Certainly, this worker and CGT delegate from the Ancel spinning mill has a fragile little boy and has been struggling for 6 years to climb the hierarchy, but he has finally just landed his promotion as foreman, a month before the crime: "Bernard had no reason to commit an irreparable act at this point in his life” underline the authors of the Anacrim report. An interesting argument.
So why does Bernard take, despite everything, the risk of kidnapping Grégory? And with Murielle an embarrassing witness? If the murder of little Grégory took place in two stages with several people involved, then Bernard had the mission to kidnap Grégory (his advantage lies in the fact that Grégory knew him and that he would have followed him without difficulty) and to post the letter to Lépanges-sur-Vologne (as soon as the little boy is with him, in his car;) the sending of the letter prepared shortly before lasted a few seconds, the post office was on his way - before quickly leaving in the direction of Deycimont or Docelles. The second step was to sequester the child, (make him unconscious?), kill him and put him in the river at nightfall.
First of all, Let’s admit the following 2 hypotheses about Bernard:
Option 1°): He did not know that Grégory would be killed.
What did he think then? That the child would be held captive an indefinite time? That they might ask for a ransom in exchange for the little boy? Only a "bad prank" to give Jean-Marie a "good lesson"? Bernard was informed by Monique and Albert about the letters, Bernard Laroche: "I saw the one where it was written 'I stop, I took revenge', it was Albert Villemin who showed it to me. Marie-Ange Laroche: "Michel told us about it, I believe, in 82. Monique gave me details of one of the letters she had received." On the other hand, Albert was obsessed with the crow, he talked about it constantly; Monique, worried, often confided her turpitudes to her nephew. Bernard couldn't ignore the death threats ...
But, did Bernard know the identity of the villains? Like all members of the Villemin-Jacob families, he also knew the feuds and tensions between Albert and Marcel. Bernard regularly saw his uncles and aunts.
Here again, it seems improbable,
1) that they never discussed together about Albert or Jean-Marie ; 2) that Bernard has NEVER suspected Marcel and Jacqueline, if he himself was not involved.
Option 2°): Possible threats / manipulation related to his weak point - women;
This would imply that Marcel or Jacqueline have:
1) witnessed an ambiguous scene between Bernard and Ginette ; or,
2) Ginette played with her charms in order to trap and manipulate Bernard - in agreement with Marcel and Jacqueline ; or,
3) Ginette confided in Jacqueline. We can also consider the hypothesis that Marcel directly threatened Bernard (without hiding behind anonymous threats).
In any case, this threat seems "weak", without substance and hardly credible given the poor relationship he had with his wife and, a contrario, his brotherly bond with his uncle Marcel. In addition, the hypothesis of a love affair between Bernard and Ginette has never been supported. Nor if the attraction Bernard felt for Ginette was reciprocal.
Finally, if Bernard was threatened by his uncle, the latter could have continued to threaten him during and after his detention. During this period, Bernard's behavior did not stick with any family pressure, or a problem of conscience (feeling responsible for Grégory’s death), or even a resentment of having been duped by his relatives and to live an injustice.
Indeed, on the first evening of his incarceration, the latter fell asleep peacefully in his cell. He gained weight and made friends. He has never shown indignation or claimed a miscarriage of justice.
The most important : I remind you that Grégory had identified Bernard ; if the child had returned alive, how would Bernard have explained the kidnapping ?!
Bernard matches the report of eyewitnesses who saw several times on October 16, October 15 and also before October 14, a man "with globular eyes and drooping mustaches driving in a green car".
This same man was seen with a rifle at the edge of the forest, near Jean-Marie's house, the day before the murder (Bernard had a rifle but according to Valérie, Marcel's daughter, the latter did not have one) - this man probably wanted to pretend that he was hunting on the edge of the forest, in order to quietly observe the house of Christine and Jean-Marie without arousing the suspicions.
Bernard's reaction, very "touched by the news of Grégory's death the next day, does not correspond to that of a murderer. He indeed said to his wife Marie-Ange, who showed him the newspaper: "Ah … the bastards, it’s not possible!". He even cried. He has red eyes, he, who is not emotional and has not shed a tear since the death of his father. His wife "still feels him all stirred" when they both go to Albert Villemin. Analysts therefore tend to limit his role to the kidnapping: "If it is obvious that Bernard Laroche has kidnapped Grégory Villemin, it is not obvious that he was aware of the fatal fate planned for his little cousin".
Should we blindly believe that Marie-Ange is telling the truth?
