Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed. **Threadbans lifted - see OP**

"Hills. This does not appear in the statement."

Well yes and she clearly seemed to have an issue with that. Obviously she was initially presented with a statement or memo where something she said about hills had been blacked out and the statement she signed had it omitted completely, that is of course if I take you at your word which I am now less inclined to do as your posts are becoming increasingly disingenuous.

The note is very revealing. She acknowledges that she read the statement herself. She confirms that the statement "is correct except for the part that I pointed out about the hills being black over." So she had no issue with the fact that she had stated that Bailey wanted to go over to Alfie`s house, that he got out of bed and she didn`t see him again until around 9AM when he turned up with a bloodied scratch on his forehead.

"what else would he be admitting?"

Things that he initially denied had happened. Like getting out of bed, leaving the house etc.

"Lying to a suspect is a clear psychological technique that police use to break suspects."

So what? As long as she was truthful, she had nothing to be concerned about. Assuming they did lie to her in `97, this would have had no bearing on events in 2000 when she signed the statement again.

"If you believe it is really "a million to one" that this man might have lied or twisted the words to fit what he wanted.."

I don`t. You`ve just taken something I said about the lottery and used it in an attempt to discredit me in a most disingenuous way. But if you think that Fitzgerald wrote up that statement alone and unprompted by the other interrogators and then forced Jules to sign it, you are utterly deluded. In reality you are alleging a broad conspiracy.

"the only way they could succeed was to "break Jules Thomas""

Well I`ve said this a few times now but this was a big mistake by the Gardaí. She hadn`t a clue what he was up to on the night of the murder and he didn`t need her help to disappear the bloodied evidence.

"she later described these events as devastating"

Unfortunately Jules Thomas hitched her wagon to a man who assaulted her multiple times and who fantasized about murdering multiple people and that`s minimally. She has a level of personal responsibility to bear for her own situation.

"you asked who else-apart from Marie Farrell-retracted their statements"

"Jules Thomas"

Well I did specifically say impartial witnesses.

"Patrick Lowney….no prizes for guessing why he was never called as a witness at the libel trial"

Fair enough. I wonder why he wasn`t called by Bailey`s team?

"Patrick O`Riordain"

He didn`t make a statement. Is that it?

"a million to one"

You have quoted me out of context four or five times in that post. You`re not doing yourself any favours. I suspect you are a bit rattled about how you have misinterpreted that signed note with the statement and your whole argument at this stage is completely undermined.

I see this the same way. Daniel's influence in France would most likely have meant he could have hidden his financial affairs as well, police not having an insight into his finances/bank accounts, etc…. Daniel certainly wouldn't have liked any media coverage in France on his financial situation.

The problem with the invesitgation of the Gards regarding checking for flights and arrivals in Ireland at that time is that results were limited from the start. No big IT as today, no biometrics in passports ( one false passport may not have stood out), the investigation could only have focused on the PNR, the passenger name records. Finding one of thousands was impossible, lot's of family, relatives, etc travelling home over Christmas, Irish working overseas not uncommon in the early to mid 90ies. Somebody taking a train from say Paris to Brussels, then a flight to Dublin, gradually making his way to Cork wouldn't have stood out in any search.

I suppose the police kept a copy of all the PNR data around that time. Suppose they've matched one man still alive today to Daniel's circles and things would get interesting, - also rumors would be rampant quickly as well. Another book written, another documentary filmed, etc… Everything, but absolutely no real evidence.

