The Murder of Madame Sophie Toscan du Plantier

      No Comments on The Murder of Madame Sophie Toscan du Plantier
Ian Bailey was found guilty of Sophie Toscan du Plantier's murder in absentia.

Listen to the final episode on the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier which occurred on December 23, 1996, in West Cork, Ireland. Part three will cover two libel trials, a trial in absentia in France along with the latest news to break in Madame Sophie Toscan du Plantier’s case.

Subscribe

Libel Trial #1

On January 19, 2004, seven years after the murder Ian Bailey brought a libel suit against eight newspapers in Ireland. He claimed that they reported that he was the murderer of Sophie Tucson du Plantier. This tainted his reputation and prevented him from making a living. To say this trial was a media circus was an understatement.  Although it was a libel trial it seemed to take on the more of a tone of a murder trial. To defend themselves the newspapers were granted access to the entire Garda file to use in their defense.

The newspaper’s lawyers went after Bailey with compelling witness testimony. None more so than that of Richie and Rosie Shelley.  The Shellys had gone out on New Year’s Eve in 1998 when they ran into Bailey and Thomas. The Shelly’s were invited back to The Prairie Cottage for drinks afterward where talk soon turned to that of Sophie’s murder.  This was because Bailey had brought up the murder in conversation. He even brought out press clippings to show the Shellys.

Bailey’s Confessions

At one point, Bailey left the room to return to the kitchen where Ritchie Shelley was standing. According to Ritchie,  Bailey was emotional and crying. Bailey then said, “I did it” which he repeated several times.  Each time Bailey said, “I did it”, Ritchie would ask him what did you do?  Bailey never answered him directly. Ritchie kept on asking him what he did and Bailey finally responded, “I went too far, I went too far.”

Again, Ritchie asked Bailey what he meant by that, but Bailey never answered him. Bailey cried the whole time and kept both of his hands around Richie until he suddenly left and went into his bedroom.  When asked what he thought Bailey was referring to Richie testified that he was convinced that Bailey was talking about the murder since they had spent so much time talking about it that evening.

Ritchie Shelly wouldn’t be the only witness to testify to a confession. Malachi Reed took the stand. Now twenty-one, he told the court that Bailey told him, “it was fine up until I went up with a rock and bashed her fucking brains in.”  Malachi went on to say that he didn’t know what to do and after that just kept quiet until Bailey asked him how school was going.

Malachi testified that he knew Bailey had been drinking and appeared agitated as they started their journey home. He goes on to say he didn’t tell his mother right away but did so the next morning as he was still upset about it. Malachi vehemently denied that he was making it up when questioned by Bailey’s defense. Malachi’s mother, Irene Reed, testified to what her son told her and reiterated that her son is not a liar.

Another Confession?

If two witnesses testifying to a confession aren’t enough why not add one more? Bill Fuller, a former friend of Bailey’s, took the stand. Bill testified that he had gone to see Bailey one day to tell him what people were saying about him being a suspect in Sophie’s murder. He stated that Bailey started talking to him in the 2nd person saying:

You did it.  You killed Sophie.  You did it, you saw her in Spar on Saturday; you saw her walking up the aisle with her tight arse.  You fancied her.  You went up to see what you could get.  She ran away screaming. You chased her.  You went too far, you had finished her off.

Ian Bailey per Bill Fuller

Another compelling witness was Marie Farrell who testified about her various sightings of Bailey. These ranged from across the street from her shop after Sophie exited to the man on Kelfadda Bridge. Farrell also testified that Bailey had been threatening her in the months after she came forward. She claims that he was constantly harassing and threatening her to change her story. She says that Bailey wanted her to say that the Garda had put her up to it and that he was not the man she had seen at all.  Farrell was adamant in her testimony that the Garda did not put her up to fingering Bailey as the man she had seen on the bridge.

Newspapers Keep Piling On

The libel trial was turning out to be a retrospective on Ian Bailey and why he stood out as the Garda’s prime suspect.  The newspapers were pulling no punches and put Bailey on trial for Sophie’s murder. Other evidence presented at trial included the fire seen on December 26th behind the studio cottage. Caroline Leftwick testified to the phone call she had with Bailey on the morning of December 23rd. This was before his claim that he only heard about the murder at 1:40 pm. Alfie Lyons was another witness for the newspapers. He testified that he had introduced Bailey to Sophie in June 1995, eighteen months before her murder. He claimed that he made those introductions and was 90% certain of doing so.

