Murder at the Cottage | Sky

Maybe he had more than 1 dark coats?

I think the French said there were 40-50 injuries on her body, not that the block was used 40 times. Might be a translation problem. The block surface is so porous and brittle that you probably wouldn't be able to get a clean swab from it. Unless the killer left a small flap of skin on it or lots of their own blood you are unlikely to get a trace on it I'd think.

Buckets come in more than one size. We have one for taking clothes from the washing machine that would probably fit two of those coats.

My own memory is a little hazy on this but was he not interviewed while he had the scratches? If so and you suspect that this is an oddity would it not be normal practice to take a photograph.

His first interview was in February as far as I remember. Dwyer visited him at some stage in January, Bailey said he gave him mince pies that had already gone bad, and that was just to 'discuss the case'. Bailey never denied he had scratches on his hands and arms though so I don't know why there's so much fuss about it. He said in the RTE interview that he wore long sleeves in the pub on the night of the murder and that's why four people who sat watching him playing the bodhran said they saw no scratches, after he had cut down the christmas tree. As far as I remember the witnesses all said he had his sleeves rolled up while he played.

On the subject of scratches, I'm going to excerpt this is from the DPP report as I think it puts to bed the whole issue of the scratches:

DPP’s Report | (wordpress.com)

1. Lack of Forensic Evidence linking Ian Bailey to the murder scene.

Sophie Toscan Du Plantier was killed by a person who battered her to death with a rock and a concrete block on 23 December 1996. Some fifty wounds were inflicted upon her. Photographs of the deceased show her body as being scratched by briars in the area. The Gardaí suggest that Ian Bailey is the murderer and was scratched on his hands and arms by the briars during the struggle. No forensic evidence linking Ian Bailey to the scene was found despite the fact that the murder of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier was the direct result of an apparently frenzied and furious attack upon her in a briar-strewn location. If in fact the attack was carried out in a frenzied manner one might have expected that the assailant would have left traces of blood, skin, clothing fibres or hair at the scene. No such material was discovered. Bailey willingly gave his fingerprints and a sample of his blood to the Gardaí for analysis and examination.

10. Scratches.

The Gardaí suggest that Bailey was scratched on his hands and arms during the course of killing Sophie Toscan du Plantier. Her body was scratched and they suggest that her killer must also have been scratched during the struggle. Bailey has consistently stated that he received scratches by climbing up a twenty-foot tree with a bow saw in one hand, cutting the top off the tree and pulling it down through the branches. Bailey is supported in his explanation as to how he got the scratches by Jules Thomas and her daughters Virginia and Saffron...

Dr. Louise Barnes, a dermatologist (skin specialist) closely observed Bailey some five days after the murder. She states “at no time, did he strike one as being suspicious. As a keen observer of peoples appearance due to my profession I certainly did not notice any marks or injuries to his face or hands.” Denis O’Callaghan saw Bailey on 24 December 1996 (the day after the murder) and he noticed multiple light scratches on Bailey’s arms. Such light scratches are not consistent with cuts by razor like thorns...

On 27 December 1996 Gda. Bart O’Leary alleges that he noticed that the back of both of Bailey’s hands were cut. Both were totally covered in what he thought were briar marks. On 28 December 1996 Gda. O’Leary asked Bailey how he cut his hands and Bailey explained while cutting the top off a tree to make a Christmas tree. Bailey then took off his jacket and Gda. O’Leary noticed that the scratches were on the backs of both hands and up as far as both his elbows. Bailey’s willingness to assist the Gardaí is indicative of innocence. He made no attempt to conceal the scratch marks. As distinct from his observation the previous day Gda. O’Leary says that they were not cuts only scratches and they were healing up...

It is interesting to note that the Gardaí did not ask Bailey to show the scratches to a medical or any other expert witness in order to obtain an opinion as to causation. This request was not made despite the fact that Bailey though under suspicion at the time was prepared to co-operate with the Gardaí. (Statement of Gda. Bart O’Leary refers – re: scratches and Bailey’s willingness to show them to persons in authority)... Bailey’s explanation for the scratches is plausible, consistent and is supported by other direct and credible evidence.

Just watching episode one again and it starts with Shirley Fosters' statement on the morning she discovered Sophie's body.

Was Sophie due to fly home on the 23rd or the 24th?

I thought it was odd how the statement mentions passing Sophie's car but doesn't mention the car wasn't supposed to be there but should have been back at the airport.

Hmm, I'm a petite person alone in the middle of nowhere. I leave my house to go down a lane to open the gate at midnight. Should I bring something with me just in case? No, that would be stupid. What are the chances of being murdered. "Merde!".

I was thinking maybe they had spoken or it was known she was only over for a brief visit and would be going home for Christmas. Then it would be reasonable to assume her seeing the car still there would be a surprise.

I understand they found DNA but haven't been able to match it to anyone.

That's the way it normally works, case closed for once and for all.