Thus to me my ranking is based on motive:

1. hitman sent by Daniel, highest financial motive, lot's of problems solved for Daniel, no costly divorce, gotten inheritance as husband and next of kin etc….
2. drugs related, and somebody local, Alfie Lyons, Leo Bolger, Finbarr Hellens, possibly one or two corrupt Gards involved. 2nd highest financial motive, motive of avoiding a jail sentence for somebody with a previous brush with the law.
3. something sexual, jealous ex lover, horny Guard from Bantry, Karl-Heinz Wolney, no financial motive or gain
4. possibly Bailey with unknown motive or just sheer lust for beating up a woman as a motive

Only an informed hitman, Alfie/Shirley, Leo and Finbarr/Josie would have known with a high degree of certainty that Sophie was alone at her cottage and the location was sort of isolated. ( and this doesn't mean that they did it) I don't even think Bailey knew that Sophie was alone? Maybe one or the other bar man in a pub, as well as the Ungerers. However I neither see a motive for a bar man, nor for the Ungerers.

I would contradict this. The hitman theory does have the biggest financial motive. Also the way Sophie was killed could easily hide a professional hit by making it look unprofessional. Suppose Sophie was killed by a pistol, a single and clean shot to the head? Then the fingers would have pointed straight to Daniel having sent somebody, given the orders. A single clean shot plus some financial irregularities in Daniel's bank account would have been even worse for Daniel.

Also the fact that West Cork rarely seen any murders at all would lead to suggest that the locals living there were getting along, or somewhat getting along. They may have had differences, done some shady things here and there, dealing or otherwise handling drugs, some argument over cattle, some arguments over land here and there, maybe an odd brawl under the infulence of alcohol, etc…. but murder was clearly rare. This would be an indication that both victim and murderer were not local or connected to anything local.

All not evidence, but possible indications.

I think a financial motive for a murder has nothing to do with the movie industry.

It's just one motive, or even more, it's the biggest financial motive.

I couldn't see a bigger financial motive in this murder case, - that is of course, if the motive for murder was financial at all….

I think on balance for a very significant proportion of murders it is often just escalation, spurred from something, whether money, land, or simply just insulting someone, or causing reputation damage (a pretty common one in fact). There can be a motive for a confrontation, or just a motive for being at that location, but not necessarily to be there to carry out a murder as such i.e. no plan.

In this case we can't really rule anything out, but, to me it would appear to be very unplanned, amateurish, almost like someone treated her like an animal to be put down as brutal as that sounds. There may still have been a motive for things to escalate from, to blow up. Sophie doesn't back down, and hot-head loses the rag etc. Some of the motives that could be considered,

maybe someone didn't close the gate, or crossed her land without asking,

maybe she lent someone money and asked for it back, or

made a promise to bring something from France, or

for someone like Bailey, told them she'd make a movie with them and then brushed them off, or promised a liaison and backed out.

For Daniel it could have been financial.

The motive would be tied to the individual, but the preponderance of evidence should also point to that individual.

I don't think so. In France he had his connections and his influence. In Ireland he didn't so he could never have known where a meeting with the Irish Gards would have gone.

Also later on in the cold case investigation, the Gards must have had something to go on, to travel to Paris and interview a man who was close to Daniel. Not that it's any evidence, but again, the Gards must have had something pointing into a certain direction. So Daniel behing behind this would still be one of many possibilities.

What a graphic screenwriter!

Sadly, no new facts there. But a very vivid set of images (if it happens…)

The gardai doing anything after lining up Bailey could also be seen as going through the motions to give an air of having any sort of competence. Like they didn't even check for a pulse or do basic common sense actions at the beginning. Somebody with a bit of sense would have told them that looking at the French angle, and potential involvement of the husband is about as a minimum standard you can set to create any sort of confidence in their investigative prowess.

If the extra time you gain didn't provide you any extra benefit, then the risk is not worth it. A fair few of the suspects would have gained nothing from hiding the body.

Hiding a body brings with it additional time and contamination risk too. Also, if someone acted in a rage, and then came to their senses, they may have been horrified, and just wanted to run away.

