Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed. **Threadbans in OP**

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121900979#Comment_121900979

That's interesting, I didn't know what  "contre-coup" meant.

Dr Harbison's report said when the body was moved he noted :

". I was able to look at the ground when the body had been moved to note that there was a slight depression with blood on it where the head had lain. This indicated to me that the body bad been in that position when the blows were struck. Beside the cavity block nearer the gate was a navy blue garment, which I subsequently learned was a dressing gown. It is of note that the cavity block rested upon this garment"

So, if I'reading Dr. Harbison's report right it's saying that she was struck on the head on soft ground. The French report says she was struck on the right side against a hard surface.

Dr. Harbison again;

There appeared to be abrasion and not mere blood staining of the right cheek. Beneath the lacerations on the right side of the forehead I could see tissue and noted that there was depression of the skull extending from the right eyebrow back as far as the temporal bone. My attention was drawn by Det. Garda Gilligan to laceration over the left eyebrow which was on the "down" side of the head.

So I'm confused, help me out here.

bjsc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121903278#Comment_121903278

I'm almost to scared to express an opinion but here goes.

Harbison's conclusion was that she was battered with the flat stone initially and then the breeze block was dropped onthe right sidebof her head. This is, to my mind, contradicted by the position of the breeze block and the blood distribution on it.

The French pathologists conclusion was that she was hit on right said of the head with a blunt object (presumably the stone) and that when this happened the left side of her head was against a hard flat surface.

The abrasions Harbison describes on the right side of her face, could have been caused by the breeze block.but not necessarily by it having been dropped on her head. As she was skeletonised by the time of the Franch post mortem they did not comment on this. In fact they did not comment at all on Harbison's findings.

Hope that helps.

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121901456#Comment_121901456

The only people saying that the Gardai made out that the person Farrell saw was taller than what Farrell said was Farrell herself.

Are we supposed to start believing what she said now, or do we only believe her when it's convenient ?

The only person saying that Martin Graham was offered drugs was Martin Graham, and strangely enough the day of his big reveal his recording system failed and there was no story for The Sunday World. And it's never been confirmed if that was hash in the bag in the photo.

And remember it was Graham who approached the Gardai, not the other way round.

Now that being said one DPP did thend to believe Graham.

But in the civil case Bailey took the jury found that the Gardai didn't coerce Farrell.

This is where the Bandon tapes became such a disappointment for Bailey.

There is isn't a word on the tapes about using Farrell or Graham to setup Bailey.

Since the Gardai had no idea the calls were being recorded you would think that there would be something pointing that way in the hours of phone conversations, but there was nothing.

GNWoodd

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121900982#Comment_121900982

What is the issue with the bonfire ?

If we assume the worst and he was trying to get rid of clothes/ boots etc then why not burn them inside or alternatively burn them outside and leave no trace of a fire that could later be photographed ?

or have I missed something ?

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121903686#Comment_121903686

No, he was really stupid like that.

He murdered Sophie and didn’t think to sort out an alibi.

He burned the evidence in a bonfire out in the open, and just left it like that.

He never thought to hide the scratches he got when killing her in the following days.

He went around confessing he’d killed her to anyone who’d listen.

And him an investigative journalist and all?

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121903686#Comment_121903686

It's the time of the bonfire that was in question.

Bailey claims it was usually October, November or the very latest early December that he had a bonfire.

But Delia Jackson the neighbour claims there one when she was at home on holidays from England that Christmas time.

The problem with Bailey is that there is always ambiguity, nothing is definitive.

There is ambiguity about how well he did or didn't know Sophie.

There is ambiguity about his movements the night of the murder.

Hell there's even ambiguity about what he did the night before the murder.

His movements the night before the murder should be of no relevance, but Bailey managed to mislead the Gardai on that as well.

GNWoodd

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121903796#Comment_121903796

But if nothing was found in the remnants of the fire ??, what relevance has the timing ? Why should anyone care when it occurred ? What relevance has the statement of the woman home on holidays ?

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121903331#Comment_121903331

You’re grand, work away.

If the hard flat surface was the block, how did it end up where it was found and resting on Sophie’s clothes?

bjsc

I think it may fave been there all along. Perhaps used to hold the gate. And it's only on the dge of the dressing gown si may have shifted or tipped during the struggle

bjsc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121903862#Comment_121903862

Have been not fave been!!!!

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121903849#Comment_121903849

Evidence of clothing were found in the remains of the fire, but obviously nothing to connect Bailey with the murder.

If there was there would be a completely different narrative on this thread, if the thread even existed at all.

So we have Bailey burning clothes, in the days after the murder according to a witness, a timeline which is disputed by Bailey.

Like all the other bits and pieces it just adds suspicion to Bailey, not remove it.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121903932#Comment_121903932

He wore the long black coat when he went to murder Sophie.

He soaked it in a bucket of bleach afterwards.

