Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

Good post.

It is easy to fall into the trap of over thinking things and being drawn into increasingly complicated scenarios.

Many theories are possibly correct but the simplest is usually the best starting point.

Absolutely. He was seen in the village across the street wearing a long black coat and black hat when Sophie exited Spar minutes earlier. He acknowledged himself that he was in Schull at around that time. Marie has often been photographed wearing glasses when she`s been out and about, so it is obvious to conclude that they are for distance. She wouldn`t have been wearing them in the shop with a customer handling cash, labels and receipts etc. Looking across the street then at the figure that she probably assumed was in the company of Mme Du Plantier, it is easy to understand how the blurry black hat that Bailey was wearing on the day was confused for a beret. Ooh La La.

Right so the premise of the whole case is let's make Bailey the prime suspect and rule out everyone else based on an eyewitness description that looks nothing like him. Ooh la la indeed.

Yes thats good assessment as well to show the type of perpetrator, clearly deluded and it's level of beating she got..it just always feels that there was something that says they were at odds over something previously and one of them wanted to have final say

She was out five inches in the height but she said "very tall". He was wearing a black hat not a beret. Other than that she was spot on and I have produced photos of Bailey from the time period on these threads in the past to support the thin frame and sallow skinned descriptions.

If it’s a pre-planned killing, which I don’t believe it is - one thing is certain- it wasn’t Bailey

Ah yeah. The Guards worked on her. Says who? Marie? She said "very tall" in the same statement that she said "beret". I wonder why the Guards didn`t work on her on that one so?

Though they are willing to tamper with witnesses and witness statements, as we have seen they werent the sharpest minds trying to pin this on Bailey.

Plus bit hard when you have two original witness statements mentioning a beret even for dodgy Guards thats a lot. Neither of the original witness statements describes Bailey mention the most obvious thing that he is a big man. Something the Guards tried to play up to pin the violent murder on Bailey without realising it discredited this angle.

And they probably didnt cop that no one else mentions Bailey having a beret.

Thats how weak their case was and is. They tried to make something out of nothing without realising objectively it points away from Bailey.

Unless you can find a credible report of Bailey and a beret- this is a busted flush.

Ok everyone will have still different opinions on this. Like can we really say that someone didn't know she was going to be at house alone or travelled alone...does that warrant some form of pre planned to go there..

I know it might dispel the theory the killer went back to close out the door if he did and check if someone was there. Eitherway like it just seems like incredible amount of variables.

The killer knew the terrain taking the block at pump house or killing her further down lane out of sight..could all these be just opportunity that presented themselves in moment..

How unfortunate does he have to be… Well he was unfortunate enough to be 'placed' in the vicinity of the crime scene by one of these witnesses at 3am, a sighting well is there anyone on the planet who still thinks that is credible?
A most unfortunate man. Well that's what happens when you have a police force out to drum up evidence against you, by fair means and foul.

Let's make it simple.

Bailey's a big man, no beret.

Two witnesses see a man with a beret, not described as a big man.

We also have another witness on Schull Main Street that day:
Restauranteur John Evans also saw a man in a long black coat in Schull on the same day, a man who appeared French/Italian to him. Evans knew Bailey but didn’t identify him in his statements.

Objectively beyond all reasonable doubt - the man seen was not Bailey.
And the man seen did not look typically Irish \ British but Mediterranean.

So the interesting question is, who was that man and what was he doing?

Seems like we have another potential lead not properly investigated by AGS.

That is complete and utter rubbish and debunked again and again on this thread- why do you keep drumming up lies to prop up your pathetic case against Bailey?

“Ms Farrell said she was told by Det Garda Jim Fitzgerald that they needed to "do something to tidy up" the file for the DPP because the description did not fit.

She originally told police the man she saw was 5ft 8ins tall and of slim build.

A later statement described the man as Mr Bailey and said he was taller than a particular police officer who was 6ft tall and that she may have been mistaken about his height originally because she was standing on a higher level than him across the street.

She also said that statements she made about numerous incidents of intimidation by Mr Bailey, including phone calls and cut-throat gestures, were not true.

She said she was told by Det Fitzgerald that they needed the statements to build up a good file and to put pressure on the Director of Public Prosecutions to charge Mr Bailey.“

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30337533.amp

I think I've explained this often enough.

Suppose one uses a cavity block to bash Sophie's head in multiple times, one would with utter certainty be full of blood. The killer was either full of Sophie's blood or he found some way of preventing this from happening. Whilst doing the bashing he couldn't have been more than one meter away, I'd say even less, unless he had extra long arms.

He could also have worn a haz mat suit, but I'd say that's unlikely.

It'll be a bit obvious if he killer was hiking home, or drove home whilst being seen by others, neighbours, his wife, etc…

Bailey would theoretically have had the studio to shower and change and dispose of everything.

And?

What if he was covered in blood?

I think he probably was.

Doesn't follow that he wore gloves and certainly no reason to belive he carried some cover to wrap Sophie in to protect him from blood spatter.

Far more likely he lost his rag with her, battered the poor woman and left the scene with bloodied clothes/shoes/hands etc etc.

The man with the beret was apparently identified on the photo taken at the funeral in France. The police have apparently spoken to him, but he probably denied everything, even ever having been to Ireland. Also the credibility of Marie Farrell is to be questioned.

It's just a deduction I have made. The killer must have made it home from the murder site, so much is clear. If he was full of blood he'd risked everything if he was seen, if he wasn't having blood on himself, nobody would have suspected him. No neighbour, no wife, no other family member, not the employer, nobody.

So unless he was lucky and nobody saw him or he was a total loner living at home alone as well, he'd have to have had some kind of preparation to keep the blood from himself. If asked anybody would have remembered a man full of blood on himself that night.

Another speculation, if the driver of the Fiesta was the killer and he was speeding and forcing somebody off the road it would indicate the killer was nervous. Everyone would remember a speeding car trying to force somebody off the road, nobody would remember a car driving normally.

Again, all speculation but worth a consideration.