Reading Mick Clifford's book about the murder of Una Lynskey at the moment and it's pretty eye opening as to the behaviour of the Gardai including some who were very senior and members of the 'Heavy Gang'. Their actions in that case lead to an innocent young man being killed by the family of Una Lynskey. And 2 young men serving sentences for her manslaughter based on very tenuous circumstantial evidence from eye witnesses who changed their statements after pressure from the Gardai. Not to mention 'confessions' by the 2 men that were illicted under credible allegations of the use physical violence by Gardai. A certain John Courtney headed up the murder squad in that case, again in the Kerry babies case and he was a mentor to Dermot Dwyer who headed up the murder investigation in Schull.

Not trying to weave a conspiracy here, personally I think Ian Bailey to be the most likely killer. But I also hold an opinion that there was nowhere near enough evidence to charge him with her murder. There was a culture in the Gardai in the 70s, 80s and to an extent in the 90s that relied heavily on inappropriate and sometimes illegal interrogation techniques to solve murders. There was little effort put into following the physical evidence, more of a practice of formulating a theory and finding / extracting witness statements that would corroborate that theory.

"If you hear hoofbeats (in West Cork), think horses, not zebras."

Back to the beginning with the benefit of all I have learned since.

Sophie bought her house believing her property folio included the shed and land it was on, was hers. So knowing Sophie's personality as we do now thanks to @PolicemanFox and @bjsc and PhilMathers over on Reddid, I'd say it was not an easy conversation when Alfie pointed out that he owned the shed. Not only that, but to get to his shed and the field it was in, involved using the path along the rear wall of Sophie's house, right by her back door.

She took it out on the estate agent and conveyancing solicitor, but I'd say it set the scene for a awkward relationship going forward.

After the murder Alfie said it was resolved amicably, but he would say that, wouldn't he. He was unlikely to say he found Sophie to be an awkward, complaining moaner that he didn't get on with.

The only inkling we have of their relationship comes from a poster on here who was at Shirley's retirement party and heard Alfie referring to Sophie as moaning old so-and-so until Shirley shushed him up. Others at the party moaned when they realised who Alfie's neighbour was.

Alfie and Sophie rubbed along together for a few years. Sophie wasn't there very often and Alfie came across as a mellow character and probably steered clear when Sophie was around. He kept a goat on the field there, but would have little reason to access the shed and field otherwise.

Around this time there was the issue of someone breaking in and using Sophie's bathroom, Josie Hellen pointed the finger at Alfie. But considering there was no evidence of a break-in, it's more likely the intruder had a key. (Think about it). Josie's fingermarks found in the house after the murder, which is understandable, but there were fingermarks of other family members also. There was also a dispute between Alfie and Hellens about fencing around this time.

Anyway, come 1996, Sophie had had 2 gates erected by Finbarr Hellen to secure her property, one from the lane into her lower lawn and the other at the rear of her house. This is where it gets interesting. We don't know what kind of arrangement was in place between Alfie and Sophie about the access to the Alfie's field. Sophie may have thought access was a private right of way for Alfie only, and whoever was using Alfie's field may have thought they had a right to access Alfie's field with his permission. So a complicated Irish right of way law interpreted by a French landowner with poor English and their Irish neighbour is a recipe for a confrontation. An obstreperous entitled blow-in meets an equally strong willed local (male or female) and there you have it, my take on it.

@Mannesmann



Wasn't there some fencing posts and wire near the entrance too? At least in some of the photos around the time. These seem not to have been used and removed later?

Yes it is marked in green here;

It marks her Eastern boundary, Sophie's car was parked outside the fence on Richardson's land.

The fence is not in later photos all right.

The blue line is the low wall by her Eastern gable, I believe there was a small gate between it and the corner of her house

Yes, you have it exactly. This was just they way they all worked, and they thought it was OK. They didn't think it was illegal or inappropriate.

