Sophie: Ein Mord in West Cork

This seems a French way of filming. Dragging a short story long, with beautiful Irish scenes and many characters giving their serious views and impressions. As others already wrote, there is not much forensic evidence in this crime story. It is hard to believe that the pathologist(s) were not able to bring more information and that there is basically only one suspect, and a series of witnesses that change their statements over time. A very thin story. Having said this, it is worthwhile seeing it. It is also interesting that the Irish court was not able to convict the suspect while the French court was.

I really wanted to like this more, but it's two quarts of plot in a five gallon pot.

I should say up front that the cinematography is gorgeous, the soundtrack and music are expertly done, it has all the current tropes of a streaming documentary (though perhaps a bit too much use of the interview gimmick where the subject stares silently into the camera as their voiceover plays on the soundtrack), and within the first fifteen minutes I wanted to visit Schull; after the first hour I wanted to live there.

That said, stretching this documentary out to about three hours of episodes seems more like a contract fulfillment than a need to tell a long story. There are very few cliffhangers; and while Episode 1 ends on a suitably Wow note, the story sort of bumbles along after that, mindful of the need to have long, gorgeous shots of scenery in between interviews so as to not reach present day too quickly.

While the case is practically entirely circumstantial, there is a lot of evidence implicating the chief suspect, with little to none pointing elsewhere and no other plausible suspects to talk about. Our suspect's chief defense seems to be simply saying that he didn't do it, over and over, and as we are now used to seeing how a trace of DNA can nail someone to the wall even decades after the crime occurred, the absence of much new insight into the case now makes one wonder why the film was made. As we moved through Episode 2, it seemed like Episode 3 was going to be the final, modern-day resolution at last. It wasn't.

This documentary was overall well done, clearly exposing the person who committed the murder of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier. It was very helpful to include her family in the interviews.

There were several missing aspects to the story that I wish were included. First, it would have been helpful to have interviewed Jules. However my guess is that she was intimidated by the suspect and feared retribution.

Secondly, interviewing the forensic pathologist who did the autopsy would also have been helpful. What were the specific findings? Did they collect samples from the perineum, the mouth, the fingernails, etc.? Did they save the clothing she wore that night? DNA profiling was first used in 1987 in Florida. Surely the pathologist was aware of that forensic test even if they weren't using it. By saving clothing, etc., the testing could've been done later.

Lastly, how was the crime scene managed? Did they cordon off the path to the the house as well as the house itself? Did they look through out the house, looking for stains, hairs, finger prints and use Luminol to document the presence of blood inside? Did they check in detail the thorny bush for blood??? So many unanswered questions.

Locard's Principle used in forensic studies states, 'everything leaves a trace'. Was this the exception to that rule?? A miscarriage of justice for Sophie and her family.

Netflix new thing is dragging out a 20min criminal storyline into 3h of nature videos and circulating the same 15 photos of the victim.

Good overview of a story I remember from all those years ago (I'm Irish). The pain of sophie's family is harrowing, the limitations of evidence frustrating, all that's left is gut human instinct of who is really telling the truth?