ISABELLE BOLLE & VALÉRIE JACOB
In general, when we talk about these two women, we are referring to one of the very first calls (1981) in which Monique recognizes Isabelle's voice and Valérie's sneers.
She heards a child babbling and deduces it's Sébastien, Bernard's son. The lands of Bernard Laroche and Marcel Jacob were concomitant, without barriers, Isabelle and Valérie could see each other regularly while crossing the garden.
Monique thinks of a teenage joke. They were friends. Monique had kindly asked Bernard to stop this "little game". He was outraged. From that moment, Monique will no longer have direct contact with the anonymous woman*. This element, perhaps insignificant or not, was then drowned in the ocean of incessant phone calls.
Note: Valérie and Murielle's voices sounded distant ; in Bernard's defense, maybe it was just a mistake but he clearly denies this call. Or it's indeed an anonymous call. The two young girls were perhaps at Marcel's home, just next door. However, Sébastien was only a few months old and he was fragile. This call may have come from Bernard's direct line.
*We can ask ourselves if there is a correlation between these two elements.
Before Murielle & from 1981 to 1982, Isabelle took care of Sébastien and lived with her sister Marie~Ange and Bernard. When you look at the female crow's calls list, you realize that the phone bills were very high during the times she was there. Asked about this, the Laroche couple will say that Isabelle’s boyfriend lives in Germany, an argument that would justify the hefty bills. Between 1982 & 1983, Isabelle will return to her parents, for no apparent reason. During this time, no more calls from the female crow. But on her return in 1983, the calls began again. In July 1984, Isabelle Bolle permanently left her sister's home in Aumontzey,
Why ? We do not know. When Isabelle leaves, she is pregnant but she will not keep her child and will have an abortion. Her boyfriend lives in Germany… is he the father ? Why is she having an abortion ?
Isabelle Bolle's name appears in the file. Two of her co-workers testified and reiterated their statements before Judge Simon : Isabelle Bolle had told them that Bernard had gone to pick up Murielle from high school in Bruyères, then Grégory in Lépanges; Murielle had seen him throw something (garbage bag) in the water, she had assumed it was the child. At the time of the events, Isabelle was 17/18 years old, she was a little older than Valérie Jacob who was 14/15.
A theory is circulating about the potential role of Isabelle Bolle. In 1984, Isabelle Bolle was 20 years old. She could have embodied this female crow. If we extrapolate this theory, then Valérie, who is heard by Monique laughing, may not have told us everything and may have more information to share with the investigators.
However, Isabelle's involvement raises questions. What would have been her motive ? Could Bernard have influenced her ? The voice of the anonymous woman is "young" but that doesn't mean anything. The term young is vague. A 40~year~old woman can also have a so~called "young voice". Behind the woman’s voice, several witnesses heard children babbling, chirping. Yes, it could be Sébastien ... but if Jacqueline Jacob is the anonymous woman, Bernard could simply have been at his uncle and aunt's home. In addition, the child in question could also be Daniel ~ the son of Michel & Ginette. He and Sébastien were about the same age ~ Grégory too but obviously it's not him.
I quote: "The screaming voice & the braying of Marcel's wife do not match the young woman's voice that all listeners have heard." ~ Thibaut Solano. Like the man, she could change her voice. After all, Jean-Marie, Albert & Jacky undoubtedly know this man very well, he is part of their family and yet they do not recognize him.
Despite these explanations, it's an interesting theory since on the day of the crime, Bernard uses Sébastien, Louisette and of course Murielle as an alibi (among other reasons). Why not manipulate Isabelle ?
The crow woman is less prolific, less “psychologically” involved than her partner. For him it's an obsession. Finally, let’s add that Isabelle, still young, was probably easily influenced.
Why not. I remain skeptical but it's possible, yes.
Bernard's time schedule, October 16, 1984.
There is nothing / nobody to tell us what he did before 1:00 pm. We know that the day before he worked between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m., so we can imagine that he will sleep until about 1 p.m. just before picking Sébastien up from school. Indeed, his son will accompany him all afternoon. From 1:00 p.m., he will therefore be at his father's side.
