.
The voice of the crow.
1984. The first acoustic experts had formally identified the voice of a man. The expertise of the voices carried out by doctors Yana and Pfauwadel, of Saint-Denis, confirms that the crow is a man. The experts studied the voices of one hundred and twenty-three family members, men and women alike, recorded by the gendarmes.
They compared to that of the anonymous individual, heard on the three tapes given by Monique Villemin. The two doctors retained the voices of six men, all familiar, including Bernard Laroche.
These expertises are canceled for formal irregularities and are removed from the file. Two new experts appointed in 1985, Pinel and Liénard, come to a conclusion opposite to the first expert opinion since they will consider that the crow "is most certainly a woman who disguises her voice". When the first audiometric experts discovered these results in the press, they were taken aback, wondering if their colleagues had worked on the same tapes as them.
In one year, the opinions of specialists who have listened to these cassettes have indeed followed a curious progression. The first said without nuance: "It's a man", the second: "You cannot determine the sex" (I have no information on the names of these experts) and the third: "It’s a woman who disguises her voice".
Mr. Jonesco, the audiometric expert, studied the voice and background noise heard on the tapes. According to him, the correspondent is a man with a disguised voice. Finally, the expert Jonesco, appointed by Judge Simon, believes that this man could have between 45 and 55 years old.
During the investigation phase, despite other cassettes transmitted by Jean-Marie Villemin, the study of voices does not allow to identify the crow. On the other hand, the study of the dates and times of calls, their content and background noise helps to guide the investigation. The investigation showed that two crows often acted together: a male (hoarse voice) and a female.
On her own initiative, Christine Villemin also met specialists in order to perform tests on her voice. Experts concluded that Christine couldn't be the hoarse-voiced crow.
The pitch of the spoken voice differs according to gender and age: 75 to 140 hertz (Hz) for men, 170 to 250 Hz for women and 300 to 450 Hz for children. Indeed, according to the tests, the hoarse voice is in the first range. It can therefore only be a man.
Let's take a look at the crows.
The anonymous letter is the expression of overly human feelings: a cocktail of jealousy, bitterness and resentment that simmers and ends up exploding.
In most cases, "crows" never fly very far from their victim, because the enjoyment of the effect produced is one of the driving forces behind their action.
The suffering of their target would encourage them to continue their small letter writing activity. Indeed, the psychology of the writers of anonymous letters often demonstrates that the sender is absolutely not motivated by the desire for justice.
On the phone, this man likes to terrorize his interlocutors by modifying his voice.
A hoarse and deep voice which reaches crescendo the highs notes while reciting a monologue (like an incantation, an enchantment). We can detect a strong local accent.
Sometimes, he delivers his speech without ever being unsettled. Monique's provocations never make him react, he knows he has power over them. Sometimes he stays silent, throws insults and then hangs up.
Sometimes he speaks and follows the thread of a "normal" conversation using a declamatory, playful tone, or a sarcastic, threatening tone.
His voice is sometimes confused with a woman's voice, but the hoarse-voiced individual is a man. Witnesses described a voice similar to "a drunken man", "short of breath", or with "difficulty in breathing". His voice also seems distant, he must put a rag or something in front of his mouth. He is violent in his words when the urge takes him to bark insults or spit out his hatred. He is violent when he tries to break into Jean-Marie & Christine's house.
This man was distorting his voice. No one has ever been able to formally identify this mysterious voice. His words often fell like cleavers … a wizard casting spells. I have made comparisons myself and the poor quality of the recordings does not help.
The divergent opinions of the experts attest to the difficulty in identifying the voice, first of all to a gender, male or female. This man did not speak in the usual way, he was playing a role. He was becoming someone else.
The crow feared being unmasked and remained cautious. On the other hand, he had great self-confidence and was sure that they would never find who he was. Why ? Was he trying to confuse Jean-Marie's mind further ? Did he think he had "shields" to ward off a possible suspicion (Bernard, Michel) ?
After the 1982 Christmas incident, Jean-Marie added his uncle's name to the list of potential crows. On the phone, he had asked the following question : - "I am going to give you four names. Can you tell me if you are one of them ?"
Marcel Jacob had been quoted, and in this regard, the crow replied : - "Marcel Jacob is to be eliminated. [For the Verdu couple, you are wrong] ”.
How can he be so confident (if that's him) when he knows his nephew has him in his viewfinder? This absolute confidence is reflected in the interview with Marcel (& Jacqueline). The latter affirms loud and clear that they are not afraid of the new investigations since "they have done nothing, they have a clear conscience."
