We can consider two aspects of expertise: Material expertise (technical and scientific examinations of the support) & expertise in comparison to writing.
Writing expertise : Five writings are listed between March 4, 1983 and July 24, 1985 but the last letter received on July 25 by Monique Villemin has not been studied by the experts. Three writings are in capital letters (the first two and the last) and two in cursive writing.
Material expertise : The supports as such (paper, ink) have not been or have hardly been studied. On October 30, 1984, in Nancy, judge Lambert and the gendarmerie staff met to take stock of the progress of the investigation. Two writing experts, Annie Jacquin-Keller and Marie-Jeanne Berrichon-Sedeyn, are also invited to this meeting. The first expert appointed by the judge, Ms. Jacquin-Keller, explains that she observed a 'foulage' on the letter claiming the crime. A gendarme from the Metz Research Section, Denis Klein, a writing expert was invited to highlight this 'foulage', which he does with low-angle light. During the meeting of October 30, all participants (judge, clerk, gendarmes) observe this 'foulage'. The minutes of this meeting will be canceled by the Nancy accusation chamber a few weeks later, for non-compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.
According to the report by Gendarme Klein charged with exploiting this 'foulage', two initials are visible in bottom of the letter: a calligraphic capital L and a typographic capital B. These two initials L and B seem to correspond perfectly to the signature of Bernard Laroche. Using a reproduction bench and grazing light, the press will be photographed by expert Klein. Following expert advice, Judge Lambert will then request an expert assessment of this letter from a German laboratory of the "BundesKriminalAmt" (federal criminal bureau) equipped with a device called the ESDA, which makes it possible to identify crows. On November 12, 1984, the gendarme sent to the judge the photographs of the 'foulage' accompanied by his report specifying:
"The streaking elements observed by the majority of the personnel present on October 30, 1984 in the Nancy research section, juxtaposed with the documents provided by Mr. Laroche Bernard, reveals graphic similarities."
The photographs of this 'foulage' will be lost and will not appear never in the file. During the investigation by the new examining magistrate Simon, Judge Lambert will be heard concerning the absence of the photographs in the file but he will not be able to justify what they have become. On September 12, 1988, Denis Klein gave Judge Simon a copy of his report and three photographs of the 'foulage'. On the same letter claiming the crime, a search for papillary traces was carried out with magnetic powder. This act is difficult to understand because the fingerprint powder does not reveal traces on porous substrates. The search for traces was therefore doomed to failure. Other products could have been used like the ninhydrin known and used since 1954. Because of this research, the German laboratory will judge the letter unusable. The change to powder altered the document and made it impossible to use the ESDA which allows the search and highlighting of the 'foulage'. The raven's letters have been little and badly exploited.
These could have been the subject of numerous examinations: search for papillary traces with ninhydrin, research of 'foulage' with the ESDA, study of the physical and chemical characteristics of paper, envelopes, inks. Shortcomings in the processing of these documents and in the use of technical and scientific police greatly weakened the investigation. As a reminder of the context of the time, in the early 1980s, France had left police laboratories completely obsolete. In 1985, there were 35 scientists in these laboratories. This case contributed to a collective awareness of the imperative need to modernize the French technical and scientific police.
HANDWRITING EXPERTISE
Five writings are listed between March 4, 1983 and July 24, 1985. The first four will be studied by the various experts.
To identify the writer, more than ten experts approved by a court of appeal or by the Court of Cassation will be appointed in this file. The first expert, Colonel Antoine Argoud will be appointed the day after Grégory’s death and he will designate Roger Jacquel, father of Liliane Jacquel and father-in-law of Jacky Villemin as the author of the letters. Mrs. Jacquin-Keller and Mrs. Berrichon-Sedeyn conclude that there is a great similarity between the writings of the crow and the dictations of Bernard Laroche. The following seven experts Alain Buquet, Françoise de Ricci d'Arnoux, Jean Glenisson, Roger Laufer, Paul Ourliac, Eliane Petit de Mirbeck, and Géneviève Gille, all approved by the Court of Cassation, identify by being more or less categorical, Christine Villemin. Finally, Denis Klein, a writing expert with the Metz Court of Appeal, will be appointed four times by judges Simon and Martin to answer specific questions about the writings in question.
Here are the conclusions of the experts and panels of experts:
1. Antoine Argoud.
This one designates Roger Jacquel as the author of the letters of the raven. However, at the time of his expertise, this expert only had Roger Jacquel's writing as a comparison writing.
2. Mrs. Jacquin-Keller and Mrs. Berrichon-Sedeyn.
The two experts are working on the same question pieces, the first four letters of the crow, and on the same comparison pieces drawn up by 147 individuals. Ms. Jacquin-Keller's conclusion is that the writing of the crow corresponds Bernard Laroche's handwriting. The second expert, Mrs. Berrichon-Sedeyn examines the file for the first time during the meeting of October 30, 1984 in Nancy. She quickly forges an opinion. Solicited by the gendarmes but without being officially requisitioned, she gave her opinion to judge Lambert in a letter sent two days later on November 1, 1984. She would then receive a requisition from the gendarmerie asking her for a full appraisal. She then worked on the same question and comparison pieces as Ms. Jacquin-Keller and came to the same conclusion.
