Marcel and Jacqueline Jacob are "presumed innocent".
Article 11. "Anyone accused of a criminal act is presumed innocent until his guilt has been legally established during a public trial where all the guarantees necessary for his defense have been assured."
I) HOW DID GREGORY DIE ?
Dr De Ren and Dr Pagel :
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".
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.
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."
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 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 Vologne, or if he was tied up before or after his death
But how has Grégory been neutralized before ?
1°) THE INSULIN THEORY
On November 9, 1984, in Docelles, a rural guard discovered on the banks of the Barba (arm of the Vologne) an empty insulin ampoule with a capacity of 2ml, its cardboard packaging and a syringe.
The discovery, on November 9, 1984 in Docelles, of an empty insulin ampoule and a used syringe could have been an important clue. These two objects were found by the rural guard who was pruning fir trees on the banks of the Barba, the small arm of the Vologne, for the ceremonies of November 11. The ampoule and syringe were hidden, apparently suspended in the trees, not far from where Gregory was found. Murielle had also designated this place as being the one where her brother-in-law got out of the car with the little boy. The vial and the syringe were indeed placed under seal by the judge, presented to Bernard Laroche for a possible expertise and then ... forgotten at the bottom of a box.
Sylvain Hebbat, 25-year-old photographer, freelance writer for the Sygma agency. This young freelance writer wonders about one of the clues, insulin, never mentioned since the crime. Judge Lambert did not exploit it and the police wondered about it for a while but without persisting, this element keeping them away from Christine.
Their journalist friends are equally discreet on the matter. Hebbat is therefore the only one to be interested when all the other reporters are pointed at the cords found by the police in the Villemin house. He first learns about the effects of an insulin injection on a non-diabetic and discovers that it can lead to a deep coma quite quickly. It is also the perfect crime that leaves no detectable mark on autopsy. He is looking for the Bolle family nurse, who is easy to find as there are only two practicing in the township. He is the first journalist to visit her. She is surprised, then confirms what everyone already knows: Jeanine Bolle, Bernard Laroche's mother-in-law, is diabetic. On the other hand, she teaches him that only Murielle knows how to practice on her mother, in case of discomfort, injections of Glucagon, a substitute product. It was even she who taught her these first aid actions.
What if Murielle had stung Grégory before he was thrown into the water in a comatose state? asks the reporter.
This hypothesis could, he thought, explain the serene face of the child, as well as the absence of traces of struggle on his intact body. And perhaps, also, provide the beginnings of an explanation for the girl's unusual presence in the kidnapping. Passionate about his discoveries, Hebbat continued his research and met a witness who revealed to him that with the insulin ampoule the press spoke of was a syringe - which is correct - but that the two objects would not have were discovered at the place and on the date indicated in the file. According to official findings, established on the basis of the declarations of the rural guard of Docelles, this clue was found on November 9, 1984 on the banks of the Barba, the small tributary of the Vologne which flows into the river in the center of the village. A few meters from where Grégory was found floating against a water reservoir.
However, according to this witness, the ampoule and the syringe were initially hidden under a stone on the edge of a small, little-used road indirectly linking Lépanges to Docelles. Finally, among other more or less important elements, Hebbat learns that a resident of this small road would have seen Bernard Laroche and Muriel driving along the Vologne at this point. This man and his brother were indeed interviewed by the SRPJ inspectors, but they were evasive and the investigators did not insist.
The Nancy SRPJ cannot ignore the turmoil and questions raised by this index. An inspector was tasked with resuming research on insulin. The man went to all the pharmacies in Docelles, Bruyères and Granges-sur-Vologne to try to find the seller of the empty ampoule and the packaging found by the river. The two elements are mismatched, which complicates research.
After investigations in various laboratories, it will be impossible to locate the retailer of this product. And therefore its purchaser. In the process, the inspector will find the forensic doctor who autopsied Grégory and asks him, about the vial of insulin, the following question: "Could this vial have been used to 'put the child to sleep' before?", to drop his body in water?
