Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

I can't believe Mark McCarthy is still being trotted out as proof that Bailey is a "compulsive liar" or credible evidence of a connection.

The Guards spoke to him and went through Sophie's diary, where she kept details of her arrangements meticulously. No mention of going to Cape Clear. They went back to him and suddenly he was all vague weasel words, that it was just someone of her height and complexion i.e. a blonde woman, that he couldn't be sure, that maybe it looked like the woman playing Sophie in the reconstruction on TV, yadda yadda yadda.

You were saying something about knowing the facts of the case?
It is obvious you don't.
You haven't even read the thread fully because this isn't the first time the McCarthy claim has been debunked on it.

This was already posted to the thread by irishspiderplant:

"When I gave it I was confused about the woman in Cape Clear. I can’t say for sure it was her. I remember seeing the documentary on the news. There was an actor playing Sophie maybe I became confused by the two. What I mean to say is that I can’t say by one hundred percent that it was her."

The festival was Friday - Sunday 1-3 September. However her diary indicates she dropped Pierre-Louis back to the airport on Friday, visited Blarney on the Saturday and her own flight home was the Sunday. So on the face of she couldn't have gone. Going to Cape Clear is an whole-day affair. It is possible, maybe she rushed back from the airport and caught the 11am ferry, or maybe she didn't go to Blarney. Bailey was known to go to the festival, bang his bodhran, get drunk and generally court attention. If someone finds a photo of Sophie at the festival that would be spectacular but barring that I suspect this is another attempt to fit Bailey into the frame.

Even if you take the most generous assumption of how well he knew her, perhaps shook her hand and talked to her a couple of time max (considering this is the first time she came alone), there's still probably a couple of dozen people who knew her better and talked to her more than Bailey in Ireland alone. In fact it doesn't really move him up in the list of people she was familiar with at all. A&S Lyons, the Bolgers, all the Hellen's, Ungerers, Richardsons? postman, tradesmen, barmen at various bars etc. I'm sure there were others too. Even some of the other oddballs around are known to have talked to her more. And that's nothing to say of the perhaps hundreds of other people in her life from France and beyond.

Bailey having known her, and a sexual motive are heavily pushed by those who believe he did it, because if you take either assumption away then it appears exceedingly more likely to be someone else.

On the night Sophie was murdered Bailey and Jules were driving back from the pub in Schull and Bailey spotted the lights on at Sophie's place. She routinely travelled alone to Ireland.

Why do those who believe that Bailey did it always think of a sexual motive? He also never raped a woman, nor were there even accusations, not by Jules, not by any of her daughters, he wasn't even chasing other women around West Cork. But still the sexual motive of Bailey continues on and on till this day. Why?

On another note I'd be interested in this apparently French man, loitering in a dark coat and unshaven and apparently observing Sophie? He could be identified, but was never named? However it was confirmed that he was one of Daniel's friends? If so, what was his relationship to Daniel? A business man, or some friend? I'll be interesting to find out, what the real purpose of his trip to Ireland was, or whether that has ever been confirmed? I also presume he was the man the Guards interviewed during a trip to Paris as part of the cold case investigation.

A financial motive could have been one for Bailey. He didn't exactly have money and career choices in this part of Ireland were not good. And a sexual motive is even more unlikely for Bailey, plus any sort of sexual assault has been ruled out. Drugs, don't think so at all, except Bailey's drug was alcohol…..

I was just trying to discuss what motive could there have been for Bailey. A couple of freelance articles wouldn't have helped him financially much. A possible motive maybe, however very very slim and unlikely. And a sexual motive for Bailey same as a drug hustle has been ruled out several times now. So, in reality Bailey had no motive at all.

All the others are motives I have always considered.

Husband and divorce cost would be number one by far. In reality there was very little investigation and line if enquiry into this rather strong motive.

Drugs or other shady dealings going on would only come second, as I don't see any high level drug dealer with excessive luxury in West Cork. Neither Bolger or Alfie or the odd bent Guard drove luxury cars, wore luxury wrist watches, owned a large amount of properties or had big bank accounts. I could only guess Bolger and Alfie and maybe one or the other bent Guard may have had a little "sideline business" here and there, but nothing big.

A dispute over land or maybe animals and who owns what would most likely point to Alfie or Finbarr. But then again, Sophie's son never reported any property ownership issues with the cottage.

