Murielle Bolle did not recognize Docelles, she does not remember the river or the fire station.
Indeed, after the post office, everything becomes vague. We don't really know where Bernard dropped off the child.
Did Bernard pass through the woods, above Lépanges?
Bernard knew the local forests; just like his father with Albert before him, Bernard often went to cut wood with Michel and probably sometimes alone.
Murielle said they rode for about 5 minutes. Let’s imagine she’s right, we don’t know how fast Bernard was driving.
Anyway, I don't think Bernard got very far. On Google Maps, the drive from Lépanges to Docelles is estimated at 6 minutes (5.8 km).
The hypothesis of a possible exchange of the child at the 'privileged point' located 400 meters upstream from the river where Grégory was found is attractive but is sorely lacking in weight. Indeed, the tire tracks and the imprint of a woman's shoe are two elements consistent with the man and woman seen near a van. However, the place is still risky since the center of the village is barely 500 meters away, on the opposite shore. People are finishing their work and it is not dark yet.
Murielle saw Bernard leave with Grégory, then come back alone; we have no information on the place in question, Murielle's judgment was biased by the photograph of the child found in Docelles. The crow mentioned the commune of Deycimont when they tried to trap Christine. A couple has also been seen twice in the same area.
The two main hamlets which depend on Deycimont are 'Le Faing-Vairel' (LFV) and 'Les Hautes Verrières' (LHV). There are several farms and a weaving factory there, as in the whole region.
Where was Grégory taken ?
To my surprise, I recently noticed that there was also a small, inconspicuous path near the church of Deycimont. The latter leads directly to the river. Indeed, after the church and the bridge, the path in question goes into the woods. In 1984, only one dwelling was listed (a 78-year-old man). At this time, the place is quiet and deserted, the nearby train station is no longer in operation.
Assuming Bernard is the only killer : Bernard kills the child at the end of this path, out of sight of potential passers-by, Murielle and his son Sébastien. If Marcel & Jacqueline fits into the equation, they could wait for Bernard at the end of the trail.
They could have left Grégory anywhere in the nature; the night, dark at this time of year, would soon fall. In October, in the Vosges, the outside temperature is quite cool, and it’s unlikely that a person has ventured into wooded trails after sunset.
Grégory may have simply been dropped off at the edge of the river bank or in a hidden area, on the ground in the forest. Grégory was not dirty, his small body could have been rolled up in a blanket.
During his custody, Bernard will insist on one element: he will declare to have eaten at his aunt's place before going back to his home to put his son to bed, then indicates that he remained at his home until 8:45 p.m. before returning one last time at Louisette's in order to set her alarm clock … then he left for work in Granges-sur-Vologne (about 5 minutes away by car).
If we remain in the specter of a crime carried out in two stages, a theory which at the time of his custody is not at all considered nor raised by the investigators, why does Bernard not set this same alarm clock in dinner time, when he is at Louisette's home ? Why does he insist on this detail ? Why come back just for that ?
We can then imagine that he consciously lied to build an alibi between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. Unfortunately no one can confirm his statements, the only two supposed witnesses are Louisette and her daughter Chantal, both mentally disabled. His aunt will not be heard by investigators. If Bernard had taken care of this detail a little earlier (between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m.), he could return to Deycimont and then to Docelles to throw the child in the river.
At 8 p.m., Grégory's family, gendarmes and firefighters are looking for him on the banks. The town of Lépanges is located on the right bank of the river (going towards Docelles) and we know that Grégory will be found near the opposite bank. However, at the time, there were very few crossings from one side of the river to the other. Bernard could therefore have bypassed the main street and taken the left bank which leads from Lépanges to Deycimont ... the child was found when Bernard was at work.
The passage near the 'Hôtel de l'est' in Lépanges is closed for renovations. Today, when you take the road from Lépanges to Docelles, the D44 is along the bank on the right and a road intersection enters Docelles from the left bank. This intersection did not exist in 1984.
During the searches, the rescuers mainly remained on the bank of Lépanges. If Bernard's mission was to deliver the child to someone, it is totally plausible that he also retrieved the dead child in order to finalize the plot ... And thus allow the suspected killers to return to their work before their absence be noticed. On the left bank, the area is poorly lit and there are few homes. A 4-year-old child has been kidnapped, the people involved will obviously use reclusive places to commit their crime.
Flashlights are highly visible after dark and in rural areas without night lighting. Bernard could thus identify the location of the searches from the opposite bank, all along the road leading to Docelles. At the level of the two small footbridges which span the river, just behind the church of Deycimont, there was at the time and still today, a path undoubtedly well known to the fishermen of the area on which Bernard could have parked and then walked 150 meters on foot, pick up the child a second time (previously tied up). We know the rest.
This assumption is valid whether Bernard is the kidnapper / killer or if he is simply the kidnapper / "delivery driver".
Indeed, Bernard didn't work until 9 p.m. Marcel and Jacqueline were supposed to be at the factory. Jacqueline was working in a position that required a replacement. Even though they may have been away from the factory for a while in the afternoon, perhaps even coming back several times in the meantime, they couldn't get away for hours.
We know that they were seen around 7:00 p.m. at the factory by their manager and that Marcel called his daughter "in the evening". He wanted to know the news on Tv; we can assume that he was investigating whether Grégory had been found or not.
