Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

odyssey06 · 26-06-2025 11:18AM

It is well established in the DPP report from witness statements that Bailey cut down a christmas tree and killed turkeys before the murder.
He had sidebars with local businesses where he sold some stuff, he also would have cut down a tree for himself and a turkey for himself.

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.

Virginia Oliver (Thomas) in her statement of 2 January 1997 states that “in relation to the scratches on Ian’s hand last week I can verify that Ian killed and plucked three turkeys on the Sunday before Christmas. Ian also climbed to the top of a tree to cut the top off to use as a Christmas tree. I did see his hands scratched when he came down
the tree.”
Saffron Thomas was interviewed on 10 February 1997 and she stated that “I can verify as I was a witness to him receiving cuts and scratches to his hands, arms and legs from more specifically the cutting down of the tree.”

redoctober · 26-06-2025 11:25AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123580611#Comment_123580611

Yes such a weird thing about it all was that he didn't come over. That was just bizarre. For a husband not to travel when his wife was murdered abroad. It just beggars belief.

Gussie Scrotch · 26-06-2025 11:26AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123580611#Comment_123580611

over 60% of female murder victims are killed by their husband/partner/ex partner.

That fact alone should have warranted a closer look at Daniel.

Added to this, by her death, he avoided a potential costly divorce, married a younger lover shortly afterwards and did not travel to Ireland when her death was discovered.

In terms of circumstantial evidence, there's a lot there.

redoctober · 26-06-2025 11:36AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123580666#Comment_123580666

Yes, He really moved on quickly and it seemed very callous. Even granted that the marriage seems to have been one of convenience rather than love. The new woman would have been pregnant by mid 1997, just over 6 months after Sophie's death.

Seth Brundle · 26-06-2025 11:37AM

There are far too many unknowns which when coupled with what is currently a lack of evidence and the deliberate misinformation about Bailey by AGS make solving this nigh on impossible, As @tinytobe says, the only DNA recovered from "the scene" may not even be from the scene and may pre-date the murder by some time.

The fact that it is not even know when the murder happened is fairly damning. Sure, nobody even knows if Sophie was actually dead when the doctor looked at her. It may have been a morning murder which blows the entire Garda theory out of the water.

Very few people knew she was in Cork at the time so there is the remote possibility that it was carried out by someone unknown to her e.g. a burglar.

We also have no idea about the car speeding off which when you also consider the tyre marks at the scene would be a strong line of inquiry.

Then you have the potential suspects who weren't interviewed including her husband. You also have the reality that all suspects weren't given the same level of scrutiny as was given Bailey.

What we do know is that despite the nonsense posted above, there is no evidence against Bailey that links him to the murder, to the scene or to Sophie. The idea that he wandered a number of kilometres in the hope of getting his leg over is pretty stupid given he had no history of doing that nor is there any evidence of a sexual motive.
Very few people were aware that Sophie was staying in Dreenane and as she was not a regular visitor to Ireland so didn't know many people.
We also know that most of the "evidence" against Bailey referenced by some posters above has been discredited and the DPP certainly made sure that they wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123580584#Comment_123580584

Parts of the murder would point to deliberate Garda collusion and would point to a Guard being the murderer.

I wouldn't subscribe to the theory that a garda was involved. We have many, many cases where it was just pure incompetence of the investigating team along with an arrogant attitude that they knew best. Unfortunately, the recent search for Annie McCarrick has ended and still no sign of her remains. This case has remained unsolved but had the potential to be solved had the investigating team followed up on the lead provided by her friends and family instead of chasing wild geese. Just a few days ago, James Livingstone was buried. His wife was murdered four years before Sophie. He was tormented for years by gardai who believed he killed his wife despite the evidence they had available not supporting that theory. They never did find the murderer and probably wont ever.
You could look at earlier cases for similar incompetence (I'd suggest reading mick Clifford's book Who Killed Una Lynskey?. You could also look at later ones - the Tina Satchwell case is a good example. AGS had strong evidence against her husband but it seems didn't bother looking at it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123580611#Comment_123580611

I'm not sure if he had that much influence, especially if it comes to potential involvement in a murder - I think much of his influence has been sensationalised somewhat by his role as a movie producer (but yeah, he should have been properly questioned).

tinytobe · 26-06-2025 12:42PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123580695#Comment_123580695

Thanks for your longer post it was an interesting read.

