Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

This case also would never have really gone to court and if so, would never have stood a chance for a conviction. As a matter of fact, it would have massively backfired for the Garda and their work practices.

Suppose just for the exercise the Garda were "successful" in their practices:

• Martin Graham was successfull with his "drug mission" to Ian Bailey who falls for that trick.
• They've spent various evenings together smoking drugs ( suppose Jules tolerated that)
• In a hazy moment of intoxication, Ian Bailey goes to his typewriter, types a confession and signs it
• Marie Farrell remains credible and states having seen a man resembling Bailey loitering around her shop or at night at Kealfadda bridge along with all the others in whose presence Bailey made a verbal confession that "he did it".

it would never have lead to a conviction.

The judge would have liked to have understood how and where that confession was signed. And a haze of drug smoking intoxication would hardly have happend in a Garda station. A transient visits the accused offers him drugs and gets a written confession? That would probably be the worst story a judge ever heard. And then there still would have been the absence of fingerprints or DNA of Bailey's on the scene of the crime and the murder weapon. Bailey's solicitor would have had a field day. Same as Marie Farrell coersion or not, this statement would have been circumstancial as well and upon cross examination coersion would have been discovered.

The Garda would have been discredited for involving a transient like Martin Graham with drugs, they would have been discredited for coersion of a witness like Marie Farrell, threatening Martin Graham with the IRA if he didn't cooperate - and that all in a court room.

This would have had more consequences for the Garda than for anybody else.

Likely, although I wasn't clear on whether the gardai were still in possession of those samples, or was there some sort of time limitation etc. for their testing. It is also mentioned that they were trying to get Harbison's sample which I would be surprised they didn't have already. I would say they are having to tread very carefully they don't want to be in a position where there could be a supreme court/ECJ challenge because of some technicality like in the Graham Dwyer case. They might be trying to get explicit approval again for every test run.

I’m not sure what a reasonable explanation will look like though.
Someone using the gate every other day- if the brick was somehow a place where you might rest one hand whilst opening the gate with the other, then certainly.
But if the brick were somewhat out of normal reach, then I’m not so sure- you would hope though that if the killer left DNA on the brick that they also left it on her clothing.
So for me, even people who used that gate regularly- it doesn’t automatically mean their DNA will be on the brick.

All except the randy fellah from Bantry. He's dead.

There is the possibility Bailey, or whoever the culprit is, had been wearing gloves.

The randy Guard from Bantry died as well. I think it was in 2001.

The blood on the boot won't get us very far. Boots could have been anywhere, France, Ireland, so the blood could have been picked up also anywhere.

Well, bear in mind as trivial as it sounds, boots are made for walking and they do get around. Meaning she could have picked up that stain anywhere.

We only know it's not Bailey's and it's apparently also not hers.

Anywhere? I doubt that, where do you encounter human blood in normal circumstances? Hospital, fight or kitchen sometimes.

That scenario could be checked out with family to see if that explanation would fly depending on whose blood/DNA it turned out to be. I doubt it would be a regular occurrance.

If I remember correctly, the boots were an Italian brand, quite nice and not cheap. Sophie dressed well!

I also seem to remember someone saying - maybe a guest who had stayed at the house - that Sophie kept these shoes at the cottage for use as "general" footwear - they were that comfortable!

A whitish stain on a shoe isn't that unusual - if it was, say, milk that dropped on to it while cooking, or glue from DIY, etc.

Human DNA, though, on top of the shoe, not the soles or underside, seems to me far less likely. Can't think how it got there!

Looking at the picture, the boots were not exactly clean or well mentained or new, but at least they should be clean. Also don't know if she came in these boots from France of if she kept them at the cottage. The laces also seem dirty, not sure what kind but it appears darker, possibly blood, but if so, we knew about that.

Sorry, I've mixed that up. Thanks.

It find it strange that testing and examining Sophie's boots only takes place now. I would suggest her boots would have given a very clear indication on how she gotten to the location where she was found? Where did she walk, over the field in front of the house? or on the road leading to the house? Were there any prints indicating she was walking or running?

Was there even a profile obtained?

It it not mentioned in connection with Bailey or flagged as an unknown profile.