According to Michel's testimony, Bernard tells him that he put away the wood they cut the
day before (alone and at his house) but in his own testimony Bernard will say that he helped Louisette (Jacob farm, to cut and store wood). Contradiction which calls into question Bernard’s presence at his home between 1 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. No one can confirm if Bernard was at home, Marie-Ange is at work (1 p.m. / 9 p.m.) and Murielle at school. On this subject, Louisette will never be heard.
At first, Michel will be the only witness of the visit of Bernard. Six months after Bernard's death, Monique will reinforce her son's statements. At this time she took up the cause of her late nephew, whom she claims to have raised and loved like her own son. Monique will therefore confirm the presence of Bernard at Michel's but after the latter's death, in April 1985. Albert will take the same direction as his wife and will also validate this version much later, on December 8, 1987, and again in May 1988. According to them, Bernard was present at Michel's between 4 pm and 4:20 pm.
Lionel Villemin, Michel's younger brother, who was out of class that day is also present. He will say that he was playing with a bow in the meadow behind his parents' house with Daniel, Michel's son, shortly before 4 p.m. He is convinced that he did not see Bernard or Sébastien at Michel's place on October 16 ...
But, according to Bernard's testimony, Daniel plays with Sébastien between 3:40 p.m. and 4:20 p.m. How can Daniel play with Lionel in the meadow around 4:00 p.m. and play with Sébastien in the house at the same time ?
Second contradiction.
But Lionel will change his version throughout the procedure. In his deposition of 01/20/1988, this will be the last where he will speak of the passage of Bernard; Lionel changes his words once again and affirms that he did not play with Daniel during the afternoon of the 16th. In view of all these elements, we can have doubts as to the veracity of Bernard's presence at Michel's. Monique and Albert will above all serve as an additional alibi for Bernard ... the regular change in the testimony that Lionel will give to the investigators is obviously explained by the influence of his parents.
Bernard Laroche will stay with Michel until 4:20 p.m., they claim to have leafed through a distance selling catalog.
At around 4:30 p.m., he returned to Louisette's where he was waiting for his friend Jean~Pierre Zonca, a work colleague who lives just across from the Ancel factory in Granges sur Vologne.
According to Bernard, the latter should join him in order to buy a batch of 150 bottles of wine in promotion, (Laval sur Vologne). Bernard will wait for him until 5:10 pm and then decides to go to JP Zonca's home himself. But he's not here. Bernard leaves and arrives around 5:30 p.m. at Louisette's.
Jean-Pierre Zonca will be auditioned several times by the gendarmes:
1) First, he will confirm that they had agreed on the date but the good weather had changed his activities. JP Zonca was therefore absent from his home between 2 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. A little later, he will admit that he never set a precise date to collect the goods, contrary to what Bernard says. 2) The gendarmes will therefore organize a confrontation between the two men. JP Zonca's behavior will suddenly change. He will not dare to contradict Bernard and will go in his direction; he will say he was supposed to pick him up after bringing his daughter back from school ... but this is inconsistent with his first testimony. Indeed, during his first audition, JP Zonca had said that his mother-in-law had picked up his daughter from school. 3) After Bernard's death, JP Zonca will be heard a third time: this time, he will go back on his initial testimony, i.e. no meeting was set for October 16 between Bernard and himself.
For his part, Bernard had supported his statements to guarantee his passage to his friend's home by providing two insignificant details:
JP Zonca's key was on the back door of the house.
When leaving his house, a small blue vehicle was passing and nearly crashed into him.
Questioned on these arguments, JP Zonca will greatly weaken his statements: The house key was still on the lock since he and his wife were working as a counter-team; close friends of the couple including Bernard have known it for a long time. The street where he lives,'Quai de la Vologne, is very narrow with a very sharp turn. Since their move in 1976, Zonca has never seen a vehicle overtake (another vehicle) in front of his house. Investigators will carry out a neighborhood investigation, no one saw Bernard that afternoon and there is no evidence to justify the presence of the blue vehicle cited by Bernard.