The thing is with my opinion is that I am considering all the options and possibilities which I find more likely than others, all in mind that we neither have a witness nor any form on evidence against anybody.

I am not saying that the police did it, or a corrupt Guard with a sexual desire did it, but the amount of collusion, corruption which I see to be beyond sheer incompetence could indeed potentially point to a corrupt Guard of a certain rank who had access to things, and was able and in position to pervert the course of the investigation. Remember, evidence doesn't just disappear, same as pages from job books.

The same goes for Sophie's husband. One simply can't deny the fact that strictly theoretically he would have had the biggest financial motive and financial gain from Sophie's death. This would further be strengthened by the idea that in the majority of murder cases victim and murderer are known to each other or in some other relationship, even as close as husband and wife or boyfriend and girlfriend. This would also further be strengthened by the fact ( as you wrote ) that few knew that she was at her cottage and that at a time she would normally not be visiting. Some were in France, some in Ireland, but the number was limited and with a degree of certainty only known to them. Furthermore, if your spouse dies overseas in a country closer to Ireland, you go, anybody would, no matter what professinal engagement one has. If not, people will talk, rumours will start, etc…

Having said all that, there is no evidence pointing to any, not Daniel, not a corrupt Guard, not Bailey, not Alfie, not Finbarr, not Bolger, none.

I am only describing scenarios which I find more likely than others.

What is very very strange to me to date, is that the first physician at the scene of the crime was unable to give a halfway exact time of death. I have personally spoken to many doctors I have known, and they would have stated a time frame between 1 or 2 hours, at least, no matter if it was a cold night or not.

There are a few things we do know with very high certainty though but lot's of "woulds":

The killer must have planned the killing to a certain degree, to the degree of having known that Sophie would either be alone or at her cottage or at best both.

The killer wanted to prevent something from happening, or prevent Sophie from doing something and if she wouldn't agree she would have to have been killed.

The killer would have had a grave reason to visit her, knowing full, that even in the event if Sophie would indeed comply and agree to whatever he demanded, Sophie would always be a risk if she changed her mind at some point in the future. This thought and consideration would indeed point to a possible planned killing. ( and remember I wrote "would" and "possible" but I find this possible indication rather strong)

If the killer wasn't local, he could easily have followed on instructions to get to the house, just two turns after a small village, - anybody can do that.

Peter Flynt · 26-06-2025 01:10PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123580661#Comment_123580661

Not for many couples…..especially those married a long time. Sophie came to Ireland routinely on her own.

It does amaze me how people say "Look at the hubby" when there's no evidence whatsoever linking him.

Bailey knew Sophie. Lied about that also. His motive was sex, and she refused him so in a drunken rage he killed her. No doubt in my mind that he's the murderer yet I respect the view of the DPP and others that a conviction was not possible due to incompetence from AGS.

odyssey06 · 26-06-2025 01:46PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123580966#Comment_123580966

I don't know who killed Sophie but there's as much reason to look into some of the other names mentioned in relation to the case as Bailey, whether that is motive or opportunity. You cited 'motive' for Bailey and then said there's no evidence whatsoever linking Daniel. Possible such motives have been outlined with as much if not more basis than any purported motive for Bailey.
So is motive evidence or not? Again, a contradiction and a double standard.

If you respect the view of the DPP, why are you citing evidence that the DPP discredited?

The Garda contention that Bailey is being untruthful and evasive regarding his knowledge of Sophie Toscan du Plantier is not supported by convincing evidence.

In fact there is no evidence of a sexual motive in this case. References in the Garda Report to a sexual motive are pure speculation.

If Bailey had murdered Sophie, he would have known that there was a definite possibility of forensic evidence such as blood, fibres, hair or skin tissue being discovered at the scene. His voluntary provision of fingerprints and a specimen of his blood is objectively indicative of innocence… Bailey’s explanation for the scratches is plausible, consistent and is supported by other direct and credible evidence.

The DPP did not merely put forward the view that a conviction was not possible, on many of the frequently cited pieces of evidence cited as proof as Bailey's guilty, they accepted Bailey's version.

