Murder at the Cottage | Sky

It is possible. It was done.

My reading of it is that it is a fingerprint which could be matched to someone but obviously didn't match Bailey.

But that doesn't matter. Why are people banging on about half faded memories of scratches, bullshit and rumors of watches, wine bottles and crap. All that is prejudiced anyway.

Instead we have an actual DNA profile. So what if it's incomplete then go back and take another sample.

People make way too much of the DNA found on Sophie's boot (in 2008, I think).

1. For how many years before the murder was Sophie wearing those boots? How many people came in contact with those boots during that time?
2. Were they even her boots to begin with or did she borrow them from someone? Or did anyone else wear them during that time?
3. The forensic scientist who examined the boots in 2008 noted that the bag they were in was open. It is well known within the forensic world that there is a big problem with items in storage getting contaminated. People handle the outside of the bags and then, when the bags are opened, this can contaminate the item inside the bag.
4. Consider all the people who had contact with those boots before the murder vs the killer who may have had contact with those boots for 5 minutes one night. The killer is the LEAST likely donor of this DNA. Everyone else in her life prior to the murder and everyone who came in contact with the body after the murder is a MORE likely donor.
5. DNA does not survive well on its own if it is not preserved. It degrades very rapidly. However, it can survive for a long time in a stain on material though.
6. Even if you found Ian Bailey's DNA on that boot (just for example), he would immediately say that he worked in that area for Alfie and remembers injuring himself at the time and that's where the DNA came from. Alternatively, he would say, I'm the guy who broke into Sophie's cottage to take a bath that one time in 1993 and when I did I masturbated on her boot, but I am not the killer and you can't prove it.

If it isn`t blood it`s irrelevant. That DNA could be matched to anybody who had ever come into contact with Sophie when she was wearing the boots, including those who dealt with the body after her death.

Dr Bolster, I believe she was based in Cork university hospital but lived in Clonmel.

Whether it is blood or not, it is critical evidence that demands an explanation. It either links the murderer to Sophie or, if unexplained, casts a reasonable doubt in a case against any accused person as there would be evidence linking some other unknown person to Sophie and to the murder scene.

This comment may be relevant or irrelevant - it's just something I thought of over Christmas - just a general observation.

For me the week up to Christmas day is always crazy busy. I'm completely out of routine - I'm running here,there and everywhere.

The week after Christmas up to new year is much quieter but every day is kind of the same. It's hard to even remember what day of the week it is when I'm not working - I had to check several times last week what day it was. The point I'm trying to make is Christmas is a time of year that it's hard to look back and remember your movements reliably. If you asked me what day I went for a long walk last week - I can't actually recall what day it was - it could be Monday or it could have been Tuesday or even Wednesday. Likewise I can't remember what day I done the Christmas shop before Christmas. It is easy to mix up the days.

The reliability of all parties involved in recalling movements and events in this case is questionable due to the craziness of Christmas - it's much easier to recall at other times of year as most people have a routine.

Maybe this is just me though. Thought I would just throw it into the conversation.

Nah...you`ve thrown logic out the window now and you are sounding like someone else I know. The way some people carry on around here is just ridiculous.

Eh mostly. He was asking for a deputy for years. He had a deputy of sorts in Margaret Bolster. She wasn't a deputy though, she was a locum, which meant she took only over when he went on a planned vacation.

Harbison was run ragged all over the country. He was on a unique contract, which, according to him, meant he couldn't retire early.

From my research, what happened was that he wasn't contacted until mid to late afternoon (4-5pm) and would not have gotten to the crime scene until well after midnight. He took a decision that at that stage it wasn't going to make any difference and that the body should be moved to the Regional (now CUH) where he would perform the autopsy. The decision was taken locally to leave the body in situ. In fact it is best practice for the pathologist to see the body in situ, but there are other concerns.

In essence the fault belongs to the State who gave insufficient funding to pay for another pathologist. It's crazy, not just because of the need for a deputy. They should have sent an air corps helicopter out to his home on the 23rd and simply flown him directly to the scene.

Also the focus on Harbison is misguided. Determining time of death from body temperature is controversial. If he had been there 12 hours earlier, arguably it would not have made any difference to the quality of his evidence.

He worked so many famous cases, Fr Niall Molloy, Kerry Babies etc. But he worked himself more or less to death. His last case was the death of Brian Murphys outside Annabel's nightclub. By the time the appeal came he was suffering from dementia and was unable to testify.

For all the people who can be accused of screwing up this case, I think John Harbison deserves the least criticism.

Come on, that comment is unworthy of you!

My logic is impeccable. It simply doesn't matter whether it is blood or not. There are plenty of other bodily fluids. Semen has a lot more DNA than blood FYI.

If I recall correctly the fact that the only state pathologist's birthday was 23rd December was also relevant to him not travelling from Dublin to West Cork until the next day.

Yes maybe, he had a birthday party. Maybe he had some drinks on his birthday. So what, he was six, seven hours away and he didn't have to drive. This is the same irrelevant crap that keeps coming up.

If the "DNA profile of an unknown male" didn't match Ian Bailey it needs an explanation as it is the only thing that links Sophie and the scene to someone, potentially her murderer.

If the DNA profile had matched with Ian Bailey it would have been highly significant as he claims to never have met Sophie close enough to be likely to be able to provide an innocent explanation. The lack of a match doesn't exclude Ian Bailey but one doesn't have to prove one's innocence.

Similarly if the DNA profile matched someone who could provide a plausible innocent explanation it doesn't necessarily eliminate them as a suspect but it does reduce its evidential value.

The boots look scuffed and like there may be light grey dust or dried mud on them. Whether the DNA sample was found above or below any polish, dust, dried mud or partially worn away might help determine whether it was recent or not.

There is no certainty that it belongs to the murderer but without a match, the foreign DNA found creates the reasonable doubt that the murder was carried out by an, as yet, unidentified male.

Ironically, Sophie flew from Dublin to Cork in 35 minutes. Her flight stopped in Dublin for disembark only and then went on to Cork. (of course that option wasn't open to Dr. Harbison) I had to explain this to someone who wasn't living in Ireland in the 90s and they were shocked how long it used to take to get from Dublin to Cork.