Old thread seems to be permanently locked. It will be interesting if anything can come of this at last.
Threadbanned Posters:
Were the boots ones that she left behind in the holiday home?
I mean people often leave boots near the door of their country house that don't travel with them.
Ah. OK. Missed that or had forgotten.
Thanks for this.
Then its hard to see how this might be a game changer.
I suppose if, by chance, there was a match on the DNA database, and that match was to a person in the West Cork area, hitherto unconnected to the investigation, or just on the periphery, then it may be important.
It was tested, and the sequence did not match Baileys.
The male sample does not correspond either to Sophie Toscan du Plantier blood sample (also differing in sex chromosomes) and does not correspond to the STRS from the Bailey blood sample. Therefore this is a third person. As the French tests included sex chromosome testing, this profile is male.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderAtTheCottage/comments/vraf9q/forensic_tests_on_the_body_exhibits_and_crime/
OK, how do you know it isn't Bailey's?
I doubt very much that it was, but I haven't seen it stated officially.
My point is this: If the DNA was Daniel's, then it could have been put there in France, before she set foot in Ireland. Ditto if it was Bruno's.
If it was Alfie's, or one of the Ungerers, then it may have been put there when they had some interaction earlier in the week, etc. etc. If it was found to be Bailey's ( not disputing your assertion, but I am not aware of it being dismissed) then no such explanation would wash?
The boot DNA was not Bailey's, or any person bloodline related to her i.e. her son, father etc.
Whoever owns the DNA would have to be able to explain it to the gardai, and if they couldn't give a reasonable explanation, not doubt they would be arrested on that evidence alone.
Even if they did offer an explanation, it would behoove the Gardai to go over their story with a fine tooth comb, the evidence against them would be stronger than against any other person, including Bailey.
Yes I agree.
But…..in the unlikely event of the boot DNA being Bailey's……..then that would be incriminating….
The problem is not only what kind of DNA it is, blood or something else, but also how did it get there and also when did it get there?
Theoretically the DNA could have gotten on her boot even as early as in France, before her departure to Ireland. Even if the DNA on her boot is ever identified, it doesn't mean that this individual would have to have been in Ireland as well.
It is sadly not that easy to prove anything.
The DNA on Sophies' boot was never specifically categorized as 'blood' … AFAIK. I believe it was identified as 'DNA of a male origin'. Which begs the question, 'if not blood, what else could it be?'
There was also a recent request.. probably from Jim Sheridan.. to have the 'ethnicity' of said sample to be tested again using more modern DNA testing techniques.
Someone else's blood on her shoe? Especially someone who wasn't accounted for or not mentioned before would take some explaining.
I do see your point.
However suppose a man is really identified near Kaelfadda bridge it still wouldn't get a conviction. Anybody out and about at odd hours of the night doesn't mean he's the murderer at all.
Same as the blood on Sophie's boot? How do we know for certain, it's from the time the murder happened? Suppose it's from a few days before?
I wouldn't completely lose hope for the Cold Case Review. In recent years they have reviewed, for example, the Deirdre Jacob disappearance and upgraded what had been a "missing person" to a murder inquiry.
They have changed the direction entirely of the Annie McCarrick case - now focussing, apparently, on a man or men known to the victim; and also renewing interest in one missing item, a shoulder bag.
Both of these cases date from the 1990's, like the Toscan du Plantier case. Which lets me believe that a fresh look and a new angle can still sometimes get results, even decades later.
I admit there is dam' all evidence (that we know of) in this case. But technology may yet lift a fingerprint off that gate - (if anyone can find the gate) or identify the unknown DNA on her boot. (She may have just stepped on a cowpat - I know, I know!)
And deathbed confessions do happen, too. Has everyone told everything they know? I don't think so…
And Mrs Farrell of the mysterious passenger; I honestly think she started with the intent of being helpful. But soon got embroiled in a scheme to trap one particular suspect and was influenced to repeatedly change her story. It doesn't inspire confidence, but people in small country towns usually do know what their neighbours are up to; and the mystery man may yet come forwards. He could, at least, corroborate the Kealfadda Bridge sighting of a man in a long dark overcoat, who was earlier seen in Schull, and at first reporting was described as being about six inches shorter than Ian Bailey!
So, never quit on an open case.
I would also like to know what convinces the people that think Bailey is guilty. Sophie's son is convinced of his guilt, he seems educated and reasonable, what exactly drives him to think Bailey is guilty, is it to seek closure or is it that he was convinced by the Guards?
I don't think anyone here can legitimately say what we would or would not do or how we would feel if were in Sophie's sons shoes.
I've no idea what I would feel if my mother had been so brutally murdered and then there was an arrogant, brash, narcistic local guy going around the area telling people he did it and spending the next two decades basking in the notoriety of being the main suspect.
Plus the French justice system found the same guy guilty, say what we like about that trial but Sophie's son is French and he and the rest of the family naturally have respect and confidence in their own justice system.
I don't think he is too concerned about what Marie Farrell did or did not do, or what people think about some German musician who killed himself, or Alfie's cut hand, or some theory of a randy Garda from Bantry.
That up to us who have zero skin in the game to discuss.
