Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

This thread is fascinating...thank you all so much for your insights. I wonder if the Cold Case Review reads this thread?

I have some links to people who were in Schull at the time - I don't believe Bailey did it but understand why he was considered the chief suspect.

I hope that the Review is fair, balanced and leaves no stone unturned. Is there a time frame for when it will be completed?

The relationship between the local Gardai (plural) and Marie is intriguing in itself.

For all the fluff, gaslighting and confusion regarding Bailey's involvement in this crime, the key facts are that: 1) There is no evidence of an association between Bailey and Sophie. 2) There is no evidence linking Bailey to the scene of the crime. 3) Bailey had no motive. 4) For Bailey to be guilty requires a sequence of very unlikely events to have occurred. ie. Improbability on top of improbability on top of improbability.

Then, the bizarre behaviour of the investigation team must be ignored. The deliberate destruction of evidence, the Bandon tapes, the manipulation of "witnesses" etc etc. In a nutshell, the case against Bailey doesn't stack up.

“He accepted he had agreed to meet her for a drink because she was in Dublin and did not know anyone.”

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Sorry does he think we’re completely fcking thick?

"When someone doubtful of their recollection meets police trying to fit together a narrative about a particular suspect…what emerges is not likely an accurate version of what happened. Especially when timeframes are being narrowed years after the fact."

You basically say that the witness doesn`t really remember the events of the day with any great great certainty and has allowed his testimony to be led by those dodgy cops. The witness refined the original statement where he said "late morning to early afternoon" to "11-00 to 11-30" in the second statement. By any standard that is late morning. He hasn`t changed what he initially said. He refined it.

You have automatically assumed that this came about from pressure from gardaí intent on creating a specific narrative. You can`t say that. You don`t know why he refined it. He may have had innocent reasons. That comfortably puts you into option 3 alongside chooseusername who yesterday quoted an unknown source that said gardaí went back 10 times until they got what they wanted. Seth Brundle jumps up and down in faux outrage but has yet to provide a new option that defines his thinking.

This witness was informed of events by Ian Bailey on the morning after the murder. The murder was horrific and became notorious. In a small rural community it was a monumental event. In the following days the witness would have become aware that the individual who first informed him has now become the prime suspect. It is at that point that the interaction with Bailey would have been indelibly marked onto the witnesses memory if it hadn`t been initially. That`s the kind of memory you retain for life. I know from reading your contributions that you don`t get that. Seth Brundle certainly doesn`t get it.

Last night someone went to the trouble of posting an example of peoples recall after watching a crime video. It has no relevance with this specific encounter with Bailey. Here`s a more relevant example…

Someone asks me…"Would you be able to recall what you were up to on a specific day in September twenty four years ago?"

My immediate reply would be…"Don`t be ridiculous. I couldn`t possibly remember "

That someone then says…"It was 9/11. The day of the terrorist attacks in the US."

My reply then is…"Ah of course. Well I can only give you a general account of what I would have been up to that morning. But I do remember driving back to my job after lunch and hearing Joe Duffy say on the radio that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. That would probably have been some time around 2pm. At the time he wasn`t sure if it was an accident or terrorism. I also remember discussing the unfolding events with the person I worked with for the rest of the day and the specific work that we were doing."

That is the type of unforgettable encounter that Ó Colmáin had on the morning of the murder and that is why I absolutely believe him.

Grand so, it was 'refinement', anytime Bailey's story is a little different over time it is just 'refinement' is it?
Nope, you (this is your phrase) "you jump up and down on in faux outrage" whenever you think you have a 'gotcha'.

An "unforgettable encounter"! It wasn't in the following days this refinement happened. We are talking years later.
Some unforgettable encounter the exact details of which he forget 3 years later but remembered after another year.
It beggars belief.

But apparently it was "indelibly marked" on his memory? Self discrediting contradictory drivel.

He changed what he said. The afternoon is no longer mentioned. That's a material change.

Given the same witness is on record as stating that during this 'refinement' process, a Guard mentioned a drugs bust involving the son of the witness. Why do you think the Guard did that?

Bearing in mind this is a case with documented evidence of Garda malpractice, unsafe conduct with witnesses and tampered records.

You have provided no explanation as to why this 'refinement' occurred so it is completely ludicrous to be "jumping up and down in faux outrage" about other posters putting forward explanations.
The poster is under no obligation to engage with such a bad faith framed argument.

The witness may have had innocent reasons but these have not been detailed, or he may have consciously or subconsciously allowed himself to be led by the questions of the police, to 'fill in the blanks'.
Neither of which gives confidence in credible evidence.
All of which explains why people are dubious are memories 'refining' themselves years later and stressing the importance of witnesses interviewed independently shortly after the crime.

