Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

I would always have thought about a premeditation simply because the killer must have known that Sophie was at her cottage. What's the point of calling to her cottage if she isn't there? The killer can't talk to her then, or kill her. And remember it was the first time she was ever there around Christmas time.

As the reason for calling to her cottage would have been a strong objective and worth the wait until she was at her cottage, and she, as long as being alive, would always have been some form of risk to the killer, he killed her. And even if the rage was triggered by hate, there is most likely a prior story to that, - hate of this kind doesn't build up out of no reason and against a woman who is hardly ever in Ireland at all.

So I've always considered a premeditation and some kind of prior connection as more likely than an unplanned rage due to sexual rejection or for whatever reason.

It's possible that he didn't wear gloves the following days because he wasn't in the habit of doing so, plus probably none of the locals did that either. It's also possible he didn't wear any gloves as he had no reasons for concern. We don't know that. We don't even know if he owned gloves or was uses to wearing them in winter. They could have asked Jules or the locals who knew him.

The "changing alibi" often bothered me in the sense that if he did it, he knew that he needed a stronger story and he knew that he needed to stick to it. It's possible that at the time he wasn't botherd and didn't expect to be framed for murder, that is framed if he didn't do it.

Suppose he "washed" his coat at Kealfadda bridge that coat would have been rather heavy and soaked in water and difficult to carry home, - but not impossible but rather burdensome.

We also don't know if the time and the day can be accurately verified when the coat was soaking in that bucket around Christmas. It'll be an unreliable statement anyway, Jule's daughters may have disliked him and deliberately have stated the morning on the day after the killing, also now it's nearly 30 years onward. It's certainly neither reliable nor credible as evidence. Same goes for the fire behind his studio. We can't be certain if it was before the murder or after, - neighbours who didn't like him may easily have stated it was after the murder, right on the next day. But in the end, evidence it is not.

But what if, the warm blood interacted with completely innocent DNA left previously on the brick, and they are now mixed into each other?
I would argue that what you’re looking for, is DNA on the brick that’s standalone, from a person who had no business or record of having ever set foot on the land- other than a person who might have made that brick, then the only conclusion would be, that that is the killer. Any DNA mixed with Sophie’s and belonging to someone who lived in that very area, used the gate etc - it can’t be said definitively that they are the killer

“would always have thought about a premeditation simply because the killer must have known that Sophie was at her cottage. What's the point of calling to her cottage if she isn't there? The killer can't talk to her then, or kill her. And remember it was the first time she was ever there around Christmas time.”

If Bailey, premeditation to visit her- possibly, but no evidence of this- premeditation to murder her if Bailey, obviously not as he’s alibi is pathetic for such a premeditated act.

I think the sexual motive speaks the most for Karl Heinz Wollney. He was single, recently divorced, lived in the area, spoke French, was artisitc. He may have met Sophie somewhere by accident in the pub or whilst hiking in the countryside, fancied sleeping with her and he killed her in a rage upon rejection.

Yep, the surviving women would have to have some explaining to do about their dead menfolk…. That is if it was one of them.

Jules is apparently writing a book, it'll be interesting if it was published after it was proven it was Bailey.

If published she might have to do a follow up edit

Or she didn't know anything if bailey did it

Anyway this is great news after all these years if there's a development

If it was Bailey then it would undoubtedly fall back on her. Living with and harbouring a killer for 20 years and more is something which won't go down too well with the locals. Maybe it'll also mean possible legal trouble for Jules?

And if it wasn't Bailey its always possible he confided in her, told her things about his own enquiries / ideas on who the killer was. Remember, Bailey once stated on TV that it was a man from Bantry who was known to Sophie. If Bailey came to that opinion, I am sure, Jules knows something more, most likely also why precisely Bailey thought that it was a man from Bantry known to Sophie.

I have had that thought as well. But also I am not sure, what is held back from the media and the public. After all this is a murder investigation, even though cold case.

This would mean, if sill alive and the DNA evidence is really beyond reasonable doubt, somebody would be expected to be arrested at any moment or the suspect in question beyond reasonable doubt is already dead.

If the first was the case there would have been an arrest already and up to that arrest the Guards would have kept things quiet, released nothing to the media, - due to a possible flight risk.

So I would presume the suspect in question is already dead.

True- we don’t know what the Gardai know- we did once upon a time when the files were sent to the DPP many years ago- but we don’t at all know where the Gardai’s minds are at now with this cold case review.
We know they haven’t ruled out Bailey - we don’t know what if any other suspects came under this review. I guess we just have to be patient and wait.
This DNA could be completely insignificant and an innocent explanation

- it could solve the case (ie Bailey)-

-or it could blow the case wide open and if it does that then we’re not likely to hear anything for a very long time.
Even if the DNA belongs to someone other than Bailey and is no longer alive, I doubt they will release that information until a major investigation on that person is completed

Those who write books or shoot movies and series about the murder are motivated by money only. You certainly won't get anything "new" here.

I don't know about over thinking, as it's all speculation.

I understand far too little about practical matters on how this new technology collects DNA. Theoretically it could be the DNA of the bricklayer who built the pumphouse in the first place.

Bailey also kept drawings and writings about extreme sexual phantasies, as far as I know. I've read that somewhere. So if he really was the killer he would have disposed of them quickly, far too incriminating, even though circumstancial.

What bothers me so much about the Bailey theory is that there isn't much in terms of a motive. He didn't cheat, he didn't have regular brawls or fights in the pub, he had nothing financial to gain. Rape was ruled out early on as well.

So if he did it, why? Lust for killing? Hate for women or hate for French people? If he ever saw Sophie in person, when did he see her last? Maybe more than 6 months to one year ago?

Bailey doesn't strike me as the organized person. However in order to leave no traces, not being seen, and getting away with murder, no prints, no DNA, not leaving any blood in the process whilst returning home would imply that the killer was organized, - no matter how strongly that "rage and unplanned" theory persists.

Otherwise it would only have been luck and that would in my opinion be less likely.

Bah, I forgot about the bricklayer! This is actually possible.

But how many of us could stand unblushing by our sexual fantasies? What people write in their diaries about erotic imaginings, I wouldn't place too much stock in. It might be suggestive — or it might be just a VERY private daydream.

And poor old Mrs Farrell: she only claimed to have seen someone, fairly near the crime location and at about the right time - (maybe) when she was out with her boyfriend. The Guards persuaded her, repeatedly and forcefully, to review and rethink and somehow agree that it was Bailey - and she yielded to that pressure: but later withdrew this claim. Alleging intimidation, which I find very easy to believe.

I think she must have named the boyfriend to the Guards and they agreed not to publish it. Leaving him unidentified verges on the ludicrous. She has stated that he, too, is now dead.

Neither. Back to the studio.