Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed (Threadbans in OP)

Is there something very unlikely in the murder of a woman being committed by a local woman abusing drunk/recividist/narcissist/unemployed/outcast/poet.

Cause I find that to be highly likely. Cases like this are statistically comitted by lone men with local knowledge and substance abuse issues. With murder strongly correlating with grandiose narcissism. And Bailey was exactly all those.

Local guy who ticks all the profile boxes. Is there a more straightforward *theory? (Given strangers dna is probably on a lot of shoes, jackets, cars, bags out there)

Usual disclaimer applies, there was no actual yadda yadda…..

what might a more straightforward scenario be?

Yes there were only 2 people who were known to be in close proximity to the murder scene on the night it happened. Who only had each other as an alibi. Neither of them are likely to have done it but it always appeared to me that they were ruled out very swiftly from deeper investigation.

I would disagree with your contention that more evidence points to bailey that any other.

As there is no physical/forensic/eye witness evidence, all we have is circumstantial: so lets compare Bailey with, say Alfie.

1. Association. Bailey had no known association with Sophie. Alfie knew her quite well.
2. Motive. Bailey had no motive to attack Sophie. Alfie had an ongoing neighbourly dispute with her.
3. Presence. There is no evidence of Bailey being present at the crime scene. Alfie was definitely there.
4. Alfie claimed to have heard nothing, despite a prolonged attack taking place yards from his door.
5. Alfie, for some reason, on discovery, never checked Sophie for signs of life before calling the authorities.
6. Alfie's partner, Shirley, drove to the local dump shortly after Sophie's body was found.

Now, I'm not accusing Alfie of the murder, but, in terms of the limited amount of evidence (of any kind) available, I suggest that more points to Alfie than to IB.

Well it`s just more misinformation isn`t it. With regard to Alfie and Shirley….points 2. 3.and 6. are untrue. Points 4. and 5. are not indicative of guilt or innocence. That leaves you with point 1…."Alfie knew her quite well." I`m surprised you didn`t include the cut hand or MI5.

With regard to what you said about Bailey…

"Bailey had no known association with Sophie." There is evidence he was introduced to her, evidence that he was following her in Schull on the Saturday before the murder, evidence that she knew him to be a poet.

"Bailey had no motive to attack Sophie." Read his diary. He had murderous urges, contemplated making a list of those he would kill and described how he would kill them…"stubb them out like cigarettes". Go look at the crime scene photos and you will see a victim who was killed in that way. Also consider how Bailey confessed to Fuller in second person narration in a similar vein to how he planned the murders in his diary.

"There is no evidence of Bailey being present at the crime scene." Yes there is. He indicated to several people that he had been there. He indicated to Jules Thomas that he wanted to go to Alf Lyons house which would bring him within a few feet of Sophie`s house and then he shortly afterwards got out of bed and disappeared for several hours.

The problem with thinking it was Alfie is that he was well known as frail. In his 60's and walking with a stick. Not a large man either.
A concrete block doesn't really fit with someone like that. Nor does tackling a generally healthy woman in her 30s sound plausible for him.

Unsurprising he didn't hear anything in the wee hours. How prolonged could it be. If prolonged then for certain its not a frail person making the attack. If not prolonged then easily missed by someone sleeping nearby.

Ian could well have a motive to kill, its just not so apparent as he was insane. Violently insane, and physically strong.
Alfie wasn't either.

One could potentially physically achieve the task, the other couldn't. The large violent brute is more likely than the frail guy in his 60s.

Absolutely no reason to call Bailey "insane" - he may have been annoying, and aggressive when drunk - but that's neither madness nor very unusual.

Lyons may have been "frail" though not too frail to function while growing cannabis, apparently.

People involved in farming are generally NOT very frail. And have a good reason for being out on the road very early. Especially if they have land right beside where this murder was committed.

These kind of circumstances are much more convincing than trying to reason from some quasi-psychological character analysis that someone "must have" committed the crime because of their personality!

Firstly, I didn't say it was Alfie, just that the flimsy evidence that is known does not point directly at Bailey, but could just as easily implicate another. I chose Alfie as an example to illustrate the point.

He was not "frail" and did not need a stick to walk.

To suggest that he was a geriatric cripple incapable of such an attack is incorrect.

The attack must have been prolonged as Sophie had circa fifty wounds on her body. That didn't happen in a brief moment.

For all his unpleasant character traits, Bailey was not insane.

There is nothing ( barring speculation) to suggest a motive for Bailey.

So I stand by my point, Bailey is not implicated by any material evidence.

I'll take flimsy evidence over none at all.
I'm also not accusing, just saying that one person has a few bits of flimsy evidence, while others have practically none.

Official investigative consensus of the Gardaí in 1996 would disagree with your assertion that Lyons was not frail at the time. (Although some suggest a solitary photo of Lyons walking without a stick some 10 years later dismisses that Garda opinion).