From October 19, this woman tried to deceive the gendarmes (she is the only spontaneous witness) in order to direct them towards the Hollard track (Albert's maternal family). Then the Jacquel track, (Jacky's in-laws) according to words mentioned by her own husband Bernard. Marie-Ange first called the police station from a public phone booth saying that she did not want to wake her husband Bernard who had worked all night. He would have seen (Jacky and Liliane) "leave their house on October 16 around 5 am".
Why Marie-Ange acts behind the back of her husband, on the sly? Was she afraid of Bernard's reaction? Marie-Ange clearly had serious doubts and suspicions about Bernard's involvement in this sordid case. On Bernard's side; why say this to his wife? Was it a way to avoid Marie-Ange's curious questions, to divert the conversation? Or was Bernard trying once again to subtly direct suspicion on Jacky and his wife?
Described by his wife as upset, saddened and compassionate in the face of the terrible pain of the Villemin family, his behavior is however in contradiction with his police custody of October 31, only 10 days after Grégory’s burial.
Bernard never admitted to having played a role on the day of the crime, however from the time of his incarceration he will not be questioned insistently. Under pressure from his lawyers, Judge Lambert neglected to carry out the necessary elementary checks and expert opinions. Laroche will only be removed from his cell twice.
The first time was on November 9, four days after his incarceration, for a vain confrontation with Murielle ; The investigating magistrate became interested for the second and last time in his accused on Tuesday, November 20, 1984.
He received him barely an hour to ask him three questions, the answers of which took less than twenty lines. The nature of the questions shows the sagacity and determination of the magistrate:
"Are you the author or did you participate in the writing of one or four letters addressed to Jean-Marie and Christine Villemin? Between 1981 and 1983, did you phone the Villemin family, in the broadest sense, pretending to be the crow? When was the last time you went to Jean-Marie Villemin's ?”
We can easily imagine the answers. During his detention, Bernard Laroche did not meet any psychiatric expert. However, this examination could have thrown some light on his personality, for or against him. He will neither be questioned on the merits of the case, nor confronted with Michel - yet both have seen each other twice, on October 15 and 16. Likewise, we could have examined the family stories told or exploited by the raven through the life, timetable and relationships of Bernard Laroche, to verify in what, by whom and how he could have (or not) be informed. It would also have been useful to check whether or not his manner of knotting with a cord corresponded to the method used by the killer. No investigation into the female crow has been initiated, this woman has benefited from the circumstances." Étienne Sesmat, The two Grégory cases.
It would have been necessary to enter into the deep personality of Bernard, to seek resentment, suffering, jealousy by approaching general subjects, by avoiding that he discovered the common thread. The investigator should have asked him to what hierarchical level he wanted to go up, encourage him to express his dreams, his desires, find out if they were fulfilled, ask him about the other protagonists of the case who were his close friends, namely Marcel Jacob and Michel Villemin. Furthermore, the Gendarmes did not deepen their interrogations, the questions were predictable; it was necessary to enter into the interpersonal relations of this trio, to know what they were talking about when they met, to know the personality of the wives, their links, their attitudes towards the Villemin spouses, all this gently, in a friendly questioning, devoid of suspicion, break the possible protective shell.
Other disturbing events:
On May 4, 1986, Marie-Ange asked for the guardianship of Louisette Jacob, which prevented her from testifying. She would thus avoid taking into account her statements confirming the presence of Murielle Bolle in the car. She can also seek to protect other culprits than her husband. (Why ?)
She asked some of her relatives to take legal action to access the file.
Refused to testify and appeared with great reluctance before Judge Simon. Marie-Ange refused to be heard as a witness by judge Simon on the facts after the day of Grégory's crime, without the presence of her lawyers, even though she did not have a legal position to assert justifying the presence of her counsel. By avoiding meeting the judge, Marie-Ange creates doubt about the sincerity and spontaneity of her statements.
Christine and Marie-Ange did not like each other. Even if Jean-Marie and Bernard remained in contact, these 2 couples did not share anything together mainly for this reason. One day Marie-Ange Laroche said while speaking of Jean-Marie and Christine Villemin: "It is true that I do not like them very much". Christine was a serious young woman, flirtatious, with a fairly strict education, protecting her private life and therefore unwilling to chat on the street corners. The other women in the village were thus able to find her "proud", which is perhaps not unrelated to the testimonies brought against her, but seems to also designate her, in anonymous letters as "la pimbêche" (proud woman) against who the author expresses his aggressiveness. She is the antipode of Christine.
