I think Daniel may have said this convince all that they were happy couple and going to have a baby ( when clearly they were anything but a happy normal couple). Conveniently he said this years after the murder. The autopsy would have revealed this information Im sure -It would have been relavent if she was pregnant and this would have been made public. I think Daniel is lying on the pregnancy.
I assume she wasn't pregnant at the time of death.. Wouldn't this have been made public? The family wouldn't have lost just Sophie but also the hope of the unborn child?
Perhaps though the husband believed her to be pregnant? Sophie may have been genuinely mistaken or misleading him for her own reasons. And it was the straw that broke the camel's back for him?
He certainly didn't come across afterwards as a man who had just lost his wife who was about to become the mother of his child (as he believed).
The husband was well connected.. Perhaps he looked into getting a 'hitman'.. I know this seems unlikely given the way she was killed and where - but perhaps he hired 'the wrong person'.. Someone who hadn't done this before but was desperate for money or to pay off some sort of debt?! I don't know how these things work but I know things can always go wrong in any 'job'. Perhaps the reason it seems to have happened more in the early morning as opposed to the middle of the night is the length of time it took to find the house. Perhaps the killer planned on making a noise outside to lure her out and strangle her.. but she put up such a fight and run that he had to resort to whatever was to hand?
I would like to have seen much more of a focus on the husband rather than dissecting Bailey.
And I'd love the family of Sophie to have closure.
A Paris-based journalist claimed Daniel Toscan du Plantier revealed to him that Sophie was pregnant.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-10046500.html
I don't think this was the case. The pathologist would have found that out and I don't think that the pathologist lied in this matter.
Also, if Sophie was sleeping with various other men, she would have used contraception. And if she wasn't happy with Daniel, she certainly wasn't wanting a child with him.
Several sources have claimed that Sophie was pregnant at the time of her murder though...
Looking at those hands, I'd say she could lift a cavity block easy enough.
But I believe she was 6 months pregnant at the time of the murder,
so maybe a Serbian hitman.....
Edit;
She was not pregnant at the time of the murder,
daughter was 3 months old when she married Daniel in June 1998.
A grand piece of fluff too be honest...
Good leg on her, but the eyes are steel cold..
Not the type to be understanding of one more pint and I'll be home..
"Covered in blood", you say. There were spatters or splashes of what was discovered to be Mme. DuPlantier's blood but none belonging to the assailant or anyone else. The chief suspect had already given a blood sample so a match could have been made. They found nothing. No blood, other than that of the victim, no hair, skin fragments, fingerprints or clothing fibres. The forensic testing method used to deduce this has never been called into question for being unsafe or inaccurate. So what if that gate was still in storage and re-tested today. Would anything new be discovered, even allowing for more advanced testing methods? I seriously doubt it.
He was having an affair at the time of Sophie's death, a young piece of fluff by all accounts..
Milita Nikolic, undoubtedly good looking, of Serbian parents, her father murdered her mother when she was 7, brought up in the harsh environment of French care homes with her little brother.
Perhaps Daniel made the same mistake as you: regarding her as a piece of fluff.
The problem is, we have no evidence at all, and that together with unreliable and clearly lying witnesses like Marie Farrell, other possible witnesses who passed away by now, general memories fading, corrupt and / or incompetent police officers etc... it's even unlikely that any kind of serious retrial is an option to either clear Bailey or convict Bailey beyond reasonable doubt.
That is unless there is new evidence, like maybe the find blood stained clothes belonging to Bailey with Sophie's DNA all over, in some plastic bag conserved, and buried behind the Studio, etc....
Other than that, we can only speculate on the motives to the murder. Regarding motive, Bailey would come in last in terms of ranking when it comes to any form of financial benefit to Sophie's death. Taking a hike at night to Sophie's house, killing her, hiking back, and hiding and later burning his clothes, and that all, after a night out in the pub, would technically make it possible for Bailey to do it, but the motive for that is more than unclear, there isn't even a financial benefit to him nor is there a shred of evidence backing up this theory.
Number one motives ( no evidence as well ) would still be either :
Other than motive there's nothing really to go on other than speculation and unanswered questions.
Ultimately, it's down to the police to gather and present the evidence, to the judge. If there is no evidence there is nothing to convict anybody, thus the killer walks free.....
I also find it strange that she had been planning to spend Christmas on her own in Cork. I've seen this said in a number of places, including John Montagues article above. i know Sophie asked a few people to come with her but it was very short notice at a time of year when everyone has plans made.
Either way she was happy to go on her own in the end, with a plan to stay until after Christmas. The earliest she could have left would have been Stephen's day as the airports are all closed here on Christmas day. Do we know what day she originally planned to fly back to France?
She seems to have changed her mind shortly after arriving and had tickets to fly on the 23rd and 24th.
But it's strange that, regardless if she was having marital issues, that she chose to spend Christmas alone in an isolated location in a foreign country, particularly when she had a young son and elderly parents in France.
Checking on the heating is BS. She told her parents this, they were likely as puzzled as I am now as to why she was going over there at all. But it's a lame excuse. As other posters have said, the housekeeper could have checked it out and organised to get it fixed if needs be.
Not alone do we not have a motive as to why she was murdered, but we don't have her motive to travel.
Logically thinking..
Among the whole cast of suspects (and they are indeed a rare bunch..), one must put the Hubby at the top of the list.
Why?
Sophie was being rogered outside the marriage as well. This could have caused immense embarrassment to the high rolling, powerful film maker? Was she becoming troublesome to him, was he getting tired of her indiscretions?