When you take a look at Jean-Pierre Zonca's audition reports, we get the feeling that he was influenced by Bernard.
THE GREEN VEHICLES
We know that Bernard Laroche owned a gray-green Peugeot 305.
Below, you will find the testimonies about the green vehicles seen several days before the crime and the day of the crime. These elements suggest that Grégory's murder was planned.
1) SIMONE HATTON
Monday, October 8 at 11:30 am.
Tuesday, October 9 at 1:00 p.m.
Thursday, October 11 at 1:00 p.m.
This lady said she saw two vehicles, one of which was gray-green, possibly a Renault.
The first was registered in the Vosges (88), the second in Moselle (57).
About the driver : a man of average height with drooping mustaches, bulging eyes and wavy hair.
'La Gai Champ' is where Grégory's nanny lived.
In the second picture, the orange arrow is the distance between the green car and Jean-Marie's house.
2) MICHEL DERUDER
Monday, October 15 at 11:30 am and 1:20 pm.
Michel Deruder sees a man parked in a green vehicle near Grégory's school (Lépanges) and then just in front of it, where you can easily see the comings and goings.
This witness allowed investigators to draw sketch n°2 of the man in question.
He sees the same man a third time, with a gun around 5 p.m., near the dump.
3) GÉRARD GRÉMILLET
Monday, October 15. Around 1:40 p.m., this gentleman sees a man and a woman in a green car at the Faing-Vairel crossroads in the direction of Docelles.
Tuesday, October 16, day of the crime.
10:45 am. Green vehicle - Renault 14 type - driven by a man near the school towards Docelles.
1:20 p.m. A man in the street 'Rue de l'Eglise' direction Deycimont. Green vehicle, Renault type.
4) JEAN-PIERRE MICHEL
2:00 p.m. He sees a van with a man and a woman inside, on the dirt road on the edge of the forest, on the road between Deycimont and Faing-Vairel.
From this location, 3 houses are visible including the Villemin house.
They are dressed in a red top and black pants according to the witness. They wear something over their chest like a camera or binoculars. J-P Michel sees this couple again around 4:45 p.m. on the road D44 in the direction of Docelles.
5) COLETTE MÉLINE
This lady too will see a green vehicle near her home on the street 'Rue des champs' before 4 p.m.
6) GILBERT COLIN
4:45 p.m. : 4-door green vehicle that goes down the street 'Rue des Pins' at high speed.
4:45 p.m. : The witness JP Michel sees for the second time a man and a woman (binoculars) with a van parked by the roadside (D44).
7) NICOLE GRÉMILLET
Green vehicle (R12 or R18) seen twice. The first time at 4:45 p.m., the vehicle crosses Faing-Vairel and heads towards a small hamlet. The second, at 5.45 p.m., in the opposite direction.
8) CLAUDE GRÉMILLET
Between 5:05 p.m. and 5:10 p.m., Claude Grémillet hears a car driving up the street 'Rue des champs' from his kitchen.
He is one of the best-known witnesses and he lives on 'Rue Bellevue'. From his home, we can see the street 'Rue des champs'.
9) MS. CLAUDON
5:17 p.m. Ms. Claudon would have crossed Bernard and Murielle in a green car. This lady was late to bring her cows which were grazing in the neighboring park to the Villemin house. She was in the company of a man; according to testimonies, her lover.
The green arrow corresponds to the direction taken by the car in which Ms. Claudon was.
The yellow arrow indicates Bernard's direction; the path is narrow, he would have stopped on a small embankment of earth, at the level of the blue words 'Green car' in order to let the car pass. Ms. Claudon has been more or less denounced by her neighbors.
She never confessed. However, we do know that she was the victim of threats. If Ms. Claudon had not been late, Bernard Laroche would have been stranded and he would have had to wait or get around this obstacle, perhaps coming from behind the Villemin house.