Marie-Ange was on sick leave the day before the crime and again stopped working the day after the crime. She was fired on October 27, 1984 after exhausting her sick leave rights with a cumulative total of 100 days, three and a half months of absence.
She lied claiming to have been fired because she attended Grégory's funeral - his employer annoyed by her lies, re-established the truth by stating that she had exceeded her quota of sick days, which had resulted automatically in her layoff. Bernard's home had lost a large part of Marie-Ange's salary during her medical issues and would eventually lose the entire paid if she did not work again - unlike her statements in which she insisted that the situation of her couple had nothing to envy to Jean-Marie and Christine, Marie-Ange and Bernard were going through a financial and sentimental crisis at the time of the crime.
Marie-Ange had good reasons to be jealous, but the analysis of her character reveals no sign of jealousy, but a lot of antipathy. A few days before the start of the school year (1984) Ginette had told Christine that Sébastien was going to enter the municipal school. Without malice, Christine would have replied: "Why don't they put him in a special school? He would be better there”. The remark was reported to Marie-Ange. The differences between their children could be a source of animosity. Grégory is intelligent, endearing, playful, sensitive, alert. Sébastien suffers from hydrocephalus. In addition, hydrocephalus is frequently accompanied by mental retardation. Marie-Ange and Bernard were very sensitive about their son.
Marie-Ange Laroche says she is sure that Bernard did not abduct the child while she was working on the day of the crime. She gives the impression of being in "the secret of the crime".
Marie-Ange, in a television program, asked for the organization of a survey on the release of Jean-Marie Villemin (Incredible!), which proves her animosity.
Marie-Ange also contradicts herself in two interviews about her relationship with her sister Murielle:
1) On 08/21/1988, Marie-Ange Laroche testified in Guillaume Durand's show "Face to face" : "- When did you see Murielle Bolle? - Well let's say, I used to go to mom's house, I saw her almost every day. - You talked about this famous testimony? - Yes, we discussed and finally, I believed my sister because, given what the gendarmes said to her, I believe my sister more than the gendarmes. 2) On 07/10/2017, Marie-Ange Laroche spoke in a television program and in the newspapers. "- Otherwise what are your relationships with your sister Murielle since this famous November 5, 1984? - I never saw her again. We have been able to meet in recent years in a supermarket in Bruyères, but we never talked again. She never came to see me to explain to me what had happened." Another contradiction.
In this same interview, she complains that her former husband is not named by his first name. When we listen to old interviews in which she talks about Christine and Jean-Marie, she says "Villemin", never, "Jean-Marie Villemin".
When Bernard was released in February 1985, Jean-Marie wanted to speak to him. With Christine, they wrote their questions which were transmitted by a journalist, Bernard Grollier.
To Jean-Marie's question: "Why did Marie-Ange go to phone outside and not from your house to report the Hollards? And why the Hollards?"
She replies, "It’s still wrong. It was the gendarmes who summoned me to the gendarmerie and who, during the interrogation, told me about the Hollards. I said I didn't know. I explained to them that I had of course thought of them, but not more than the others. At no time was it me who steered them on the wrong track."
Let's come back to an extract from the interrogation of the gendarmes: Gendarme:"You have a little idea about the culprit (s), right?" Marie-Ange Laroche: "I thought that the Hollards father and son were aware of the anonymous letters and I had the idea that they could have participated in the crime ...’, A lie which still discredits the words of Marie-Ange.
Marie-Ange could have tried to discover a truth - blown by her intuition - and divert the suspicions that could have weighed on her spouse and necessarily on her.
We have seen Marie-Ange lie several times. She is not a reliable or objective witness. Her double speech is confusing. Her behavior with Murielle after Bernard's sudden imprisonment is understandable. Her reaction is normal, she is afraid; her concern and intervention from the first days to guide the investigators on possible leads were justified, which tends to support the participation in the crime of her husband and that she sensed Bernard relatively "capable" (at least) of abducting the child despite her denials.
Why? She completely denies the latest conclusions of the investigation "We can say that Bernard is the author of the kidnapping of Gregory" and continues to assert Bernard’s ABSOLUTE innocence.
We have therefore seen that Bernard can be different when he is not in the presence of his family - who firmly believes in his innocence (including the Villemins). At the same time laid back, insolent, condescending, immature and of an excessive lightness when he is confronted with the gendarmes, then with the gravity of the facts and the suspicions which weigh on him. Everyone agrees that he is shy, Jacky will even say of Bernard that he found him a little "nunuche / naive". These words contrast with the previous description. Besides, his shyness seems to be less evident with women. To better understand this man, it is necessary to carefully observe his interviews, keeping in mind that he kidnapped Grégory.