The Guards are on record that all they had was a flimsy case and that was with Marie Farrell's dodgy evidence assumed to be legit and using the points of evidence the DPP discounted.

The Guards looked into Bailey by fair means and foul, and that was all they could drum up. Which on balance of probabilities suggests to me he is innocent.

If you have "no doubt" Bailey is the murderer, that is not based on objective assessment of the evidence and you are clearly working back from that prejudgment and fitting the details of the case around it.

redoctober · 26-06-2025 02:09PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123580966#Comment_123580966

Just to be clear: you're saying it's not odd that a husband doesn't go to collect his wife's body when she's been murdered?

tinytobe · 26-06-2025 03:03PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123581185#Comment_123581185

It would be very odd, very out of place if the husband doesn't go to collect his wife's body, even if there have been affairs in the marriage. However this was no ordinary marriage anymore.

One explanation of course is that the marriage was virtually non-existend, and only still in law. They both probably haven't made love or kissed in ages, she had a longer affair with Bruno with whom she actually wanted to have a child, and he had multible affairs and the most recent one he married soon after Sophie's death, she was also pregnant soon after, if not before. Love and intimacy was certainly non-existent between the two of them.

And the other explanation would be that he had something to do with her murder, sent somebody and didn't want to be questioned by police or even worse having his finances examined and questioned. He would have been smart enough that in general the husband of a murdered wife would always be suspect number one, - under normal circumstances. The incompetence of the Irish police he could most likely not fathom, neither that Bailey could be the prime supect at some point.

By not coming to Ireland Daniel also took the risk of rumors and speculations developing, but he'd rather have that than being questioned and having his finances examined. This may have been calculated on behalf of Daniel.

Seth Brundle · 26-06-2025 03:06PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123580966#Comment_123580966

Not for many couples…..especially those married a long time. Sophie came to Ireland routinely on her own.

You do not think it was odd that a husband did not travel to collect his wife's remains and bring them home?

Also, depending on your meaning of the word routinely, Sophie did not routinely come to Ireland. She was a very occasional visitor.

It does amaze me how people say "Look at the hubby" when there's no evidence whatsoever linking him.

…and yet you're convinced of Bailey's guilt when ther eis no evidence whatsoever linking him aside from the discredited and disproven nonsense you've previously posted?

Bailey knew Sophie. Lied about that also. His motive was sex, and she refused him so in a drunken rage he killed her. No doubt in my mind that he's the murderer yet I respect the view of the DPP and others that a conviction was not possible due to incompetence from AGS.

There is absolutely no evidence that Bailey knew Sophie except the possible memory of a passing event given by a potential suspect.

As for sex being a motive - there is no evidence of this. There is also no history of Bailey looking for sex from other women.

And for the DPP - they took the unprecedented move of publicly publishing their damning of the evidence against Bailey presented in the garda case. This had never actually happened before but such was the level of misinformation about Bailey that weas being purported (and evidently from your posts here continues to be purported).

redoctober · 26-06-2025 03:18PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123581419#Comment_123581419

On re-reading his post, I think to be fair to @peterflynt, I think he meant it wouldn't be unusual for her to travel alone as opposed to Daniel not collecting the body.

tinytobe · 26-06-2025 08:08PM

If Bailey did it his motive wouldn't be sexual ever.

Even if he hiked over to her place he wouldn't have made it to Sophie's before 2.30 in the morning, and that after a longer night of drinking. So which woman would consider sexual advances from a drunk man whom she hardly ever knew at 2:30 am in the morning?

Suppose she even opened the door to him, she would most likely have slapped him in the face as hard as she could and in the state Bailey would have been in, he would have understood that those were the limits. Reciting poetry at 2:30 am in the morning under the influence of alcohol would also have put any woman off, - especially Bailey's bad poetry.

Also strictly from a physical aspect Sophie would have been far more agile than Bailey. Even if he would have taken a swing at her, she would have evaded it easily. She was younger and not drunk, he was older, bigger less agile and drunk. Even if the alcohol was wearing off his reaction would have been way slower than hers.

