Thank you. It's surprising how much detail is needed to make any headway on a case like this. This article has been redrafted this week and a couple of others read it prior to release and I still think there are some things missing. If you could run through every permutation then people would stop reading. As soon as you discard something (space aliens, hitmen, horses...) then you are making subjective judgements and might miss something. I could see a whole TV series just looking at this scene before even thinking about suspects.
It appears the back door had two locks, the one close to the handle (which required a key to lock) but also a "Yale" type lock higher up that was likely self locking. It is visible in Le mystere Sophie Toscan du Plantier" (the French documentary) at 17:23 on this YouTube link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxZQTOaqwXk
First off I found the map extremely helpful and it motivated me to look more closely at the layout of the house. Before I found the house floorplans at Dunmanus Files I spent some time creating my own from photos, mainly from https://koudekaas.blogspot.com. I am somewhat confused about the following:
1. Heating: The photos show a blue range in the kitchen (north wall). Was this the source of heat for the radiators, also was this the "boiler" that Sophie supposedly came to see fixed? Do we know if it was operational? It has been said that Sophie choose the bedroom above the kitchen (rather than her master bedroom) because it was warmer but that would not be the case if the boiler was not operational.
2. I have read that the fire was in the fireplace at the east end of the house rather than the middle, There are references to a wine glass on the mantelpiece with a little wine in it. I don't see that in the crime scene photos at https://koudekaas.blogspot.com, If the boiler was not operational and the fire was in the east end l it would have seemed that this end of the house would be warmer, i.e. the end with the master bedroom.
3. The line of sight from the kitchen window to the gate is limited based on the wall in front of the house. I estimated the height of the window in the kitchen to be about 5'6" from the crime scene photos (a standard table is about 30" high). Note that the windows have been replaced since 1996, the current set have a sash midway up the window, the originals had a sash about two thirds up. If one looks at the shot of the house at 2.13 from the video Murder at the Cottage Episode 3 Part 28 at https://koudekaas.blogspot.com one can barely see the old sash for the kitchen window (second from the left) over the top of the wall. This is a good reference since the shot pans down to some flowers placed where Sophie died. So given Sophie was 5"4 to 5"5 she would need to be standing very close to the window to see even a head at the gate (assuming the camera was at eye level). If one follows a theory that she was having breakfast it is unlikely she would have seen someone at the gate unless there was a lot of noise. This points to someone at the back door which is clearly visible through the back window.
4. By a similar argument if Sophie was awakened upstairs during the night by activity at the gate it would either have to be based on a noise or perhaps car headlights reflecting off the ceiling since she was essentially sleeping at floor level on a mattress.
This is very good work thanks for posting. I know the boiler was a source of irritation. If I remember right it was working but had only recently been fixed or was about to get fixed. You can dig into it but it was always on the fritz. I believe Josie warmed the house ready for Sophie arriving on Friday night. About noise at the gate. I think you're right that Sophie would probably not have seen a thing at the gate. It's a long way to the house. It would have to have been a LOUD noise were she asleep. Why didn't Alfie hear? Is he out killer?
In looking at other photos the position relative to the gate entrance seems to make a big difference on the visibility of the kitchen window, the screen grab I was looking at was from someone at the spot where Sophie's body was found, photos that are more in front or to the left of the gate show more of the window so it may be moot.
I'm so pleased that someone addressed that open and cut loaf of bread. That has always stymied me. Sophie would no more go to bed with that left open than the man in the moon. I wondered if she offered bread to the visitor. I wondered if the murder was before she went to bed, after she offered the (known to her) murderer bread and things went south. That you offer it was during or after breakfast makes so much sense. Also, the blood smear is so consternating. Did the murderer return to the house (up that long drive, covered in blood, I'm assuming very stressed) to shut the left open door (assuming Sophie ran from the house and was overtaken at the gate?). Did he return to leave the book open to the dark poem (seems unlikely, he'd leave dna and blood everywhere in that case). I think the return to shut the door makes the most sense..... And is the sighting at the bridge REALLY discredited? "Fiona" called that in anonymously way soon after the murder as I understand it....I've always thought her gardai accusations came way later and made absolutely zero sense. I've always thought the murderer got to her and she concocted all those crazy stories to remove the sighting as a valid piece of evidence. Do we know where the current re-investigation is? I'd like to know if anything was lifted from the murder weapons. Thank you so much for this illustrated writeup.