If the crime was prolonged (50 wounds) that would take stamina, a 63 y.o. man of Lyons build isn't very probable, and certainly less likely than a 6 foot man aged 39.

There's no reasons I can find to think Lyons was mentally unstable.

Bailey however was far from being mentally stable. He was brutally violent towards his woman repeatedly, struggled with alcoholism, was chronically unemployed, his own journals note that he couldn't account for his actions after drinking heavily.
Known locally for his midnight solitary strolls he wrote about being in "great moral danger" and having a mind "taken over by lustful thoughts" due to an obsession with pornography.
The same journals contained graphic descriptions of sexual violence rooted in dominance, and a desire to kill. His murder themed art would be found with the murder date included.
He later made 'joking confessions' about the crime, and courted media attention (as you do with an horrific murder of an innocent woman).

Can we attribute such levels of mental instability to any other person with connection to the crime.
Is there anyone else more physically capable and mentally likely.

The simplest solution is the most likely to be correct.

(standard disclaimer of no physical proof)

"Not shared by myself, the DPP or, generally by juries"
- What jury? What are you talking about? You can actually form an opinion/suspicion without any external consequence. You do so yourself later in your text when you assume the killer to be male, without risk of convicting an innocent person. Forming a private opinion based on logical conclusion =/= accusing someone in court.

"Whilst others had, at least, means, motive and/or opportunity."
I doubt Lyons had the means. As did the Gardai. Logic would suggest the same given his age. Nor are there many restrictions on opportunity. Who didn't have the opportunity?

"subsequently discredited by the DPP and others"
Parts of the investigation were flawed, but absolutely nothing documented to say Lyons age/physical challenges were overstated.

"No. But there's no reason to believe that the killer had to be mentally unstable."
Seriously? 50+ wounds and a concrete block to her head/face. Is this the act of someone of stable mind?
Given a lack of evidence either way, logic would dictate no.

"Most of which is hearsay and none of which is evidence."
What do you mean most is hearsay. Those are excerpts from his own journals. And are circumstantial evidence.

"You are assuming that the murderer was mentally unstable. Perhaps he was, perhaps he wasn't."
I have to assume. The case is frustratingly lacking in evidence, I'm assuming the most probable. Is there another option while waiting for further development? And what are you assuming?

That it wasn't the most violent character in the area, who (from what little evidence is available) was also the most unstable. That his diaries of self confessed madness, drink struggles, lust, porn addiction and will to kill, along with his murder art (with the murder date) are outweighed on the scales of logic by … what exactly.

On the basis of what little is available there is no better suspect if one is being logical, is there? If so, who?

As such until there is (hopefully) some development this case will remain in the archives as officially unsolved with Bailey as the main suspect. Exactly in accord with what I originally stated a page back.

I do hope more details emerge, but until then I'm comfortable for Bailey to remain the chief suspect in the eyes of the law and the public. Others can go round in circles, hoping to discover some dramatic and frankly unlikely contrarian twist. In this grim and seemingly familiar tragedy.

Where is the evidence that Bailey was "the most violent character in the area?" The number of courthouses in west Cork and the frequency in which they sit suggests that there are a load of people in the area with convictions.

There are at least 2 other people who had access to the property over that weekend and who knew that Sophie was there.

No they're not. And there is no flaw.
The mistake you've made here is confusing suspicion (Bailey) with conviction (Malkinson).
You're entitled to suspect anybody of anything.

Yes, maybe if there had been different enquiries there would be many more persons of interest.
But there aren't.

I made no mistake, the use of conviction was intentional as it is a far greater bar to achieve than merely suspicion. Yet these people were convicted precisely because there was a flawed investigation where the police were certain they had their man. Sound familiar?

We can in fact speculate "On the basis of what little is available…". You merely choose not to speculate about anybody other than the suspect put forward by the guards, because as we all know, they never make mistakes and never focus on only one person…oh wait.

The Gardai don't formally use the term chief suspect, it has no meaning in law. Bailey was just one of at least 50 suspects, each of whom had a particular reason to be on the list. All reasons were legitimate in the eyes of the investigative Gardai. So there are at least 50 circumstances that the Gardai saw where someone else could have potentially committed the murder. We do not formally know how any of them were ruled out.

Also as I've said before, until ruled out a better suspect is clearly the person who deposited the DNA on Sophie, and whom will likely flag on the M-Vac DNA investigation.

I think you get a little too excited too quickly about dna.

If you've been out in society today you have about 3-5 strangers dna on your personal items/clothing. And it transfers very easily. Its everywhere.
So it would be more unusual for there not to be strangers dna on any given person (or her shoe/clothing in this case).
It could belong to the culprit, but that would really be defying the odds. Improbable.

Just something to try to remember. I know dna is amazing and fascinating and all that, but its not the silver bullet some like to imagine.

If some touch dna on the block matched that on the shoe that would be something actually worth getting worked up about.
But no, sadly at this time in all statistical probability it just belongs to some bloke who passed by her out in public.
Simplest solutions and all that.