In this case, we have an identified kidnapper. We don't know if Bernard is the killer, and there is constant doubt about this protagonist.
The field of possibilities focuses on two scenarios. The investigation unveiled the potential role of Marcel and Jacqueline Jacob, known to hate the Villemin family.
First, the speed with which the crime was committed. Once the child was kidnapped, the race against time was the main issue. However, Michel did not immediately warn his brother Jean-Marie but some time after the kidnapping of his son (about a drowning in the river, around 7 p.m.). Thus, the killer(s) could be near the home of Jean-Marie and Christine, having an interval of an hour and a half to finalize the crime.
Second, the suspicious movements are located within a limited radius around Lépanges, in particular in 'Faing-Vairel', on the road leading to the church of Deycimont. A logical and judicious choice.
Finally, keep in mind that the crow had previously referred to the small town of Deycimont.
About Deycimont. I firmly believe that the place where Grégory was taken is in this small town. The almost invisible path located just behind the church of Deycimont is the ideal place to kill and "store" a child.
I even think that Marcel and Jacqueline could have witnessed his kidnapping if they were waiting, on the path that leads to the forest, where a duo was spotted with binoculars, (Faing-Vairel). If the crow's call to Michel is real then the child could have stayed with Jacqueline while Marcel phoned to announce his revenge. Also, depending on the kidnapping schedule, they could have seen Christine come out of her house looking for her son ... which would explain why the crow said "She's looking for him but she won't find him."
Docelles is the place where Grégory was thrown into the water… It was chosen to quickly find the child. I think that Grégory was not killed in Docelles.
About Murielle's geographical indications. In my opinion, Murielle is not 100% reliable. She was questioned and re-enacted the supposed route more than two weeks after the crime, her parents did not own a vehicle and they did not drive. I think she may have been wrong about several essential details, which leave us in the dark today. In addition, we can assume that the Gendarmes misunderstood Murielle. She spoke in sloppy, slang language specific to her level of education.
About the insulin. I absolutely do not think that Grégory was poisoned by this product intended for people with diabetes even if this hypothesis is plausible. The wait time (for insulin to work) is difficult to determine and the killers couldn't afford it.
As early as 5:32 p.m., Michel declared that the crow had claimed responsibility for the crime. Besides, if the killers were supposed to be at work, staying near this child while waiting for a loss of consciousness in order to finish him off is a huge risk. How could the killer(s) know the effect of such a product on a non-diabetic child ?
Certainly not by the Bolle family, who arguably did not have extensive knowledge on the subject. Not even Bernard. And, even though someone helped them learn about the properties of this drug, it's hard to believe that they considered this solution when a simple blow to the head would have had the desired effect much faster.
I think Gregory was knocked unconscious before his head was plunged under water by the killer, in a rush to get it over with.
About Insulin
Mr Granjean, municipal worker in Docelles, discovered in a fir at about 1.50 meters from the ground, a cardboard box on which is inscribed 'Novoindustries Pharmaceutical Insulin Novolente Injectable suspension of mixed zinc insulin' containing a transparent glass vial blocked with a red rubber and a plastic syringe with plunger, needle guard and its packaging.
According to the autopsy, Grégory had no visible injuries from the bondage, suggesting that he did not struggle and was unconscious. The hypothesis that the child may have been anesthetized intravenously has been seriously studied and considered, notably by Judge Simon. However, the insulin vial found by Mr Granjean indicates slow insulin.
The regulation of the level of sugar in the blood (glycemia) depends on the contributions and the needs of the cells.
There are two main types of insulin:
Rapid insulin.
Fast-acting insulin (or rapid insulin) is the insulin the body needs to cover the carbohydrate intake from meals. This insulin lowers the level of sugar in the blood in case of hyperglycemia.
Rapid insulin does not begin to pass into the blood until after 30 minutes and its action lasts for about 6 to 8 hours. It makes it possible to provide the peak of insulin necessary in order to control blood sugar levels after the meal: it is the so-called "prandial" insulin, to eat.
Slow insulin.
Slow-acting insulin is usually taken in the morning or evening and balances blood sugar levels throughout the day. It’s the insulin that the body needs to function properly.
Slow-acting insulin lasts about 24 hours. It's the insulin said to "live", it regulates the hepatic production of glucose.
Indeed, the insulin supposedly used to neutralize Grégory takes effect between 2 hours and 4 hours after the injection and even after this interval, the insulin action curve stagnates and the body will take about 24 hours to fully absorb it. The zinc mentioned on the bottle allows this action.
If we admit that basal insulin was used by the killer, it would not have had the desired effect quickly. This insulin would not have been sufficient to plunge Grégory into a coma. The murderer may have misunderstood the principles of slow insulin, which may explain why Grégory was not dropped into the water earlier in the evening.
However,
Professor De Ren had not detected any traces of bites on the body of the victim.
At the time of the crime, Murielle Bolle did not yet know how to give insulin injections to her diabetic mother, Jeanine Bolle.
Moreover, during Jean-Marie's trial, the pharmacist Mr Langlois and the toxicologist Mr Lebreton had demonstrated that the packaging did not correspond to a product then on sale, the syringe and the vial did not come from the same lot and that the use of a product corresponding to the packaging did not result in immediate death.
Finally, it was not the type of insulin sold to the Bolle family on Dr Dormessin's prescriptions. All of this information tends to show that there is no connection between the insulin and the Bolle family.