The cavity block was available to touch or to leave DNA on by anybody visiting and it would be rather hard to even trace the time as to when, especially since we don't even have a certain time of death. Suppose they would have found fingerprints or DNA of a French man on the cavity block it still wouldn't convict him. Just visiting doesn't prove murder. Suppose Sophie had a totally harmless but unexpected visitor the day before? Not impossible? Does this prove murder? Certainly not. It'll only spark another set of discussions.
The police only re opened the case for a cold case review because they knew that the public knows that they botched up the investigation and tried to move themselves in a better light by re-investigating.
As far as we know, there is no new evidence for a conviction in a court of law, there are no new revelations, as a matter of fact with many suspects dead the chances are zero.
Even if Shirley or Jules would say out loud that they both saw Bailey killing Sophie, the wouldn't be believed. They are too attached to the case.
In the end, the story is kept alive by film producers doing documentaries, and authors writing books. They all deny making money, but that's a lie, they all want money and being in the centre of attention, - with so called "new revelations" and "wanting justice"…..
As long as there is no evidence, anybody could be the murder, Alfie, Shirley, Bolger, Sophie's ex husband, Bruno, the Guard from Bantry, another Frenchman, a German musician, anybody, even yourself & myself.
True,
Its difficult to imagine anything conclusive being discovered. As you say, even new forensic evidence may be arguable.
The only one I can think of, who is still alive and who may know something, is Shirley Foster. Or, possibly, Jules Thomas - but I doubt that she would have covered for Bailey.
Not even that. It's all circumstantial in the end.
Bailey visiting Alfie and Shirley days before, touching the block, injuring his hand whilst being clumsy handling the gate?
Also just a trip to Ireland in the dead of winter possibly with a bottle of French wine also doesn't prove anything.
It would have to have been something like Bailey's DNA, hair sample, fingerprints etc on Sophie. Or murder weapon exclusively accessible to Bailey, his fingerprints or DNA identified, and then used to kill Sophie.
Something that can't ever be explained away beyond reasonable doubt.
There is nothing I could think of that would ever bring this case to a close, other than maybe a death bed confession.
He is likely convinced it was Bailey because that's what the Gardai were repeatedly telling them.
Aye but most Irish country men don't wear gloves whatever the weather. Probably don't even have a pair.
"I don't know how cold it was but it would still have been quite natural to wear gloves and a scarf etc. at that season, woman OR man."
Temperatures on the night/morning were -2 to +2, dry, so probably light frost before sunrise.
Shirley may have worn gloves, but Alfie most likely did considering the cold weather agitated his damaged hand.
The smear of blood left on the door looks like it may have been left by a gloved hand.
But it was the dead of winter, on one of the longest nights of the year. According to th'internet, sunrise would have been around 8.30 a.m. though there's usually a pre-dawn grey light before then.
I don't know how cold it was but it would still have been quite natural to wear gloves and a scarf etc. at that season, woman OR man.
Woolly gloves (which would have left fibres on the brambles) or leather ones - which would have prevented scratches to the hands, and avoided leaving fingerprints on the gate, too.
Cheap cotton gloves would prevent fingerprints but not protect against briars, but then you'd expect fibers to have been left behind.
Possibly not many Irish men but a woman would.
But if that was the case, then that wrecks the theory AGS put forwards to the DPP that Bailey got his scratches in the struggle.
Thye might have been wearing gloves. Not many Irishmen wear them but that doesn't narrow things down in this case.
Yes,
Very difficult to see anything really convincing emerging after all this time.
It woud have to be something like, say, Bailey's DNA being found on the block or on Sophie's clothing, or, perhaps, solid evidence that the Frenchmen identified by Marie Farrell being proven to have travelled to and from Ireland at the time.
Hard to see anything like that being discovered now.
If the scope of the cold case investigation is to look for proof that they didn't make a complete mess of the original investigation, then I fear they are doomed to failure.
If the haven't found evidence in the last twenty eight years it is likely they have been looking in the wrong place.
They are therefore equally unlikely to find a solution to the case unless they are willing to look elsewhere.
The thing is that there is no evidence in the public domain that points definitively to any singular motive, so we are left to our own devices. Because of this then people have to try and put things together themselves.
In Bailey's case a number of assumptions have to be made for it to tie together. One of those assumptions is some sort of attraction, whether sexual, intellect or solidarity between artists etc. I have never heard anyone seriously propose an alternative reason that Bailey would be out there in the middle of the night, one must conclude that if there was another motive, then the likelihood it is Bailey diminishes rapidly.
To put it another way, for alternative motives, the cold case would have to expand their investigation again, which they don't seem wont to do, therefore we are stuck in an endless limbo.
Possible motives there are, but evidence is not. I honestly can't see any motive for Bailey? Wanting sex with her? Wanting to beat somebody up? Or wanting a murder to write a good story and make money off that event?
How much would Bailey have gotten financially if he wrote a good story and covered the murder?
How much would Sophie's husband have benefitted by the death of his wife/
How much was financially gained by those involved in drugs in the area?
Can we put a financial estimate on all that? Has that even been attempted?
Then we might at least have a ranking of possible financial motives.
Yes, the wearing of the boots strongly suggests that Sophie intentionally walked down to the gate. And I don't think she would have done so in the middle of the night, so again, more likely that the event took place in daylight.
Is it reasonable to have a belief for which there is no evidence?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e68aa2b0e039b12ade8384a2f42841c6.svg)