The forensic pathologist replies with a two-leaf note. He considers the injection of "a complete ampoule of novo-slow insulin" plausible, resulting in "hypoglycaemic coma" in the victim. But the doctor rules out the possibility of an intravenous injection, which he did not find during the autopsy and which he says requires special technical knowledge. On the other hand, he does not rule out an intramuscular injection "through the child's clothes, at the level of the buttock for example," although he did not notice anything visible on Grégory's body. In conclusion, without completely ruling out the hypothesis of murder with insulin, it seems to him "[...] DIFFICULT TO ENVISAGE FROM NON-PROFESSIONAL PERSONS WITH NO SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OF INJECTIONS OR OF THE MODALITIES OF ACTION OF MEDICINES."
Strangely enough, the doctor's note will remain unofficial and will never be on file, as if the magistrates who will examine it later (prosecution, indictment chamber) should ignore this trail of insulin. The police department's investigations are limited to this research alone, which the press will never hear because it does not target Christine Villemin. The Bolle family nurse is interviewed only once and again under her maiden name. As for the syringe that came with the ampoule, it is not the subject of any expertise.
The police conclusion is simple: the ampoule was indeed placed there, "by chance, by a passer-by, a diabetic who needed an injection in Docelles, on a date that we do not know". The exploitation of this index therefore comes up against, like others, with the inability of the police service to go back on the work of the gendarmerie to redact once and for all, in one direction or the other, the track leading to Bernard Laroche.
Maurice Simon exposes to everyone - parties, lawyers, chamber counsel and attorney general - the following hypothesis about the course of the crime: Gregory is neutralized with an anesthetic substance and loses consciousness; he is then tied up and deposited as is in the river, where he breathes in the water until death results from asphyxiation. Experts confirm that this scenario is compatible with known forensic data. The firefighters who drew him out described his body "supple and limp with the legs swaying and the head hanging back". The prosecutor Lecomte, also present, had been "struck by the truly obvious serenity" of the child's face. Now it is necessary to determine, if it is still possible, the anesthetic used to neutralize the little boy: ether, chloroform or insulin? The only material elements existing in the dossier concern the latter substance. Doctors explain that a dose of two milliliters like that found in Docelles on the banks of the Vologne is six times greater than that tolerated by a 4-year-old diabetic child. In this case, it should not be more than an hour and a half between the injection and the state of unconsciousness.
The instinctive reactions or reflexes will have been reduced or even abolished, depending on the depth of his coma, hence the absence of neckion marks on his wrists and on his neck. As for clinical traces, they are not necessarily detectable at autopsy, insulin syringes have very fine needles. More questions to be clarified follow in cascade: where would the child have had this insulin injection? Where would he have been sequestered while awaiting the effect of the injection and his release? In the shed on Chemin Tachet? In a car trunk? In a house ? And, if this assumption is incorrect, in which container or tub would he possibly have been drowned?
Detection of insulin during an autopsy is very difficult, if not impossible if no injection is suspected.
A sample of the vitreous humor within the hour of death would show the hypoglycemia.
To detect an insulin injection, a sample should be taken from the area of skin where the injection occurred.
Cerebrospinal fluid should also be taken to compare the total insulin level with the natural insulin level and thus prove that there was insulin injected.
The natural insulin level can be determined by quantifying a molecule produced naturally at the same time as insulin: peptide C.
There was no suspicion of injection at the time of the autopsy.
The presence of insulin in Gregory's body has not been proven and remains only a guess. No toxicological analysis has supported this hypothesis.
2°) COULD GRÉGORY HAVE BEEN KNOCKED OUT ?
During the autopsy, the experts found the presence of a bruise on the top of Grégory's forehead. Unfortunately the injury has not been thoroughly analyzed and we do not know the true extent of this hematoma. There has been no search for lesions or bruises invisible to the naked eye. Jean-Marie tried to hide it from Christine when Grégory was resting in his coffin. Thinking about the weapon used, I remembered an event that took place in December 1982 between the Villemin family and the Jacob couple.
In Thibaut Solano's book, Jacqueline jostled Christine by treating her as a "Slut", before going to look for a kind of baton in the trunk of their car ; un "nerf de boeuf", thirty to fifty centimeters long and varying in diameter from a half to a centimeter, is composed of nerves and tendons beef coarsely braided and then dried. When dry, they form a very hard yellowish baton, but which retains a certain elasticity.