It is the definition of he said/she said (which is a phrase, not they or anything else). Many people also back up Baileys version of events, but yeh let’s just choose to ignore them and choose to instead listen only to the ones that back up the Garda theory.

He said/she said, that’s it unfortunately, that’s all you got no matter how you try to spin it. In a court of law it would be one set of people’s word against another set. That’s it, you just pick and choose the ones you like.

The case would at this point never be solved. The circumstantial evidence only leads to further stories, speculations and interpretation.

In terms of motive and subsequent behavior, I'd still say the most likely murderers would have been somebody connected to and acting on instructions of her husband Daniel, or the grim reality that it was an Irish police officer.

In both cases the motives would be clear, for her husband Daniel it would have had strong financial implications and by the amount of coercion, collusion and corruption which is clearly beyond just incompetence it would strongly point to a police officer in Ireland of a certain rank and influence within the local organization.

Of course the possibility does exists that it could have been Alfie and Shirley or Finbarr and Josie or Leo Bolger or Karl Heinz Wollney. None of them would have had any real benefit from her death unless any of them or all of them were in on something illegal, something we all don't know, possibly drugs, and Sophie found out something. This scenario seems not that likely as the Ungerers never reported anything like that. They would have noticed, they lived there all year round and Sophie apparently confided in them and we could know.

In a nutshell and after having read a lot about this murder case, I strongly think, the murderer is somewhere to be found within Daniel's circles acting on Daniel's instructions or it was a corrupt police officer in Ireland overstepping the boundaries and then covering and colluding things and perverting the course of the investigation.

It's doesn't have to be so black and white, a corrupt officer doesn't only cover for other officers, they could also be covering for a criminal, or a non-guard friend, family relation etc.

At risk of stating the obvious I think each of the suspects would have a different motive if they were the perpetrator. You can't really create a motive before you identify the perpetrator, unless there is clear evidence for it, and there is none forthcoming for a motive in this case. People can do murders for all sorts of crazy reasons, and often just accidentally or over trivial things. No paper trails, no prior stalking behaviours noted by the victim, no weird financial transactions, minimal DNA etc.

Ultimately it does seem in this case the likelihood of a previous lover/partner is lower than normal (up to 90% of the time is typical for a woman victim), which creates a sort of enigma about the case, as it is fairly non-typical (as well as its remoteness). If any evidence turned up of a prior lover of Sophie in the area that would make that person immediately top suspect imo, especially if they kept it quiet all this time, but it seems unlikely. This is what people are feeling potentially about Bailey on the one hand (secret liaisons) or the randy guard theory on the other.

Who benefited? makes sense for a pre-planned motive, and it is a way that a lot of people try to understand the murder, including it seems, the gardai.
However an alternative way to think, if it was spontaneous of course is, who had the most to lose?, from being found out, and how would they act after the fact. It’s a similar, but not quite the same list of suspects, and it could have driven suspicious behaviours afterwards rather than before. Bailey was conspicuous in his response, he actually had nothing to lose, however most other people kept the head down really.
The presumption of some sort of plan may have doomed Bailey from the get go, and caused them to overlook some other suspects.

The Gardai clearly stated at the time, that the motive was sexual - was this simply a theory to fit their key suspect Bailey, or was the motive established before Bailey became a suspect?
And do they have credible and independent evidence that the motive was sexual - or was it simply a theory they put forward post Bailey becoming a suspect ?

IMO one of the key factors pointing away from Bailey. The only plausible motive for him was sexual. And it appears that there was no evidence of any sexual element to the crime.

I don't think it was unreasonable for the Gardaí, and the Press, to assume a sexual motive, at first sight.

Sadly, when a woman is found dead in her nightclothes, that often IS behind the attack: it's tragic - but statistically it is true.

There was no further mention of this issue, though, after the initial dramatic headlines. There are no signs whatever of sexual assault (according to the State Pathologist report, and Garda accounts). The victim's top had been dragged up because it was snagged on thorns. There was no sign of an intruder in her house, no messages in her correspondence, no DNA on her person bar one tiny dot on a shoe, no injuries to her private parts.

It looks like ferocious rage. Somebody with a furious temper, possibly drunk because a weekend night just before Christmas, strong, impulsive, and threatened.

This description, unfortunately, can apply to a lot of men: including Hellen, Bailey, Farrell, random locals, and almost any Guard you care to mention; they are notorious for domestic violence - it's that kind of high-testosterone job.

And which of the above had any reason to be there - at a wide-open gate on a private lane, in the night or early morning - in a very remote location?

Well, answer that, and you may just have found the killer!