Did Murielle Bolle tell the truth in 1984 ? Why continue to deny it ?
Murielle was only 15 years old but she was already mature. According to her own father and sister Marie-Ange, she was a trustworthy person and didn't lie.
I think Murielle thought she was doing well. She persists in her silence today for one reason only, the Bolle family never believed that Bernard could have killed a child.
if some of them believe Murielle's version (Bernard kidnapped Grégory), everyone is convinced of his innocence regarding Grégory's murder.
According to the testimony of Mrs Golbain (nurse of Jeanine Bolle), the latter had tried to help the young Murielle so that she definitively relieves herself of a burden borne for years by the fault of a man that her own family tried to protect by all means.
Mrs Golbain was with Murielle in the cemetery, in front of her mother's grave. The nurse "played the sensitive chord", reminding her that they were talking about the crime of an innocent child.
She cried and almost broke psychologically: “But Bernard ... ! Bernard !". Then she immediately closed like an oyster. Bernard's involvement has always been a taboo subject in the family. When you love and esteem someone, it's unthinkable to imagine that they could be guilty, capable of killing, especially a child.. The Bolle family and Marie-Ange Laroche prefer to deny the truth. Without trying to find out who could have manipulated Bernard. Since they were (and still are) absolutely certain that Bernard was "as white as snow," why not seek to exonerate him by finding the real culprits ? Why does Marie-Ange not even consider the possibility that her husband may have been manipulated ?
Murielle is like Grégory, a victim of adult stories. She was embroiled in a crime against her will. Murielle left her school and struggled to find a job afterwards ... I find it disgusting how she was stigmatized by her own family while Bernard was praised by these same people.
What a shame to make a 15-year-old girl feel guilty.
I am outraged when I see her answering Bernard's questions in front of journalists, with Marie-Ange just behind. Can you imagine the pressure of this young teenager ? She is repeating word for word a speech she has learned by heart and she better not be wrong.
Once again, we try to cover up the truth because it is disturbing to a lot of people, they refuse to accept it. So Murielle is an outcast and Bernard is fully supported… How is that possible ? For me, I repeat, this is a blatant injustice.
We can easily see her discomfort in the photos taken during this interview. We see her laughing in other footage and I'm sure the reporter is joking to help her relax. Bernard is right next to her, with his silly face ... which he always tries to show in order to deceive the audience but behind the scenes, he's no longer smiling, His face is expressionless but his gaze is lively, intelligent. He thinks ahead. His mind is clearly lucid, years away of the dumb guy he constantly portrays. Even Marie-Ange looks at him often and gives the impression that she is trying to decipher his thoughts.
Murielle is undoubtedly a victim. What she can be criticized for is her current loyalty to her family who did nothing for her at the time. She no longer wants to be involved in this story.
When Bernard is arrested, it's a tsunami in the Bolle family … the Villemin family is stunned.
If he's smart, he felt the noose tighten around him. A witness allowed a sketch of a suspicious individual to be drawn, wearing sideburns. Bernard will shave his own immediately ... He had not imagined that a link could be established between his peregrinations and the kidnapping of Grégory. When he gives his afternoon schedule, he obviously has his speech ready. He gives fairly precise hours, a few details with perfect self-control. Bernard involves Murielle and indirectly forces her to lie in her own testimony … In short: “she was there when I came back (JP Zonca), she can testify that I was in Aumontzey when Grégory was kidnapped”. Don't forget that she was still with them after the crime. Bernard could have discussed about his statements with his wife in front of Murielle … She was questioned after him since he had mentioned her name to prove his alibi. Especially if we consider her testimony roughly similar to that of her brother-in-law.
She was wrong in the order of arrival. Stress, pressure ? Certainly, Murielle had to lie. Bernard dared to put a huge weight on the shoulders of a kid. He doesn't care about her sanity or her well-being. Nevertheless, when Murielle is again questioned at length by investigators, I think he knows the ax is going to fall.
The same question often comes up : Why take Murielle, an additional witness likely to overwhelm him later ?
1) I have certainly said it before, but Murielle can be used as a pretext if he is seen by Christine or a neighbor. Without Murielle, his behavior could seem suspicious. The presence of Murielle is reassuring to everyone, a man would never abduct a child with a 15 year old girl and a 4 year old child in his vehicle.
I also find this "detail" very clever. But Bernard was aware that he was not seen as a danger by his family or friends. According to witnesses, Bernard was always in the background, he stayed away from tensions and was never seriously suspected by Jean-Marie, or by anyone else. The ideal kidnapper, a friendly face… for Grégory as well.
2) The post-abduction phase. Bernard has to stop to post a letter. According to Murielle, Bernard parked near the 'hotel de l'est' in Lépanges - and near the post office. The presence of Murielle allows to avoid leaving the children alone and for example risking a potential panic attack from Grégory who could have tried to get out of the vehicle. Bernard knew Christine would soon realize that Grégory had vanished and was going to look for him. In the vehicle, Grégory was not visible.
Why Bernard ?
Marcel Laroche, Bernard's father, died in June 1982 of lung cancer. Rumor says that, on his deathbed, Marcel spoke to Bernard about the relationship between Thérèse Jacob, his mother and Albert Villemin, shortly before her pregnancy.
1981 is a very bad year for Bernard. His son has health problems, his father is dying, he learns that Albert may be his legitimate father and is going through a period of unemployment.
