you bring up Marie Farrell, totally discredited who can't even remember what lie she last told, shows how desperate you are to drum up evidence. As the Guards were when they engaged with her fantasies. And engaged in malpractice as is documented on the Bandon tapes and GSOC report.

One thought I've also had: How many pumphouses are there pumping water to remote cottages in the rural charmes of Ireland? Probably lot's. Are they all made with cinder blocks? If it was propper bricklaying with mortar and cement, one would't be able to just pick up a cavity block to murder someobdy. Or were there a couple of cavity blocks just as a weight to cover up some make shift roof of the pumphouse?

Thus I also don't think that this was rage. One doesn't turn around in rage, wanting to pick up a cavity block not knowing if they can easily remove it or not like fixed with mortar and cement? The killer must have familiarized himself with the fact that the cavity blocks were or at least one block was lose. And he would hardly have walked up with the cavity block to Sophie's house and bashed in the door? or the window, if he wanted a nice walk back to the pumphouse and gates. However he could also have done that.

That itself is another riddle to figure out.

Or let's examine the sexual motive:

Suppose the killer wanted sex with her? He most likely knew that Sophie wouldn't be welcoming him at 2am in the morning. How many women do open doors to strangers at night and are willingly have sex with them? He knew if he wanted sex with her, he'd have to raper her. He would have taken the cavity block from the pumphouse, hiked up to the house, bashed in Sophie's door, made himself upstairs to the bedroom, if Sophie didn't confront him downstairs because of the noise, and would have raped her. If the killer was a big and strong man, he could have done that. The interiour of the house would have been a mess as well, the "foreplay" would have been violent, Sophie would have tried to defend herself, lot's of furniture to use, etc....

This thoughts alone would rule out a sexual motive.

I still think the killer wanted Sophie to silence her forever, to prevent her from doing something. And any "verbal reasoning" was out of the question, unreliable, posing a risk and thus no choice.

Sophie had to be killed, the killer knew this or was paid by somebody or coerced by somebody who knew this.

In absence of real decent evidence one can only go by motive. Yes, Bailey could have done it, but I simply see no motive for Bailey, no behavour that fits.

Evidence which indicates Bailey knew Sophie - statements from numerous witnesses that they observed them together at various times and in various locations - There is no proof whatsoever at all that Bailey knew Sophie in any way. All there is weak witness's sighting that think they saw Bailey and Sophie together. One guy didnt know Sophie at all but said he seen them together at a festival- how can he be certain when he didnt know Sophie. Alfie wasnt 100% certain that he introduced them. So cant be used as evidence

Evidence which indicates Bailey had sustained scratches to his hands and arms in or around 23 December 1996 which were similar in appearance to those sustained by Sophie in the course of the attack. - The scratches could have been gotten in the attack on Sophie or they could have been gotten from cutting a tree as he described - Jules daughter supports this that she was in his company when cutting the tree. All there is to support this is a pathetic attempt at drawing the scratches by the gardai. In fact there is no actual proof that the scratches ever existed. This cannot be used as evidence.

Evidence which indicates Bailey sustained a wound to his forehead on or about 23 December 1996 which was observed to be fresh and to still have blood on it. - Bailey got this supposedly from killing a turkey - this is a plausible theory but indeed he could have go this from attacking Sophie. Again though there is no proof that Bailey ever had this wound. Again this cannot be used as evidence

Evidence based on the statements of numerous witnesses that Bailey had certain information about the murder before that information was in the public domain - Alfie was on his phone to people before the gardai had even arrived. It was well known in the area before Bailey arrived at the scene. Nobody can confirm with certainty the timings. Again this cannot be used as evidence.

Evidence - again backed up by numerous independent witnesses - that Bailey burned clothing and other items in a bonfire on or about 26 December 1996. Yes he had a fire but so did other people in the area. Again the fact he had a fire is evidence of nothing. Nothing found in the remnants of this fire can be linked to Sophie or the murder scene.

