Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

I know I posted it back then. It was in reply to those considering a female.

I don't entirely agree.

Why have a "Cold Case Review" if no resolution is possible? Why hire out the M-Vac apparatus to generate new DNA evidence?

We don't know what they found, - if anything - but we do know that the Gardaí conducted this test, relatively recently. Why?

The detectives must think that a finding is still possible; and I certainly hope so too.

Someone, somewhere, knows who did this. It's a matter of finding them. It may be too late to find and charge the actual killer, whoever it was; but it's never too late to find the truth.

A couple of additional points.

The fact that she made such a daring move as to scramble over briars, and barbed wire, would indicate that it was a desperation move, i.e. she was in immediate fear for her life right at that moment, at that spot and she was doing anything she could to get herself to any point of safety. If she was somewhere else in the area, there would be no reason for her to have run to such a treacherous spot. This would indicate to me that the vicious attack didn't begin until she was right there at the gate.

It's still possible she may have met the perpetrator at the house and walked down together, or even been following someone down having an argument with them etc., but I think the attack didn't begin until then.

So having said that, to add to your point, perhaps she was briefly attacked, turned to scramble over the fence, was hit on the back of the head, and maybe was unconscious or stunned and trapped on the wire for a little while, before the rest of your proposed scenario played out. The rest of the tools, stone/block were in the immediate vicinity and used accordingly.

So you think that the block wasn`t used as a murder weapon then. You may be right about that. The block was said to have been used by the killer in the media within days of the murder. It`s fair to say that the block and the rock were considered within public consciousness to have been used by the killer. It could be argued that of the two, the block had more devastating potential.

I would suggest that an innocent man, with a weird sense of humour, who thought it might be funny to confess to someone that he had committed this murder, would have said that he did it with a block, based on what he would have learned from the papers and the media generally. "Block" has that bit more dramatic effect for the dark sense of humour. Similarly, someone who invented a yarn saying Bailey had confessed to them, would also have been more likely to say block than rock, if he chose to mention the murder weapon.

There`s not much that niggles at me about Bailey`s guilt. When Bailey confessed to young Malachi, he said he bashed her brains out with a "rock". It`s always bothered me just a little bit that he didn`t say "block". I`ve always felt it would have been more natural for him to say block, but then I`ve always assumed that the block was used as the coup de grace. You`ve made a good case for the block not having been used at all and of course that being so, then the killer would be less likely to say block in any confession. Now I have no more niggles.

I'd also say rock, so that shoots down your theory. It's what much of the media stated.

Are you forgetting it was a stone and not a rock? Surely he would have said stone and not what he'd read?

"I`d also say rock"

Assuming the block wasn`t used, then no you wouldn`t, because you`re not the killer. The "block" narrative began on the 29th of December in the Sunday World according to Google.

"Are you forgetting it was a stone and not a rock?"

Now you are resorting to some very ambiguous terminology. How large is a stone and how small is a rock? Do you remember the rock hammer in Shawshank for example? How large were those rocks that he left carved in the cell?

"Surely he would have said stone and not what he`d read?"

If bjsc`s claim is correct, then we would expect the killer to say rock or stone in any truthful confession. A confession by an innocent man would have been guided by the media narrative. From December 29th that included the block. So rock or block? You could probably also include the poker and the axe for good measure. Four to choose from. Which is darkest, if you want to frighten the bejaysus out of a young fella after you`d got him into the Fiesta? Sure it was only a bit of craic like. The innocent man must chose a weapon. The killer just knows.

Given how leaky the investigation has been, and this been Ireland where the government leaks like a sieve, and there was an announcement in the media about DNA being found during the m-vac investigation… had Bailey's been found, we'd have heard about it by now. So the likeliest explanation is that Bailey's DNA wasn't found.

Investigators looking into the nearly 30-year murder case of Sophie Toscan du Plantier believe they have found ‘potentially conclusive genetic material’ which will identify the killer. DNA material, thought to have come from the murderer, was recovered last month using a forensic technique called Touch DNA, along with a device called the M-Vac.

https://extra.ie/2025/08/24/news/toscan-du-plantier-dna

The rock was used in both scenarios anyway, and it was likely the primary weapon and provided the bulk of the injury to Sophie. Perhaps both an innocent or guilty party at that time would have thought it was enough to kill her even if the block was used too.

Much like if it had been a knife used to stab her, and then the block was used for a final blow, both an innocent person, or the killer would have easily said "I went up there and stabbed her".

To be fair the "confession" is much more indicative of guilt than the phrasing around the choice of weapon. And the question becomes whether Malachi Reed was and is a trustworthy source. Much like the vast majority of people from the era, he seems to have disappeared from the discourse following the libel trial, and his mum seems to be carrying his torch and indeed was only one of two people who turned up at the French trial.

It's wild how many ghosts there are in this story, numerous witnesses, most gardai, just disappeared from the discourse, and have never released anything further about their recollections about what they believe with the passing of time. Just a handful of people end up in full control of the narrative, and why journalists are able to slow drip to get their clicks.

This is also why periodic public appeals work, because people long ago crawled into the woodwork and hid, and sometimes come back out again decades later. I would love to hear what Malachi Reed has to say now, if he is absolutely certain, or if there was ever a doubt. I would say the same about all the other witnesses.

When did the rock narrative begin? When did the stone narrative begin? Stop cherry picking and give examples of ALL terms.

I am not resorting to ambiguous terminology, it was described as a flat stone, not a rock. Had Bailey been the murderer why use the incorrect term, "rock"? His use of rock is as you yourself stated, what an innocent would say, the media said rock.

A rock is a stone and a stone is a rock. A flat stone is a rock. Seriously now. Come on.

Tomatoe….tomato….potatoe…..potato….let`s call the whole thing off.

I can provide a photograph of bovine umbilical chord blood that was deposited on a rubber mat at 7am this morning in a very well ventilated shed if anybody wants to see it. I took a photo of it at 11-20am. Air temperature at the time was 8 degrees. Probably a few degrees cooler at time of deposition. I`m not an expert on the similarities between bovine and human blood so here is what Google told me…

"bovine blood is a close functional relative to human blood, often used in laboratory, industrial or scientific research as a substitute for human blood…"

Anyway. It still looked wet and fresh 4 hours and 20 minutes later.

edit….

From what I can tell - the question isn't only how fast blood would dry; but also…why was some of the blood seen much darker and drying, while in another place it looked wet and fresher?

(apologies for slightly gruesome detail)

I was guessing that the injuries on other parts of the body had begun to scab and dry out a little over the time that she lay there, but that blood was able to flow from the facial area because the poor lady may not have actually died straight away and blood can flow while living….

This would be relevant if it could help to indicate the time of death and possibly the time-frame during which the assault occurred. Which is clearly relevant with regard to the statements and alibis of possible suspects.

I am no pathologist! But I do like data.

I have looked at photographs taken at some time between 11.00 and 14.00 on 23rd December. In these the blood on the stone, around her ear and nose and in her hair, appears to be wet. I can find no mention of whether the blood on her clothing appeared fresh as no one appears to have gone close enough to check. Again I add the caveat that there are many factors which may affect clotting/drying times.