Bernard had asked his cousin Jean-Marie if the 'Autocoussin' factory where he worked was recruiting staff. But Bernard never had any feedback. Moreover, Jean-Marie did not go to see his godfather Marcel Laroche when he was hospitalized. We know that, at the time, the fear of contagion was the reason for Jean-Marie's behavior on this subject. A strong popular belief. However, I do not know why Jean-Marie did not attend the funeral of his uncle Marcel. Sébastien's slight handicap was a sensitive subject for Bernard and Marie-Ange.
It was around this time that the black bird will begin to harass the Villemin family. The crow's calls that were originally schoolboy jokes have grown increasingly threatening. All these events may have created a psychotic disorder in Bernard, Marcel Laroche may have played a key role in this change.
The supposed sexual relationship between Thérèse and Albert is linked to an event that occurred after the death of Marcel Laroche. Monique went to probe with her sisters in the affairs of the deceased to find something ... but, what ? The letter that Thérèse is said to have written before dying and which might hide the secret at the origin of the Villemin-Jacob's hatred ? Indeed, the legitimate suspicions about Bernard's conception may explain the tensions between these two families. In the context of this theory, Albert would have caused the death of Thérèse by making her pregnant and Monique would have tried to recover evidence that would confirm this theory, to keep the secret intact.
Is Marie-Ange involved in the crime ?
No, i dont think so. In contrast, Marie-Ange's panicked reaction immediately after the crime suggests that she knew in which direction to look.
Why ? I think she's a key witness. She attended a few or many events which obviously steered her in this direction … For me, Marie-Ange Laroche is clearly hiding something. She knows things. She forced Murielle to lie to save Bernard's skin… she certainly knew her husband's true feelings towards the Villemin family. But I don't think she knew this project would come to fruition on October 16th. I really believe she was not incorporated into the plan. She went to work not knowing what her husband or others had in mind.
Many questions run through my head… If Bernard is the victim of an unfair manipulation by those close to him, - Michel, Ginette, Marcel, Jacqueline - how could Marie-Ange and Bernard endure such a betrayal ? Without ever saying anything ? No frustration, no anger, no revolt ?
How could Marie-Ange invite Marcel and Jacqueline to her husband's funeral ? How could she have accepted all of this ? The very day of his murder, we see Marcel comforting Murielle in front of the Laroche pavilion. In her book, Marie-Ange evokes Marcel Jacob; she recalls her invaluable help with Bernard when the latter needed a bodyguard to protect him from Jean-Marie. (Definitely Marcel likes to play the bodyguard, the role of protector ... especially with his sister Monique, frightened by Albert.)
In media photos, Marcel is often in the Bolle-Laroche family circle ... behind Marie-Ange or with the lawyers.
And above all, why absolutely protect Marcel & Jacqueline ? The fear of falling with them ? Maybe ... but that does not explain the good relations maintained between Marie-Ange and the duo, even after the murder of Bernard. Marie-Ange has also never publicly denounced Michel and Ginette.
Everything could have exploded at the time of the foreseeable murder of Bernard … The truth would have come to light. How to continue to protect or associate with these people who made her husband a perfect scapegoat ?
The only answer is Bernard's involvement. I tried to imagine he was a pudding, soft, flabby and docile to perfection. A poor, naive and shy guy. As he shows it wonderfully in front of the French public. And boom ... I think of his absolutely disconcerting behavior during his police custody and his trip in the police car.
To his inappropriate laughter, his snide and provocative demeanor when he is suspected. His way of playing with investigators and botching his handwriting in a stupid manner while he writes very well with both hands. To his brutality with his aunt … etc.
He uses Sébastien, Murielle and his aunt as alibis. Lousy. And his wife tries above all to save him … why ? Because he's innocent ... or guilty ? She's risking a lot, even though she's not the raven woman. A child had been threatened with death long before the crime, someone could have spoken to the authorities ... But no. In short, Marie-Ange Laroche undoubtedly has information that we will never know.
Will Murielle speak again one day ?
Honestly I don't think so, maybe one day on her deathbed. The Murielle episode is over.
Why hate Jean-Marie & Christine?
The professional and personal success of the couple. Jean-Marie 'did not go through four ways to say things', he had a whole, frank character. Unfortunately, he could appear to despise those close to him when he was simply proud of his achievement. He was happy that his family were proud of him. Coming from a line of factory workers, Jean-Marie worked very hard to become what he was. But Jean-Marie was also humble and he was not arrogant. To give an example, he himself reminded the crow that a foreman is a simple overseer. Christine's shyness could have been seen as pretension or contempt as well. Jean-Marie practiced several sports including karate and bodybuilding. He was nicknamed the strong guy.
When Jean-Marie began to build his life, he "isolated" himself with his family, Christine and Grégory. He hasn't turned his back on his family, or even forgotten his roots, as many might imagine. Unfortunately, I am sure that this "isolation" and the various reasons cited above have led to speculation as to their behavior. Erroneous and systematically negative assumptions. No one communicated with Jean-Marie, everyone remained in their frustration and their impressions. Jean-Marie was really the "bête noire" ( "black beast" : person or thing that we abhor or fear), everyone's punching bag.