We must take into account Jean-Marie's statements concerning Bernard's words, just before his cousin shot him on March 29, 1985. Let’s remember that Jean-Marie had repeatedly clearly threatened several times to kill Bernard if he was released. Several journalists and gendarmes also tried to alert Judge Lambert of an impending drama. Jean-Marie immediately assumed his responsibility; indeed, following this fatal confrontation, the latter returned to his wife Christine (pregnant of four months, she was hospitalized at the clinic of the "Roseraie", in Epinal. Christine had learned from the media, that she would soon be arrested and charged, the shock caused a hemorrhage and Christine lost one of the twins she was expecting.)Passing the standard of the clinic, Jean-Marie Villemin asked to contact the police. Then he calls for the presence of a nurse in case Christine falls victim to a new hemorrhage when she learns the news.
We have two different versions of the scene by Marie-Ange Laroche and Jean-Marie Villlemin:
(1985) - Marie-Ange says: "I went to get Bernard at the factory, as usual. When we got home, I looked for the keys to the garage in my anorak. Bernard was the first to go home. We heard someone run behind us. We turned around. It was Jean-Marie with his gun. Bernard spoke first. He said to him, “Jean-Marie, don't be a jerk. I understand your pain, but it was not I who killed the kid. I swear to you".
Jean-Marie said to him: "It seems that you don't want to explain yourself to me. I would like you to tell me something about Murielle and you.” Bernard replied, "Okay, but put your gun down and go up." He lowered the barrel a bit and said again: "Why Murielle said all that?" I said, "We'll explain this to you." And Jean-Marie had this sentence: "It is your fault if they are all on Christine." That's when he shot. He hadn't come to ask Bernard questions. I'm sure he intended to kill him."
In her book, "Les larmes oubliées de la Vologne" (2009), Marie-Ange claims that "he killed him without letting him explain himself." He slaughtered him like a dog,”
while the gesture (admittedly very dramatic and irreparable) followed a brief verbal exchange. In addition, he allegedly committed this act "before her eyes and under the horrified look of their four-year-old son". A term that the Laroche family’s council also used in television interviews. Sébastien Laroche did not see his father die, the little boy was in the house.
Marie-Ange LAROCHE on 03/29/85 at 2:30 p.m. (1:30 a.m. after the facts) : "At the time of the gunshot, my son Sébastien was in another part of the basement, he came running".
Lucien BOLLE, Marie-Ange LAROCHE's brother 03/29/85 (1h30 after the facts) : "I went a bit before Bernard to intervene and Jean-Marie said to me immediately: "Lucien this does not concern you, go away or I will shoot”. Sébastien, who had certainly followed me from the living room to the basement, came to our side and Bernard said to me: "take the kid and go back up"; so I took the kid and went back upstairs, barely got up the stairs when I heard the gunshot."
Lucien Bolle 04/16/1985: "Meanwhile Sébastien had come down. He was in the garage, Bernard told me "take the kid and come back up". I then went back to the living room with Sébastien, as soon as I arrived at the living room, I heard the shot."
Master Welzer will say that this declaration is simply a figure of speech!
This is apparently not the case for his client, who locates her son in the basement and claims that he "rushed, horrified, to see his father die before his eyes".
In this kind of context, distorting the truth can have major consequences, as we saw with Jean-Marie. Why add drama to the drama?
Jean-Marie details the brief face-to-face meeting with his victim:
He says that Bernard Laroche seemed to taunt him, did not want to argue with him and said "that the experts had been paid (by his lawyers) to accuse Christine". Jean-Marie admits having considered taking Marie-Ange and Sébastien as hostages to force the police to hear Murielle. But before the vision of his cousin hit in the chest, he only thought of running away. Christine refutes the version of the Bolles and Me Welzer, who claim in the press that Jean-Marie fired without warning.
Marie-Ange Laroche appears, desperate, on the arm of one of her brothers. Me Welzer urges her to speak to the media. At the entrance to the cabinet, the lawyer selects the journalists. Marie-Ange barely rips the words from her dry throat. Nobody dares to question her and only the FR3 reporter manages to conduct the interview. The young widow repeats that Jean-Marie fired without waiting for her cousin's answers. But she doesn't linger on this scene. Above all, she accuses Christine and Captain Sesmat of having pushed Jean-Marie to crime. Beyond the murderer, these are now the two targets to be hit.