Suppose Bailey had a motive, the only motive by a very far shot I could think of is that his dreams to cover a murder in rural Ireland would come true. He could rise to fame again as a newspaper reporter and he could also have made real and decent money. It would have even fitted his personality is need to be in the centre of attention, the newspaperman out on the street, right where it happened, etc…. So he thought of killing someobody whom he could write newspaper articles on, a foreign woman with a certain popularity in France sure would have made more than just the local papers and he would have been right in the middle of the action as an experienced reporter. However that motive is really a very dark and nasty thought, not impossible, but "rather unlikely", but then again motives for murder are often dark and nasty.

And remember, by a very far shot this is what I could think of….

Baz Richardson · 26-06-2025 08:21PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123580611#Comment_123580611

Influential indeed, a close friend of the President, Jacques Chirac. Which of course had nothing at all to do with the French trial returning a guilty verdict. 😉

He visited the scene in July 2000.

chooseusername · 26-06-2025 08:46PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123582256#Comment_123582256

Good post in fairness, until that last paragraph.

Killing her to further his career? That was his joke.

tinytobe · 27-06-2025 06:18AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123582354#Comment_123582354

Possibly. It's the only motive and speculation for Bailey I could think of, that is if he did it. He certainly wasn't doing drugs, neither pushing nor using. He also wasn't cheating on Jules and chasing after other women. But he needed money, he was used to be at the centre of attention and he was used to success, looking at his past career in London. He must soon have realized that career prospects in the South West of Ireland would have been different to the one he could have had in London.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123582295#Comment_123582295

I think you would only get a position at UniFrance, especially at a higher level, if you had influential and close friends in France. I don't think that the French trial would have resulted in a guilty verdict if it wasn't about the wife of a man leading UniFrance or having other friends in high places. A conviction for murder based on hearsay and a coerced witness statement, - sounds more like a mock trial or kangaroo court in some dictatorship rather than in an EU country.

jesuisjuste · 27-06-2025 09:47AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123582874#Comment_123582874

The fact that the French judicial system would convict somebody, in absentia, for a crime in another country, and at the same time (for decades in fact) wouldn't allow that same countries investigators to interview close relatives and partners, in France itself should demonstrate that they weren't actually interested in justice, it was just for show.

tinytobe · 27-06-2025 09:53AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123583193#Comment_123583193

What always surprised me is that Bailey apparently never tried to have this convicion in France overtruned by the EU court. I'd say, his chances would have been good. Maybe he did, but faces financial issues and couldn't afford a lawyer? Bailey did have a law degree as well, as far as I know?

jesuisjuste · 27-06-2025 09:58AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123580966#Comment_123580966

"look at the hubby" is typically how 50+% of these type of crimes are solved. Not saying Daniel did it in this case, but it's basic investigative practice to investigate those who knew her well, and not rule them out without strong evidence to the contrary. Typically those people can be treated as suspects indefinitely (as per Annie McCarrick's case for e.g.). The were also probably a dozen or more people in Ireland who knew Sophie better than Bailey is even claimed to. I haven't seen anything released in the public domain that categorically rules any of them out if I'm honest. If you can't rule people out, then you have to start considering statistics, and motives, and work your way through the list that way.

tinytobe · 27-06-2025 10:06AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123583229#Comment_123583229

Normally you not only "look at the hubby" but also look for financial gain, for drugs or for anything sexual/relationship related. Most murders are for that reason. It should have been the typical lines of enquiry, if no DNA or fingerprints or witnesses are to be found.

Deeec · 27-06-2025 10:08AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123580966#Comment_123580966

Wheres the evidence that Bailey knew Sophie?

He knew her as a random French woman who lived next door to Alfie but thats not the same as knowing her is it. There is no evidence that he even knew her name let alone anything else about her. Remember this was 1996 so internet wasnt in widespread use like now. The people living in the area knew nothing about her at all as she was private person.

How would Bailey have known she was alone so why would he venture up to her house for sex? It was christmas time and most people would assume she was with family not alone.

How does a drunk man make his way up to Sophies house and leave no trace whatsoever?

How did all the ladies staying in Baileys home that night and all over Christmas notice nothing unusual? There was Jules, Jules 3 daughters ( who hated Bailey), Jules mother and a friend staying in the house that night in what is a small house. Amazing that they noticed nothing and the only one of these who liked him was Jules. The others had nothing to lose by dobbing him in.