In one of the anonymous letters, Christine is called « pimbêche » by the crow whose definition is: "Pretentious and haughty woman." It seems that she was nicknamed « la pimbêche » by many people, behind her back. Christine was not a native of the area but had grown up and lived in Petitmont, about 65km from Aumontzey. This difference made her an intruder. She was "stuck", stilted and contemptuous. No, Christine was a discreet and reserved young woman, from a rather pious upbringing. Christine was also a pretty, natural woman. She knew how to dress tastefully and wore pretty outfits. I'm sure she made women jealous.
In my humble opinion, I don't think that one person hated Jean-Marie more than another. To me, these individuals all hated Jean-Marie and one of them was the main “spokesperson” for the group. Conversations about the chef were undoubtedly lively and recurring. Even obsessive. Do you realize how pathetic these people are ? They hated Jean-Marie but they spent almost 4 years of their life (and maybe more !) chained to him ! The inability to flourish, to have fun and to think about other things. In most cases, when hatred sets in, there are consequences that lead to destruction, and consumes the person who can act very violently and impulsively.
Hatred is a very violent psychological state, which destroys and dehumanizes the person who experiences it. These individuals were no longer themselves, they were slaves to an intense feeling. I believe that it's precisely this strength, this common hatred growing in contact with each other, which enabled them to take action.
In French, it sounds like "Monter le bourrichon": to excite your imagination over something wrong, to get it into your head, to get excited for nothing. The interpretations on the supposed behavior of Jean-Marie and Christine were fatal in this case :
Jean-Marie is proud > No, he is arrogant and he despises us, he makes fun of us (just to piss us off).
Jean-Marie plays sports because he likes it > No, he plays sports to show his muscles and his stature by pretension ... (just to piss us off).
Jean-Marie is ambitious > No, he is opportunist. (just to piss us off).
Christine is shy > No, she is haughty and pretentious (just to piss us off).
they expand their house and buy a second car > they are rich, (just to piss us off), etc...
How were these people so paranoid to imagine that they were being targeted by Jean-Marie when he didn't care ? He was living his life for himself, not for others.
It's terrifying to imagine these people feeding off their mutual hatred... Until the explosion.
Has Bernard been manipulated ?
Personally, I don't think so. Influenced yes, but not manipulated. Marcel was described as a man with a strong personality, He also had an athletic build. Marcel was a little older than his nephews. Could he have impressed them ? Were they in awe of him ? It’s plausible.
Bernard was a withdrawn man, apparently ordinary and not very communicative ; Michel was consumed with frustration, stuck in his hatred, unable to control his jealousy. Both seemed weak. Marcel could have embodied a model in their eyes, a fraternal figure.
Valérie Jacob herself stated that Marcel and Bernard were like brothers, Marcel was closer to him than to his own brothers. Marcel often went to see Bernard, who lived only 80 meters away. Michel might not be so close to Marcel, but they communicated and saw each other, at least at the factory. And undoubtedly at Bernard's too.
The common bond between Marcel & Michel is undeniably Bernard, which is why I think that family reunions or drunken evenings spent together often took place at the home of Bernard & Marie-Ange, both "bon vivant".
The cassette of the song « Chef, a little glass », was found during the search at Bernard's house. This song was heard by Jean-Marie during an anonymous call on a Saturday evening, around 1:00 am (September 1981). These individuals could be together that same night. A few glasses of alcohol and we play a schoolboy joke on Jean-Marie and Christine. The whole story seems to have started off stupidly.
The insults and threats from a man with a masked voice emerged a few weeks later (almost 3 months, November 22, 1981) when he smashed the pane of Jean-Marie and Christine's front door.
Important material evidence
A telescope was found at Bernard's house, under a pile of magazines.
A handwritten sheet that said "poor idiots that you are all".
The tape “Chef, a little glass".
The letter of October 16 ; two capital letters L and B drawn on the previous sheet remained printed on the next one. These two initials corresponded with Bernard's signature, {position and shape}. The writer crow used a notebook or notepad.
His striking similar handwriting.
His voice also suspicious, analyzed by experts. He was one of the 6 men whose voice could match.
Some details on the letter of October 16: this letter was written in a hurry. Maybe just before and posted just after Grégory's kidnapping, between 5:15 p.m. and 5:20 p.m. Many people think it was written in a moving car or in a stationary car, but with the engine running, I agree. The bumps may have caused sloppy writing and uncontrolled writing of some letters. The writer seems embarrassed by startles.
This letter was probably posted by Bernard (testimony from Murielle, Bernard stopped a second time in the center of Lépanges, near the train station, a blocked street and the post office).
Who wrote it? The expertise in stylometry would point to Jacqueline Jacob. When would she have written it? A couple were seen twice near a beige van on the side of the D44 road on the afternoon of October 16. With binoculars or a camera around the neck. I think this car could be Bernard's Citroën Ami 8. Could a notepad belonging to him have been in the glove compartment of the car? This would explain why Bernard's initials are printed on the letter if Jacqueline used Bernard's notebook or notepad.
But I find this idea a bit far-fetched. Envelopes should have been there as well. I don't explain how Bernard's initials might have ended up on a letter supposedly written by Jacqueline.
Did Monique know who was hiding behind the hoarse voice ?
At the very beginning no. The man masked and changed his voice very well, I think she never recognized his voice. When she learned that Bernard was accused, she did not believe it ... like Albert, Jean-Marie, Marie-Ange, Bernard's co-workers, his friends or the Bolle family. Like everyone else. We know that Michel told his mother that Murielle was in Bernard's car. He would have learned it from one of Murielle's sisters (Isabelle Bolle). Monique was therefore, at one point, [notably when she realized that Christine could not have killed her child], in doubt, and began to believe in the possible guilt of Bernard.