Could a quick but brutal blow make a 4 year old unconscious with this object? Yes, absolutely.
I guess his beanie has been pulled down over his face before, for some pretext to reassure the child. Of course, this element is speculative but I found it interesting to note it. Did they have multiple batons or clubs ?
Knocking out a child is a quick and efficient solution. Hiding Grégory's face helps prevent panicking the child and makes things less difficult for everyone.
To pretend a surprise, a gift, even a game is more than enough to convince a 4 years old child. But it's also a way to avoid seeing his face, his look, his expression throughout the process and after his death.
Psychologically speaking, killing Grégory was, (perhaps), a difficult task for one of the murderers. Sure, these people killed a child, but they were dictated by their emotions, controlled by their hatred for Jean-Marie and their overwhelming need to annihilate him. In their eyes, we know that Grégory was their “holy grail” ... only to achieve their goal. But this child meant absolutely nothing to them.
No emotional or family ties whatsoever since Jean-Marie & Christine did not have any relationship with Marcel & Jacqueline themselves. However, he was a child and he was not the object of their hatred. No need to make him suffer needlessly and watch him die.
The insulin found on the bank of the Barba seemed a convincing clue in the 1984 scenario, Bernard & Murielle, his accomplice in the murder.
Jean-Marie & Christine have long believed in Murielle's guilt. At the time, Bernard was alone in the sights of investigators. Indeed, this piece of evidence could be linked to the crime but we have no certainty.
WHERE WAS GRÉGORY HELD CAPTIVE ?
1°) JACQUELINE & MARCEL'S HOME IN AUMONTZEY ?
No I doubt it, for two important reasons:
1/ Valérie, their daughter. In 1984, she was 16. Her day ended around the same time as Murielle Bolle, ie 4.30 pm / 5 pm. We know for herself (from her testimony), that in the evening, her father Marcel, called their home to check with Valérie about the information broadcast on TV.
This detail also proves that Marcel and his wife were necessarily at the factory at some point.
2/ Aumontzey is 20 minutes from Docelles - approximate time. This gives us 1 hour of time on the road with a missing child said to be in danger of death. In addition, these comings and goings are, again, unnecessary. Docelles and all the other small villages mentioned in the case are surrounded by isolated or remote corners.
Let’s not forget that these individuals were supposed to be at work. Someone they knew might have recognized them, especially in Aumontzey. Anyway, I think we can rule out that possibility.
2°/ DEYCIMONT
After dark, any place far from homes and hidden among dense trees could have done the trick. In a call, the crow had mentioned a place between Lépanges and Docelles, Deycimont.
"We were waiting for your wife at the exit of Deycimont, I would have raped her, [...] while the young - Bernard ? - would have held her".
This village is barely 6 minutes from Docelles. These three villages are crossed in a straight line by the D44 road, where the same couple was seen twice in the afternoon of October 16.
Between Lépanges and Docelles, this section of road crosses fields and wooded areas.
The D44 road is also linked to a testimony that seems very important to me. The green Renault 5 seen by Jean Descy near a discreet path (Tachet) which gives access to the Vologne. This man was subsequently the victim of an arson, an element which tends to demonstrate the intervention of people probably involved in the crime. We do not know if the Tachet path is located around the Deycimont exit.
3°/ A SHED
The next potential location is a shed near Prey, - the village is located 3 minutes from Lépanges.
Along the Vologne at the exit of Lépanges, where there was "binder twine and newspapers". It’s not known how Albert knew this shed or if other members of his family frequented it on fishing trips in the river.
Two paths are accessible by car, the D44 or the D30. However, on October 16, Murielle said that Bernard first stopped at Lépanges, next to a blocked road. Investigators had verified the accuracy of the information.
I noticed that the blocked lane is the D30 road ; the only way to get to Prey is the D44, but in the opposite direction, towards Laval-sur-Vologne, where Bernard does his shopping around 6 p.m. We don't have any photos of this place but this one is worth exploring.
4°/ THE "TACHET" PATH
The Tachet path was mentioned by Jean Descy. This witness had given some details to the investigators, in particular "at the end of the path, there is an old wooden hut". The path is named after a nearby farm. Where could the path be located ?