Journalist Paul Webster told the court that Bailey had contacted him while he was working in Paris in 1996/1997 for the Guardian newspaper. Bailey wanted to collaborate with him on reporting on Sophie’s murder. Webster claimed that Bailey stated he could assist with information. Bailey made it clear to him that he had talked to Sophie and had seen her on the day she died. Mike MacSweeney, who worked for a freelance photographic agency also testified to his interactions with Bailey. He reported that Bailey had contacted him about pictures taken on December 23rd of the murder scene. Bailey indicated they were taken around 11 am.

More Evidence

A witness who had a conversation with Jules Thomas on December 23, 1996, testified.  James Camier runs a vegetable stand in the Goleen market. He stated that on the 23rd between 10:30 and 11:00 am Thomas told him about the murder. Thomas claims that the conversation was not on the 23rd, but the 24th. Camier was adamant about the date and that Thomas told him the victim was a French national.

Other evidence presented during this libel trial was Bailey’s diaries. The newspapers had won access to them. When Bailey took the stand he was asked if he would describe himself as an animal by one of the newspaper’s attorneys. Bailey replied no.  Then the attorney presented writings from Bailey’s diary where he wrote that he was an animal that walked on two feet. Evidence was also presented that when Bailey’s diaries were forensically examined that they were full of violence, sexual preferences such as bondage, graphic drawings, and substance abuse. In all, twenty witnesses gave testimony. 

Judge Make His Ruling

On Monday, January 19, 2004 (7 years after the murder) Judge Moran ruled against Bailey on the point that the newspapers did not brand him a murderer or defame him when they wrote about him being the prime suspect and therefore eight newspapers were not libel. Two newspapers had printed stories about Bailey being violent to his former wife. The judge ruled in Bailey’s favor and awarded him 8,000 euros. In US money that’s $9,279.60.  

The judge went on to say that Ian Bailey was a violent man and he believed all of the witnesses that testified as to his various confessions.  The judge also stated that he found it odd that within hours of being released after he was first arrested he gave two interviews with national news stations and newspapers even posing for photos.

Mr. Bailey is a man who like a certain amount of notoriety, likes to be in the limelight and likes a bit of self-publicity

Judge Moran – Death in December:  The Story of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier

In the end, Bailey owed 200,000 euros to the newspaper’s attorney and 170,000 euros to his legal team. 370,000 euros = $429,070.

Recanting

In 2005 after the first libel trial, news hit the media that Marie Farrell had recanted all of her earlier statements regarding Bailey on a television interview on Primetime. Now she was claiming that the Garda had put her up to fingering Bailey as the man she saw on Kealfadda Bridge that night. She also claimed that Bailey never threatened or harassed her. This information came to light after Farrell decided she was tired of being threatened by the Garda and had contacted Bailey’s lawyer, Frank Buttimer.

In Jim Sheridan’s documentary, he confronts Farrell about her changing story. Was she doing it for a payoff? Farrell claims that when a Garda detective contacted her about the possibility of Sophie’s parents taking civil action against Bailey that she would most likely be called to testify. Farrell’s reply to the Garda was that she wouldn’t lie in court again for them. Farrell goes on to claim that initially, the Garda had helped her out by not telling her husband about the man she was out with that night. They also gave her some help in making an insurance charge against her husband go away. In addition, they helped her out with an application for a summer home. Sure sounds like a quid pro quo.

Libel Trial #2

With this new information, Bailey launched another civil action, but this time against the Garda in 2014. Did the Garda conspire to take a witness statement they knew to be false and continue to act on subsequent statements that they knew to also be false? At this trial, Marie Farrell was set to be the star witness this time for the Bailey. Judge John Hedigan presided. In opening the trial he made a statement letting both sides know that they were not here to debate the guilt or innocence of Ian Bailey.

In December 2010, Ian Bailey graduated with a law degree. He would later obtain his master’s in law in 2013, but it does not look as if Bailey represented himself in these proceedings.

The Garda attorney questioned Ian Bailey. He once again took the stand about the phone call he received from Eddie Cassidy on December 23rd at 1:40 pm and what prompted him to go directly to Sophie’s home. Bailey was adamant that Cassidy had said a French woman when describing the victim. The Garda attorney reminded Bailey that at the libel hearing in 2004 he said under oath that Cassidy had told him the deceased was foreign. The attorney pointed out that Bailey has flip-flopped on what Cassidy told him. Bailey admitted, “Um, there may be a variance.”

