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

With a clean hit, I would have considered a gun and a silencer, two shots a few seconds apart, leaving quickly.

Sure, the murderer could have thrown her off a cliff or drowned her in the bath and cleaned fingerprints, etc.. It would seem the murderer didn't have an awful lot of time.

Even in the event of a planned murder, time wasn't in big supply and so was planning.

That what it sounds to me as well. She was reluctant to return to France which is odd. Her failed marriage may have been the issue, but then there was also her son whom she probably wouldn't want to miss for Christmas at least.

Yes, I think that would have worked back then. Just a phone call and chaning a reservation. No internet and no visit to the travel agency. New ticket was then issued upon arrival at the airport at the counter.

It was suggested by some that she brought excessive luggage with her on that trip, which some interpreted that she intended to stay longer, etc.. But that's all some hypothetic speculation by some. This was never really confirmed, as far as I know.

No need for maps at all. If you're heading from Schull to Golden it's only two turns (three if you count the fork between Sophie's and Richardson's) and there's only three houses at the end of the road. Right, left, keep left, first house you meet.

Someone who had been there before should have had no problem finding the house.

Even for someone who had never been there before, one trip to confirm the directions were accurate would be enough. If the source was trusted enough, even that might not be necessary.

None of this rules out that it could have been a totally random, unplanned killing. The aparent lack of evidence leaves it wide open.

I think it's really down to the speicific situation. Even by verbal description Sophie's house can be found with ease.

Past Toormore, it's only two junctions, two turns basically.

If one drives through Toormore one gets to Kealfadda Bridge, that's hard to miss, even at night. It's an old style bridge and there is one turn to the left, just before and one is close to water. One turns right and drives straight on the first couple of junctions, past the trees, there is a bit of a turn in the road ( both hard to miss even at night), and at the next junction one turns left (If one drives on and get's to a junction and a sharp bend to the right you're too far and have to go back ) and after the turn to the left, then it's straight on to Sophie's house. And if one needs help with memory, a piece of paper and a pen and one can draw a map himself.

But in the end, that's not the point.

The problem is that there are too many loose ends in this case, it'll never be solved.

Even if some minor new information comes up, it's again more questions and even less answers. It's been now nearly 30 years after the murder, memories fade, people passed away, moved away, etc…

There is no real strong evidence pinning one specific supspect at the scene of the cirme. There is mostly only hearsay.

The local police were totally ill-equipped and ill-trained to handle such a case, completely botched up the investigation, coerced individuals, lost evidence, and als tried to pervert the course by giving drugs to transients to achieve their totally wrong theory. It often makes one even wonder if the police were involved in the murder themselves….

There is not even a clearly established time of death, - which in my opinion any qualified physician could have given, up or down 30 minutes to 1 hour or at least one hour and a half regarless of temperature outside.

There are only a couple of theories as to possible motives, which we all have, which make more sense to ones or others in likelyhood. But nothing to ever stand up in a court of law and convict beyong reasonable doubt.

The only thing about Bailey, his personality wasn't liked, and most likely neither was his poetry, as a journalist he most likely had information others didn't get a soon, he was from England, he drank too much, he beat up his partner. But that's all not even close to evidence to convict him for murder.

If you have enough DNA data you can trace ancestry. Lot's of people do that these days. I don't think this was widly available back then.

But that's also not the real point in this case. The problem we have is that the murder weapon in question, the cavity block could have been touched or handled by anybody prior to the murder, it was in open plain sight. One could easily have used the cavity block to prevent the gate from closing, or touched it in any other ways, even unjured himself and left DNA on there.

Same with the blood spot from the boot. It wasn't Bailey's that's established? But is it from the time of the murder? Could it have originated at some other time other than the night of the murder? All interesting questions?

Did the Guards really not collect any significant DNA samples at all? Or were the Gards totally incompetent to collect DNA samples? Or did they collect DNA samples and another Guard with certain influence tampered with the samples? Or did the killer have the time to clean up everything? Or was the killer extremly careful and experienced? We don't know that.