Unfortunately my research was unsuccessful. We only have geographical indications of eyewitnesses. I did not find any available photos of the place in question despite the abundance of information on the Grégory case.
Obviously, in 37 years, the road infrastructure and the landscape has changed; so I looked for aerial pictures of the city of Docelles from the 1980s that could help me see more clearly, in order to try to find this famous path.
In my opinion, the only path that can potentially match the indications is where investigators believe the kidnapper gave the child to the killers, the "privileged place."
Indeed, in photo number 1 - / 1960s /, you can see that a building (house/farm ?) is located at the other end of this path. This same building is present in photo number 2 taken in 1988, 4 years after the crime. It could be the farm that interests us.
In addition, we can see that in 1980s, a path leads directly to this farm via the D44 (the path crosses the train rails to go to the farm) - orange arrows. And that we can access this path by the "rue d'Alsace", at the "privileged place" - orange point.
The 1km trail runs along the rails (and the river) to the building, was there a cabin or a wooden shed on this stretch of path in the 1980s? Maybe but we can't confirm it.
Anyway, this path allowed the killer to:
1) Throw the body out of sight in the Vologne (We know that Grégory was dropped into the water in the city center, "place de l’Espine ”, not at the “ privileged place ”) - see below.
2) Hold Gregory captive in a cabin, knock him out, poison him with insulin or drug him, drown him in a bucket and tie him up.
3) This place is very close to where we found Grégory's body, about 2/3 minutes by car.
I did not find other similar paths allowing easy access to the river. I had chosen a path higher up on the D44, similar to the description given by Jean Descy. However, this path leads to the other side of the valley, into wooded areas. We are not sure where Grégory was taken.
THE VEHICLES
This vehicle is the one in which Grégory was kidnapped.
Marcel and Jacqueline owned a burgundy Renault 9.
A light van or "une fourgonette"
A "camionette", or a "fourgonette" (van) is an automobile transport vehicle primarily intended for goods. The term "light utility vehicle" is also used.
Two people, a woman and a man with binoculars, were seen on several occasions on the CD44 between Lépanges and Docelles, next to a light van parked on the side.
Marcel and Jacqueline owned a Renault car.
However, Bernard Laroche also owned a light beige Citroën Ami 8 br(eak). It could correspond to the description by its size and its color. The Citroën ami 8 is not a van but the elongated shape and the 4 windows of the car (2 large, 1 medium in the trunk, and 1 small integrated in the front window on the passenger and driver side) could be confused with the description of a van. I found it interesting to note it. Tire tracks that could correspond to a Renault 5 or an Ami 8 were discovered at the "privileged place".
The green Renault 5
Traces of 135 × 14 caliber ZX tires (found on Renault vehicles; Christine Villemin owned an R 5 at the time) and a print of the heels of a woman's shoe were found near "the privileged" place to Docelles. These traces are those of a car type 4L, R5, LN Citroën or Ami 8.
The Nancy judicial police will use this evidence to accuse Christine.
We know that several family members owned a green Renault 5. But investigators did not disclose who the owners were. Moreover, by the time this element was re-examined, all had necessarily built strong alibis.
A green Renault 5 was also seen between 5.15pm / 5.20pm parked on the side of the D44 road near Chemin Tachet (Jean Descy).
Where was Gregory's body thrown into the water?
Also confusing is where Gregory may have been dropped off (better known as the "privileged place". Witnesses, Mr. and Mrs. Godfroy had observed on October 16, 1984 around 5:20 p.m. traces of water left by a car having left the small dirt road, 400 meters downstream from the Bailey bridge in the center of Docelles, to take the direction of Lépanges by the D44.
The day after the crime, the gendarmes believe they have discovered the place where Grégory's body could have been submerged. On the spot, they note the trace of a heel which could be that of a woman's boot as well as the traces of tires of a vehicle. The casts are made by the gendarmes.
To determine the place where Grégory may have been thrown in the Vologne, flotation tests are carried out with a mannequin. By throwing the mannequin from the place discovered by the gendarmes, the body does not arrive at all at the place of the discovery of the body. These tests made that the place designated by the gendarmes is not compatible with the position of discovery of the body and with its condition (clean, without scratches and without plants). The casts are therefore no longer used once the place of immersion is called into question.