The anonymous letter sent on August 6, 1985 and posted from 'Villeneuve-sur-Lot' in the 'Lot-et-Garonne' is written by a so-called Corinne. “Mister the Judge, my name is Corinne, I am 16 years old, I am a friend of Murielle, Bernard Larouche's sister-in-law. [...] I can no longer keep for myself what [...] Murielle told me”. But this Corinne has never been found. For good reason, behind this signature, according to expert graphologist Christine Navarro, it could be Monique Villemin. This six-page long letter clears Christine Villemin and charges Bernard Laroche. "Murielle had told the truth to the gendarmes", it is written. Clearly, Monique thinks Bernard Laroche is guilty, not even a year after the murder.
Monique knew that Michel was involved, she wanted to save her son's skin. Bernard was dead, he couldn't say anything more.
Has she considered her brother's involvement ? He and his wife were cited in Christine Villemin's Non-Lieu (acquittal) in 1993. This document specified that investigations against them would be useless given the late suspicions. Jean-Marie had thought of Marcel during the harassment and had spoken about it with his parents. Monique undoubtedly understood quite quickly. This woman was torn between everyone, her husband, her brother, her nephew, her sons ...
Even though Monique was torn between her family members, her grandson seemed less important than the supposed murderers. I absolutely don't think the crow had a secret against her; if that was the case, he would have unboxed his info sooner or later ... yet he never does. In 3 years he has exhausted all the shameful "secrets" of the family, he has nothing left to really reach them. He invents a new one, modeled on the first: the condition of Jacky, the illegitimate child, the bastard. Nothing creative, but he nevertheless sows doubt and succeeds in his work. Monique had information and certainly knew the culprits, (investigators believe so). Monique had her own reasons for not speaking, to spare Michel and her little brother, to stifle the truth ... it is a tradition for her. Monique no longer wants to hear about family warfare… but the unhealthy atmosphere built on unsaid words, grudges and family secrets has unleashed bewildering proportions… a typhoon within the family. The death of an innocent 4-year-old child and the death of a 29-year-old man. Family breakdown. A family broken by silence, secrets, hypocrisy and hatred. Monique was ashamed, and might never have admitted that either of them was the killer. Even if it means betraying Jean-Marie and ignoring his pain. It's so sad ... when you think that she did everything to protect Michel and Bernard but never helped her son do justice to his. And definitively exonerate Christine in the eyes of the society. Her choice is hard to digest and she shows that she doesn't learn from her past mistakes. Monique persists in this cycle of silence. Monique Villemin died in 2020 (Covid).
Did Bernard Laroche threaten or ask Murielle to shut up after the kidnapping ?
No. Murielle told gendarmes she lied because she "was a little afraid of him" but he hadn't told her anything. No instructions or threats whatsoever. Bernard might have thought she wouldn't tell the thruth and he was right. Murielle saw the photo of Grégory (picked up in the river) in the newspaper. She recognized his beanie.
She lied the first time, when investigators came to take her testimony. They detected a small error, apparently innocuous. But Murielle couldn't lie a second time when they confronted her about this inconsistency
Bernard might have already thought about this possibility and decided that no matter what, he wouldn't say anything, he would never confess.
And in three months, Bernard never confessed his guilt, he always denied it. Bernard never really shouted his innocence but he didn't show the slightest weakness either. He was extremely supported by his in-laws and his friends. On October 16, he gives the impression of sacrificing himself by taking all the risks.
Personally, I don't think he imagined she would speak. Remember that even though the murder may have already been planned (location, modus operandi, etc.), Bernard kidnapped Grégory with a bit of luck. An opportunity presented itself 2 days after Michel's visit... has Bernard really thought about the consequences of using Murielle ? What was his state of mind ?
Murielle was a young girl born into a family where violence abounded. "The gendarmes are my friends, I'm better off here than at home," she told her father. Murielle is still a child.
She will explain the reason for her first lie: She was afraid of being accused of complicity. In her young mind, Murielle had really grasped the gravity of the facts. She wasn't as stupid as her family thought.
Imagine for a moment her reaction when she opened the newspaper and recognized Grégory? What did she think? She got scared. She also cried. Bernard didn't notice anything? Has Murielle's behavior towards him changed?
I think Bernard didn't threaten her, as she says. I also think Bernard could have noticed her emotion, her red eyes and her sorrowful mood. But, from what I've learned about his personality, I'm guessing he played the "I don't change my ways, I stay true to myself" card. Bernard was very secretive, he rarely spoke and I truly believe he was not straightforward with many people around him. You never really knew what he was thinking. At home, he did not speak to Murielle or try to convince her to shut up or provide her with any explanation. He is silent, as always.
Are Jacky and Liliane also accomplices ?
Absolutely not. They were victims. Jacky and Liliane suffered from constant accusation by the Villemin family.
They were a simple couple, aspiring to acquire a house and live a peaceful life, like Jean-Marie. No jealousy on the part of Jacky towards anyone, he remained discreet and far from problems. Neither did he seek to establish any competition between brothers, unlike Michel, who was always in search of attention and recognition.