Laurence Lacour, The pyre of the innocent.
Of course, other reasons explain Jean-Marie's gesture : To Christine he will say - "I couldn't take it anymore, I couldn't take it anymore. It was stronger than me. I had to do it." Jean-Marie also tells her that he did it for her.
He could not bear that Christine was smeared - by Nancy’s SRPJ police, Bernard’s lawyers and the press - to try to indict the man they both believe responsible for the murder of their child.
“The lawyers for the civil party, impatient to classify the Laroche case (but why?), will stalk the mother without restraint. The SRPJ investigators, blinded by their disdain for the gendarmes (who believed in Laroche's guilt) and their own arrogance, who will do everything to make her crack by distilling rumors and questionable information to journalists eager for "scoops", whatever the cost. The press, incapable of setting limits, which inexorably sets out on the worst path. Finally, in the midst of such a swamp, the incontrovertible judge Lambert, tossed by the lawyers, influenced by the police, abused by the reporters. Some are familiar with him, urging him to charge "this bitch". Jean-Michel Bezzina and his wife, virulent anti-Villemins activists, take over correspondence from two press agencies, a radio station and five newspapers. Alone, fed by information from their friends from the Nancy SRPJ, they are able to guide opinion, and therefore the judge's investigation, which is so sensitive to the media. And opinion, on so many ignored wanderings, forged certainties."
The raptors of Vologne, by Jacques Buob.
We note that, according to Jean-Marie, Bernard Laroche does not want to speak with his cousin and tries to slip away.
Moreover, It's astonishing , that Bernard did not immediately try to contact (himself) Jean-Marie to plead his cause, reassure or convince him of his alleged innocence, - a contrario, Jacky's struggled for two years to persuade his brother Jean-Marie that he was not the crow.
Interview Bernard Grollier: Jean-Marie asks a new relevant question:
"Why did you not come to explain yourself to me after your first police custody (October 25) when you went to Michel's, next door? Why, not once, did you try to contact us until your second arrest?"
(October 31, 6 days apart).
Bernard said, "I went to Michel's house because I learned from my aunt Louisette that he wanted to see me. - Michel was angry with Bernard - he thought that he had been trapped by him; on a silent phone recording, we heard the voice of Daniel, his son in the background; Jean-Marie then suspected Michel. Coming out of his house, I saw Jean-Marie. He turned his head and made ‘the one who did not see me. He got into his car. What did you want me to do?"
Maybe call him? He had the time and the opportunity to do it, Bernard will be arrested six days later, on November 5, 84. After his detention, Bernard should have asked to see Jean-Marie and above all to reframe his lawyers who favored the cancellation of legal evidence, subtly directing the investigation towards Christine.
If Jean-Marie really intended to kill Bernard Laroche without letting him speak, he would not have fled and would have kidnapped Marie-Ange and Sébastien, (as he had decided). Jean-Marie was undoubtedly surprised by his own act. Of course Jean-Marie wanted answers! He proves that he is human. He says it himself, he had lost confidence in Justice which did not provide him with any answers. Bernard took refuge behind his lawyers, he declared that he was present when judge Lambert had clearly suggested to Me Welzer "the solution" to "whitewash" the first accused:
"if you take me a better culprit, I release your client.”
Bernard was talking with his lawyers about the development of the case, he could not ignore the strategy chosen to exonerate him. I tend to believe in the unchanging version of Jean-Marie who assumed and confessed to having planned the murder for quite some time. Christine confirmed this, stating that they had tried "to lower his guard" in order not to frighten Bernard and to reach him more easily (through the press). If Bernard said that the experts had been paid, the words imputed to Bernard trigger the crime, and lessen it in the eyes of the jurors.
However, in the case of Jean-Marie, I don't believe it. Jean-Marie and Christine were honest about their plan of action without minimizing their intentions. They both assume their responsibilities. Why would Jean-Marie lie? He was already lost long before the murder. He spoke to Captain Sesmat of his distress, "I almost did a bullshit, I almost killed Laroche ...", to different journalists ... it's a call for help, incompatible with the attitude described in Marie-Ange's testimony. The verbal exchange is succinct, Jean-Marie has never lied on this point either. I also notice a link in the words reported by Marie-Ange and Jean-Marie: Christine and the expertises. It therefore seems completely plausible and logical that Jean-Marie and Bernard actually had a discussion about Christine. It is also conceivable that Jean-Marie misinterpreted Bernard's answer or perceived a certain provocation.
Comments