The tire prints will again be used by the SRPJ police to search for materials.
Tire moldings correspond to a small vehicle. Despite the incompatibility of the dumping site, the castings are compared to the tires of Christine Villemin's car. In a report by Haguenoer and Roelandt, the four tires on Christine Villemin's vehicle will be identified as “radically different for the front tires” and with “a slightly different stud width for the rear tires”. These results will put a definitive end to the study of this material index.
Judge Simon's flotation tests and the "privileged place"
At the edge of the river, at the immersion site selected by the SRPJ, the judicial authorities discovered the existence of a stream flowing between the road and the Vologne and forming an obstacle to its access. The magistrate and then the clerk try to jump over this stream, which is not impossible but becomes much more difficult with a fourteen kilogram child, dead or alive, in the arms. In situation, the very media “privileged place” of the SRPJ stumbles on this obstacle obscured by the first investigation whereas its existence was known and that photos appeared in the file as of July 1985. Judge Lambert and successive prosecutors do not have ever been to these places ? We can doubt it.
The investigators are divided between Lépanges and the banks of the Vologne. In the center of the village, they take measurements, in particular of the main street which borders Christine's factory and the distance to the post office, then take an inventory of all the possible routes between the clothing factory and her home.
They also need to establish the condition of the river on October 16, 1984, its depth, flow, temperature and, more generally, the weather for that day; the state of the vegetation to determine the visibility of the premises; the hours of passage of the trains on the railway along the Vologne to search for possible witnesses, the nature of the work carried out at that time, their impact on the course and speed of the water flow with a view to reconstitution.
The secretary of the Docelles fishing company provides the names of the holders of fishing cards used to the banks, recesses, shelters, etc. He describes the poor state of the dirt road, making it necessary to drive "first and practically at the speed of a man's step" any vehicle wishing to go to the "privileged place" from which, according to the SRPJ, Christine could have access. threw her child into the water in a mad race against time. It also reveals the presence of four workers who were working that evening "on the immediate edge of the Vologne", had "perfect visibility" and left the place at 6 pm, that is to say half an hour after the call to Michel. Precious witnesses. The volunteer firefighters who rescued the child and the doctor who refused the burial permit are heard for the first time. They should describe the condition of the body.
Was he flexible or stiff? His face, red or pale? His clothes, completely wet or partially dry? Who did the firefighter in charge of telling the family about his death go first? Albert Villemin explained that when he got out of the water his grandson’s body seemed "still soft, mild in terms of temperature." We must therefore determine the exact causes and circumstances of his death. Maurice Simon appointed Professors Marin and Gisselman for this, two forensic experts who will have to make a decision in view of the first results of the investigation added to the findings of 1984. The magistrate wants to know everything, and nothing should be left in the shade. His letters rogatory detailing its questions and its working orientations are five, six, seven pages long, or even more. Taking advantage of the withdrawal of journalists and a start of confidence found among witnesses and villagers, Maurice Simon beats the Vosges countryside accompanied by his clerk, as quiet and enigmatic as him.
.
Gregory's ghost appears, taken from a car. A model of his weight (14 kilos) and height (1.03 m) was dressed like him, with a few color details. A pink beanie, a blue anorak, red velvet pants and, on the feet, little black lace-up boots. The plastic child has light, chubby hands, pulled over his stomach, a string around the wrists, another around the neck. The doll only travels five meters and sinks to the bottom of the river, where a frogman goes to look for it. We repeat the experience after having equipped it with a beacon to spot it. It is still sinking, sixty meters further. Bitter technical discussions pitted the civil party against the defense under the scrutiny of the magistrate.
Me Lombard's team challenges this mannequin who fails to leave the PJ's privileged location and rubs on the riverbed before coming to a stop, caught in the branches and roots. Lawyers argue that it lacks the density and flexibility of the arms and legs of a human body. They ask that the experiment stop there, but Attorney General Estrangin orders it to continue. Returning to the town hall of Docelles after several unsuccessful attempts, Me Lombard claims the mannequin employed by the gendarmes in October 1984. A form without arms, head or legs so that it does not remain hanging on the branches. Maurice Simon, acceding to all requests, sends for the shapeless model.