Thanks for your kind comments. I don't believe that the killer ever went back inside the cottage as there would have been a lot of blood and other traces inside had he done that, I think he just checked the door or closed it but cannot be sure. On the re-investigation it is ongoing and outcomes not expected 'for several months' but I would not hope too hard for a resolution this year. You ask a good question about the Kealfadda Bridge sighting. At this stage a lot of what I have written here is speculative, and I just follow my own compass and intuition in many places. I found that when I came back to this scene after a 2 year break that some totally new angles occurred to me. I say that the bridge sighting is discredited because however you look at it, the witness would not be acceptable in a courtroom any more. The back and forth, the retracted statements and changing statements mean that the evidence has no value: the defence would rip into it, and it is doubtful whether the prosecution would even use that witness. The DPP took a dim view of the situation. Some people say that the very first Fiona sighing still stands, but that was a man walking the 'wrong' way (if you think the killer is Bailey) and with a beret, which nobody has ever seen Bailey wearing. So maybe Fiona did see this figure, but I think he is not connected to Sophie. If you go for a breakfast-time murder then the 3am bridge witness is a red herring.
I hadn't even THOUGHT of the fallout from the Bridge testimony being so tainted as to be unusable in court. The French court heard it but, really, so what? Of no use now. That chair arrangement has always intrigued me, too. If she had company, the chairs would not be arranged that way. And also, I can now picture her eating bread and reading with her feet up....maybe during breakfast. So many questions.
Stunning level of detail! If authorities were as thorough, it might have been a different story..
Thank you. It's surprising how much detail is needed to make any headway on a case like this. This article has been redrafted this week and a couple of others read it prior to release and I still think there are some things missing. If you could run through every permutation then people would stop reading. As soon as you discard something (space aliens, hitmen, horses...) then you are making subjective judgements and might miss something. I could see a whole TV series just looking at this scene before even thinking about suspects.
It appears the back door had two locks, the one close to the handle (which required a key to lock) but also a "Yale" type lock higher up that was likely self locking. It is visible in Le mystere Sophie Toscan du Plantier" (the French documentary) at 17:23 on this YouTube link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxZQTOaqwXk
Keep it going!
First off I found the map extremely helpful and it motivated me to look more closely at the layout of the house. Before I found the house floorplans at Dunmanus Files I spent some time creating my own from photos, mainly from https://koudekaas.blogspot.com. I am somewhat confused about the following:
1. Heating: The photos show a blue range in the kitchen (north wall). Was this the source of heat for the radiators, also was this the "boiler" that Sophie supposedly came to see fixed? Do we know if it was operational? It has been said that Sophie choose the bedroom above the kitchen (rather than her master bedroom) because it was warmer but that would not be the case if the boiler was not operational.
2. I have read that the fire was in the fireplace at the east end of the house rather than the middle, There are references to a wine glass on the mantelpiece with a little wine in it. I don't see that in the crime scene photos at https://koudekaas.blogspot.com, If the boiler was not operational and the fire was in the east end l it would have seemed that this end of the house would be warmer, i.e. the end with the master bedroom.
