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

so you don’t think it interesting that someone who she was granting land access to has a history of violence pertaining to land access? And that his father claimed to have driven away a woman from land he grazed?

Worth bearing in mind also the only access to Alfie’s barn is through one of Sophie’s 2 gates.
You’d wonder what measures were taken to preserve the scene, the Doctor, the Priest, and Finbarr all possible contaminants.

You obviously haven't read the thread.

Since we do not "know" who committed this crime, we cannot KNOW for certain what the motive was.

What we can say is that it doesn't fit the usual picture of a sexual assault; the victim's clothing was not interfered with, and there was no male DNA found on her hands, or anywhere on her person.

Also the location looks unlikely.

"She had given Finbarr permission to use her land for grazing."

Some of her land was commonage she shared with Hellen, so he would be entitled to graze it.

It was odd alright, not greeting Finbar and John on Saturday, and not visiting the Hellens as she usually did, she could have passed by their house on her way to and from Schull. The only reports I've seen on the fingerprints state that Josie's prints and those of "other family members" were found in the house. So It's fair to assume Finbar's prints were there. But what business did "family members" have in the house anyway? using the bathroom maybe?

Harbison said he was able to remove her left boot without undoing the lace which had broken and had been knotted up, so not "laced up". It looked like she shoved her bare feet down into the boots without having to undo the laces or tie them back up again.

There are two windows in the kitchen, one at the front of the house facing South down her lawn to her gate onto the lane, just by the pump house and the (missing?) gate. The other window is on the Western gable facing the stone barn like you said.

As for "Sophie’s murder was not sexually motivated."

I'd agree, but you can expect the usual pile-on and psychobabble.

Here's the full article from the the O'Donohoe archive for anyone that wants to read it

http://www.odonohoearchive.com/i-have-never-felt-terror-like-it-the-murder-of-sophie-toscan-du-plantier/

yes read that carefully, there is no evidence of.

that is not to say that the crime wasnt sexually motivated. As 'irishspiderplant' declared.

A sexually motivated crime can absolutely leave no evidence of such.

If it interests anyone here is how.

1. Concealment of Motive: The perpetrator might carefully stage the crime scene to obscure the true motive, perhaps out of fear of stigma or to avoid certain legal repercussions associated with sexual crimes. For instance, a murder might be made to look like a robbery gone wrong when it was actually driven by sexual obsession or revenge.
   2. Misinterpretation by Investigators: Sometimes, due to lack of evidence or misinterpretation of the available evidence, investigators might miss or overlook signs of sexual motivation. If no overt sexual activity or paraphernalia is found at the scene, the sexual component might not be recognized.
   3. Psychological Complexity: The motivation behind the act might be deeply psychological or symbolic, where the sexual component is not immediately apparent. For example, the murder might be an act of power or control, where the sexual motivation is intertwined with these other elements in a way that's not immediately clear.
   4. Post-Mortem Staging: In some cases, sexual acts might be performed post-mortem to mislead investigators or fulfill a fantasy that wasn't the primary motive for the killing. This could lead to the murder being categorized differently by those first on the scene.
   5. Victimology: The choice of victim might be based on sexual preference or previous interactions, but if these connections are not known or evident to investigators, the sexual motivation might not be identified.

Understanding the full scope of a crime, especially one as complex as murder with potentially hidden motives, often requires deep psychological insight, thorough investigation, and sometimes, forensic evidence that might not be immediately available. Thus, while a murder might initially appear devoid of sexual motive, further investigation could reveal otherwise.

Well of course. A lot of "might" and "might have" here. Obviously, anything might have happened. It might have been an abduction attempt. Maybe a rape attempt. It might have been a revenge killing. It MIGHT have been…a lot of things. (All artfully concealed.)

But what does the very sketchy evidence and crime scene suggest? A very violent attack beside a wide-open gate on a laneway, in the night or very early morning, in a remote location. No fingerprints, no DNA, no property damage, no signs of theft or rape. No leads from documents or diary. Victim a foreign national, at her holiday home which she only visits a few times a year.

And that, m'lud, is about all we have to go on.

I would be inclined to think that the police would know pretty soon, if the motive has had a sexual motive to it or not. The only reason the police wouldn't is because of lack of training and not much experience. Both could be true, also as murders in West Cork are rare.

There is also no new evidence, maybe a bit of hearsay more from nearly 30 years ago, - that's not real evidence but grounds for even further speculation.

There`s only two options. I see no middle ground. If Bailey didn`t commit this murder there was clearly a wide reaching conspiracy to pin it on him. Guilty or a conspiracy. Take your pick.

" Guilty or a conspiracy. Take your pick"

They're not mutually exclusive though.

“There`s only two options.”

……in your opinion.

It's not ever worth entertaining this point, as you're following a logical fallacy somebody who only sees two possible scenarios. There are a lot of different scenarios that could have come to pass.

Within the middle-ground for example is that the gards just totally derailed the investigation without any conspiracy due to their initial incompetence (which is a fact), and the likelihood that this incompetence scuttled the chance of prosecuting anyone. Inaction, or lack of motivation does not require a conspiracy, and in fairness is probably the standard mode of operation for a lot of people in life, Garda on no.

Unwillingness to admit to a major f**k up is also a possible factor. Once they'd bet the farm on Bailey it was difficult to hold up their hands to a big mistake. As with the example of Joanne Hayes, mentioned by Irishspiderplant. Even when it was obvious that they got it wrong, they only, very reluctantly, backed down when they were cornered.