How Did Bailey Get His Information?

Bailey also was questioned about the various articles he wrote after the murder and how he came about the information he was writing about. Bailey claimed he picked it up from what had already been circulating. He had not directly talked to any investigators but wrote as if he had. When specifically questioned where he had gotten the information about Sophie’s autopsy he claimed it was common knowledge that she died from multiple skull fractures.

Ann Cahalane, who can be seen in the Netflix documentary, was hired as a reenactment actress for the Crimeline television show in January 1997. She testified that while filming out at Three Castle Head, Bailey had come up to her and told her that he had known Sophie.

Bailey was also questioned about the articles he wrote about an alleged French Connection to Sophie’s murder. He would write about Daniel’s money problems and not being able to afford a divorce so he could marry his mistress in a leading way. Bailey blamed all of that on his co-writer, Sophie Rieu. Rieu however, would deny writing anything in an interview with writer Nick Foster in his book “Murder at Roaringwater”.  Rieu would go on to say that Bailey pushed the French angle whenever they talked. He wanted her to try to dig up anything controversial that had to do with Daniel Tuscon du Plantier.

Updated Testimony

Jules Thomas would take the stand claiming that the Garda had changed her statements. For example, she denies ever telling the Garda that Bailey said he had a bad feeling something was going to happen the night of Sophie’s murder when they had stopped at Hunts Hill on the way home from the pub. She claimed that the Garda completely invented her supposed statement about seeing a mark on his head on Sunday that wasn’t there when he went to bed. Besides the Garda making things up, Thomas also claimed that others had also recalled things incorrectly namely, Caroline Leftwick and James Camier.

Marie Farrell came to court and took that stand for the plaintiff although quite reluctantly. She testified to her now updated version of events. When questioned by the Garda attorney as to the name of the man she had been driving around with that evening she refused to answer.  When pushed Farrell shocked the court by abruptly getting up and walking out of the courtroom.  Farrell was coaxed back by one of Bailey’s attorneys and resumed her testimony several hours later. The judge admonished her for her actions and told her that she must give up the name of the man.

Marie Farrell’s Testimony

Farrell at first claimed that she was protecting the man’s reputation as he had been married at the time. Next, she claimed the man in question was dead so it would do no good to release his name. In the end, she did give the name of John Reilly, but this would turn out to be false testimony. Farrell also stated on the stand that the man she had seen that night on Kealfadda Bridge was wearing a long black coat with silver buttons. The silver button detail was one never heard before in any of her prior statements.

She claimed that Billy Fuller was selling Christmas Trees outside her shop the morning of December 23rd. This was a statement she added in 2006 after she recanted. She was questioned by the Garda attorney as to why she added this statement. Was it perhaps because she knew that Billy Fuller had stated he saw Jules Thomas driving near Kealfadda Bridge on her way to Goleen the morning of December 23rd? Remember Jules Thomas claims that both she and Bailey were at the Prairie Cottage and didn’t leave until 2:20 pm that day.

Was Somone Promised a Payoff?

Geraldine O’Brien took the stand for the Garda.  She had once worked in Farrell’s store as a teenager.  She testified that in December 2013 she ran into Farrell and the two got to talking.  O’Brien was starting up a new business involving furthering one’s education and Farrell was interested in it for her children.  They discussed price and how Farrell would go about applying for a subsidy. That is when Farrell told her that Bailey had an upcoming trial that she was to be a witness at.  She claimed that he would receive a large amount of money. Possibly into the millions and she would get something from it too. Farrell has denied these statements.

On March 30, 2015, the jury deliberated for two hours before reaching a verdict.  The jury found that the Garda did not “conspire to implicate Bailey in the murder of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier.”  Bailey didn’t get his big payout and instead was saddled with more debt that he can never repay.

Justice Society

Sophie’s family was happy to hear about Bailey losing his libel suit against the newspapers and hoped that the testimony given in court would persuade the DDP to file charges. However, that did not happen. Sophie’s family and friends in France formed The Association for the Truth about the Murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier (ASSOPH). It was headed up by her uncle Jean-Pierre Gazeau and Sophie’s younger brother and had over two hundred members with yearly gatherings in Paris. Their purpose was to not only educate themselves as to Ireland’s legal system but also put pressure on Ireland and France to charge Bailey in Sophie’s murder and be prosecuted.  