On the other side, we also have the testimony of her son Christian Claudon: A farmer and bus driver from Lépanges. His testimony is crucial: he describes with precision the passage of a green car on the 'route de la Bure', which passes 300 meters in front of Christine Villemin's house.
"I was in front of my farm,” he says. "I was expecting a friend who lives in Epinal. It was 4.30 pm when I saw, about 80 meters away, a bronze-green car stopped at the intersection of the 'route des bois' and 'route de la Burre'.
Two minutes later, my friend arrived by this road. He told me that he was hampered by this car which could not pass him because of the narrowness of the road. He had gone back for about twenty meters and he had even entered the property of Mr. Capelle, absent, whose barrier had remained open.
Then the bronze-green car had continued on its way after my friend had passed by. This one had confirmed the brand and the color to me: a 305 Peugeot bronze green, army green."
For fear of bad publicity, Mr. Claudon and Mr. X did not speak to the gendarmes. However, the schedule is precise: 4.30 p.m.
10) MONIQUE PRÉVOT
This lady sees a green vehicle driven by a man in the second part of the afternoon.
The file contains about twenty testimonies concerning suspicious vehicles, more particularly a green car. Thanks to the landmarks on the map, you can see that these vehicles were turning around Grégory’s home.
On small roads or by mountain paths, with few homes. The orange circle is the home of Jean-Marie & Christine.
The only one who could make these trips was Bernard who did not work during the day. The 2 green rectangles correspond to the two testimonies about the couple seen near a van, investigators believe they have potentially identified Marcel & Jacqueline.
GÉRARD & THÉRÈSE GAUDEL
In May 1985, after Bernard's death, Marie-Ange Laroche affirms that her husband was seen on October 16 around 5 p.m. by Gérard Gaudel and his sister, driving his green Peugeot 305 leaving the property of JP Zonca. The examination of the truck's controlograph will finally place him at 3:50 p.m.
The Gaudel siblings, cousins and childhood friends of Bernard are then heard: differences appear in relation to the information given by Marie-Ange Laroche.
At 3:50 p.m., Gérard Gaudel and his sister Thérèse are driving towards Jussarupt when they meet Bernard alone in a cream-colored vehicle (Ami 8?), 'Quai de la Vologne', in Granges sur Vologne, almost in front of Jacky's home and about 150 or 200 meters from Jean~Pierre Zonca's home.
Several hypotheses are possible:
1) The Gaudel family has the wrong person. They think they see Bernard, but it's not him. Marie-Ange declared that the latter always took the Peugeot 305 when he was with Sébastien.
2) Gérard Gaudel and his sister are acting in good faith. In this case, it is confirmed that Bernard was around 3:50 p.m. near Jean-Pierre Zonca's and not Michel's. If Bernard did go to Mr. Zonca's home, why didn't he mention it on the correct time, if it wasn't to create an alibi during the kidnapping of Grégory? However, this element does not make it impossible for Bernard to visit Michel in Aumontzey but shortens his presence interval by around 10 min. So Bernard's visit through Granges-sur-Vologne with his beige Ami 8 vehicle has potentially no connection with JP Zonca. Indeed, Bernard does not mention this trip in his statements, so it may have a link with the preparation of the kidnapping. Unfortunately, no research has been done in this direction.
3) Marie-Ange and the Gaudel siblings agreed to fabricate this testimony in order to reinforce Bernard's assertions concerning his alleged arrest at the home of his friend JP Zonca. But they could have been wrong about the times and the color of the vehicle.About Murielle's testimony
The testimonies of her friends Véronique Didierlaurent, Sonia Pierson, Sandrine Perrin, Claude Richard and Nelly Demange.
Véronique Didierlaurent. November 7, 1984.
On October 16, 1984 at 5:00 p.m. Murielle was not on the bus. I can even point out that that night, it was not the usual driver, the latter has a beard and glasses, he often makes trips on Tuesday.
I am affirmative, it was the 16th. That day I was supposed to play sports but I didn't because I was suffering from my right foot. It was Tuesday October 16.
Véronique DL confirms again her statements before Judge Lambert:
- How did the gendarmes question you ?
