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

I'll dig out the statement.

Some posts here said it was from a dog that he was minding but that states that it was a very old injury, 50 years old or so.

So based on bjsc posting the "Alfie had a cut on his hand and is important" can go on the rubbish pile that Sophie was bringing to the dump through the cordon unaccosted.

My pleasure.

LOL - I'm not 73, but I'm closer to it than he was...and apparently far less feeble!

And poor Sophie was only 5 ft nothing. It wouldn't have taken a big strong man to overcome her - in spite of the spirited struggle she made to defend herself.

And - thinking out loud here - it was a cold winter night, and morning. Quite likely the attacker would have worn gloves.

Yes strange for sure and I'm wondering did it get aggravated for any particular reason that he had to bandage it now and again. , possibly in examples where he ruptured wound made it flare up again..

bjsc, thank you for your contributions - very informative.

I've asked this question before on this thread and nobody has been able to answer. Would be interested in your view.

If, on day 1 without knowing anything else, you were to draw up a list of likely motives for the murder, the #1 possibility would be an agrivated or disturbed burgalry. It would feature way way further up the list to drunk Englishman, randy Garda and French hitman.

These were common in rural parts of Ireland, especially in the run uo to Christmas when homes would be full of gifts. There have been numerous serious injuries and fatalities during that era, and even more recently. Generally people from outside the area hitting random remote homes.

SDTP hearing something outside - maybe a car or voices and coming out to see whats going on and meeting her demise would fit it with this type of crime.

Now the question - how and why did the Gardai rule it out?

I think that those initially on scene were confronted with a situation that they were ill- equipped to deal with. The very first person to nominate Bailey as "a person of interest" was Garda Malone who saw him at the scene cordon on the afternoon of 23rd. He thought he was behaving oddly and obviously he, Malone, was aware of Bailey's history of domestic violence. I realise it may be hard to understand for most people but, as someone who spent most of their career dealing with major crime, you would long for the phone to ring, even though it meant heartache for many, because it's what you were trained for and what you did best. So for Bailey, a journalist in an area where the most exciting news story was the introduction of Internet cafes to West Cork, it must have been like manna from heaven. So to a degree I understand why his behaviour might appear odd.

That being said I see no reason why, at that early stage, he should have been treated as any more or less significant than any other suspect.

It is of course important to eliminate friends and family but the French police were able to establish alibis for them fairly quickly.

There was no obvious sexual motive. So you have to start with those who were likely to have come in contact with her in the everyday course of events and look at why the murder happened. For example why were all the gates open, and wide open at that. What was Sophie doing. Was she really in bed or, given the appearance of the kitchen, was she already up.

I believe the first suspect, who was interviewed and whose clothing was seized at an early stage, was Jeremiah Scully, the local oddball who lived the other side of the hill behind Sophie's house.

So in the absence of anything concrete, at that early stage, your starting point would probably be those who had reason to be in or were familiar with the area. That's not to say you close yourself off to other possibilities but the fact is you have to start somewhere.

I agree. I'm finding it hard to understand how an injury he received 50 years ago needed a bandage. 🤔

We will have to accept though that the Garda said it was an old wound. Hopefully the Garda had the knowledge to distinguish an old wound from a fresh wound and did actually take the time to look instead of just taking Alfie's word on it.

Yep he said in the statement that he removed it. I'm just saying that I hope that did actually happen - I'm not very trusting of the gardai involved in this case Tod.

It doesn't explain though why this very old injury needed a bandage 50 years later - that's a bit odd don't you think.

I find that the whole idea of a glove fastener damaging a hand is very unusual. Gloves are meant to protect a hand and what kind of fastener would break the skin?

Dr O'Connor commented on Alf having a bandage on his hand but makes no mention of examining the wound.

And also if Alfies hand was visibly 'deformed' (was that the word used) surprising this wasnt generally mentioned about Alfie as it should have been noticed by anyone who came across him. Poor Alfie with the gammy hand.

He did well to run a restaurant with it.

Thanks for that,

Now another one if I may;

There's very little on him, I know you said he was questioned and his boots were examined.

He lived just over half a mile away on what was the original track from Dunmanus to Sophie's house before the road to Kealfada was established. Why was he an "oddball", did he have an alibi, why was he considered a suspect so early on, and later discounted?