Don’t Count out the French 

In 2010 with Ireland failing to abide by the European Arrest Warrant they had issued, French investigators continued moving their investigation forward with the anticipation of bringing Bailey to justice. When Sophie’s body had been exhumed back in 2008 the French ordered new forensic testing. Disappointingly it yielded no new evidence. The French authorities would return to Ireland one more time in 2011 to continue their investigation.

In June 2008 the French appealed to the Irish state for the Garda file on Sophie’s murder. The French wanted to conduct their own investigation to bring Sophie’s murderer to justice. The French system is based on Napoleonic Law. Under the French system, they can prosecute a murder of a French citizen even if the murder occurred in another country. The Irish Minister of Justice agreed and sent everything they had on Sophie’s murder investigation to the French.

Tried in Absentia

In the summer of 2016, over 19 years since Sophie’s murder, the French authorities decided to prosecute Ian Bailey for her murder. Once again the French applied for a European Arrest Warrant for Bailey and only to have it rejected by the Irish High Court. A lower court decided to honor the warrant, but Bailey appealed successfully and got it overturned. The French decided they would try Ian Bailey in absentia.

In May 2019 Bailey’s trial began in Paris and was held at the Paris Criminal Court. Jean-Pierre Bonthoux was the prosecutor for France. Bailey was offered the option of coming to France and putting on a defense, but he declined to. He stated it was a farce and he felt he would be jailed after a show-trial. There was no way he would receive a fair trial in France. Bailey’s trial would not have a jury but would be decided by a panel of judges; one presiding judge, Frederique Aline, and two other judges were present.

The French notified 24 witnesses from Ireland asking them to appear and testify at Bailey’s trial.  Only two would attend; Billy Fuller and Irene Reed, Malachi’s mother. The French prosecutor laid out their case at the opening. He stated that they felt Bailey’s confessions were just that; confessions. They also didn’t feel Bailey had an alibi that made any sense for the night of Sophie’s murder. The French felt that Maire Farrell’s initial statements she made to the Garda were believable. They did not place any importance on her since retracted statements. The French felt that the scratches and wound to Bailey’s forehead were signs of his culpability. The French trial mostly consisted of the judge reading into the record various witness statements. Even then they didn’t put up everything the authorities gathered when presenting their case.

Witness Testimony

One of the witnesses to testify for the republic of France was Alexandra Lewy, Sophie’s cousin, who told the court that a few days before Sophie was to leave for Ireland she received a phone call at her production company from a man from Ireland who lived near Sophie’s holiday home.  He had called claiming to be a freelance journalist and writer and he had wanted to meet with Sophie for “cultural purposes.”  At the time, Sophie was alarmed as she wanted to know how this man had gotten her number, but the man didn’t explain himself. Lewy testified Sophie didn’t appear to be bothered too much.  Lewy could not remember the name of the caller.

Paul Webster, a former writer for The Guardian stationed in Paris testified that he had a conversation with Bailey in 1997 about Sophie’s murder and that during that conversation Bailey told him that he had known Sophie. During the trial, a statement from Mark McCarthy was also read into the record. McCarthy was a friend of one of Thomas’s daughters and in September 1995 he witnessed Bailey talking to a small blonde woman at the Storytelling Festival held in Cape Clear. Later he would recognize a photo of Sophie as being the woman Bailey had been talking to. The French were trying to establish a connection between Bailey and Sophie. Bailey, when contacted by author Nick Foster, claimed it was all rubbish and nonsense.

Ian Bailey Is Profiled

The French commissioned a clinical psychiatrist, Dr. Jean Michel Masson, and psychologist Katy Lorenzo-Regreny,  to develop a character profile of Bailey based upon his writings, Garda interviews, and other reports. They focused heavily on Bailey’s diaries, especially what he wrote about after injuring Thomas in the 1996 assault.

I feel sick reading my report of the events that night – I wanted to kill her

Ian Bailey

They deemed Bailey to be narcissistic, egotistical, impulsive, and in constant need of attention and recognition. They deemed that Bailey takes pleasure in being the center of attention and likes to provoke others. They concluded that Bailey suffered from a borderline psychological disorder without psychotic features.

