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

I think the only reason, why Daniel gotten off lightly and wasn't cross examined further by police is that the murder looked very much like an amateur. Or it was deliberately ordered and made look like an amateur.

However suppose that Sophie would have been killed by two shots out of a pistol at short range, - a clear indication of a professional, and that would without any hesitation have pointed back to Daniel.

Subsequently Daniel was interviewed by French police on French soil, he gave a statement which he signed, and things were over and done with for him.

The way Sophie's head was bashed in to insist that the killer was an amateur is as silly as suggesting that the killer must have been a local because the house was remote, or so terribly remote.

Sophie introduced them of course 😀

This murder case would have been a difficult one to solve from day one. However it is the Garda's conduct or better misconduct as well as the endless focus on Bailey whom they had nothing on in terms of evidence that the murderer gotten clean away.

There should have been an investigation into improper police conduct, there should have been consequences for those who acted improper as well as Dermot Dwyer.

Anything else is just a joke on the public and the taxpayer.

It was lost in the sense that during the GSOC investigation AGS did not seem to be able to account for its whereabouts at the time, so "lost track of". Doesn't say much for chain of evidence keeping they were unable to explain that to GSOC.

It was reported to GSOC that extensive searches had been carried out by An Garda Síochána for the missing items, which include:

• A blood-spattered gate taken from close to where Madame Toscan Du Plantier’s body was found.
• A French wine bottle found four months after the murder in a field next to the scene.
• A black overcoat belonging to Ian Bailey.
• The original memo of interview of Jules Thomas following her arrest in 1997.
• An original witness statement from Marie Farrell provided on 5 March 2004.
• An original witness statement from Jules Thomas dated 19 February 1997.

https://www.thejournal.ie/grave-concern-over-missing-evidence-in-du-plantier-murder-investigation-4161933-Aug2018/

• A blood-spattered gate taken from close to where Madame Toscan Du Plantier’s body was found.
• A French wine bottle found four months after the murder in a field next to the scene.
• A black overcoat belonging to Ian Bailey
• The original memo of interview of Jules Thomas following her arrest in 1997.
• An original witness statement from Marie Farrell provided on 5 March 2004.
• An original witness statement from Jules Thomas dated 19 February 1997.

There isn't even a photo of the wine bottle.

Bailey's black overcoat which was according to the Gardai bleached on Christmas Eve & burned on St Stephen's Day, worn on New Year's Eve and tested forensically in March. No evidence of damage or blood was found upon it.

Marie Farrell's statement from 2004 has completely vanished into the memory hole, there isn't even a transcription

EDIT: Sorry, this statement does exist. This is the one where Marie Farrell alleged Bailey intimidated her on March 1st 2004, a day when Bailey was in fact visiting Frank Buttimer in Cork City. How convenient this particular one can't be tested for tampering.

Jules Thomas's dodgy statement, which is arguably one of the most important statements of all in the the case against Ian Bailey. This is the only one where Bailey is supposed to have stopped on Hunt's hill and seen the light at Sophie's house and talked about going over to Alfies. Jules repudiated this statement and alleged it was verballed. What a shame the original can't be tested for tampering.

Except that this statement was taken on 10th February 1997. There wasn't a statement taken on 19th February or if there was, it is completely lost. It could be a misprint in the GSOC report.

Given that the likelihood of the cold case review has of unearthing evidence to point towards the identity of Sophie's killer being slim to zero without physical evidence of the killer being present at the crime scene then perhaps this gate may have held the key to finally allowing her family access to justice. It had blood smears on it from an unknown source. Perhaps given the advances in forensic science since the gate was destroyed, the blood traces on it may have yielded the key to finally solving this murder. It was a crazy decision to have it destroyed, unless of course there was a thorough sampling of it conducted to archive any forensic material it harboured. Wouldn't hold my breath on that having happened though.

Hopefully there was some due diligence followed and the samples were stored.

The harsh fact is, both Daniel as well as Sophie were cheating and sleeping around.

Daniel had the advantage: He was the man with the money, and in a good job, in the center of the media, thus him attracting women or a certain kind of women was easier.

For Sophie it was more difficult, she was just an employee, financially not much to offer, or at least less than Daniel, she was just young and attractive looking, at least in the eyes of some or some more.

Thus Daniel had more partners outside marriage than Sophie.

Nothing criminal, but again, lot's more motives, lot's more disgruntled former lovers, possible jealousy and lose ends where there are no answers to that.

Their cheating made it even more difficult to solve this case, in absence of real evidence.