1. Ok, but hiring a hitman to murder your wife to avoid divorce is quite extreme, Daniel had navigated two divorces already at this point.
2. Perhaps others also had motive.
3. I don't think that's true in this case. Many witnesses said that Daniel was floored by the murder ("boulversé"). That's plausible and maybe part of it but I think the main reason Daniel stayed in France is obviously because he feared being detained by the Irish police. Even so this does not make him guilty or even suspicious. Daniel thought Ireland was just a backward rainy country and he probably thought he would risk being stitched up. In retrospect, he was probably wise to stay in France. Imagine if your wife (or husband) was murdered in - say - Iran. Would you immediately travel to see the body?
4. Unless someone can show they were together at the time of the murder, there is no motive at all.
5. If the means is merely the organizational ability to find someone to travel and brain a petite woman with a block, then that is within the reach of anyone. It's a moral stretch, not a financial one.

I would argue that Daniel not travelling to Ireland created the suspicion of his involvement in Sophies death and laid the groundwork for the hired killer theory. He may not have had much love for Ireland but it's a feeble excuse for not wanting to visit upon hearing of his wifes murder.

Fear of being 'stitched up' by the Irish police is also not a natural response. What would he have to fear if he was completely innocent?

I know he did visit Ireland a number of years later when Bailey was conveniently the sole focus of the Gardai.

"Hills being black over"

I wish we all had the same access to the files and information. Then we could all talk about the same things. In fact I am working to achieve this, but it is not as simple as that.

The comment is a handwritten note on a typed copy of the statement from 10/02/97. This is reproduced in photocopy for the French files. There is nothing "blacked out" in the statement, and there is no reference to hills. The comment is signed by Jules. I can think of only two possible explanations. Maybe the Gardai wrote it for whatever reason and Jules just signed it without reading anything. If so then her signature means nothing.

More plausible is that Jules asked the Gardai to write something down about the "hills being black over" which means she did not understand statement being referred to. Far more likely is that she was commenting on something not in the statement - something a Garda said but did not write down. This is verballing by definition.

This also means her signature means nothing.

A million to one the Gardai are corrupt?

"a million to one" This is the lotto metaphor and it came from you @tibruit - choose another if it suits.

You are saying that it is extremely unlikely the Gardai are corrupt in this case just because they were all those other cases I cited. Your meaning is clear, so just own your words. I disagree. There is overwhelming evidence the Gardai were corrupt and abusive in this case.

The Statement that Jim Fitzgerald wrote.

I don't know how Fitzgerald wrote the statement but we both know he wrote it - it's in his own hand. You talked about people pulling bits of paper out of their pockets. I'm sure Fitzgerald kept notes - but if he did, they aren't recorded in Garda memos. That's one of the most curious things about the interrogation - there are no memos from himself or Leahy for the last 6 hours of Jules detention. In every other interview of Ian Bailey, of Fenella, of Jules Thomas in 2000 and for the first 6 hours of her first arrest, there are memos from each of the interviewing Gardai. There are none for the last 6 hours when Fitzgerald and Leahy were with Jules - there is absolutely no record of her interviews during this period. The statement appears out of nowhere. The previous memo was 4:50pm from Garda Kevin Kelleher and Garda Norma Keane. There is no further record until she was releasedat 1:14am. Seven hours - that plenty of time for Jim "Mr Fixit"Fitzgerald to write up the perfect statement.

So then this statement appears, with no corrections, full of Gardalegalese. Jules signs it and is let go. Three days later she told Pat Kenny:

PK So you are completely convinced of his innocence? You would find it difficult to continue living with someone if there was any hint in your mind that he might be capable of something....

JT Absolutely. Absolutely, I wouldn't, you know, as I said at the end of my um interview, I was, I was pretty well forced to make a statement or they were going to take me down and charge me, so I was thinking of the consequences I have three daughters, two at college and one at home and I was thinking ofthe consequences and I knew I had to make a statement and at the end of the day I did say that if he had done it, I would never want to see him again. The whole idea of being close to a murderer would, you know like any woman, feel absolutely appalling.

She never denied making a statement, but she has repeatedly denied saying that the contents are her words. And when the Gardai tried to get her to reaffirm her statement, she clearly did not affirm the contents of the statement that they showed her. Note the handwritten comment "Read over by me" is not in Jules Thomas's handwriting. She claims all statements were read to her not by her.

