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

Alfies is probably the strongest and most well known, and he was almost certain he introduced them. A judge took his side against Bailey in a libel trial so thats good enough for me, but no doubt one of the usual crew will say otherwise!

Guy Girard said Sophie mentioned the name Eoin Bailey, which was Bailey's pen-name and they had previous conversations.

A cousin of Sophies said she told her in a phonecall about an independent journalist and writer living locally who contacted her and wanted to talk to her.

A French woman Agnes Thomas said she had suppresed a memory but it came back to her about a weird local man with an interest in poetry trying to contact her.

Bolger said he witnessed Bailey and Sophie talking and Bailey desperately trying to show her his poetry.

Fuller said Bailey told him about dining twice with Sophie. I personally think Bailey was bluffing on this one, but theres a chance its true also. Bailey was an accomplished liar so you just don't know.

But theres stuff we could add, about Bailey having a premonition on Hunts Hill for example. Clearly Bailey didnt have supernatural powers, so this was also incriminating.

Also recent mention of Bailey knowing where she parked her car in Schull on the Saturday, something its unlikely anyone could have known unless they were following her.

There's more credibility to some of them than others, no doubt about that. In terms of the French accounts there's vague references to a local writer/journalist/poet trying to make contact with her, which sounds like Bailey. But without telephone records difficult to back it up.

I believe Alfies account, and I believe Bailey did tell Fuller all of that because when the first part of the conversation was put to Bailey in court he didn't deny the conversation took place, but said others were saying it about him, which is hard to believe.

For the record Bailey did know where Sophie lived and is likely to have known some things about her.

There doesn't seem to be anything substantial related to the alternative theories

Alfie - bandaged hand ,drove to dump , didn't get on with sophie

Husband- the divorce theory isn't substantiated afaik and he had a credible explanation for not travelling initially

German guy ? - said he did something terrible ? did he know sophie ?

AN other ?

None of it amounts to much imo

I am reluctant to rule out "A N Other"

Partly, I suppose, because our own family had a holiday-home cottage in a remote location: it was left empty through most winters...But absolutely disheartening how often often it was broken in to. We had to get a steel door, in the end.

Nobody knows who or when or how. Might see tyre tracks, that's all.

So I know that burglars DO roll up to remote cottages expecting them to be empty. And they may be carrying a nail-bar or a hammer, too.

This cannot be ruled out!

Her car was outside. She was attacked and chased. Killed with rock and block, not a crowbar or hammer. While its possible it seems implausible. Some people argue it was a personalised frenzied attack, and it very much points that way. Overkill was a strong feature of it.

Disturbed burglars don't tend to stick around.

Yet you trust Bailey's memory even though he was proven to have different recollections of the vitally important incidents that helped make him suspect number 1.

Makes sense.

The suspicion with the alibi is that they both changed their version of events that nite

And then he happened to be gone from the bed all nite the nite (?) of the murder

This argument is made completely invalid when you consider when Bailey was first questioned/interviewed.

To the best of my understanding Bailey was first talked to in the days after the murder and he said he was in bed all night.

This then all changed six or so weeks later.

I can understand how one would struggle to recall what they did a certain night six weeks ago, but I'd expect them to remember better what they did a few nights ago.

Bailey lied in the days after the murder about what he did the night of the murder, a few nights earlier.

And he also lied about what he did the Saturday night.

He first said he went home after the pub but subsequently changed that to say he went to Murphy's and slept on the couch and left in the early morning.

He made this change shortly after his original statement, so still very close to the time, he didn't wait till the February arrest.

And also he went to Murphy's to confirm with everyone there that he slept on the couch and left in the early morning before going to the Gardai with that information.

Not sure what point you think you're trying to make.

"And he also lied about what he did the Saturday night."

Given that the murder didn't take place on the Saturday night, what reason would Bailey have to lie about it? What advantage is there to lying?

Just speaks to the point of Bailey with drink taken being hazy about details. And confirming the information with the Murphys to be precise so that the Guards couldn't spin it against him if he had to correct some detail of the timing later.

Were the Murphy's lying? Why would they lie?

Bailey sent the Gardaí on a wild goose chase to France, and because of this they wasted valuable time? That's probably what happened all right!

"Bailey sent the Gardaí on a wild goose chase to France".

You just made that up, I've no idea why.

Ha God forbid the Gardai would have to examine a possible “French connection” to the murder of a French lady in a country she spent little time in before she could return to her entire family in France the next day, including her husband who she was not exactly happily married to.

The Gardai should have been examining all of this anyway, regardless of Bailey.

Also, I don’t think the Gardai wasting time at this point mattered too much. They had already effectively torpedoed their own investigation.