I don't think Sophie was sleeping around - that was only media and local gossip. I think it's unfair to label her as promiscuous when she probably wasn't.

You're basically writing what I've written before. As the the rest, the matter is very much of a personal opinion on how to describe things.

Daniel had by far more options for affairs / sleeping around / cheating than Sophie did.

As to Sophie we don't know if she had any others besides Bruno or not. In the Dunmanus files on redit the possibility is suggested, but nothing is proven.

The fact that they were both cheating / having affairs / an open marriage / whatever you want to call it, certainly doesn't make it easier from a murder / motive point of view. That is if the motive relationship/sexual is to be considered.

He had quite an impressive record with the ladies. Some list of conquests there. Money can be a powerful aphrodisiac. He died aged only sixty-one.

Only partially off topic. It's quite possible that he was abusing his position and financial situation to prey on females. It's also not unthinkable that in France things were socially accepted which wouldn't have been in Ireland back then.

In the end, it's just one of many possibilities this could have transpired to. Just bear in mind, both him and her were having affairs outside of marriage, him more than her.

Somebody having a grudge, some form of jealousy, some form of "if I can't have her, nobody can" attitude could easily have resulted out of this, giving this case an extra form of possibilities and speculations as to motive of murder.

Suppose Daniel sent a hitman, it's not impossible to speculate that Bruno might have done so as well, regardless of what is more or less likely he certainly knew where the house was, he certainly was upset that she quit the affair sort of out of the blue. And relationships and or sexual affairs/matters can easily be motive for murder.

The thing is, this is another of many speculations, the kind which wouldn't be in existence at all if both Sophie and Daniel were not cheating / having affairs ( irrespective who did more cheating ).

If their marriage would have been in perfect order nobody would have suspected anything into this direction.

No, you're saying Daniel behaved that way because he had more opportunity to do so. I think that was a choice on his part. Sophie had plenty of "options" if she chose to, she had dozens and dozens of famous people in her address book, and she was, by all accounts, a very attractive and vivacious woman. But she did not have a string of lovers as he did. It's true that she kept secrets from Daniel and from Bruno and they both commented on this. Daniel said she he had "secret gardens" and Bruno said she had "many facets". However there is a lot of testimony from her friends and her agendas. If she had another regular partner like Bruno, her friends would have known. Something once off or casual? It's impossible to know, but she did not behave like Daniel.

She was the opposite of Daniel in this and many other ways and I think this is important.

Sophie was devoted to her son where as Daniel was basically an absent father. Sophie had a clean, minimalist style (see her cottage decor) whereas Daniel had a flamboyant style. Sophie liked modern art, Daniel filled his chateau with knockoff 19c old masters and a large collection callipygian nudes (which according to Ariane, he had to sell off to pay for his divorce to Francesca Comencini). Sophie had a small number of close friends and hated the constant partying, Daniel lived for parties.

In the end I am saying they both had plenty of opportunities but only Daniel had a string of lovers. If I could investigate in France, the first thing I would ask was who was with Daniel the night she died? He said he was in a meeting with Unifrance associates in his chateau in Ambax when she called at 11:30pm. If so then who were they and can they corroborate this call?

looks like Marie Farrell was alive and well in 1888.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2024/1030/1478082-kerry-murder-pardon/

The RIC back then were as bad or worse than the Gardai 100 years later.

No direct link to the murder.

Circumstantial evidence only.

the accused did not match the descriptions that were given by the witness

The main circumstantial evidence came from a woman who changed her story several times.

All sounds very familiar!

Sophie had an affair with Bruno which Daniel knew about. Her marriage was pretty much dead at this stage. This does not mean though that Sophie was jumping into bed with every man she met. The media were happy to paint Sophie as a promiscuous French woman to sell newspapers but there is nothing to back this claim up whatsoever. Rumours were put out that she was involved with men in West Cork when this couldnt have been possible given that she never before visited West Cork alone so she wouldnt have had the opportunity at all to strike up any relationships.

There is no comparison between Daniel and Sophie - Daniel was a known womaniser who dropped/divorced women when he felt like it and moved onto the next - they were disposable. Sophie was fiery and confrontational as said by Daniel - this could very well have been a problem for Daniel if he were divorcing her - maybe she couldnt be got rid of easily financially and had to be got rid of. It would also appear that Sophie was not wealthy in her own right she was only considered wealthy because she was Daniels wife. Another divorce could have been costly for Daniel - Sophie wasnt a fool who would accept any settlement.