Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

“This account, which was first alluded to by the potential witness in the early days of the investigation, is viewed as highly credible, with the person who made the call still available for interview.However, the source is not without complications, as the man was subsequently convicted of serious offences.”

“First alluded to” is such a joke statement. And let’s not even start with the amount of heavy lifting the word “complications” is doing….

And just who, in all of this, has been convicted of serious offences?

Definitely rhetorical.

I'm slightly puzzled as to why this is taking so long. The extraction process, M-Vac, is effectively a wet vacuum cleaner which hoovers up any cellular material. This is then processed, again a relatively quick process, before the results are sent to the commissioning authority. In this case AGS.

It is then for AGS to assess the results and compare them with suspects, victims and persons of interest. Always assuming they have, or can obtain, DNA from these individuals.

What I also find surprising is that it is well over 10 years since French scientists discovered a male DNA profile from Sophie’s boot. It is not Ian Bailey's. And yet nothing appears to have been done with it by AGS. I know Sophie’s family have asked about it and not received a satisfactory reply.

I have attached a brief description of the M-Vac process from the company's website. As you can see it is not particularly time consuming.

The profile(s) must be available now. I guess they are trying to find a match for it or permissions?

I don't remember hearing that but that doesn’t mean it's not true.

Thanks for responses here and also @Bjsc.

My only other question is around your post. For DNA profile that was on boot, surely the AGS has complete access to same for MVAC process. Or is that accurate? .was there any scenarios where the French were reluctant to let AGS dig any further here even with most recent Cold case team or why is this process not more transparent, if it's all we seem to have as different profile.

The results must be known by now one would expect?

As they are not shouting from the rooftops, one can only assume there was no link to Bailey found.

Bailey free man of Ireland,sure what good is that now.

When the French scientists examined the exhibits they did so on Irish soil. The samples they took were then processed in France and it is one of these samples that produced the unknown male profile on the boot. From this it would appear that the boot, along with all the other exhibits is, and always has been, in the possession of AGS. They are also in possession of the French report which gives details of this profile. They are aware that it is not Ian Bailey’s.

That is my understanding too. It is also possible that AGS have access to hospital or post mortem blood samples from Bailey. All of Ian Bailey’s otiginal DNA sample was used up in the testing in 1997 so the French authorities were not able to do a direct comparison. However there are two scientific reports, one from Ireland and one from France. The first gives a numerical value for Bailey’s DNA and the second for the profile from the boot. They are demonstrably not the same.

And incidentally it wasn't me asking about the timeline. I was responding to a post from Zola 1000 on 19th January and trying to explain the various process involved, the possible timeline and why it might be taking so long. I apologise if I have upset you in any way