3. First expert college: Alain Buquet and Françoise de Ricci d´Arnoux.
This panel of experts believes that the letters were written with the right hand. For them, the handwriting which presents the least deviations from the handwriting of the crow is that of Mrs. Christine Villemin who has 23.4% of incompatibility. The writing of Bernard Laroche is incompatible at 58.33% with the writing of the crow and ranks fifth on the list of these two experts.
4. Second panel of experts: Jean Glenisson and Roger Laufer.
These experts believe that the letters were written with the left hand but by a right-handed person. They conclude that:
"Ms. Christine Villemin is the author of the four anonymous writings and the three adjacent envelopes."
"Analogies with the cursive writing of Bernard Laroche and the pieces in question but none of these analogies is decisive."
5. Third panel of experts: Paul Ourliac, Eliane Petit de Mirbeck and Géneviève Gille.
This panel of experts only works on the letter of formal notice of the crime, its envelope and on the comparative writings. Experts believe that it is a left-handed test by a right-handed or a left-handed person. They exclude with certainty the writing of Bernard Laroche and seven other people (including Marie-Ange Laroche, Roger Jacquel and Jean Marie Villemin) and conclude that there are:
"serious and sufficiently consistent presumptions to attribute to Ms. Christine Villemin the disputed documents."
6. Denis Klein.
He will answer the specific questions of the investigating judge in four separate expert reports. His conclusions will be as follows:
"The handwritten mentions of the letter of formal notice for the crime are not the work of the hand of Mrs. Louisette Jacob."
"All anonymous documents come from a single adult author with the usual cursive script, tilted to the right. The latter wrote some documents by hand with a particularly intelligent left hand (cursive documents) and others with the right hand, taking care to "hide" his usual graphics. We are unable to define the gender of the author of the question document."
"All the documents provided by the judge, the four envelopes and the five writings (including the letter of July 24, 1985), probably come from a single writer."
"Following very thorough scientific analyzes, and this by sophisticated means which could not be exploited at the time of the deposit of the previous reports, it can be affirmed that the letter and the envelope of July 24, 1985 emanate from the hand of a third person."
"The writers Ginette and Michel Villemin are to be excluded."
"There are a lot of concordances between the writing of Christine Villemin and the letter of April 27, 1983, written in typographic character, but there are some differences which do not make it possible not to affirm that it is the writing of Christine Villemin."
“Despite the rare graphic divergences observed in the writing of Mr. Bernard Laroche, the numerous concordances of form allow us to attribute the cursive handwritten documents to him."
In this last report, addressed to judge Martin and dated December 10, 1991, the author recalls the existence of a 'foulage' on the letter claiming the crime, a calligraphic capital L and a typographical capital B. The expert Klein transmits his initial report and photographs of this 'foulage'.
During an investigation, the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that only the investigating judge can appoint an expert by order. However, the first three experts are directly appointed by the gendarmes. The gendarmes will later explain that despite their request, Judge Lambert did not consider it necessary to issue an order of expert commission. The first three expert reports produced by Colonel Antoine Argoud, Ms. Jacquin-Keller and Ms. Berrichon-Sedeyn are therefore canceled for non-compliance with the criminal procedure.
The other three groups of experts are regularly appointed and their reports are attached to the file. Their various studies overwhelm Christine Villemin and constitute the main charge against Grégory's mother, who since the 'Non-lieu' in February 1993 has been completely dismissed.
More recently (2017)
Christine Navarro, script authentication expert:
Two letters from the crow written in March and April 1983 (typographic style)
"present many similarities and above all no significant difference in their graphic characteristics with Mrs. Jacqueline Thuriot Jacob's handwriting."
The 47-page expertise report also makes a series of new hypotheses on the letter alleging the crime:
"it was written by someone who had access to the "same batch of envelopes" as those used by Jacqueline Jacob. The paper also comes from the same type of support, namely a notebook with large tiles".
Thus, "Jacqueline Jacob would have written the first two anonymous letters while a link is established between the assassin and Jacqueline Jacob concerning the third and fourth anonymous letters."
The comparative analysis of these reports shows divergences and contradictions in the analyzes. However, no confrontation was carried out between the various colleges of experts. Shortly before his accident, judge Simon had decided to bring together the different writing experts to compare their points of view. This confrontation will never take place and expert reports in writing will remain a heavy burden for Christine Villemin.
But what is the value of these reports? The reports of the expert groups constituted a serious accusation against Christine Villemin and there is reason to question the relevance and the scientific value of the examinations compared to handwriting. It is unfortunate that the reports contain gross errors, inappropriate terms, inaccuracies and questionable conclusions. The authors highlight certain concordances between a writing and a writer, but fail to analyze the differences for this same writer. The report of the first panel of experts mentions a 'foulage' study (under unsuitable conditions) while the two following expert reports do not mention a paper and 'foulge' analysis. None of these reports detail the conditions under which the comparison documents were prepared and collected. Did the writers have to copy a text, at what speed, in what context?
The experts did not work on the same questions and comparison documents. It therefore becomes difficult to compare their respective reports. Were the experts influenced by the conclusion of the first panel of experts who delivered their "convictions" at a press conference? Experts sometimes come to the same conclusion but with contradictions in their analyzes. In addition, the methods of analysis or the degrees of certainty are different depending on the experts. It is very different to conclude
"Christine Villemin is the author of the letters" or "there are serious and sufficiently consistent presumptions to attribute to Christine Villemin the disputed documents" or even "Christine Villemin's writing is only 23,4% incompatibility".
Comments