Jacky and Liliane were never questioned by Justice, their innocence was quickly established. Jacky died at the age of 58, a year after Michel, in 2011.
Albert heard it too and admitted that he did not recognize his sister-in-law's voice. According to him, Jacqueline had a screaming voice. However, this woman could change her voice, like her partner. We know that Monique recognized her niece Valérie and Isabelle Bolle in a call that occurred at the very beginning of 1981. She had a good ear. The raven woman avoided having Monique on the phone, the sign that Monique knew very well this woman who feared to be unmasked. People who have heard her normal voice are strangers to the family. Monique had asked one of those people if he could recognize her voice and called Liliane. The gentleman was sure it wasn't Liliane Villemin.
Witnesses described the voice of a young woman. We do not know anything more. Between 1981 & 1984, Jacqueline was 37/40 years old.
Was Grégory drowned in the river ?
The experience below is very interesting as to the possibility that Grégory was drowned in the Vologne.
Study of the Vologne water.
"We will consider the remark of Professor Duprez who noted the absence of foreign bodies in the lobes of the lung. If it is no longer possible to analyze the water in the lungs, the Vologne is still flowing and may constitute a field of experience. According to the investigations by the gendarmes, to which we will come back, Grégory floated on the surface of the water between the Docelles fire department and the stone dam, 80 m downstream. He inhaled little water before passing away.
We took four samples on July 7, 2018 at 50 cm from the shore, 20 cm below the surface of the water:
- a sample in the Vologne behind the fire station on the side of the dam. The depth of the water exceeds one meter (1);
- a sample, in the Vologne, behind the fire station, at the confluence with the Barba. The depth of the water exceeds one meter, we note the presence of eddies, a piece of wood, grass (2);
- a sample from the Barba (40 cm deep) to 20 m upstream from the fire station (3);
- a sample in the Barba at the level of the fire station halfway up the front of the room next to the parking with a water depth of 40 cm (4).
The sample (3) is decontaminated with a bromine tablet in order to neutralize the development of bacteria or algae. The samples were stored in the dark at ambient temperature. The water was analyzed in the laboratory on July 9, 48 hours after collection. No development of algae or bacteria was observed in samples 1,2,3,4.
On samples 1, 3, 4, to the naked eye, the water appears transparent like spring water. Under a stereoscopic microscope, less than 10 particles / liter larger than 30 microns and several thousand particles with a diameter of less than 20 microns are observed.
The sample (2) consists of very clear water with at the bottom a cluster of macroscopic and microscopic particles representing 10 milliliters. The particles are observed after decantation under a stereoscopic microscope. They are measured on screen using the Videomet software. There are roots that are one to three millimeters long; many particles visible to the naked eye range from 50 to 500 microns. These particles cannot go unnoticed during an autopsy. Diatoms can be included in the particles detected. As we did not have an electron microscope, we were unable to identify them.
The impact of the beanie.
We consider the sample (2) which is the most charged with particles. We take part of it and empty it through a cotton sock attached to a beaker. The larger particles remain on the sock. To the naked eye, residual water appears transparent. Under a microscope at 40 and then 120 magnification, it is observed that particles greater than 20 microns in diameter have been blocked by the sock.
The filtered water becomes identical to samples 1, 3, 4. We repeat the test with a thin woolen beanie 5 m/m thick. Again, particles larger than 20 microns in diameter get stuck on the beanie. The filtered water becomes transparent. A thicker cup may have slightly better filtering power.
Did Professor Duprez look for macros particles with the naked eye or with a magnifying glass, a microscope ? Under what magnification ? Having only the conclusions of the expert opinion, we cannot answer."
'Grégory - Manipulated Justice', Michel Muller.
Could Grégory's wool beanie have filtered out micro-cellular algae?
It would have been interesting to perform a test with a similar beanie. Grégory breathed very little underwater. We do not know how or with what material the water in Grégory's lungs and stomach was analyzed.
Was the crime premeditated ? Absoutely.
For 4 years now, Marcel and Jacqueline Jacob have been in the sights of Justice. A first expert report in comparative writing (2017) and a second, in stylometry, focus on Jacqueline, Marcel's wife (2021).
I have always been inevitably drawn to the fascinating mystery surrounding this absolutely appalling affair. By mystery I mean, the difficulty to find the murderer among almost identical profiles within the same family.
I spent long hours trying to decipher the behaviors, personality and psychology of each of the protagonists, involved or not in the death of this innocent child.
Jean-Marie & Christine Villemin were undeniably surrounded by hateful people.
At the time of the murder, they were unaware of the extent of the negative feelings they inspired around them.
But in retrospect, they realized how stigmatized they were and never really understood why the black bird was so obsessed with them. However, we know that hatred can make a sick mind and insidiously invade the daily life of a resentful individual, permanently focused on his victims, trapped in a violent and destructive revenge.
Monique Villemin has often been accused of holding the key to the truth. But I don't think she was the source of this family revenge.
In my humble opinion, the fierce hatred between Albert and Marcel / Jacqueline is a capital factor. During Jean-Marie's trial, Albert said, I quote, "I often think it's my fault that Grégory died ... Because of our adult stories".
We also know that the crows' first target was primarily Albert, who was constantly driven to suicide. Very weakened psychologically, Albert never gave in. I'm sure these two people really believed they could kill him without getting their hands dirty.
Monique & Albert's property has never been damaged or trespassed.
