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

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122479701#Comment_122479701

Thanks @bjsc, Is there any photos of the inside of the house attributed to Pat Joy?

I'm just trying to get my head around the fact that from Noon till 10pm the Gardaí did not gain entry to the house. I believe the forensic officers got the keys from garda Twomey. When did Twomey get the keys and from whom- Josie Hellen? I'm finding it hard to believe that Gardaí spent all afternoon and evening around the house yet never went inside to check if her attacker, or anyone else, was in there, especially after finding the blood on the back door. Was there evidence suppressed perhaps, evidence of a morning attack that did not fit their story of Bailey at 2 or 3am. Even at noon time there may have been warmth in her bed, or a warm kettle, wet towel etc? Is it possible someone, perhaps Pat Joy entered the house and locked both doors on leaving. Apart from the forensics team I have not seen any other account of the doors being locked.

Day Lewin

I agree a hundredfold. This appears extraordinarily amateurish, by any possible standard of murder investigation. Leaving the victim's house unexamined for so long when the body lay so near…incomprehensible.

But Mr Bailey was not at that time a suspect - there were really no suspects at this stage - there was nothing visible at the crime scene that pointed to anyone, as such. Still isn't, come to that.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122480296#Comment_122480296

What I meant was, was there any evidence from that time suppressed later, after Bailey was made chief suspect.

Pages torn from jobs books, statements etc that might not be helpful to the French.

Day Lewin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122480388#Comment_122480388

Mais oui!

I have been thinking about this angle.

We KNOW that evidence was tampered with; the missing pages certainly stick out a mile, other hints from the Mrs Farrell fiasco too.

What happened to the police officers in question? Did they all know? (Somebody certainly knew!) Did they all concur? Are they all deceased by now?

What are the chances that even ONE of them will want to clear the air before they finally hand up their earthly badge, and tell us what went on behind the scenes? It's not going to wreck anyone's career chances after so many years. Just spill the beans!

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122480296#Comment_122480296

Extraordinarily amateurish was something one encountered often in the 1990ies in Ireland. The police had probably little to no experience in handling any kind of murder case.

bjsc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122479976#Comment_122479976

Sorry for the delay in replying. The keys are a thorny issue. The only definitive mentions of them come from JP Twomey and Eugene Gilligan. Twomey says that when he arrived he could not get into the house as it was locked. Eugen Gilligan says that when he arrived at about 11pm he received the keys from Ger Prendiville. He tried them in the front door but they wouldn't work so he entered by the back door. I think we must assume that these keys would have been Josie Hellen's set. She arrived at the scene at about midday but no mention is made of the keys.

Mackinac

@bjsc the cup and saucer on the dining table - do you know if there were any remnants of coffee in it? From the picture it looks clean and unused to me, which is curious as it doesn’t look like any coffee is about to be made either.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122503764#Comment_122503764

Thanks @bjsc,

I don't know if Twomey arrived at the scene before Josie Hellen. By Noon or just after there was a lot of coming and going and the scene was still not cordoned off properly.

Prendeville and Byrne had been there since 10:40.

The Doctor had been and gone by 11:30

Pat Joy and the Priest arrived just before Noon.

Twomey, Malone, and Josie Hellen came around the same time, at noon or just after.

Finbarr Hellen must have come around then to identify the body.

That's a lot of people and vehicles including Finbarr's tractor around that tight area.

Do you know who took charge of the scene, and are there statements from all of these people?

(Sorry for all the questions)

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122505573#Comment_122505573

One other aspect which is possibly key to analysing the likely scenario (s) is the blood stain on the door behind the handle.

It seems to me that it is reasonable to assume that this was put there by the assailant. If we accept this, then its logical to assume that the stain was put there as the assailant closed or tried to open, the door.

Why would the assailant do so?

Day Lewin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122506295#Comment_122506295

I've tended to assume that the attacker, his grisly work done, then noticed that there was a car parked beside the nearest house; and belatedly wondered if maybe there was someone else there? That the whole incident might have been witnessed by someone looking out a window? They had destroyed Sophie so completely, making sure she was dead; they could not possibly take the risk of someone else recognising them. Up to the house, in the open door, quick scope of the interior:

whew! Nobody there…(so might possibly lift a few small valuables or a bottle of wine…) - swiftly out, pull door shut behind them, run back down to gate and drive away.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122508396#Comment_122508396

Yes, that's plausible.

But that would suggest that the killer must have been thinking clearly and been calm enough to go through that process.

It seems to me that, in such circumstances, a fast getaway would be the priority.

