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

It does require some explanation though... it was not immediately beside where the body was found. It was night time albeit seemed to have been around full moon. It just seems a very random thing to do to go there to look for a weapon \ something to attack with if you didn't know the blocks were loose.

I'm assuming it was not typical for the blocks to be loose on such a structure.

So to me that suggests someone with prior familiarity with the structure, or perhaps they had recently used the pumphouse to conceal themselves while they observed \ spied.

This is important question also.

It's a fair walk from the murder scene to the back door. Is it 60m or something depending on the route?

What would be so important?

Well Maloney from the Indo had a theory

Bailey reached inside the door and picked up the wine bottle

Sophie then hit him in the hand with the axe

Dunno where he got that theory from

Yes correct.

Dogs have great hearing and smell, particularly for blood, so I'm taking that as the time of death.

The morning theory is completely valid though.

I never thought Bailey was guilty anyway but the nighttime timeline makes it very difficult for him to have committed it.

And the morning time would be challenging - he had breakfast at 9am with Jules according to the DPP report.

And they weren't the only people in the house, nobody noticed him returning in the early morning on foot or noticed car movement.

For Bailey the window would be something like 3am - 6am.

Not sure what gloves you have in mind that would have you only lightly scratched from briar thorns. Either the thorn would go through eg through cotton or it wouldn't. If anything, it might prevent light scratches but not deep ones from thorns.

His famous black coat showed no sign of briar damage.

Nobody ever commented on him usually wearing gloves and not having any after the murder. Although people were taking an interest in his appearance.

That is an attempt to minimise the (circumstantial) evidence against Alfie.

"He had a row over access with sophie"

In fact he had many isues with Sophie and the relationship between them was described by Jo Hellen as "fractious"

I suggest that there are many more cases of inter-neighbour disputes decending into violence that there are of drunken men walking three miles in the dead of night, making sexual advances on a woman and on being rejected, murdering the woman by striking her over 50 times then walking home again, without leaving any trace of his presence, or any sign of sexual interference. So, motive wise, the circumstantial evidence weighs more against Alfie.

"He was the closest to the scene"

He was definitely at the scene. And he was definitly present at the scene when Sophie was attacked. There is no evidence that Bailey was there.

"Partner went to the dump"

Shortly after the body was discovered.

 "He was in his 60s and described as frail, not the kind that could inflict what was inflicted on Sophie."

That is your opinion and has been expressed by others. Many men of that age are capable of lifting a concretre block. It certainly doesn't rule him out.

 "What was his motive? People say it was maybe because Sophie might have informed on his drugs business. But we don't know if it was her."

For the purposes of this debate, I would speculate that a neighbour dispute escalated to the point of violence and Alfie lost his head, attacked her physically and, ultimately, killed her.

Purely speculative, yes. But what facts we have, are certainly more aligned to that theory than to the other.

" Never once been in the public eye as a suspect., never that we know of been brought in for questioning."

With respect, that is neither here nor there.

Now with regard to Bailey:

. "Changed story about where he was that night."

He was interrogated nine weeks after the event. There is nothing unusual about someone not remembering what they were doing over two months before. Furthermore, there is strong evidence that the attack happened in the morning, in daylight. If so, the Bailey theory collapses.

2. Unexplained scratches and "wound" on forehead. The only people who could corroborate where he got the scratches were the Thomas family.

They are not unexplained. Both cases were witnessed and killing turkeys and cutting pine trees is common at Christmas.

"3. he told two people independently and unsolicited that he did it."

"He made a couple of ill advised attempts at black humour, which, under the guidence of the Gardai, those listening were persuaded to report as "admissions" In any case, it would be far more typical of a guilty person to keep their head down and their mouth shut.

"History of violence towards women"

Domestic violence is common all over the world. It is in no way comparable to setting out in darkness on a cold Winter's night, confronting a stranger, in her own home, being rejected and subsequently killing her.

"Bonfire"

Very common in rural Ireland.

6. Ambiguity about whether he knew Sophie, which has resurfaced based on something he said in his podcast.

There is no evidence, apart from a hesitant and unconvincing ststement from Alfie, that any association existed between them. No reports of them being seen together, no records of telephone contact, no mention in either's diary. Nothing.

7. His timely arrival at the scene.

That has been comprehensively de bunked in the DPP report. He arrived soemtime after 2pm. A friend of Shirley's knew before 12:00 - and she was in Cork city at the time.

8. He was a big strong 30 something year old capable of inflicting what was inflicted on Sophie.

Not evidence. Not even circumstantial evidence. Even a woman may have been capable of inflicting the wounds which killed Sophie.

Its my opinion that, if you start with the precis that "Bailey did it" then you can retrospectively manipulate what is known, to fit the theory.

But if you start with the facts as known, then he becomes one of the least likely perpetrators.

Aggrevated burgalry fits this.

Couple of burgalars arrive at gate - SDTP sees people opening the gate, puts on boots and goes to gate to see whats going on. After she is killed, one of the burgalars goes up to the house to check if there was anyone inside who might have seen something before scarpering.

People being injured/killed in rural attempted burgalries wasnt unknown at that time. Random burgalries of remote houses were common during Christmas week when people likely had gifts etc in house.

Yes,

The claim that neither Alfie not Shirley saw heard anything is difficult to accept. It was a still, frost night....no wind. And Alfies house was less that 50 yards away. The attack must have lasted a few minutes and, I would contend, cannot have happened in silence.

Another thing that puzzles me is Sophie's blood stain on the door. It must have been put there by the killer but why would he go up to the house after killing her?

But he had scratches, he had a bonfire, he told people he killed her, his alibi for the night did not hold up.

You have nothing like that with Lyons.

Nothing makes Lyons a better suspect than Bailey.

Motive does for starters.

Alfie had a wound on his hand that wasn't closely examined. Shirley went to the dump leaving the crime scene cordon. They don't have a solid alibi, they just alibi'd each other. They said they didn't hear anything of the violent murder next door. So Alfie could have done anything that night and Shirley not heard it. Alfie found the body - and yes, sometimes it is the murderer who "discovers" the body.

Alfie had far more motive than Bailey to end up in an incident with Sophie, they've been listed on the thread. And yes neighbourly disputes can end in violence. There is also the angle that somebody ratted out Alfie to the Guards for growing weed, not long after Sophie moved in. Sophie changed her locks because she suspected someone, possibly Alfie, of using her bath while she was away - pointedly, a spare key was not given to Alfie.

Alfie had a wound on his hand in the days after the murder - claimed it was done by a dog he was minding.

How do you know this ?

How do you know it wasn't closely examined?

This is typical of the "Alfie Lyons is a bigger suspect than Bailey" set

They are willing to ignore and gloss over tons of stuff about Bailey and focus on stuff they don't even know about with Lyons.