Or Dwyer's motivation to state that the killer was a local or must have been a local? Finding Kealfadda bridge at night or taking one turn and driving straight on another road, past the trees, past a notivable curve and then take another turn to get to Sophie's isn't that hard. Did Dwyer think the public is so dumb to "buy that statement"?

Nearly 30 years after the murder? Sophie visited a shop and an uncredible witness saw a man in a dark coat and unshaven face loitiering? The same uncredible witness saw a man in a dark coat at night near Kaelfadda bridge? It all doesn't prove anything in court. Sophie drank tea somewhere, Sophie may have visited a pub, maybe she spoke to a barman, barmen do notice things, but they don't notice all and everything. Could Sophie have spoken with someobody the barman didn't notice, even outside of the bar? Did she meet Karl Heinz Wollney? Did he make a pass at her and the barman or anybody else didn't notice? Quite possible but all very difficult matters to verify today, all hearsay. Incidentally one barman passed away by now as well.

I think, either a miracle happens, or there is a death bed confession.

Agree with this, I think overall it's a moot point as the circumstances are unique.

However, if someone decided that they were going to send a hitman to kill Sophie, the remoteness of the location would be a benefit, not a hinderance. Less witnesses nearby, less likelihood someone would come across the scene, easier to get away etc. All it takes is a little bit of extra planning to work out the route.

Personally I think this is very unlikely however.

Thanks for that insight. I suspected that one would have to collect enough DNA to get something they could work with. By the sounds of it the Guards were also limited in getting information from France, phone records, possible financial records?

Regarding Dwyer, I don't know if it's a "hands off approach" or a "I don't care approach"? After all, it was the only murder in West Cork by many decades? And Dwyer doesn't take an interest? It would sound a bit strange to me.

Regarding the man with the in a black coat with sallow skin, short hair and a black beret? Was that the man they visited in Paris during the cold case investigation? How could they trace him down by just this description? Possibly looking for a man on the off chance among Daniel's contacts/friends? There are probably too many men fitting such a profile, plus anybody could put on a black coat and a black beret. And airlines don't keep records that far back?

And what about Martin Graham? I would guess giving drugs to transients to get close to Bailey not having much on Bailey is certainly not "usual procedure" nor would Dwyer have ordered that?

I'd rather say, in absence of real evidence and DNA connecting murderer to victim, motive is key, or somewhat key, as it could lead you at least into an certain direction.

Following the money would be one big motive. And then there is drugs as a motive, - as far as we know there was a bit or more than a bit around in the area.

The way the victim was beaten with the cavity block would lead to the confrontation, unplanned, spur of the moment, situation getting out of control theory.

It was basically a cul de sac / dead end and only 3 houses, only one way in, same way out. Nobody coming and going, only to visit the residents or the residents/owners themselves. Alfie and Shirley's house doesn't seem to have a clear view of the murder site, ( or at least where the body was found). I think the Richardsons would have been in clear view of the murder site. Maybe the killer knew they were not staying at their house.

I've seen similar directions on here before and it doesn't sound like finding the house would be difficult at all. I don't get the claim that only a local could find it.

The claim that only a local could find it, is a very very lame excuse. Maybe some of the simple minded folks would have believed it, I personally didn't believe it for a second. Also upon closer examination in a courtroom, it would have stood out by miles.

Heading west out of Toormore, it's only two turns and both turns are just after something easily and distinctly noticable or easily describable. An old bridge and water on both sides of the road, and a small forrest and a significant noticable bend in the road are both hard to miss. It's as simple as that.

Yes the whole area is rural, the countryside looks romantic, a bit wild, - next stop North America feeling, but one doesn't get lost.

Incidentally all these peninsulas in the South West of Ireland are rather easy to navigate and get around. Peninsulas do have a habit of having a limited amount of roads leading in and out, to and from.

Dwyer should have said, that "we are investigating in all directions", or "if he has evidence that it was a local" then he would have to name what precise evidence would point to a local and how he came up with the opinion. ( other than a house in the countryside) The latter Dwyer should never have said to Bailey at that stage of the investigation if he considered Bailey as suspect. It basically killed the conversation, implying it could have been Bailey rather than anybody else…. Bailey certainly knew where he was with Dwyer at that point but Dwyer and the police still had nothing in terms of real evidence.