The crow himself said he feared being identified by Albert "who constantly watches" the yard of his house. In addition, Michel who lived next door, owned a German Shepherd. Without it, the crow would probably have vandalized the family home.
Jean-Marie’s home was easier to reach, no fence around. And very few neighbors, mainly farmers. In a remote location, on the edge of a forest. In addition, Christine was often alone with Grégory when Jean-Marie worked on the night shift.
The quote "I will go spit on your grave, the day you die" testifies to a deep aversion towards Albert. The Villemin family agree that Jean-Marie was THE target, that's true. However, Albert's death would have been a "bonus." Indeed, they tried to drive him crazy and break him. They were delighted to see Albert decline and sink into depression.
In 1982, Albert was harassed for several months by a woman during his nap. Of course, these events took place when Monique left for work. Insults erupted in the receiver. For many days, the phone rang nonstop, up to 27 times in the same day. At this time, the man and the woman were accomplices. She contacted doctors, nurses, firefighters, funeral directors ... and certified that Albert was dead ; "hanging from the red pipe of the boiler room", or "of a heart attack". Then the man gloated and bragged about his sordid little jokes.
Finally, the most intimate and most painful secret of his life was mentioned, the suicide of his father. Albert was hated and despised, the desire for him to die was strong. Failing to succeed, the raven rejoiced to see him weakened and sick. For him, it was better than nothing. These two took revenge on Albert with striking and utterly inhuman cruelty. Albert is finally forgotten and "left in peace". However, these events left him after-effects, as with all.
But Jean-Marie is despised and envied. Especially for the money he earns. The crow evokes money over and over again. Remember, letter Oct 16: "It’s not your money that will bring you back your son". I firmly believe that the plan to kill Grégory was never abandoned and that they were all waiting for the auspicious day. I think of the call of March 8, 1984 at the home of Jacky and Liliane Villemin: "There is always a revenge for the chief". Michel's visit undoubtedly accelerated the decision-making. When the crow vanished in May 1983, he realized he had no other options. Indeed, at the slightest event, the family would report it to the authorities.
Wiretapping tables had been installed by the very first gendarmes (before Étienne Sesmat) to flush out the crow. Jean-Marie had even hired a private detective.
If the crows had persisted in their harassment, they might have been unmasked before Grégory’s murder… but they were smart and cautious, they withdrew.
The call quoted above (Liliane / March 8, 1984) is undoubtedly due to an irresistible relapse ... but this very important call, in my opinion, is a warning.
In this call, the crow, perfectly aware of 1) the systematic use of a tape recorder by Jacky & Liliane and the 2) suspicions that weigh on Roger Jacquel & his daughter Liliane, openly accuses Jacky's wife of being involved. In the family, everyone knows (including the crow !), that Jean-Marie thinks he has identified his persecutors, of course he is wrong.
At this point, the idea of killing Grégory was still running. The crow was particularly far-sighted and constantly confused the tracks. The only goal of this final call 7 months before the crime is to definitively put the blame on Roger Jacquel and his daughter Liliane Villemin, and manipulate the investigators and the Justice. I'm repeating myself but I really think the plan to kill the chief's son was never abandoned, it was a sham. Unfortunately, Jean-Marie and his wife no longer had contact with Jacky and Liliane. The family was divided. And this element too, the raven knew it. They will not be notified of this call.
Thus, Jean-Marie & Christine gradually began to breathe and live normally, without being wary. For them, the danger was gone.
Given the premeditation, it is entirely plausible that those involved had started observing around the same time the year before, in 1983. The phone harassment had stopped a few months ago. Grégory enters the first year of kindergarten. The first two weeks of October 1984, Grégory was ill, he did not go out to play. He did, however, enjoy the good weather in September to have fun with his small cars.
On this subject :
Tuesday October 16, 1984, Lépanges-sur-Vologne
Sunset 5:43 p.m.
Tuesday October 23, 1984,
Sunset 5:30 p.m.
Tuesday, October 30, 1984,
Sunset 5:18 p.m.
Tuesday, October 23 would undoubtedly have been the last afternoon to kidnap Grégory. Indeed, at the end of October, night was falling quickly and Christine would never have let Grégory play outside at night, even if it was in front of the house.
This is why I believe that Michel deliberately came to his brother's house 2 days before, perhaps in order to make a decision following this visit.
Last minute hesitations are always possible. Albert and Monique hid the truth from Michel about Jean-Marie & Christine to avoid problems of jealousy. In the summer of 1984, Jean-Marie was busy building a second garage. Bernard came by in August to ask for tool. Anyway, at that point I think neither Bernard nor Michel know anything about the life of Jean-Marie and Christine. So Michel comes to the news and finds what he hoped for. His unbearable frustration must have sealed his personal decision. Did Jean-Marie hope that his brother had changed or matured ? He could not forever hide the truth from his brother for fear of suffering his excessive jealousy. Michel would end up seeing and knowing it.
Michel remained calm when he learned of his brother's plans and constant financial ease. He was sarcastic or teasing; Michel used a word that marked Jean-Marie's mind "There’s only a chef who can afford that", nothing more. His behavior was clearly unusual. Michel probably felt like he had power over his brother who didn't know a sword of Damocles was swinging dangerously over his head. The crime was perhaps well planned for the 16th, or at the latest on the 23. This is my personal conviction.
Comments