On the last night before Sophie was murdered, the Husband rang his Wife at around 11.30pm. The call lasted around half an hour, with one exception. The Husband hung up on Sophie for six minutes before re-dialling her number. This was the last phone call Sophie would ever receive.
What did the Husband do in them six minutes? Did he confirm Sophie was at the cottage alone? Did he pass that on to someone with bad intent? All speculation of course..
The Husband didn't fly to Ireland with the family to identify Sophie - Very odd behavior.
The Husband gets the piece of fluff in the family way and marries her (not the antics of a heart broken, grieving widower)
And finally, to top it off.. He boots Sophie's Son out of the house. (No love lost there ...)
Would the Gards not be better off looking at the Husband before Ian Bailey??
If the diaries existed, they would be a real game changer. The obvious conclusion being that they contained information about Sophie's troubled life, and who the main agitators were..
It does seem that she was there to meet someone business or personal we don't know. She also wasn't happy to be there alone this time. Any diaries would have been useful.
I doubt that as well.
The thing is, we all know way to little of the motive.
It's entirely possible that if Sophie would have filed for divorce in another country other than France, that she would have gotten more out of the divorce.
The UK seems to be such a country, for instance, where it's more "lucrative" to get a divorce, if more money can be gained. However I am not a divorce expert.
The circumstances of the marriage and the possible divorce plus the existing life insurance Daniel had on his wife are certainly a very very good motive for murder.
This also makes me wonder, if the life insurance was also to be paid, not only in the case of death by natural causes, but also in the case of murder? And if it was paid at all, wouldn't the insurance like to see some evidence? Insurance companies do have their own investigators as far as I know.
Irish Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 was not commenced until 27 Feb 1997. Even once commenced a couple would have had to be living separately and apart for four of the previous five years to file for divorce. Also one or other would also have had to been domiciled in Ireland. I would doubt the reason for her journey was to meet a divorce lawyer in Ireland.
June 1996.
He would likely be arrested if he leaves Ireland, in one of the series he says he couldn't go home to see his mother when she was dying and also couldn't go to her funeral.
Diaries war written to keep track of important experiences. Noticing drug activity in the area would probably have been noted in there. Thus the killer would have to made sure, they were gone, thus he must have been inside her house, possibly have known her ways of doing/hiding things? It's at least another theory.
Could it have been Sophie who may have wanted a divorce instead of her husband? And possibly considering meeting a divorce lawyer in Ireland? Probably not? Divorce wasn't legal in Ireland back then yet? or maybe it was?
You would imagine there would be some grounds for a case like this to be brought to the European Court of Human Rights.
The man is innocent until proven guilty, (except in France of course), yet he is clearly being harassed and discriminated against.
And why has he shared all the garda and French files with documentary makers like Sheridan, West cork couple etc and probably others even investigators knowing that it could potentially incriminate him??
He would most probably be extradited to France.
I think he would be at risk of extradition if he leaves Ireland.
Just wondering what would happen to Ian Bailey if he decided to return to the UK? Would he be arrested and then extradited to France? ( given the fact that the UK left the EU now) Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt also applies to the UK law, as far as I know or the Irish law is more or less based on the UK system at least from a historic perspective.
No, doesnt mean you didnt do it, plenty of perpetrators of crimes over the years have confessed to them when their conscious got the better of them, like when Marie Farrell admitted she falsely implicated Bailey because of Garda pressure & rang Bailey's solicitor.
But, nothing about the manner in which Bailey was acting in, in the days after the murder shows he was trying to cover up something like any half intelligent murderer would have done. It would be consistent with the fact he still protesting his innocence 25 years later, why he is lobbying the garda commissioner to re-open the case, why he took civil actions action the state & the newspapers who reported the crime, why he stayed in west cork all this time since the murder. None of those actions are consistent with the actions of a guilty man.
This argument of why they should have disposed of the gate is ridiculous. Yes, this is a gate but this is the state & the gards were talking about here. You dont think they didnt have ample room to at least store a gate covered in blood in one of the most high profile crimes in the modern history of this state. And one which is still unsolved.
Ah, its taking up too much room boys, we must get rid of it even though DNA evidence is advancing at a incredible rate all the time. Really? We should just really believe it was destroyed because of a lack of evidential value. Cmon
case proven at last,if you confess to a murder you obviously didnt do it,if you don't hide suspicious marks after a violent crime your definitely innocent,and you didnt even mention that having battered Jules several times he would be mad to be violent again because hes no fool,
"I dont think bringing three diaries is that strange, maybe she wanted to review her last three years in the comfort of her isolated surroundings in West Cork".
One of them would have been blank.
Edited to add;
I suppose it could contain future appointments.
How could there not have been fingerprints on the gate?
I believe it was in the report of Garda Gerard Prendeville, who conducted the initial interview with AL.
They might have been stoned out of their brains and out for the count. They or Alfie on his own may have seen a local gard commit the crime & he didnt want to involve him & his missus in it for fear of a long stretch in prison for Alfie because of him being involved in drugs. An associate or someone Alfie knew may have committed the crime who was well known to him & was a good customer & decided to cover for him? Who knows.
I do understand that windows are normally all closed in the middle of winter and in the countryside, it may be difficult to hear any noise when you do that. But I can only imagine how much she must have been screaming.
Im not saying they definitely heard something, im saying its unusual they didnt hear something like this.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bd89cdce15309a6ec2dff928c865017a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a04babac7ef9d681628a280d81c51a1e.svg)