He wore the same coat on Christmas Day in the swim video.

Then he burned it in the bonfire next day.

Then later The Gardai came and took the magic coat away as evidence.

Then the Gardai lost the long black coat.

I might have the sequence of events mixed up a bit.

There was nothing of evidential value found in the remnants of the fire.

GNWoodd

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121903932#Comment_121903932

In what way does it add suspicion to IB ? if nothing of any evidential value was found in the remnants of the fire ? Again I ask why would he have lit a bonfire that would arouse suspicion when he could have burnt whatever it was, indoors ?

And why keep mentioning it in post after post ?

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121904511#Comment_121904511

You are right in that if he was getting rid of incriminating evidence lighting a fire in your back yard after a murder in the area is not the cleverest way of getting rid.

Some people seem to think lighting a fire outside was very odd behaviour, but back in the 90s many country areas didn't have a bin collection service at all. It was common back then to light fires every few weeks to get rid of rubbish and old tat. I know this is what we done back then as did all our neighbours.

The fact Bailey lit a fire is not evidence at all that he is guilty. I'm sure everyone in the area lit fires so by that logic others should be suspects too.

It's a case of Bailey became chief suspect, Delia remembered the fire and 2+2=5 with AGS.

The fire could be relevant or it could be completely irrelevant. It can't be used as evidence though when it was commonplace for people to light fires back then. It would be considered unusual now but not back then.

Zola1000

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121903475#Comment_121903475

Ok so firstly we know Farrell is no longer credible witness, and you make reference, are we supposed to start believing what she said now. Well I'm not asking anyone to do that. Do you think Farrell's statements are any more credible than AGS witness statements that were doctored by AGS themselves. Eitheway lets not say anything about sighting or that Farrell went to AGS on her own accord at beginning . Wasn't It Said with certainly that Farrell was not intimidated by bailey...there was no examples of cases of this and it was clarified in high court that time and through Bailey's solicitor , he had not threatened her. It was garda operation.

Yes in Grahams example he may have gone to police first...are you saying that ultimately transpires to stint operation on bailey? There is documentary evidence to show...the police asking Graham would he consider doing a job for them..and there would be something in it for him..so eitherway be it money drink or cigarettes etc, it was influencing him to get informed from bailey..and hash was certainly considered in that operation in hope bailey would release information. It was desperate tactics and there is reference as you say in DPP report.

I've made no reference to Tapes but again I know there was certainly mention of files between Garda officer and superior to effect of what we may or may not submit to DPP and if what they had was useful or reference to leaving out information. This I will have locate but others may correct me here or locate if it was in some of documentaries.

You'll still agree that none of above reads well in respects of keeping keys aspects of case confidential or by the book or being conducted in manner that is keeping with how the public would want information gathering , do you agree that these practices lack serious misconduct and furthermore considerable amount of public opinion on case would be of lacking confidence in AGS practices.

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121904511#Comment_121904511

Bailey mislead the Gardai about his whereabouts the night of the murder.

For some bizarre reason he mislead the Gardai about his whereabouts the night before the murder.

He may have mislead the Gardai about how well he knew or didn't know Sophie. He claims he never meet her, others claim he did.

And then you have this fire that he claims was no later than early December but that someone else claims was around Christmas time.

All of this ambiguity and misleading people doesn't look good for someone who is a suspect.

I'm not saying that it points to him as a murderer, but for seasoned investigators looking at it I'm sure it's not helping him.

Do you not get that?

Can you not grasp that?

Zola1000

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121904682#Comment_121904682

The above reasons are clearly showing a concerted effort by guards to ramp up case file on bailey..and weather you believe that or not in way that's inadvertently led to DPP using that train of theme against AGS to rule in lack of evidence. That to me is ultimately why we are here 27 odd years later. Any Cold case team have to revert back to putting credibility into what is already massive lack of credibility on originally submitted files.

bjsc

I have been through the exhibit list with a fine tooth comb, and there is nothing on it that refers to items recovered from the fire. This was however the list that was sent to France and I am fairly sure it is not all the exhibits that AGS recovered because it is remarkably short in the context of a murder investigation. But if anything of evidential value or anything which implicated Bailey in any way was recovered from the fire I'm fairly sure those items would be included.

head82

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121904830#Comment_121904830

This may have already been answered previously. If so.. apologies for the repitition. Was the file (exhibit list included) submitted to the DPP and subsequently deemed not worthy of pursuing a criminal case against Bailey, the exact same as that submitted to the French authorities?

Or did the file, evidence etc., submitted to the French authorities also include information pertaining to other potential suspects or any other information that the Irish DPP not receive?

bjsc

I don't know what exactly the DPP received so I can't answer the first part of your question.

The French file makes no real mention of other suspects. There are names included of some who were initially considered suspects by AGS but they are not designated as suspects and without further enquiry the French authorities would not have been aware of their significance. By that I mean there are statements from some of these people but they are merely witness statements.