Secret Photos

One of the more shocking testimonies came from Patrick Lowney, a film developer. Lowney had made a statement to the Garda in October 2000. He told the Garda that in May of 2000 a man had called him asking if he could discreetly develop a roll of film. Lowney at the time lived in Clonakilty approximately 35 miles from Schull. Both men went into  Lowney’s darkroom where he began to develop the film.

The first couple of photos were family-type images, but the later shots showed a woman lying outside on the ground.  Lowney stated she looked fully clothed and the ground appeared stony. There was a gate nearby next to what appeared to be briars. In a couple of the photos, you could make out who was taking the photos’ shoes. The man then grabbed the wet photos and negatives and took off. When the Garda showed Lowney a photo line-up he identified Ian Bailey. Unfortunately, there is no evidence left to back up Lowney’s story, only his statements to the Garda. By the time the French trial came around Patrick Lowney was deceased.

Did Bailey Struggle With A Christmas Tree?

Dick Cross, a journalist with the Irish Independent, Padraig Beirne, a picture editor for the Irish Independent, and Mike MacSweeney, a freelance photographer have given statements that Bailey offered them photographs of the crime scene in phone calls he made after 2 pm on December 23, 1996. Bailey had told them that the photos were taken around 11 am at the crime scene. This is approximately 22 minutes after the Garda arrived on the scene if Bailey is to be believed. To add credence that these photos may have existed is a statement Thomas made to Carolyn Leftwick that she testified to at one of the libel trials. Leftwick testified that at a party held at Billy Fuller’s house in late January 1997 Thomas told her “you should have seen the body – it was a terrible sight.”

Arianna Boarina’s witness statement was read into the record. It had been given to the Garda two years after the murder. She was a friend of one of Thomas’s daughters and had stayed at the Prairie Cottage the day after the murder. She claimed that on December 24, 1996, she noticed “heavy” scratches on Bailey’s hands and forearms that looked fresh. Thomas and Bailey claimed they came from cutting down a Christmas Tree. Arianna thought that was a bit odd since the tree itself was quite tiny.  She also noted there was a large bucket in the bathroom with what looked like a dark winter coat soaking in it. In the Netflix documentary, she said it was odd because it was the middle of winter and a large coat would be difficult to dry.

More Witness Statements

Other witness statements were read into the record as well. Martin Graham, a former British soldier who had been stationed in Northern Ireland claimed to have met Bailey in February 1997 (after his first arrest). Graham claimed that Bailey was talking about how the Garda had focused on him claiming he had gone up to Sophie’s home in a blackout and killed her. Graham stated Bailey then said, “if this is what happened, then I did it.” Graham would also go on to claim that the Garda had bribed him with cash and drugs to try to get Bailey to confess on tape. At one point, Graham had played the role of a double agent telling Bailey that the Garda were trying to get him to confess.

Since Bailey refused to attend the trial there was no real defense put on for him. In the end, the Paris court found him guilty in absentia to the murder of Madame Sophie Tuscon du Plantier and sentenced him to 25  years in prison. The French tried for a third time to get Bailey extradited to France but were once again rebuffed by Irish courts. If Bailey should ever leave Ireland on his own and is extradited to France or turns himself into French authorities he will have another trial and be able to put on a defense.

Garda Missteps and Mistakes

Problems with the investigation have caused this case to remain open in Ireland. 

Investigators not experienced with homicide investigations; no murder in living memory. 

Delay in forensic team arriving on scene 7 ½ hours after being contacted.

No time of death; the body was left out in the elements for close to 26 hours.

No photographs of Bailey’s injuries.

No recordings were made of police interviews with Bailey or Thomas.

Lost the gate evidence.

Interviews not done promptly i.e. Arionne B., a woman who took Christmas Day video. The Leftwicks – piecemeal puzzle pieces and incremental with their significance not being realized until months or years later.