- They ask me if I was on the bus. How formal I could be about my statements. They asked me how she was dressed. I remembered she was wearing a pink purple jacket. I forgot to say that I noticed her friend Nelly Demange was alone when they are usually together all the time. I also remembered that Tuesday the weather was beautiful.
- Did the gendarmes influence you ?
- They told me, remember, don't make a mistake, it's serious.
Sonia Pierson. November 6, 1984.
I take the same classes as Murielle and therefore I leave college at the same hours. Tuesday October 16 at 4:55 pm, I went out at the same time as my friend. Immediately after the exit, I kissed Murielle, who contrary to her habits did not go take her bus in the direction of Aumontzey but went to a khaki green car which was parked in the teachers' parking lot, the back facing us.
A man was in the driver's seat but I can not provide you with the description, both dress and physical. I was with Claude Richard, we were about thirty meters from the car in question. With my friend, we returned to our respective homes by taking towards the HLM and along 'avenue de Lattres de Tassigny'.
Arrived in front of the 'Lycée Jean Lurçat', I saw this same car with Murielle inside, heading towards Laval-sur Vologne.
My friend was in the front right seat, I formally recognized her and Claude too. We even said "Hey, Murielle". I haven't been able to identify the driver of the car yet, but it seems to me that there was no one else with them. Regarding Murielle's personality, she is kind, helpful but not a liar. She likes to have friends.
It was October 16, 1984. That day we studied the different states of matter (solids, liquids and gases) and I was also shocked when I read the news from the newspapers the next day. I remember that date well. Murielle told me on Thursday morning that Grégory was a little cousin without further explanation.
Sandrine Perrin. November 3, 1984.
Yesterday I verbally told the gendarmes that I couldn't remember if Murielle got on the bus on Tuesday, October 16, 1984. After some thought, I didn't see her on the bus at 5 pm. I'm positive, Murielle usually sits in the front and I haven't seen her red hair, which is easily spotted.
Sandrine Perrin, 4 days later.
If I put her absence on Tuesday, October 16, it's because it seems to me that this week she didn't take the bus for several days in a row. We noticed her because of her hair.
Claude Richard. November 6, 1984.
I am positive, Tuesday October 16, 1984, at 4:55 pm leaving class, Murielle was ahead of me by a few meters. I then noticed that she was not heading for the bus but for a car stopped on the right of the college exit. The vehicle in question, I formally recognize it on your photographic plate, of a color which I consider to be khaki green. I didn't pay attention to the driver.
I continued on foot, taking a shortcut through the low-rent housing opposite the college to find myself on 'avenue de Lattres de Tassigny'.
I arrived on the sidewalk that borders this avenue, just in front of the 'Lycée Jean Lurçat', when I saw the car pass in the direction of Laval-sur-Vologne coming from Bruyères. Murielle occupied the front-right seat as a passenger. I guess it was around 5:00 p.m. It was the first time that I had seen my friend in a motor vehicle.
Claude Richard, the next day.
Very often, Sonia Pierson, Murielle Bolle and I leave college together. However, on Tuesday October 16, 1984, instead of heading for her bus, Murielle got into a car. A Renault 18, Khaki green, but I didn't see the driver. Then I walked up the stairs to get home and saw the car passing on the road above. Murielle was seated next to the driver.
Nelly Demange. November 2, 1984.
I am positive, Murielle was present by my side on the bus at 5 pm on October 16, 1984. I do not know the reason why I am so affirmative but we are very good friends even though she is not in my class.
Nelly Demange, three days later.
Indeed after having thought and having spoken about it to my parents, I think I had the wrong week during my previous declaration but I am not very sure for Tuesday, October 16, 1984 at this same time. In doubt, I prefer not to comment.
I think your blog is by far the best resource on this case on the internet. Fantastic work!
Thank you very much for your blog! Do you know what has happened to Sebastien Laroche today? Does he have an interest in resolving the case and proving his fathers guilt or innocence? Btw I think 'Je suis formel' in English would be 'I am positive'.