Day Lewin

I have been inspired by this thought-provoking thread to have a second listen to the "West Cork" podcast. Excellently composed and presented, by the way - an addictive listen!

A detail has caught my attention; (sorry for gruesome)

I gather that the deceased lady was lying face up, with her head towards the open gate, and her clothing caught in the hedge on the opposite side of the lane from her own property. Can anyone confirm that this description is correct?

I just wonder whether a scene-of-crime expert can infer anything from her actual position? It seems to imply that she was facing her attacker, no? Tyre tread marks just a short bit away, but no marks of her own boot prints?

And why did the Gardaí assume that Sophie had been chased down the field from her back door? Any signs among the grass, mud etc of that field?

Would @bjsc care to comment on the actual crime scene as it was found?

bjsc

Sophie was lying on her back on the r/h side of Lane (as you look up towards the house). Her feet were about 2' from the open metal gate and her head, which was turned to the left, was toward the house. Her left arm was at her side and her right arm was flexed at the elbow with the hand against her right side. Her white leggings were caught on barbed wire which ran along and old stone wall which bordered the lane to the right ( again looking upward) and were ripped at the waist exposing part of the lower torso. To the right of her head was a large, heavily bloodstained, flat stone of the type used in dry stone walling. Also to the right but at roughly hip level was a blood stained cavity block which lay partially on Sophie's blue dressing gown. There were skid marks on the gravelled part of the lane which were probably attributable to Shirly Foster. But also tyre marks in the grass above Sophie's head. There was a single small stone with a blood drop on it in the entrance to the field in front of Sophie's house and a few scattered blood drops on the laneway between the body and the entrance to this field. There was no blood found anywhere else other than a smear on the back door just above the handle which was later determined to be Sophie's. There was also a mention of blood on the door handle but this was insufficient for analysis. Other than this there was no sign of disturbance in or around the house.

Please feel free to ask any more questions and I'll try to answer.

Seth Brundle

There was a single small stone with a blood drop on it in the entrance to the field in front of Sophie's house and a few scattered blood drops on the laneway between the body and the entrance to this field.

Were the few drops of blood more like individual drops or a number of drops spread from one "event" (as in a splatter)?

Any theories on how the drops might have gotten there? Would a nosebleed at the start of the struggle have left more drops?

bjsc

I am becoming increasingly reluctant to express an opinion after last Friday but really there are only 2 options.

They were individual spots. The blood on the stone was Sophie's. The spots on the gravel were photographed but not sampled. So it was either Sophie moving around whilst bleeding or her attacker with blood on his hands etc etc. The spots are typical of blood dropped vertically (as you would get if you have a nosebleed).

Day Lewin

I'm just wondering why she fell as she did.

Face to face with an attacker seems to account for her position, but it also shows a horrible degree of direct brutality.

I'd thought at first that she lay face down, as though struck from behind; you would land face down and then the assailant would move forward and deliver the final blows to back of head, to ensure death.

But in this case it seems worse - hit in the face, and then her face battered in. (Apologies for the graphic detail...) Heaven help us, how anyone could DO this...and WHY?

dmc17

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121905600#Comment_121905600

One thing I find interesting when reading posts where people refer to the attacker is that they generally say he/him/his. Do you think there is any chance it might not have been?

bjsc

She but up a considerable fight with extensive defense wounds to her hands and arms. She had obviously also crawled or been dragged. She had scratches to most exposed areas of skin. Obviously she was, to a certain extent, trapped because her clothing was caught on the wire. She also had petechial hemorrhaging and bruising to the strap muscles in the neck which may suggest an attempt at strangulation although this did not contribute to her death.

bjsc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121905932#Comment_121905932

Yes, of course. It's perfectly possible it could have been a woman.

chicorytip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121900700#Comment_121900700

Unrelated to this thread - apart from the fact that he now lives in Cork - but the police got it right in relation to Barry George and the Jill Dando murder. Like Bailey, he was the standout, indeed only, suspect. No other suspect(s) has emerged subsequently and it's unlikely he will ever be brought before the courts again leaving the case unsolved.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121905966#Comment_121905966

There were strands of her own hair in her hands which would suggest she was dragged by her long hair, it would be a natural reaction to either grab the hand that's pulling the hair or your own hair to relieve the pain. So was she pulled back out of the briars and ended face up, do you think?

Also, the block appears to have blood on at least 3 of its long sides, which would be unlikely to happen if it were splatter blood. If it is splatter blood the block must have been moved or rolled , which would account for the block being on top of the blue dressing gown. Looking at the area now, it's likely the block could have rolled a quarter turn. But I'm still having trouble with the wrecked pumphouse roof and the block missing from the wall. I wonder do you have anything in statements from Alfie or or the Hellens, or anyone, about the damage to the pumphouse? I can't imagine Sophie passing in and out past the damaged roof without making arrangements to have it fixed.