The Murder of Dominique Laplace
Who Was Dominique Laplace?
Dominique Laplace was a 45-year-old man living in Colmar, a rural area in France. He worked as a special needs teacher, supporting children and teenagers dealing with family problems.
Outside work, he enjoyed collecting coins and guns. He also searched the woods with a metal detector, hoping to find historical objects.
His interest in treasure hunting had once brought him into conflict with his former girlfriend, Vero Pierret. Although their relationship had ended years earlier, the dispute that caused their breakup would later become important to the murder investigation.
Dominique had since started a relationship with Miriam Bernard, a woman he had known since high school. They had been together for about two years.
The Night Dominique Was Killed
On the evening of March 14, Dominique was examining a coin at his desk. He checked its date online before turning off his computer and going to the kitchen to eat dinner.
He had just started eating when someone knocked on his front door.
Dominique was not expecting a visitor. However, he got up and went to answer it.
According to the reconstruction later developed by investigators, the visitor claimed their car had broken down and asked Dominique for help. Dominique allowed the person inside while he prepared to go out.
The visitor then attacked him with a knife, stabbing him directly in the chest.
An accomplice arrived shortly afterward and repeatedly struck Dominique in the face with the back of a rifle. Dominique tried to protect himself, but he died from his injuries.
The attackers then searched the house and took one of Dominique’s .22-caliber rifles before leaving.
The Discovery of the Body
On the evening of March 15, Miriam went to Dominique’s home. She had been unable to reach him by phone or text and was worried because his silence was unusual.
When she arrived, she knocked on the door several times. Nobody answered.
She tried the handle and found that the door was unlocked. After opening it, she saw Dominique lying in the entrance hall and began screaming.
Police arrived and found his body in a pool of blood. He had a single apparent stab wound to the chest, severe facial bruising, and injuries on his hands consistent with trying to defend himself.
Investigators also found a half-eaten meal in the kitchen and a living room in disarray.
The scene suggested that Dominique had been attacked shortly after answering the door. The condition of the house raised another question: had the attackers been searching for something specific?
Why Investigators Suspected Dominique’s Ex-Girlfriend
The Dispute Over Ancient Jewelry
Dominique’s former girlfriend, Vero Pierret, soon became a person of interest.
Years earlier, Dominique and Vero had searched the woods together with a metal detector. They discovered a necklace, bracelet, and earrings believed to be thousands of years old. Their estimated combined value was nearly €5,000.
According to Dominique’s friend, Jean-Michel Pecqueux, Vero wanted to keep the entire collection and sell it. Dominique disagreed, and their argument eventually ended the relationship.
The dispute did not end with the breakup. Jean-Michel told investigators that Vero had continued calling Dominique and threatening him over the jewelry.
He also described a history of violence, including an incident in which Vero allegedly threw a flowerpot at Dominique and broke some of his teeth.
These details gave investigators a possible motive. The ransacked living room also raised the possibility that the attackers had been searching for the missing jewelry.
Vero’s Unusual Reaction
When Major Nathaniel Urier questioned Vero, she appeared calm after hearing that Dominique had been murdered.
She said the breakup had been Dominique’s fault and claimed she had moved on long ago. She also denied knowing what had happened to the jewelry.
Vero said she had spent the evening at home with her adult nephew, Mallory Kubel, and his girlfriend, Emilie Viseur.
Her physical condition complicated the investigation. Vero walked with crutches, and investigators initially questioned whether she could have overpowered Dominique herself.
However, her alleged motive and the suspicious circumstances made it necessary to check her account carefully.
The Investigation Reaches a Dead End
Phone Records Challenge the Suspects’ Stories
Investigators interviewed Mallory to verify Vero’s account.
Mallory said he had visited his aunt during the afternoon to repair her bathtub. He then returned home to have dinner with Emilie and her five-year-old son. Later that night, he went back to Vero’s house.
This differed from Vero’s account, which suggested that they had all eaten dinner together at her home.
Investigators examined phone location records and activity to check their movements. Mallory’s records supported his version of events. His phone appeared to follow the journey he described, and he had sent numerous text messages during the relevant period.
Vero’s phone also appeared to remain at her home throughout the evening.
The conflicting accounts created suspicion, but the available evidence did not place either person at Dominique’s house during the murder.
Forensic Evidence Fails to Identify the Killer
The investigation encountered another problem: forensic examinations had produced no clear link to a suspect.
Investigators found no useful fingerprints, footprints, or DNA traces from the killer at Dominique’s home. Searches of Vero’s house, including tests for traces of blood, also failed to connect her to the crime.
The jewelry theory weakened when investigators discovered that Dominique had sold the collection about two years earlier. It was not missing because the killers had stolen it.
With the jewelry motive undermined and no physical evidence tying Vero to the scene, investigators had to reconsider their assumptions.
Then a phone call changed the direction of the case.
The Second Murder Reveals a Connection
Jose Barreyre Is Shot With Dominique’s Stolen Rifle
On March 16, 2013, police in another town were investigating the shooting of 47-year-old Jose Barreyre, a tattoo artist who was also involved in selling marijuana.
Jose had been shot outside his home two days after Dominique’s murder. The weapon used was a .22-caliber rifle.