Your theory doesnt make sense.

Oscar_Madison · 27-06-2025 10:13AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123580966#Comment_123580966

“Bailey knew Sophie.”

Did he really? Well that’s news to me, and I imagine to most people on this forum.

chooseusername · 27-06-2025 10:26AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123583284#Comment_123583284

And off around we go again;

Alibi

Bonfire

Confessions

Domestic violence

.

ZZZZZZ

Peter Flynt · 27-06-2025 12:05PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123583284#Comment_123583284

Well it shouldn't be if you knew the facts of the case.

"But his repeated denials were totally at odds with a statement by Sophie’s late neighbour Alfie Lyons, who told Gardai that he introduced them in June 1995, 18 months before the French beauty was battered to death 100 yards from the front door of her isolated holiday home."

https://www.thesun.ie/news/13819269/ian-bailey-knew-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-murder/#:~:text=But%20his%20repeated%20denials%20were,of%20her%20isolated%20holiday%20home.

"Gardaí, meanwhile, have received accounts of a festival on Cape Clear in 1995. In one, a witness said he identified Mr Bailey, whom he knew, in alleged conversation with a blonde woman that the witness later recognised as Ms Toscan du Plantier from media reports of her murder."

"Mr Bailey is previously alleged to have told others – including Yvonne Ungerer, Ann Cahalane and Helen Callanan, who all provided garda statements – that he knew Ms Toscan du Plantier."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/crime/gardai-probe-new-claims-that-ian-bailey-had-met-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-prior-to-her-murder/41893376.html

Bailey's a compulsive liar as well as a murderer.

Peter Flynt · 27-06-2025 12:08PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123583229#Comment_123583229

It is the case that many murdered women know their killer. Bailey knew Sophie.

Seth Brundle · 27-06-2025 12:17PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123583739#Comment_123583739

Just stop it FFS! 🙄

tinytobe · 27-06-2025 12:29PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123583773#Comment_123583773

It's just a rumor spread by those who also don't know anything about the legal system.

Going to Cape Clear for some festival, being introduced to somebody by somebody and even the rumor about possible phone calls to Sophie's office in France all never ever prove murder.

Suppose he knew her up close and personal, shook hands somewhere, spoke to her about whatever subject, even if it was something sexual or a dirty joke it would never ever proves murder.

Peter Flynt · 27-06-2025 12:37PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123583817#Comment_123583817

"Just a rumour…." - Reported statements were given by at least five people to AGS stating that they either introduced Bailey to Sophie (in 1995), saw Bailey with Sophie at a festival (in 1995) or that Bailey personally told them himself that he knew Sophie.

I cannot understand the desperation of some posters on here to excuse Bailey.

jesuisjuste · 27-06-2025 12:54PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123583847#Comment_123583847

There's no tangible evidence to back up anything, that's why people keep questioning things. Just about everything in this case rests on various individual's memories, which in many cases is directly contradicting each other. Memories and witnesses are by definition unreliable, so to state something as fact, or clear and obvious based on that is foolish at best, and by many critics is often disingenuous.

Much of the information being held by the gardai has not been released to the public, as the investigation is ongoing. In addition many pieces of evidence were lost, some conveniently so, and in addition some of this evidence could still be captured again with on-the-record statements by the attending gardai (suspect lists, jobs book, blood fresh on the face etc.), or further testing (DNA), and further questioning (of other witnesses & suspects). Until such time that this information is released, and DNA testing is complete we will never be able to close the book on anyone, including if it was Bailey. This is why whether one believes he did it or not, continuing the pursuit of justice, should be encouraged, not ridiculed.

Don't mistake desperation with exasperation.

Deeec · 27-06-2025 01:00PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123583728#Comment_123583728

Alfie wasnt even 100% sure that he did introduce them and even if he did introduce them it was just a quick intro like this is my neighbour Sophie. There was no conversation or getting to know each other. So imo this is no indication that they had any sort of relationship whatsover and does not meet the defination of knowing someone.

As regards the cape clear witness - he did not know Sophie and couldnt be sure that the woman was Sophie. All he seen was Bailey talking to a blonde woman. This woman could be anybody. I dont think it has been proven that Sophie was in fact even at this event.

Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

Comments