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

It might just have been a cold night. And I think if anyone had found a pair of blooodstained gloves they would certainly have handed them in - though of course, anyone can throw a pair of gloves into a bin.

But a good part of the case compiled against Bailey was that someone said his hands were scratched (though no photos exist to confirm this) - their theory being that the alleged scratches could have been caused by brambles at the crime scene. Fair enough, but no trace of blood or DNA was found on the said brambles, the person of the deceased, or anywhere else nearby. So more likely the killer did wear gloves, just my opinion. Which would render the Scratches theory invalid.

Eh, one of Jules' daughters stated that he propositioned her when she was 18. There was also the incident were Bailey got into bed with a woman staying in the house, completely without her consent. Jules actually attacked the woman initially, before she realised the woman was not at fault.

That is two known incidents were Bailey acted in a completely inappropriate, sexual manner towards women. It's also two incidents that Jules knew about, one involving her own daughter, yet she still stayed with Bailey. That's why I wouldn't give any weight to her staying with Bailey and insisting on his innocence. She has a demonstrated history of ignoring and minimising his behavour. I wouldn't be surprised if she was initially corroborating his accounts as she was misguidedly covering for him, and is now in far too deep to admit the truth.

Or it could be more than one person.

I'll come back to both of those points, if I may…

I'm quite keen on the "gate" theory for several reasons: we do know that the gate being left open was a point of contention - Sophie had paid to have that gate installed - apparently to stop wandering livestock getting onto her garden. And her friends said that she was quite feisty and WOULD tackle people, quite assertive, shall we say.

So seeing someone leave it open as she watched might well have inspired her to pull on shoes and robe and scurry down there to tell them off. And if they were still drunk from the night before, or just a hostile type of person, they might have flared into aggression - such people do exist - we've probably all seen them.

This points to the intruder having driven in, rather than walked - there's no reason for a pedestrian to push a big farm gate right open the whole way. And cars, too, can be checked for bloodstains, and this should have been done.

And the "random caller" theory? I still DO believe that this is possible, even quite likely, for one main reason;

My own holiday-home is a remote cottage, down a deserted cul-de-sac boreen out of sight of any other house. And it has been broken into time and again. Once at least we seem to have arrived just a couple of hours after they had left, so fresh were the tyre tracks of something big and jeep-like on our grass. And we got there about lunchtime so it was a morning raid. And similar incidents have happened since. So I KNOW this type of thing happens.

My place is closer to Dublin than Schull is, but I think wandering robbers get to everywhere. Once we found our house had even been robbed of a fridge, kettle and toaster; but a sharp kitchen knife had been left standing in a jar - as if to defend themselves if they'd been caught in the act. The house has a heavy steel door and shutters now.

So that cannot be simply dismissed as a possibility - such things DO happen. Holiday homes are usually empty at midwinter. And people can drink too much at the "festive" season as all the crashes this week have shown.

No, we can't just rule this out.

All good points and insight. However without further evidence ( not hearsay and the likes ) it's just another speculation.

Yes, but do you have somebody like Josie Hellens looking after things? Don't know if Sophie's house was ever broken into with motivation of robbery, - only the bathtub was apparently used, with Alfie beeing the main suspect for this?

How often did Josie call to the house in Sophie's absence?

Unfortunately, I was not well aware.

Also cheating on Jules or beating up Jules is no evidence for murdering somebody.

It is an indicator of his psychology though.

Im no psychologist but ive seen you attributing normal psychology to bailey in your prior post. He was not at all normal.

From what I know of pop psych and from available details Bailey seems to have been a grandiose narcissist with a history of psychosis. Think Patrick Bateman as a caricature.

I would suspect he had incredible sexual entitlement. And very much doubt he stayed monogamous, or had any intention to.

Theres reason to believe alcoholism was a factor too.

You have a body over here, and a violently unstable man over there, within short distance and making an appeaeance at the scene.

It may not be hard evidence. But …

Then you must also take into account the fact that he expressed a desire to go over there on the night that Sophie was murdered, that he got out of bed shortly afterwards and wasn`t seen again for several hours, that he turned up the next morning with at least one fresh scratch that clearly wasn`t there the day before, that he bought bleach a day later even though he was useless around the house, that he appears to have set a bonfire before Stephens`s day even though he was a hoarder who never got rid of anything, that the things burned in that bonfire would be exactly the type of evidence the killer would have needed to dispose of to avoid detection and then he went and confessed his guilt to several people.

I find it really hard to believe that someone who has posted on this thread as frequently as you had never heard of these events.

But maybe you should be looking in that direction.

I checked after and actually the court professionals reached the same conclusion.

Not that hard to deduce. A half way normal man, on publication of his shocking violence towards women, would at the very least keep a low profile.

Not old Ian though.

His extraversion remained unaffected. Almost like some kind of pathology was there.

Narcissism would allow for that. He would just explain and outsmart any problem. Narcissists believe theyre too slick to be caught.

If it was Bailey I doubt much thought went into being meticulous. More likely he was in the grasp of some mental disorder, some rage or psychosis.

The environnent and poor police work could do the rest.

So the sum total of your posts is that actually it might not have been bailey.

Well no sht.

Bailey just happens to be the perfect fit. So youll have to either tolerate people focusing on him, or come up with a better suspect.

I dont think youll find one.