I haven't been around long enough to link. Don't blame me!
And I didn't just make up a book and an author and a chapter.
Google websleuths forums thread ireland sophie toscan du plantier 39 murdered county cork 23 dec 1996 568507 page 5
From what I've read in various articles French forensic examination in 2011 also found DNA near Sophie Toscan du Planter's bootlaces. That DNA has not been identified. That a French Court found Ian Bailey guilty in absentia in the face of such potentially exculpatory evidence demonstrates how much of a farcical showtrial the French Court case was.
The case has more loose ends than a pot of noodles. The Office for the Director of Public Prosecutions twice ruled that there was not evidence to prosecute anyone for the murder.
"I was reading yesterday online the chapter on Sophie in the book "The Things I've Seen : The Nine Lives of a Foreign Correspondent"
link please?. EDIT OK saw it https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Jax8AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT80&lpg=PT80&dq=tomi+ungerer+ian+bailey&source=bl&ots=LcU0DiUSDA&sig=ACfU3U3F0o7wzzYRhM3CTDA3nrLkOyq3-A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwis4Pub5OfxAhUNNuwKHfsyDk8Q6AF6BAgQEAM#v=onepage&q=tomi%20ungerer%20ian%20bailey&f=false
Yes, I didn't realise it was a nine inch by nine inch by seventeen inch block. The cavities are not all that large either. It might be 25kg. I wonder if any experiments were ever done to see the effect of that on something like a head or face? Dropped or smashed from a height it would be hard to see anything being left of the unfortunate victim.
The photos from the crime scene show what look like foot prints on it. I would have thought if it was smashed on the face there would be some matter from the victim on it. It looks clean It also looks like it is placed next to a metal fencing pin that wire ties to. Maybe it was placed there to support the pin.
I was reading yesterday online the chapter on Sophie in the book "The Things I've Seen : The Nine Lives of a Foreign Correspondent" by Lara Marlowe. She says the blood spots on Sophie's long johns were circular droplets deposited as if descending from above, as if from the perp not the victim. She was hopeful the droplets could be analysed in the future.
But the 2018 GSOC investigation found the Gardai lost a number of items of evidence and witness statements. Its all in the report.
They are changing their story now that their incompetence is being highlighted in two TV series.
Senan seems to contradict himself quoting Sophies son as saying he was not offered the gate, the whole article is ambigious, "it is said".. "senior sources", the usual stuff from Senan who from his demeanour on the documentary still holds a bit of a grudge because Bailey didn't hold his hand on his arival in cork.. That a gate from a murder scene was quickly believed to be of no evidential value by the forensic lab frankly beggars belief and I for one would raise a sceptical eyebrow at Senans scribblings on this matter.. If the gate was too large to store longterm for heavens sake cut off the areas with the blood splatters taking multiple pictures as they go along so there could be no mistaking it was the gate from the murder scene and store them in a sterile environment with the rest of the evidence, the whole garda investigation was a complete shambles and its fair to wonder why this was so, imv a mouses fart would hold more weight than any of Senans ramblings on this case
I think you are right in your assessment.
Imagine going to the trouble of researching and writing such a book, befriending and actually living with Bailey for a time, and then saying: 'I've written my book and hidden a clue inside it that only the killer will understand'.
He is basically admitting that his book is rubbish so resorting to the free toy in the cornflake box strategy.
Has any serious author ever done this before? It's quite pathetic in my opinion.
Despite all the documentaries / pocasts, (or maybe because of them) People seem to be greatly misinformed about this case
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/blood-stained-gate-in-sophie-murder-inquiry-wasnot-lost-gardai-reveal-40647261.html
Apologies because I'm not convinced this hasn't been asked earlier but has anyone ready Nick Foster's Murder at Roaringwater? Sheridan and McInytre have cameos and Foster worked with him on it but I'm asking about the easter egg Foster says he has hidden it in that tells the killer he knows the truth. I think it's just a line to sell books but any other ideas?
Thanks mainly to the Gardai handling of this case, nobody will ever found guilty of the murder. Ever.
It's not just the lack of evidence, it's the loss of evidence like the farm gate which any defence barrister will rip apart.
Even if Bailey wrote a confession today I imagine a good barrister would get him off.
That's the way it normally works, case closed for once and for all.
find the match for that DNA and you have most probably found your murderer...
I understand they found DNA but haven't been able to match it to anyone.
In regards to no DNA belonging to Bailey found at the scene , if not his, was there any other persons DNA found on the briars etc ( besides STDP obviously ) ?
I was thinking maybe they had spoken or it was known she was only over for a brief visit and would be going home for Christmas. Then it would be reasonable to assume her seeing the car still there would be a surprise.
A standard nine inch cavity block weighs approx 23kg.
https://www.kilcarrigquarries.ie/concrete_blocks.php
Hmm, I'm a petite person alone in the middle of nowhere. I leave my house to go down a lane to open the gate at midnight. Should I bring something with me just in case? No, that would be stupid. What are the chances of being murdered. "Merde!".
"but doesn't mention the car wasn't supposed to be there but should have been back at the airport" How would Shirley have known that then?
*Is anyone having problems quoting, the down arrow on the quote doesn't work for me.
why would she bring axe for protection? protection from what?
Before the Boards update debacle I posted about that. If she was booked on the return flight to the one she came on (EI521 EI520) she would have had to leave the cottage at 4 a.m. that's what makes me think she went to the gate to open it for a fast getaway in the morning and got in an argument about the gate. Maybe she had brought the kindling axe for protection and the assailant picked up the block in self-defence, to begin with.
