top of page
Writer's pictureMaryline

Autopsy findings

Updated: May 4, 2022



The autopsy took place on October 17, 1984 in Nancy in the presence of the investigating judge, Judge Lambert, two gendarmes and two medical examiners. The two forensic pathologists are Dr De Ren and Dr Pagel. Doctors first observe during the general examination of the body that there is no hematoma, bruise, lesions or traces of defense. This observation seems to indicate that the victim did not fight at the time of the rope. A bruise is however observed after detachment of the scalp.


In the stomach, forensic scientists note the presence of a small amount of water and residues that look like pieces of apple. Blood and part of a lung are taken. There will not be enough blood drawn to establish a full toxicological assessment. This sample will only indicate that Grégory had no alcohol in the blood. The lung sample will show that a small amount of water has been inhaled.


The viscera and other elements used to collect diatoms and confirm the positive diagnosis of drowning will not be removed (heart, brain, bone marrow, kidney, liver). In addition, the water in the lungs will not be analyzed. Forensic scientists will later say that these samples were not wanted by Judge Lambert despite their insistence.



What we can learn from this autopsy:



No apparent violence. The clothes are clean.

No scratches or bruises made by the strings (these were probably intended to hold the beanie).

Large mossy mushroom in the mouth and nostrils (relatively fresh corpse, origin of the air-water mixture). This assumes that the child has breathed underwater or on the surface of the water.

The lips were cyanotic, the lungs distended and with numerous Tardieu spots (appearing during asphyxial agony).

The bronchi and bronchioles were filled with hydroaeric vapor.

The right atrium of the heart contained fluid blood ("fresh" corpse).

The liver and kidneys were congestive (accumulation of fluid in an organ).

The stomach contained a small amount of water and food residue "resembling" an apple (confirmation of Gregory's snack).

The conclusion of the autopsy is that the child died of: "submersion-asphyxia followed by submersion-inhibition which could have been favored by contact with the body in cold water, resulting very quickly in stopping respiratory followed by cardiac arrest".


Obviously, the medical examiners conclude that Grégory was indeed alive when he was immersed in water. He breathed water and therefore inhaled and ingested water but very quickly, he was victim of respiratory arrest of reflex origin or hydrocution. This would explain why the body remained on the surface because during death by hydrocution, the presence of air in the lungs prevents the body from sinking.



The doubts raised by the autopsy:


During the trial of Jean-Marie Villemin following Bernard Laroche's murder, forensic experts and experts will have to express themselves on the causes of the death of Grégory and on the results of autopsy. Dr Le Breton, toxicology expert who analyzed the autopsy samples, said that the absence of foreign bodies or plant particles in the lungs dissected by Professor Duprez made drowning in the Vologne impossible.


"It necessarily exists in wild water, and the Vologne is tumultuous, of mineral and plant microorganisms in suspension. There are thousands of them in a single drop of river water. Now, analysis of Grégory Villemin's lungs by Professor Duprez reveals that there are no foreign bodies in the bronchioles or in the alveoli. This observation was made on samples taken from the five lobes of the lungs. This formally excludes drowning in a river."

He suggests that Grégory could have been drowned in a bathtub and then thrown into the waters of Vologne. In a book entitled 'Forbidden to deceive',

Dr. Le Breton will return to this autopsy. For him, it is impossible to die from drowning and hydrocution, one or the other. The description of the body made by medical examiners (blue, cyanotic, presence of an odor or a foam in the corner of the lips) would correspond to a drowning. Likewise, Dr Raymond Martin, a French forensic specialist, will write:


"We have never seen these two forms of death coexist. We observe one or the other death, the blue drowned man (primary drowning, the individual is cyanotic) or the white drowned man (hydrocution, not water in the lungs and the body is not cyanotic), not both at the same time. In my opinion, the cause of death is drowning by asphixia because we found water in the lungs and stomach and smell in his mouth. "

When Judge Simon resumed the investigation, two new forensic pathologists, Dr. Marin and Gisselman, were contracted to study forensic science reports and to answer questions about Grégory's death. They are also invited to a re-enactment on the banks of the Vologne. According to them, forensic data show that the child may have been tied up after his death or be anesthetized before being tied up and drowned:


"Before being immersed in water, the child may have been temporarily anesthetized or rendered unconscious by inhalation of ether or chloroform, causing death or suppressing reflex reactions when immersed in water" (...) "The possibility of prior drowning in a bathtub or forced maintenance of the child's head in water possibly contained in a container is possible."


The conclusions of the autopsy:


"[...] the death of the child Grégory Villemin is directly and exclusively related to a vital submersion with double origin, asphyxiation and inhibition" therefore does not allow to determine if Grégory died drowned elsewhere than in (the) Vologne before being thrown there - a prior drowning in a bathtub was considered possible - or if he was thrown alive in the waters of the river, or if he was tied up before or after his death.


Grégory's autopsy will be highly criticized given the few samples taken and its conclusion ... The judge's order dated October 17, 1984 and addressed to doctors Gérard de Ren and Élisabeth Pagel instructed them to "possibly take all samples for later expert opinions", but the non-sampling of the child's viscera prevents find out if he had been drugged beforehand with any substance.



29 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

DNA

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page