Evidence that Bailey (either on his own or with help from others) attempted to wash blood from clothes in the day or days following the murder. - There is no evidence that he washed blood from any clothes. What the gardai have is a statement from a person staying in the house that she seen a coat soaking. She came forward with this information years after the murder and said she seen it soaking in the bath and then she said sheseen it in a bucket - so she contradicted herself. She was spoken to at the time of the murder but she said she noticed nothing odd in the house at all. It is my understanding that she had now withdrawn what she said about seeing the coat soaking. This same coat he was wearing at events locally over that week. He also bought bleach but so did alot of other people - should all these people be suspects too.

Evidence that Bailey was capable of extreme violence towards women, particularly when intoxicated, with a history of having hospitalised his then partner due to extensive head wounds inflicted in the course of a sustained assault which focused on the head, mouth and face, with some of the injuries inflicted on her resembling closely the injuries inflicted on Sophie. - Yes I will give you this one there is evidence that he has been violent to Jules in the past - nobody can deny that

Evidence that Bailey was out of the house during the period of time when Sophie was murdered. - Yes nobody can confirm Baileys movements that night/ morning. It could be argued though as both himself and Jules were drinking that night that their ability to remember clearly was impaired - so yep this is a problem for Bailey

Evidence that Bailey sought to put pressure on and to influence Marie Farrell in relation to retracting her statements. - Marie herself has said she lied in her statements so Bailey cannot be blamed for this. Its understandable he wanted to retract her statements if he knew they were bullshit which they were.

Evidence that Bailey confessed to the murder to a number of people at different times, not one of whom interpreted what was said as as insincere or as though he were ‘only joking’… - Ive explained these in earlier posts made at the weekend. Im not going over this again

Evidence that on one occasion Bailey claimed to a number of people that he felt he would be found guilty but insane for the murder of Sophie. Never heard of this being honest

I don’t claim that this is every piece of evidence which is relevant to the investigation. What I would say is that every piece of relevant evidence points to Bailey - not the mystical hit man, not a neighbouring horse, not Alf Lyons - it all points to Bailey. - a hit man, Alfie Lyons, drug gang, local guard,, french man living locally, ex German boyfriend, Tomi Ungerer, even the horse are all more likely to have done it rathar than Bailey - any rational person can see that.

Again the theory that a big drunk idiot ( Bailey) hiked cross country on a December night and murdered Sophie because she wouldnt have sex with him, left no trace, hiked back to a full house and had a jolly old christmas and noone noticed anything odd is the least plausible theory.

Again the theory that a big drunk idiot ( Bailey) hiked cross country on a December night and murdered Sophie because she wouldnt have sex with him, left no trace, hiked back to a full house and had a jolly old christmas and noone noticed anything odd is the least plausible theory.

I agree with this as well.

I also doubt very much that Sophie would have welcomed Bailey in a drunken stage at night. So Baily would have had to rape her, but that didn't happen.

There was also no forensic indication of rape or even attempted rape.

I think the only indications which could potentially point to Bailey is that he did have the time to do it, and he was potentally getting rid of evidence by burning something behind the studio. These are just indications, nothing more.

The thing with Bailey, other then a possible sexual motive, there simply is absolutely no motive to establish.

That long list shows why Bailey is rightfully the main suspect. Well done for putting that together. Like in many cases, people like to ignore the obvious and instead go for some mad conspiracy theory. It's most likely that the murder was committed by the man who said he done it, who had opportunity to do it and motive to do it. No need for Hollywood type fiction.

The big issue I have with that theory is how would Bailey have known Sophie was alone in the house - he wouldnt have known that for certainty unless someone told him, nobody has said though that they told Bailey she was alone

The only people who knew she was alone was her husband, the Hellans, The Ungerers, possibly the publican friend and possibly Alfie and Shirley.

That's a good point.

The killer must have known she was allone. If not he would have had a witness and he certainly didn't want that.

The killer would also have known that Alfie and Shirley were the only neighbours around for miles thus wanting to avoid making noise, - that is if they weren't in it and doing the killing, then noise would not have mattered, nobody would have heard.