The block is described as 20kg but plainly in the photos it is a cavity block which wouldn't weigh as much as a solid one so I don't think you'd need to be superman to lift it.
Just watching episode one again and it starts with Shirley Fosters' statement on the morning she discovered Sophie's body.
Was Sophie due to fly home on the 23rd or the 24th?
I thought it was odd how the statement mentions passing Sophie's car but doesn't mention the car wasn't supposed to be there but should have been back at the airport.
Interesting listening to Maire Farrell interview for the West Cork podcast.
She came across believable. *I am suprised. From watching both documentaries I thought she was an attention seeker like Bailey.
You get the sense she started with good intentions but then dug herself deep into a right mess and with each statement, interview, court, media, etc she was digging herself deeper into the hole.
On the subject of scratches, I'm going to excerpt this is from the DPP report as I think it puts to bed the whole issue of the scratches:
DPP’s Report | (wordpress.com)
1. Lack of Forensic Evidence linking Ian Bailey to the murder scene.
Sophie Toscan Du Plantier was killed by a person who battered her to death with a rock and a concrete block on 23 December 1996. Some fifty wounds were inflicted upon her. Photographs of the deceased show her body as being scratched by briars in the area. The Gardaí suggest that Ian Bailey is the murderer and was scratched on his hands and arms by the briars during the struggle. No forensic evidence linking Ian Bailey to the scene was found despite the fact that the murder of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier was the direct result of an apparently frenzied and furious attack upon her in a briar-strewn location. If in fact the attack was carried out in a frenzied manner one might have expected that the assailant would have left traces of blood, skin, clothing fibres or hair at the scene. No such material was discovered. Bailey willingly gave his fingerprints and a sample of his blood to the Gardaí for analysis and examination.
10. Scratches.
The Gardaí suggest that Bailey was scratched on his hands and arms during the course of killing Sophie Toscan du Plantier. Her body was scratched and they suggest that her killer must also have been scratched during the struggle. Bailey has consistently stated that he received scratches by climbing up a twenty-foot tree with a bow saw in one hand, cutting the top off the tree and pulling it down through the branches. Bailey is supported in his explanation as to how he got the scratches by Jules Thomas and her daughters Virginia and Saffron...
Dr. Louise Barnes, a dermatologist (skin specialist) closely observed Bailey some five days after the murder. She states “at no time, did he strike one as being suspicious. As a keen observer of peoples appearance due to my profession I certainly did not notice any marks or injuries to his face or hands.” Denis O’Callaghan saw Bailey on 24 December 1996 (the day after the murder) and he noticed multiple light scratches on Bailey’s arms. Such light scratches are not consistent with cuts by razor like thorns...
On 27 December 1996 Gda. Bart O’Leary alleges that he noticed that the back of both of Bailey’s hands were cut. Both were totally covered in what he thought were briar marks. On 28 December 1996 Gda. O’Leary asked Bailey how he cut his hands and Bailey explained while cutting the top off a tree to make a Christmas tree. Bailey then took off his jacket and Gda. O’Leary noticed that the scratches were on the backs of both hands and up as far as both his elbows. Bailey’s willingness to assist the Gardaí is indicative of innocence. He made no attempt to conceal the scratch marks. As distinct from his observation the previous day Gda. O’Leary says that they were not cuts only scratches and they were healing up...
It is interesting to note that the Gardaí did not ask Bailey to show the scratches to a medical or any other expert witness in order to obtain an opinion as to causation. This request was not made despite the fact that Bailey though under suspicion at the time was prepared to co-operate with the Gardaí. (Statement of Gda. Bart O’Leary refers – re: scratches and Bailey’s willingness to show them to persons in authority)... Bailey’s explanation for the scratches is plausible, consistent and is supported by other direct and credible evidence.
Dwyer has about as much credibility as Bailey at this stage - which is a big part of why the whole thing has become a perhaps unsolvable-mess.
The gate had blood on it and, though the evidence that could be gathered *at the time* was minimal, disposing of it while it was still an active investigation was just more ineptitude. I mean FFS, stick it somewhere safe just in case; it's not that hard an ask.
"Should we take a photo of Bailey's scratches" - nah, sure why bother, just scribble some stuff on that drawing... 😵
1️⃣ If Bailey did it then the main reason he is free is because of Garda ineptitude.
2️⃣ If Bailey didn't do it then the main reason we have not caught the killer is because of Garda ineptitude.
This was no "mastermind" killing and was solvable with reasonable detective work.
He was not under arrest so they probably couldn't take photos. I think you can refuse to be photographed even when arrested and they have to invoke a statute to force you. I may be wrong there. Strange Jules didn't take photos of the scratches.
Right, but there's plenty of people in jail for crimes in the 70s on children where they were only tried in recent years.
His first interview was in February as far as I remember. Dwyer visited him at some stage in January, Bailey said he gave him mince pies that had already gone bad, and that was just to 'discuss the case'. Bailey never denied he had scratches on his hands and arms though so I don't know why there's so much fuss about it. He said in the RTE interview that he wore long sleeves in the pub on the night of the murder and that's why four people who sat watching him playing the bodhran said they saw no scratches, after he had cut down the christmas tree. As far as I remember the witnesses all said he had his sleeves rolled up while he played.
After 24 years the memory gets very hazy. Especially when it comes to timelines of events.
My own memory is a little hazy on this but was he not interviewed while he had the scratches? If so and you suspect that this is an oddity would it not be normal practice to take a photograph.
A couple of decades down the line and relationships change, witnesses might be more forthcoming.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bd89cdce15309a6ec2dff928c865017a.svg)