Why is it so unreasonable to say that Fitzgerald forced her to sign it? He simply put her in an impossible situation where she would have been charged as an accessory. After 14 hours she simply let him write and agreed with it - with no corrections. She needed to get back to her daughters. Saffron was adult but the other two would have gone back to the care of her fathers. I can think of a few reasons why she might not want that.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20095548.html

Why didn't Ian Bailey not call Patrick Lowney?

Because nobody knew about him at the time of the libel trial? The Gardai didn't share the statements, or the witnesses with Bailey's team -only with the newspapers (illegally). You can be sure the Gardai would have tipped the newspapers about him in 2002. Evidence that Ian Bailey was developing photos of the murder scene? It would have been sensational! I reckon they probably did approach him and he made it clear he would not stand over his statements.

Patrick O'Riordan

Patrick O'Riordain - you say there was no statement from him - really? Are you certain? The French file contains this gem.

Statement of Gerard McCarthy 15/03/2007 (to McAndrew review).

While I am aware that allegations have been made against the investigating Gardai by Ian Bailey, Jules Thomas and Marie Farrell where it is alleged that the Gardai attempted to "Stitch up"Ian Bailey for this murder. I wish to say that proper procedures were followed at all times during my involvement. This is clearly indicated by the actions of D/Gda Liam Leahy and I where we recorded a memo of interview with Patrick O'Riordan on the 26/9/2001 at Cork District Court and the subsequent disclosure of that memo in the clear knowledge that it would be highly beneficial to Ian Bailey. Had we been involved in withholding evidence or fabricating evidence as alleged this memo would never have seenthe light of day.

In other words, "look how honest we are, although we tried to use a prison snitch on Bailey we discovered the story was all made up, we fessed up, we didn't try to bury it as we normally would"

Strangely, this highly beneficial memo (which is code for highly embarrassing for the Gardai) has never seen the light of day. Ray McAndrew probably saw it and maybe he referenced it in his report, which has also never seen the light of day.

In the netflix documentary, Sophie's family did mention that they didn't know Daniel that well, that they were surprised he did not travel to Ireland in the aftermath of Sophie's death and that they were not happy with how he organised Sophie's funeral. I thought it was interesting that they mentioned these points. I think they do have a certain amount of suspicion towards him but had no evidence against him and perhaps were powerless given his wealth and high up connections.

The gardai aren't a singular entity, they are a sum of many parts. There are many, and in fact I would say the vast majority these days who are really good people, literal pillars of the community. Of course even today there are some who would be less than stellar, and a few who would be criminals, or criminal plants, up to no good. Overall as a system, even today for the most part, they try to handle issues internally, and on some rare occasions it comes to the national press, or whistleblowers etc. This is still a reasonable way to operate imo, it's never going to be perfect.

In this case it could be as simple as one or two corrupt Guards protecting someone initially (who themselves didn't have to be a guard by the way), and at the same time pulling the wool over the eyes of the rest of them. By the time others started figuring it out, there was no going back, the case was already lost. It could also be just sheer incompetence across the board, and then corruption once they figured they had to pin it on someone, whether they believed he (or she) did it or not.

From the little I ever knew of Daniel Toscan du Plantier, he always came across as quite a distant, chilly type. (Not that I'm in any position to judge the man)

The Wikipedia kind of confirms my opinion, though; bit of a ladies' man, no problem attracting les femmes, or moving on from them, either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Toscan_du_Plantier

Maybe he's a lovely bloke, how can we tell? - and he must have some amount of sex-appeal, going by his track record. Yet he still appears to me as quite uninviting - or should I say, pas sympathique.

However, his list of ladies looks very much like "easy come, easy go". Nothing to suggest that he'd go so far as to have one of them murdered; seems quite a stretch, going to such lengths, when all he had to do was arrange another divorce. He had a girlfriend, and Sophie had a boyfriend; mais bien sûr!

All very French. But not very criminal.