3. The line of sight from the kitchen window to the gate is limited based on the wall in front of the house. I estimated the height of the window in the kitchen to be about 5'6" from the crime scene photos (a standard table is about 30" high). Note that the windows have been replaced since 1996, the current set have a sash midway up the window, the originals had a sash about two thirds up. If one looks at the shot of the house at 2.13 from the video Murder at the Cottage Episode 3 Part 28 at https://koudekaas.blogspot.com one can barely see the old sash for the kitchen window (second from the left) over the top of the wall. This is a good reference since the shot pans down to some flowers placed where Sophie died. So given Sophie was 5"4 to 5"5 she would need to be standing very close to the window to see even a head at the gate (assuming the camera was at eye level). If one follows a theory that she was having breakfast it is unlikely she would have seen someone at the gate unless there was a lot of noise. This points to someone at the back door which is clearly visible through the back window.
4. By a similar argument if Sophie was awakened upstairs during the night by activity at the gate it would either have to be based on a noise or perhaps car headlights reflecting off the ceiling since she was essentially sleeping at floor level on a mattress.
This is very good work thanks for posting. I know the boiler was a source of irritation. If I remember right it was working but had only recently been fixed or was about to get fixed. You can dig into it but it was always on the fritz. I believe Josie warmed the house ready for Sophie arriving on Friday night. About noise at the gate. I think you're right that Sophie would probably not have seen a thing at the gate. It's a long way to the house. It would have to have been a LOUD noise were she asleep. Why didn't Alfie hear? Is he out killer?
Loving the details. Will respond tomorrow.
In looking at other photos the position relative to the gate entrance seems to make a big difference on the visibility of the kitchen window, the screen grab I was looking at was from someone at the spot where Sophie's body was found, photos that are more in front or to the left of the gate show more of the window so it may be moot.
I'm so pleased that someone addressed that open and cut loaf of bread. That has always stymied me. Sophie would no more go to bed with that left open than the man in the moon. I wondered if she offered bread to the visitor. I wondered if the murder was before she went to bed, after she offered the (known to her) murderer bread and things went south. That you offer it was during or after breakfast makes so much sense. Also, the blood smear is so consternating. Did the murderer return to the house (up that long drive, covered in blood, I'm assuming very stressed) to shut the left open door (assuming Sophie ran from the house and was overtaken at the gate?). Did he return to leave the book open to the dark poem (seems unlikely, he'd leave dna and blood everywhere in that case). I think the return to shut the door makes the most sense..... And is the sighting at the bridge REALLY discredited? "Fiona" called that in anonymously way soon after the murder as I understand it....I've always thought her gardai accusations came way later and made absolutely zero sense. I've always thought the murderer got to her and she concocted all those crazy stories to remove the sighting as a valid piece of evidence. Do we know where the current re-investigation is? I'd like to know if anything was lifted from the murder weapons. Thank you so much for this illustrated writeup.
Thanks for your kind comments. I don't believe that the killer ever went back inside the cottage as there would have been a lot of blood and other traces inside had he done that, I think he just checked the door or closed it but cannot be sure. On the re-investigation it is ongoing and outcomes not expected 'for several months' but I would not hope too hard for a resolution this year. You ask a good question about the Kealfadda Bridge sighting. At this stage a lot of what I have written here is speculative, and I just follow my own compass and intuition in many places. I found that when I came back to this scene after a 2 year break that some totally new angles occurred to me. I say that the bridge sighting is discredited because however you look at it, the witness would not be acceptable in a courtroom any more. The back and forth, the retracted statements and changing statements mean that the evidence has no value: the defence would rip into it, and it is doubtful whether the prosecution would even use that witness. The DPP took a dim view of the situation. Some people say that the very first Fiona sighing still stands, but that was a man walking the 'wrong' way (if you think the killer is Bailey) and with a beret, which nobody has ever seen Bailey wearing. So maybe Fiona did see this figure, but I think he is not connected to Sophie. If you go for a breakfast-time murder then the 3am bridge witness is a red herring.
I hadn't even THOUGHT of the fallout from the Bridge testimony being so tainted as to be unusable in court. The French court heard it but, really, so what? Of no use now. That chair arrangement has always intrigued me, too. If she had company, the chairs would not be arranged that way. And also, I can now picture her eating bread and reading with her feet up....maybe during breakfast. So many questions.