Some people don't like to admit that they were duped by whatever the source of their claims is I guess. I happily admit that I watched Netflix and thought Bailey may have murdered Sophie, but I am the sort that then fires up Google and finds the DPP report for example.

Others aren't, they are happy to believe the first thing they watch or read and then stick to it rather than change their view. I don't understand how they can compartmentalise their thoughts and ignore the obvious flaws, it is fascinating how their minds work. I am relived not to have such a mind though.

To be harsh and even offensive to some, it's a question on how smart or how dumb one is.

The dumb ones all believe Bailey did it. The smart ones are looking for the evidence, especially evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

And if there is no evidence, one can start discussing or looking for possible motives.

To date there is absolutely no evidence that Bailey did it, nobody saw him doing it, and it's very hard to think of a motive for Bailey.

"He had no alibi for the time of Sophie's murder and he arrived back with Jules at 11AM the following morning with his hands badly scratched and a gash to his fore head"

Bailey is unaccounted for between 2.30 a.m. and 11 a.m., a total of 8 1/2 hours, what do you think he was doing all of that time?

"When informed of the murder of a woman at 1.40PM that day he arrived at Sophie's house some twenty minutes later by car. When questioned on why he choose to go there (given that it was likely she wouldn't be there at that time of year) he stated he had a "gut feeling" it was her who was murdered."

Bailey lived about 6 minutes drive from where he was seen by Shirley Foster at 2.20 pm, so it took him 30+ minutes to figure out who it was and where it was from when he got the phone call. In a small town in west cork, when he was on a mission and financially incentivised to do so. Seems like he was actually fairly slow to find it if you ask me.

Yes, no evidence. Precisely no evidence.

Even if Bailey had big and long scratches or wounds on his hands and face, he must have gotten them somewhere, right.

His DNA was nowhere at the scene, not on the brambles or briars, not on Sophie, not on the gates, not at the pumphouse or on the cavity block, nowhere, and neither were his fingerprints. The only or all cars in questions were searched and examined, no blood of Sophie's anywhere. So if he did it, he must have walked or stumbled through the nocturnal charms of rural South Western Ireland after many drinks in the pub in hopes a women he barely even knew would open him the door at 2 or 3 am in the morning and have sex with him……

Bailey volunteered DNA early on, maybe he was even the first. He never cheated on Jules, he never raped another woman, or beat any other woman up. Bailey's violent outbursts would have been domestic only and after lot's of alcohol.

There was no evidence to have him indicted in Ireland and tried. If there was they would have. No matter what the police attempted, like giving drugs to transients or coercing a witness is only testimony of their ill-fated and botched up unprofessional work.

Also, a motive was never clearly established for Bailey. We all know he was short of money, or at least not making the kind of money he was used to in his previous career, he also was known to enjoy being the centre of attention. But that was about it.

He wasn't involved in drugs, he wasn't involved in pub fights or disputes over land ownership or animal stock grazing somewhere, he wasn't sleeping around, he wasn't ever attempting rape, nothing.

I read that Bailey also left DNA before his death.

The DPP makes personal decisions on whether a case can be won in court, and not on whether someone is considered innocent or guilty.

Michéal Martin was entirely right stating that Bailey should have faced the courts and those of you who support Bailey should believe the same thing.

IN this case, the DPP published the basis for their decision, and assessment of the evidence presented by the Guards. Due to the high profile \ public interest in the case.

Every point of 'evidence' you cite, none of that is positive evidence of anything, it is weak and flimsy circumstantial evidence - and that's the opinion of the Guards themselves.

Earlier on the thread you said you respected the view of the DPP.

I put to you the DPP's view of the scratches etc where the DPP accepted Bailey's version of events with regard to the scratches. They did not make a decision of Bailey's innocence or guilt, but on specific points of evidence they outlined their reasoning.

You could offer no response to this. You didn't even try. Yet you pop up again repeating the same discredited nonsense about scratches when the DPP outlined that it Bailey's conduct in offering DNA samples is actually indicative of Bailey's innocence.

Why are you bringing up discredited information that contradict your own statements?

Bailey should not have faced the courts due to the risk of a miscarriage of justice because of the malpractice of Guards on the case. There was no sound basis for a prosecution to proceed.