Day Lewin

The crime is still unsolved. The killer had to think fast, on his feet as it were…

and he left almost no trace and has got away with it, so far.

I'm assuming "he" but of course it might have been "they" or even "she" - the latter less likely, though.

Xander10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122509123#Comment_122509123

Left no trace? or

incompetence on the Gardai side to preserve the crime scene and gather all relevant information?

Day Lewin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122509144#Comment_122509144

Valid point!

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122508997#Comment_122508997

I disagree, you can't have a 'getaway' if there is a witness who might know you or identify you, or even riskier, who had perhaps just called the guards. In the mind of the killer, confirming there is no immediate witness would be a higher priority imo.

flanna01

Highly unlikely the killer went into the cottage after the murder.

The blood on the door behind the handle (if it was indeed from the murderer), proves that he was splattered with Sophie's blood.

If he was genuinely concerned that Sophie may have had company, he did a poor reconnaissance job.. If he set one foot into the cottage after the murder, there would be blood everywhere - No way he's going to clean everything up after the brutality he inflicted on his victim.

Not sure why he would have been bothered about the door being open, or maybe the door was closed and he tried to gain entrance to the property?

This information could be relevant? It seems a peculiar thing to do when fleeing the scene must have been paramount?

There was blood droplets found on the banking between the front door and the gate area were Sophie was found, was this from Sophie running either up or down the banking whilst injured, or was it the killer walking back towards the gate (maybe to his car)?

But I think it's safe to say - The killer never entered the residence after the murder had occurred… Even the Keystones cops of West Cork would have worked that out..

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122509575#Comment_122509575

Yes, I see your point.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122509742#Comment_122509742

I can't figure out why the killer touched the door, it's quite odd really. I don't believe that they were inside the house (after the murder at least) given that there was blood on the door, and the lawn, they almost certainly would have left some trace inside the house too.

Either they

1) closed the door as it was left open, for some reason. Perhaps they just grabbed something that was right inside the doorway,

or

2) opened it to look inside the house, make sure no one was there, and then closed it again

I can't really think of any other reason

Did they go up during the course of the murder to look for a weapon and come back?

Zola1000

@jesuisjuste, I think sometimes it falls under the point two you reference

It always seems strange..they were definitely not inside house..but could have gone back to door for that reassurance to know nobody was there.

I sometimes review it that once Sophie left house she may never have returned in them moments after but I guess this could also be wrong. To me the killer after the act tried to immediately scan the scene. Even if they had been following Sophie in recent days to her murder there might have been nobody with her they still didn't want take a chance nobody else being there.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122517779#Comment_122517779

Now that I think about it, this should also indicate that the block was removed before or after the stain on the door was left, since their hands were seemingly covered in blood there should also have been blood left at the pump house itself, on the other blocks and the pump house cover/roof etc. I don't believe there was any blood there, indicating the block was taken before the killer had gone (returned) up to the house to the door (which is what most people believe anyway).

It seems such a amateur brain-dead move to touch the door, unless there was a pretty good reason in the mind of the killer imo

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122517891#Comment_122517891

I've been thinking about your point regarding the reason for the killer to go up tp the house, leaving the blood smear on the door.

Accepting your suggestion that he may have wanted to check that the house was unoccupied and that there were no witnesses, wouldn't he, by doing so, also risk being seen by occupants of Alfie's house?

So, on the one hand he was calm and collected and wanted to check that no witness was present, but on the other he would be increasing the chances of being seen….

I think its one of the oddest, and perhaps most important aspect of the case.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122518409#Comment_122518409

Went back to retrieve something that could incrimiate them?

Deeec

I dont think the murderer would have been stupid enough to go into the house after killing Sophie to check if there was anyone else there. I would imagine a murderers first thought after violently killing someone is to get the hell away from the scene. Why risk going into the house and risk being caught, recognised or have to be forced to kill someone else. If they did go back to the house for whatever reason they were positive that there was nobody else there

Very few people knew she was actually alone though - the Hellens, the Ungerers, Daniel and her family, possibly Alfie and Shirley and possibly the publican she spoke to.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122518460#Comment_122518460

I tend to agree…its more likely that his first instinct would be to get away fast. But he seems to have gone up to the door for some reason.

He may, as Odyssey06 suggested, have wanted to retrieve something he left in the house, but I don't think he was ever in the house. I think Sophie approached/confronted him at the gate, hence the boots. He may also have wanted to check that the house was empty, but that seems counter intuitive as he may also have been increasing his risk of being seen by doing so.