Major Urier immediately remembered that a rifle of the same caliber had disappeared from Dominique’s house. He began to consider whether the two crimes were connected.
At first, the cases seemed unrelated. Dominique had been stabbed in his home, while Jose had been shot outside his. They lived in different towns and appeared to have different social circles.
But Jose had survived long enough to provide investigators with a crucial clue.
The Three Letters That Changed the Investigation
After the shooting, Jose briefly regained consciousness in the hospital. He was too badly injured to speak, so police gave him a whiteboard and asked him to write the name of anyone he believed was involved.
Jose wrote three letters: EML.
Investigators believed the letters might point to Emilie, Jose’s former wife. She had been involved in a custody dispute with him over their five-year-old son.
The connection immediately raised new questions. Why would Emilie be linked to a shooting involving Dominique’s stolen rifle? And what did her relationship with Mallory and Vero have to do with either crime?
The two investigations were no longer separate. Police now had a possible connection between the victims, the stolen weapon, and people who had previously appeared to have alibis.
How the Murder Plan Was Organized
Emilie’s Motive: A Custody Dispute
According to the account reconstructed from forensic evidence and confessions, Emilie wanted Jose dead because they were fighting over custody of their young son.
She asked her boyfriend, Mallory, to help kill her former husband.
Mallory did not act alone. He approached his aunt, Vero, for advice. Vero allegedly agreed to help with the plan on one condition: Mallory and Emilie would also help her kill Dominique.
Vero was still angry with Dominique over their past relationship and the dispute involving the jewelry.
The arrangement connected two personal grievances. Emilie wanted to remove her former husband from her life, while Vero wanted revenge against her ex-boyfriend.
Mallory Carried Out the Attacks
The investigation’s reconstruction identified Mallory as the person who physically killed both men.
Because Vero walked with crutches, Mallory carried out the attacks while Vero participated in the plan.
On the evening of March 14, Mallory and Vero went to Dominique’s home. One approached the front door while the other waited nearby with a firearm.
The visitor used a false story about a broken-down car to persuade Dominique to open the door and offer help. Once inside, the attacker stabbed him.
The accomplice then entered and struck Dominique with the rifle before searching the house and taking the weapon.
The attackers left with the stolen rifle, but the plan to kill Jose was delayed until the following night.
Jose Was Shot the Following Night
In the early hours of March 16, the attackers went to Jose’s home.
According to the reconstruction, one person approached Jose and led him toward the street while Mallory waited nearby with the rifle stolen from Dominique.
When Jose reached the street, Mallory shot him.
Afterward, the attackers drove into the woods and burned their clothes and shoes in an attempt to destroy evidence.
Emilie stayed away from the crime scenes and helped create false alibis. She sent messages from the phones of the people involved, making it appear that they were elsewhere during the attacks.
The plan relied on misleading investigators about the suspects’ movements. But Jose’s final written clue brought attention back to Emilie.
How Police Solved the Case
Investigators Reconsidered Emilie’s Alibi
Emilie had initially appeared to have an alibi. Phone activity suggested that the people suspected of carrying out the murders had remained at home.
However, investigators realized that phone records could be misleading if someone else was using the phones to create a false impression.
Jose’s written letters also gave investigators a reason to examine Emilie more closely.
Her possible involvement in two murders committed within days of each other was too significant to ignore.
Confessions Confirmed the Conspiracy
Investigators continued examining the relationships and movements of the people involved. Eventually, Vero, Mallory, and Emilie were arrested.
According to the account, all three eventually confessed.
The investigation had begun with an apparently personal murder and a possible dispute over valuable jewelry. It ended with the discovery of a wider conspiracy involving two victims and a plan built around revenge, a custody dispute, and false alibis.
The stolen rifle provided a link between the crimes, while Jose’s final message helped investigators identify a person they had not initially focused on.
What Happened to the Suspects?
The reported legal outcomes were as follows:
- Mallory Kubel: He was charged with murder but died by suicide in jail before his trial.
- Vero Pierret: She was convicted of complicity in murder and sentenced to 20 years in prison.
- Emilie Viseur: She was convicted of complicity in murder and sentenced to 10 years. According to the account, she served three years.
One detail remained unclear: investigators did not establish why Vero gave conflicting accounts of where she, Mallory, and Emilie had eaten dinner on the evening of Dominique’s murder.
Although the phone records helped narrow the investigation, that inconsistency was never fully explained in the account.
Conclusion: The Clue That Connected Two Murders
The Dominique Laplace murder case shows how a seemingly isolated crime can be connected to another through a small but important piece of evidence.
At first, investigators focused on Dominique’s former girlfriend and the jewelry dispute that had ended their relationship. When that theory failed, the investigation appeared to have reached a dead end.
The shooting of Jose Barreyre changed everything. The stolen rifle connected the two cases, and Jose’s attempt to identify someone before his death directed investigators toward Emilie.
Together, the weapon, phone records, witness accounts, and eventual confessions exposed a plan involving three people with different motives.
The case also illustrates an important lesson for criminal investigations: an apparent alibi is not always proof that someone was uninvolved. Investigators must examine how evidence was created, who had access to it, and whether seemingly separate crimes share a connection.
In this case, three letters helped reopen a stalled investigation and bring the hidden relationship between two murders to light.