1. Due to the lack of any DNA evidence found at the scene.. on the briars or anywhere else for that matter.. Bailey has to be given the benefit of the doubt that the scratches on his arms were inflicted by a turkey or a tree.
2. As regards the relentless pursuit and focus on one individual for decades.. is this a sign of confidence in their original suspect or a reluctance to acknowledge that AGS may have got it wrong and therefore a potentially more viable suspect could have slipped the net?

It's not evidence as such.

It's just something Bailey said in a court under oath.

It's Bailey being Bailey to a certain extent and does nothing to help convince people that he is innocent.

Who the fcuk would say something like that in court and expect it to be of benefit to you?

As I've stated many times the information we have about Bailey is not enough for a charge, but it's much better than the information we have on anyone else.

I'd say a lot of people were having premonitions that night (from the DPP report):

David Bray at 12.45 a.m. on 23 December 1996 noted that the wolfhound which he minds was unusually upset.

Martin Breuinger confirms that the wolfhound was unusually disturbed between 12 midnight and 2.00 a.m. on 23 December 1996.

Geraldine Kennedy states that her dog was barking mad from 10.30 – 10.45 p.m. on 22 December and continued this for about three hours practically non-stop

The dog owned by Derry Kennedy and his wife was unusually upset between 10 p.m. on 22 December 1996 and 1.50 a.m. on 23 December 1996.

You will note these disturbances occur while Bailey was still in the pub, or on the way home from it with Jules. Earlier than any Garda scenario presented for Bailey.

Just a question - we know that Bailey did cut down the trees on the Sunday and kill the turkeys, I don't think that is disputed. We also have a number of statements referring to the fact that he didn't have scratches on the Sunday night. However we have already discussed the fact that AGS only submitted evidence, both to the DPP and to the French authorities, that bolstered their case against him. We also know that there was a great deal of information that was not disclosed. Do you think it possible that in that undisclosed material there may be witness statements that say that Bailey did have scratches on his arms on the Sunday night?

The Dogs angle is interesting as per the web

'Dogs have much more sensitive hearing than humans, hearing sounds four times farther away than we can. They can hear higher frequency sounds, can more easily differentiate sounds (e.g. they may recognise the sound of your car) and they can pinpoint the exact location of the sound.'

If related to the murder it would imply a late night or very early in the morning attack(s) 12 to 3 or so..

Where were these people located I wonder in relation to where the murder took place? Certainly some dogs will react to prowlers and others won’t - if the barking was unusual in all 3 instances then yes it would have made for interesting reading - but why barking for 3 hours? If a prowler say was progressing from point A to point B, then the dogs should really only have barked for a limited time and at different times you would imagine as the prowler moved passed the homes of these people?

Bailey's version of the scratches and tree is also supported by Jules and Saffron Thomas.

According to the DPP report:

* On Sunday 22 December 1996 Bailey was seen by a local farmer, Liam O’Driscoll, “pulling a Christmas tree. He was accompanied by one of Jules’ daughters at the time.” There is no doubt but that Bailey cut the tree on Sunday 22 December 1996 and in fact dragged it home.

* Richard Tisdall in his statement 190B recalls seeing scratch marks on one of Bailey’s hands on Sunday night 22 December 1996 (prior to the murder but after the cutting of the tree and the killing of the turkeys).

* 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 should also be noted that multiple witnesses say Bailey after the murder and did not notice scratches e.g.

* Con O’Sullivan a butcher who alleges he met Bailey on 23 December 1996 does not refer to seeing any scratches on him.

* Ronan Collins and Dylan Fairbairn on 24 December 1996 were in Bailey’s house and neither noted the scratches on Bailey. (After the murder).

* Persons who dealt with Bailey on the days after the murder was committed, such as Conn O’Sullivan, Eddie Cassidy and so forth do not mention noticing scratch marks on Bailey’s hands. Mike Browne a photographer was with Bailey for a substantial period on 23 December 1996. He describes the clothing Bailey was wearing. He makes no mention of seeing the scratches on Bailey.

There were reports of a fox crying out too, it sounds somewhat human and it may have been. Could have triggered the dogs

Depends on the time of year.

Article below mentions that it sounds like a woman screaming..

Sometimes like a baby screaming in my experience :(

Hmm, January is mating season so according to that link, that is the time the foxes are noisiest. If it was an early start to a mating season, we'd have expected the dogs to go react on more than one occasion? So to me, my instinct is that the source is likely to be something else.