What other possible explanations fit this intriguing detail?

PolicemanFox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122460072#Comment_122460072

Thank you for sharing the conclusion of the French report and the quote from the blood analysis.

I read back through this thread and I see things got a little heated. Please note, I disagree with a number of things you wrote, but I don't intend to criticize you or anyone else personally, or call anyone's expertise into question. These are the difficulties I have, but we can agree to differ. Here are my thoughts:

1. The Block

I see the area you mean. The area looks free of large amounts of blood but there could well be blood spatter. I don't believe the quality and quantity of the photos is enough to say whether there was blood in this area or not. I think the borders are indistinct but one side fits exactly with where the left arm of the victim lay. This is where the blood flowed pooling down to her elbow. I don't see this as the outline of a block.

I don't see any difficulty with where the block ended up if it was thrown down. As I mentioned before, the photos show blood transfer marks in the edges of the twin orifices. I see this as where the block was picked up using bloody hands or gloves. I can't see the blood ending up in this location in any other way.

If the block had lain on the grass, there would be a clear depression, and the grass would not be green, it would be yellow. Of course we can't prove it wasn't lying around somewhere on the ground but given that the pumphouse roof was destroyed and a block was removed, the logical conclusion is that it was taken from the pumphouse at the time.I believe the block was taken from the pumphouse, and I don't think two blocks are missing. It was Harbison's opinion that it came from the pumphouse. In addition to Harbison, D/Garda Pat Joy who was a scene of crime examiner and the exhibits officer, concluded it came from the pumphouse:

"There was a flat stone on the ground at the left side of her head. Beside this was a 9" Cavity Block. I observed what appeared to be blood stains on both of these. I observed that this block came from a gateway on the opposite side of the road. Where this gateway closes, there was a hut built around an electric pump - the top row of blocks on this building were not cemented together and the one lying near the body was taken from where the gate closes on this course of blocks."

From the photos of the pumphouse there is only one block missing. The large block corresponds to the missing space on the left front of the pumphouse. This does leave a half-block sized aperture on the field side presumably so you could reach in to the pump without lifting the lid. There was a briar inside and that's how it got light. The coloration on the second course shows a patch of green where this space was. There is no green under where the big block was. The missing piece shown in the video clip with Sophie is not apparent in the more recent photos, so the top course of blocks was rearranged since this video.

We know the gate wasn't kept open by a block or stone because Garda Prendiville (the first garda on scene) asked Alfie about it:

His statement says: "I asked him about the main gate and he said it is kept open by the wire on the bottom catching on the ground - no stone to keep back the gate. "

By the way, the flat stone is not in situ either. If you look carefully at the photos where the flat stone is lifted, you can see it has moss on the underside, so it is upside-down relative to its position before the attack. Another photo appears to suggest this stone was taken from the gatepost opposite the pumphouse.

2. The French Autopsy Report

It took me a while. I found this report and I read it.

I think your translation of the conclusions isn't exactly right. The differences are subtle but important.

Here is the conclusion paragraph followed by a translation.

"L'embarrure crânienne peut être due à un ou deux coups selon l'objet contondant utilisé et s'accompagne d'une dislocation des os de l'hémicrâne droit et d'une dislocation des os de la région occipito-pariétale gauche par contre coup, la tête reposant sur un plan dur au moment du ou des impacts frontaux."

Translation:

"The depressed skull fracture could be caused by one or two blows from a blunt object and was accompanied by a dislocation of the skull bones on the right side and a dislocation of the bones of the left occipito-parietal region by contrecoup, the head resting on a hard plane at the time of the frontal impacts"

They didn't write there was an "injury from a counter blow" they said there was a dislocation of the bones of the occipto-parietal region, from a counter blow.

When the French pathologists write "hard surface/plan dur" it does not necessarily mean a concrete or stone surface, we can also interpret this as the hard almost-frozen ground where the body lay. They are accounting for why there were fractures at the base of the skull, which Harbison noted in his report as "extensive hinge fractures of the base of the skull". He is referring to the same fractures.

On the ground where her head lay there was a bowl shaped depression. This indicates her head was on the ground when the final blows were struck and not on the concrete block. There are several photos taken when the body was lifted and this depression where the head lay is clear. It was 3 degrees celsius and had been dry for days so the ground would have been hard. To make an imprint like that the head had to have been forced into the ground by a blow.

The French didn't have the photos from the crime scene or the first autopsy when they exhumed the body in July 2008 because the Gardai didn't send the files until December. They did have the text of Harbison's report, because Marguerite Bouniol sent it to them in June, but it seems to me that they didn't read it, maybe because they wanted their results to stand independently.