Questions Related To This Case

  • Did Bailey know Sophie? I believe that he did know her more than he has stated. All the witnesses have made statements that Bailey told them he met her and knew her more than just at a distance.
  • How did he know to go directly to the murder scene if only being told it was a foreign national? I don’t believe that he was told that it was a French woman in his initial call with Eddie Cassidy.  
  • How did he know about the injuries she suffered before the autopsy was released? He gave details that meant he had gotten the information directly from the autopsy or he knew because he was involved.  
  • Why does Bailey get a pass on statements he made to numerous people that he knew her or had killed her as being dark humor or sarcasm, but those witnesses are not believed at least by the DPP?
  • Talking about sarcasm and dark humor who jokes about the violent murder of a terrorized woman who was bludgeoned to death? What kind of person does that especially to a 14-year-old boy, a couple that you’ve invited to your home to celebrate New Years, to a stranger at a wedding, to an employer and a close friend that had just stopped in to check on you?
  • What was the motive? Did a drunk Bailey head up to Sophie’s home leaving his passed out partner at home? Thomas admitted to taking pain medication for her menstrual cycle that night. Was he rebuffed by Sophie, snapped and then chased her down taking out his rage on her?

Thoughts on Case

In an interview on Cork’s Red FM station with Netflix documentary director, John Dower he talks about the dichotomy of Ian Bailey in how he claims he wants to be left alone and live his life without all the scrutiny, but then he gives all these interviews and participates in documentaries on the case. He goes on to state that just when this case seems to fade it is Bailey who revives it with libel trials and interviews. Daniel Tuscon du Plantier has been quoted in an interview that Bailey’s new job after Sophie’s murder was to claim he didn’t kill her. In the West Cork Podcast, Tom Quinn a local house painter is quoted as saying that Bailey “didn’t have a life and only got one after Sophie’s murder.”  “He had nothing when he came to Ireland.”

In a recently published news article, Ian Bailey is considering bringing yet another lawsuit this time against Netflix for their documentary which he claims is defamatory and full of lies about him.

Farrell Strikes Again

A news article published in July 2021 in The Irish Times reports that Marie Farrell has made a new statement to the Garda in a two-hour interview at the Skibbereen station. Jim Sheridan the documentary filmmaker of Murder at the Cottage had contacted the Garda in May 2021 saying that he had discovered “pertinent information” while filming his documentary. He stated that Farrell had talked to him before his documentary aired that the man she had claimed to see at the Kealfadda Bridge on the night of Sophie’s murder was a shallow man of Middle Eastern complexion. This man was also the man she saw across from her shop on December 21st. Ms. Farrell claims that she recognized the man after viewing photographs online related to Daniel Toscan du Plantier. Farrell then shared the photograph with Jim Sheridan which he passed along to the Garda.

According to the Irish Times, the Garda will begin verifying whether or not this man was on any flight or ferry manifests around the time of Sophie’s murder.

Thomas Finally Has Enough

As of early 2021 news broke that Jules Thomas and Ian Bailey are no longer together. In an interview Thomas gave in June 2021 she stated that the couple broke up mainly because her daughters refused to visit her with the grandchildren while Bailey was still in residence. She asked him to move out. He was in disbelief initially and she gave him a vacate date of July effectively ending their 30-year relationship. Thomas stated that she was tired of it all. Initially, she felt “compelled” to stay with Bailey since it would look bad for him if she had broken off their relationship. She also states that she believes Bailey is innocent of Sophie’s murder.  

More news broke at the beginning of November 2021 that the Garda Commissioner Drew Harris assigned a new team to do a full review of all the evidence and statements. This is to be a full criminal investigation and not a cold case review. No expense is being spared and the newest technology and methodology will be utilized. The Garda have stated that they will not be making any additional statements until there is a breakthrough. They believe this case can finally be solved and put to rest.

There is more! In early December 2021, Nick Foster reported that he had been contacted by someone in Schull about a silver watch that was taken from Sophie the night of her murder. This person claimed it was taken off her and kept as a trophy. Foster has turned this information over to the Garda for investigation.

Gone but Not Forgotten

In Michael Sheridan’s book Death in December he writes a retrospective of Sophie’s life through interviews with family and friends. He goes on to write about a letter Sophie wrote to a friend, Andre Rousselet after hearing about the passing of Francios Mitterand, former President of France. She wrote, “we must not cry about the dead, we must think of them.”  We are all thinking of you Madame Sophie Toscan du Plantier. Hopefully, the new re-investigation and updated DNA testing will result in formal charges and prosecution of Sophie’s murderer.

Sophie’s son, Pierre Louis Baudey-Vignaus continues to appeal to the people of Ireland to come forward with any information they may have on his mother’s murder. Pierre Louis kept his mother’s home in West Cork and continues to visit to this day with his wife, Aurelia, and their two children.

Resources

You May Also Like

Pages: 1 2 3