Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

There is a lot of information on the MVAC website, people may be interested to peruse. The key difference with the technology appears to be its ability to collect a much more significant amount of DNA from the samples vs the traditional methods, thereby providing more DNA for profiling. For the testing and identification of the DNA etc. itself it would seem that it still uses the standard techniques.

https://www.m-vac.com/why-mvac/forensic-dna-collection-faq

In terms of the collection itself it does for sure seem to be a relatively fast process, probably within a few days of receiving the samples they should have the DNA available to test. As @OscarMIlde is referring to the testing and discerning of who deposited those samples is probably where the bulk of the time is taking, but I would be interested in how long it takes in other similar cases.

Hi Bjsc, in reply to this post, since you have been working in detail on this case , what is your ultimate overriding feeling of it all.

From what I see, and without trying to exonerate anyone or anything...I ultimately would question at high level the original investigation techniques, and I would most certainly question the conclusion to focus solely on a prime suspect...without ultimately having anything of substance early on.

Have you seen any prior examples in all your experience as to why there was fixation with IB or how this decision making had risen to that early conclusion, it's bailey "he will kill again", being without foundation .Can you see any alternative scenarios that were reviewed with any great merit in the earlier days or can there ever be rationale as to why all other 50 suspects were so easily discarded...do you have access to who these suspects were.

Also another vital area which always causes me to be annoyed is scenario we had no backup to chief state pathologist. Is there any dialogue where a possible local doctor on merit , could have attested to the time of death...albeit whilst waiting for more exact confirmation from state pathologist. It's just a major element, and was there disagreements or anything in Garda files of having wait..and the impact this would ultimately have

Not necessarily pointing the finger at Alfie, but it always felt to me that there was more to his story.

This is a composite answer to a few points raised. I have a copy of the 2013 report by the Garda Ombudsman into complaints made by Ian Bailey, Jules Thomas and Marie Farrell. Bailey was first designated as a suspect on 27th December 1996 following a report by Garda Malone. During the first month of the enquiry there were more mentions of IB than of any other person in the job books (these are a record of all the enquiries and actions undertaken together with information received). There is also a report, dated 6th January 1997, stating that Marie Farrell does not know IB. The GSOC report states that it is "clear that he (IB) was seen as a prime suspect from early on".

I have attached a couple of conclusions from the report with regard to the conduct of the original investigation.

I personally think that there are two separate and distinct problems with the investigation. The first is the initial response to the scene. Although, forensically, it was badly handled and many mistakes were made and opportunities lost I think much of this was due to the inexperience of the first officers attending. However once the specialist team arrived from Dublin late on 23rd further mistakes should, to a great extent, have been eliminated. Unfortunately they were not. As to the issue of the pathologist it is my understanding that the initial officer in charge did try and get hold of a local pathologist once it became clear that Harbison would not be available until the following day, however she refused to attend.

The ensuing focus on Bailey as a suspect to the exclusion of anyone else is, unfortunately, not at all uncommon. There are numerous recorded cases of target fixation and confirmation bias many of which have lead to serious miscarriages of justice. I have seen several examples in my own career.

The question I would now like to ask all of you is this - what conclusion should we draw from the fact that all 3 gates at Sophie’s house were open when her body was found. There is plenty of evidence to show that when she was in residence she was adamant the gates were closed. But on the morning of 23rd Dec all 3 gates (the one where her body was found, the one into the field in front of her house and the one behind her house) were open. How does this fit into any of the given scenarios around her death. I open the floor to you guys.

I'll have to check but I think that photo was taken, at the earliest, on 24th and possibly later. Although there were a few photos taken on 23rd by a local officer they don't include any of the house or immediate surrounding area. The scenes of crime team didn't arrive from Dublin until about 10.00pm so the majority of the photos were taken from 24th onwards. Both Alfie and Shirley say that the back gate was open.

I've checked the photos and the one showing the gate is taken by Garda Byrne (not Billy) who didn't arrive from Dublin until 10.00pm on 23rd. It's part of a sequence that were clearly taken on 24th as you can still see the gate in situ in some of them.

I'll dig out the statements tomorrow. Also - why would they bottom gate (where the body was) be pushed back as far as it would go ?

One possible scenario that, I think, would fit with many of the known facts, is that Sophie rushed down to the gate to confront someone about leaving/propping it open and that a verbal disagreement then escalated……………

Not disagreeing, but it is possible with the lane gate that it was still closed before Sophie was attacked, and then the murderer opened it up, thereby leaving the bloody handprints as they pulled/pushed it open. Could also explain why Sophie's body was dragged a little (as referred to as a possibility by Harbison) to move her out of the way of the gate opening. Maybe they drove in, closed the gate, and then an altercation ensued about something else. A friendly visit that went awry, rather than an escalation over an open gate.

Overall I'd also point out that securing boundaries is not just a privacy exercise. If you don't overtly secure a boundary then it can become a right of way, and you lose the ability to dictate what happens to it, or prevent its use by others. In addition if someone already felt like something was a right of way, they would likely want to remove any overt barriers, e.g. a locked gate etc. It's the type of situation where both sides can feel like they're in the right.

This also isn't just relevant to the immediate neighbours and farmers although they were clearly the most frequent users, but there were old paths all over the area, people like Jerry Scully and the likes would wander about assuming free reign.