I note however that they did include a proviso in their report:

"These observations must be compared with those made by the forensic pathologist at the first autopsy and the data from this procedure to allow valid conclusions" so even they are being somewhat careful.

Even so, I find it extraordinary that they did not make any reference to the observations in Harbison's report, or make some attempt to match their own observations with his. In particular they didn't say anything about the external injuries to the parietal bone (upper back portion of the skull) whereas Harbison listed 10 separate lacerations of the scalp at the back. These were clearly separate blows directly to the back of the head, they were not caused by or the counter blow (which caused the dislocation/fracture of the base of the skull. Although these injuries were not as obvious as they were to Harbison, there are grooves on the skull visible in the photos taken by the French at their autopsy, but they didn't refer to them in their report, which I think is a strange omission. Maybe they just missed them, if they had read Harbison's report, which they had a month before their own autopsy, they would have known what caused them.

I am tempted to concluded they ignored Harbison out of general disdain the French showed for the Irish investigation and judicial process. To be fair there was plenty of incompetence in the Irish and French investigations, but I don't think that the post-mortem itself was badly done. From Garda Eugene Gilligan's interview in the documentaries we learned it wasn't Harbison's fault that the body was left on the lane, he told the Gardai to take the body from the scene to the morgue in Cork. However he seems to be the person the French blame for this.

The French didn't rule in or out any particular weapon, they just said it was a blunt object with edges, which is accurate enough and could equally refer to the stone or the concrete block. They said the edges of the fracture were jagged ("dentelés"). This doesn't mean the object must have had a regular toothed edge, just that it was jagged.

3. Blood Pattern Analysis
That is an interest quote. Honestly It's frustrating and a little odd that you have to keep this analysis secret but can still release quotes from it. I understand you want to share it to reference what you are saying, and I appreciate that you did. However, without context, I don't think this adds weight to what you are saying. I think it would be much better if you published the whole thing so we can discuss it properly.

In any case there is a serious issue with the quote. Sophie had scratches, but did not have any cuts on her arms, left or right, or her shoulders. Her arms were not bleeding. The significant blood mark on the block (next to the "stick") could not have come from a scratch. Even if the scratches were bleeding her upper arms were covered by her t shirt and the blood would not have flowed directly onto the surface of the block. The person who wrote this report therefore cannot be familiar with Harbison's post-mortem report, nor the photos from it.

4. Conclusion

I think most of the objections I have raised here have come up in this thread before. I suspect you are certain in your views, and that's OK. It may not be worthwhile arguing around the houses about this. In some ways, this macabre discussion of the precise mechanics of the assault are moot. Does it really matter if she was smashed over the head with a block or a smaller rock? For some the size of the block is a clue to the killer, but I think most healthy adults could fetch the block, lift it and drop it if they were determined enough. So I don't think it rules anyone in or out if the block was a hammer or an anvil. So maybe leave aside my objections and tell why do you think these details matter?

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122520038#Comment_122520038

Good post. Thanks.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122520038#Comment_122520038

This is a very comprehensive review, I appreciate the opinions of both you and bjsc even though they may be fairly different, the only person who truly knows how it went down is the killer, but well-informed points of view really do help lead to the truth, bringing whatever limited possibility for justice there is a little closer.

I agree, Harbison seemed to do a good job, he appears to be about the most competent of the people involved in the case, for the most part I trust what he reported, although no doubt he probably didn't get everything right.

One point of clarification regarding the block @PolicemanFox, the aperture would have been on the road-side, not the garden-side, as per the video of Sophie going down the lane (pic for reference), is this what you were referring to, or were blocks moved around in the meantime? Also can you comment on why you think there would be no blood on the pump house roof or other blocks etc, given that there were bloody handprints on the block itself, and the gate etc.?

PolicemanFox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122520983#Comment_122520983

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122520983#Comment_122520983

This photo was taken by the Gardai after the murder, there is no gap on the lane side of the pumphouse. If you put the big block in the gap on the left, there would still be a half block size aperture behind it.

jesuisjuste

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122521018#Comment_122521018

Got it, that's clear for me now, thanks for the response.

PolicemanFox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122520983#Comment_122520983

Maybe there was blood on the pumphouse roof and it just wasn't noticed. Maybe the blood on the gate came from the victim pulling herself inside towards the house. Maybe the killer didn't have enough blood on his hands to transfer to the pumphouse when he dismantled the roof. Just some possibilities.