Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed. **Threadbans lifted - see OP**

There were only a handfull of individuals who knew with utter certainty that Sophie was at her cottage and that she was alone there. Amongst others Bolger and the Helens were one of them.

Of course this doesn't mean anything. However the most common thing is that most people who knew that Sophie was alone also had a previous brush with the law.

Unfortunately the initial assessments were ripped out of the jobs book, so we’ll never know what they were (unless the investigators who wrote them decide to just, you know, tell us what was assessed and written down)

There is a lot of evidence that has been debated during the course of this thread, which looking back now is easy enough to say it was probably inconsequential, however contemporaneously, at the time of the murder and within the first few days they had no understanding of how important it may be. An example is letting Shirley drive off in her car within hours of the murder, before any of the forensics, or the lead investigators turned up, but there are countless others, and likely lots more that was probably overlooked completely (I listed a few earlier).

Another obvious example is that the forensics came in which did not implicate Bailey (this is after he had been arrested and placed under questioning etc.). At that point they thought it would be a slam dunk, and it should have blown the case wide open, but it didn't.
Finally, when DNA did come in which pointed to potential different perpetrator, nothing came of it.

"I merely stated the obvious that investigators look at what's in front of them and try to determine what happened"

The scene as come across by the investigators in the morning would have logically pointed to a perpetrator who drove to the site, this is the most common sense assumption upon coming across the scene, would you agree with that?

Your the one who said their deduced working theory after arriving at the scene was a nighttime killer. You have no evidence for that.

Finding out that the DNA evidence at the scene did not point to Bailey by definition made it less likely to be him.

Before they had the results they had unknown blood at the scene which could have been Bailey, and in fact they thought it was. After the results they had no evidence, I.e. less likely it was him. Basic stuff.

This poster was myself and it is about the only certain common similarities in this case.

This is based on the absence of any evidence against anybody and the idea that in most murder cases killer and victim are either known to each other or have some other form of prior relationship to each other.

Of this "handfull number of people" there is also the common similarity that they knew that the house was remote, most likely that the Richardsons ( "outsiders" from England ) were not there, and all of these people also had a prior issue with the law, either violence, or drugs. All except her husband, who most likely wanted either a cheap divorce or the wife out of the way in a quick and convenient manner.

Alfie Lyons drugs, Leo Bolger drugs, Finbarr Helens violence, husband Daniel wanted her out of the way out of financial reasons and love for the next wife. They all knew Sophie was alone they all knew the location of the house and they all knew that the chances of been seen by a witness would be slim to none. These similarities can't easily be denied.

They would all have had to have been "number one suspect".

The only ones beyond a high degree of suspicion would have been the Ungerers and the publican in that pub.

For Bailey it was only violence and alcohol, but no real prior connection to or sexual interest in Sophie.

“Not sure how he could asses rigor mortis without touching the body, but I’ll take him at his word”

It’s not Dr o’Connor’s word you’re taking. It’s Michael Sheridan’s word that Dr o’Connor supposedly told him that rigor had set in at 11am. for his fictitious account of the murder.

You said their working theory had not changed, I was challenging you, because you have no evidence of what their theory was, you just made it up:

"He said when detectives arrive at a murder scene the first thing they do is survey the crime scene and deduce what likely happened, this is before any forensic evidence etc comes into play

In the bailey case the absence of physical evidence etc means they're still working off this assumption which is a nightime killer who arrived at her door"

You have completely made that up out of thin air.

It was crassly insensitive of Shirley to seek permission to drive out to the dump knowing the body of her murdered neighbour was lying at the end of the lane, don't you think ?

newuser...10:45 am

The gardai believed all along that bailey called at night

Thats never been in dispute that I'm aware of 

Disappeared into thin air, for a while anyway.

If she had gone for a stiff drink it might have been more appropriate alright

"It looks like he conflated Dr O`Connor`s and Dr. Harbison`s reports to suit his agenda."

That is just speculation on your part driven by your own personal agenda and is typical of the theorizing based on zero evidence by multiple individuals on this thread.

"Indeed his report reads as though he only observed her from a distance."

More speculation, this time by bjsc who I also found to be a less than impartial contributor.

Mod Edit: Warned for attacking the poster, not the post

I dunno. Doctors certify dead people all the time. They are professionals in the game. Would he REALLY have written this one off as deceased without even checking for vital signs - pulse, temperature, blood pressure, respirations?

Apart from his written report which has often been quoted, has this doctor been interviewed since or questioned more closely about what he observed? I'd love to know!

PS If I were running a "cold case review", this is one witness I would have returned to with a much more detailed questionnaire.

Well, not much, no.

But he did comment on the blood around Sophie's nostrils appearing different to that on the rest of her face etc, validating the observations of Gardai Prenderville and Byrne, the first on the scene after Shirley and Alfie.

Which supports, to some extent, the "early morning" ( after daybreak) theory versus the late night scenario, which, in itself, is a critical evidential issue.