Very light, this one spins on the Vologne, crosses the two dams and will run aground in ten minutes in various places of the bank. But on arrival it is stained with greenery, while Grégory was intact. From the road, we follow all of this without difficulty, because in the fall the river is uncovered and visible on this entire stretch at the entrance to the village. The experiment is repeated from different places and until night to finally satisfy both camps, each appropriating the results of one of the models.
"The pyre of the innocent", Laurence Lacour
It is highly unlikely that Gregory's body was thrown into the water there. Indeed, he would have had to cross nearly 400 meters in water, strewn with protruding rocks and at a specific place the river is almost "empty", 15 centimeters deep. The little one's clothes were clean and free from any vegetation or other snags. In addition, it seems impossible that the body was put in the water between 5.15 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. It's probable that he was thrown into the water in the "Barba", small river parallel to the paper mill and the fire brigade hangar in the center of Docelles.
If the body had traveled the 400 meters from the "privileged" point to the Bailey Bridge, Grégory would necessarily have had various bruises or scratches.
In addition, after multiple floatation tests, the body remained stuck on the crest of the dam 200 meters below. The Bresse valves were reopened for the flotation tests. The body took 26 minutes and 30 seconds to travel the 400 meters, helped by a firefighter who, being blocked, released it twice. On the other hand, the flotation tests carried out on the banks of the Barba are conclusive, submerged near the fire station.
In the photos below, the dark blue line corresponds to the impossible path, which starts from the "privileged" point 400 meters upstream, where we found footprints, the one that will overwhelm Christine Villemin. The light blue line is the path from the stationery.
The body submerged during the floatation tests never reached where the body was found. The red line corresponds to the path where the body was probably dropped off in the small stream - "Le Barba".
He arrives at the exact spot where he was found. From there it will take 6 minutes and 12 seconds to get to the exact location. To me, it’s clear that the body was immersed here and nowhere else.
During a re-enactment with Judge Lambert, Murielle Bolle's memory did not falter to go from Bruyères to Lépanges. However, she had not recognized Espine square in Docelles. She did not deduce the name of this town until she discovered in the newspaper that Grégory was found dead in Docelles.
But she did not see a river nearby and, during the reconstruction, did not recognize the fire station, close to the river. According to her statements, Bernard had parked then got out of the vehicle with Grégory and took him away, holding his hand. The probability that Grégory was thrown into the river in broad daylight, in a place as uncovered as the center of the village or in a place determined by the SRPJ is almost zero.
The opinions of Professors Marin and Gisselman, forensic pathologists, invited to the autumn reconstructions, support this hypothesis. According to them, the tying up of the child may have been a macabre staging after his death, which may have taken place elsewhere than in Vologne. An action supposing an organization, time, perhaps a relay and a place of sequestration, all elements incompatible with the eighteen to twenty minutes available to Christine to suddenly kill her child. The state of play and the fact that the workers working right by the river did not see any blue packages tossed around before they left at 6 p.m. reinforces this feeling. A woman thought she saw around 5.30 pm on the Vologne, in the center of Docelles, "a blue circle and nothing protruding" that she had also taken for a garbage bag, but no one else has seen nothing until 9:00/9:15 pm. And we discover that Grégory's anorak wore large reflective greenish bands that made it, after dark, even more noticeable than we imagined.
The “privileged place”, can correspond to a place of exchange of the child.
Everything happened around the village of Docelles. However, it’s unlikely that Bernard parked in downtown Docelles to deliver Grégory to the killer. At the time of the exchange, around 5:30 p.m., the streets are still busy. The workers of the neighboring paper mill finish their work, many cross the two bridges of the Vologne. In addition, houses face directly Espine square, and even if the night fell slowly, a group of 6 people including two children and a teenage girl with two cars would have undoubtedly been seen by a witness.
I think Grégory's body was precisely thrown here for one purpose. To find him as quickly as possible. Why ? The crow couldn't wait to see his enemy suffer. We find this feeling of impatience in the hasty writing of the letter and its dispatch the same day, for example.
The meeting for the exchange was set elsewhere. The privileged place is a strong possibility.
コメント