The crow woman is more careful. From the moment she learns that the family uses a tape recorder to record voices, she will no longer make her voice heard, except to strangers. Less prolific, she is however as hateful as her partner.
She is heard by Jean-Marie, Christine, Albert, Éric (Jacky & Liliane's son), Albert’s boss (for the latter two, she then passed the handset to the man) and by strangers.
We have no recordings of this female voice.
An interesting testimony.
A woman holding a French fries stall in the parking lot of a supermarket in Bruyères told the gendarmes of a conversation between three people, two boys and a girl, on October 13, 1984, three days before the assassination of Grégory :
The young girl asked the other two:
"So what do we do?" The mustache boy replied, "Yeah, what do we do?" I was listening to their conversation, the older one said, "Yeah, we have to do something, he's starting to piss us off. He's starting to piss us off seriously…” The taller boy then spoke of a "Titi" but I didn't hear the phrase. He then said: “The Titi, if I take him …” then he lowered his voice.
He looked very mean at the time. I then served other clients. The three young people left, and at that moment, the big one said: “If I take him, I'll throw him in the Vologne. You can be sure that I do it, he will find him in the river.”
Then they left. I saw a photograph on the newspaper 'La Liberté de l'Est' on October 21. I seem to recognize the two boys. Regarding the young girl, I saw her in front of the gendarmerie, one evening after the funeral of little Villemin.
The gendarmes heard this witness three times but without success, and the police thought they spotted the mustached man in a brother-in-law of Christine and Jean-Marie Villemin. They went to question him and wanted him to say that he was Christine's lover. As this man, who lives sixty kilometers away, vigorously denied this hypothesis, the PJ did not follow up. But no confrontation, no really in-depth research was done. Yet Grégory was aptly nicknamed "Titi", and the photos published on October 21 were of the family attending the child’s funeral.
I don't know who these individuals might be. The witness speaks of young people; two boys and a girl.
Jean Descy had also testified to having seen, just after Grégory's funeral, two or 3 teenagers (1 girl and 1 or two boys) in the company of a couple in a green Renault 5 near the place where he had also seen a green similar Renault 5 parked in a small path on the afternoon of October 16. I don't know if this testimony is related to the crime. Maybe a coincidence ... but a very disturbing coincidence.
The background noises.
In many calls, silent or not, noises can be heard in the background. We also know that the crow could call alone, with a woman or in the presence of other people. In addition, we know that they used a personal phone and the phone available at their workplace.
The sound of a pinball machine. At the time, you could find pinball machines in most "cafes" (establishments where drinks and light meals are served, this type of establishment is sometimes linked, in France, to a tobacco shop). There were also specialized game rooms. The raven probably went to drink a coffee or a beer from time to time, like many men in the area.
Footsteps climbing a staircase. Actually, Albert testifies to having heard and counted 13 steps. The famous staircase of Marcel and Jacqueline has 13 steps. It leads from the garage to the rooms of the house, built on a hill. Their lawyers point out that similar dwellings abound in the region. It's totally true.
However, we are looking for two individuals who lived near the Villemin residence in Aumontzey.
In height without a doubt ; several houses in front of Albert and Monique's house blocked the view, unless you lived on a hill. Under these conditions the view was obviously clear on the plain. The lawyers deliberately overlook an important detail: the crows were able to see with their own eyes the effect of their harassment on their victims.
The sound of a mechanical doorbell. The clicking of a loom weaving, the hiss of a spinning machine, hammer blows nailing wooden slats, a pendulum movement. Childish babbling behind the female voice. Various sounds or declamations apparently from television or radio broadcasts.
As much precise information allowing to deduce that the individual launched his calls to private or professional places and that he did so in the presence, occasional or not, of third parties.
Finally, thanks to technical progress, we can identify the type of device on which most of these calls were made.
The correspondent was using a touch-tone telephone that made it easy to quickly and repeatedly execute the same number (to harass the recipient) and had a characteristic little "gling".
Seal N7.
The sequence includes a "hello" from Christine followed by silence interspersed with childish babbling. Jean-Marie and his wife have always maintained that it was Daniel, Michel's son, while, according to experts, the child was moving near the recording microphone, therefore near Christine. Judge Lambert had deduced that it was about Grégory, that she was lying and that she had fabricated a forgery to pose as a victim of the crow. The famous sequence runs for eighteen seconds. A silence follows, long enough to suggest that there is nothing left behind.
Then, contrary to all expectations, new sounds and a male voice speaking to a child: "Shut up, Daniel, shut up, you hear shut up Daniel !"
Listening, Christine and Jean-Marie jump when they recognize Michel's voice trying to silence his son. Monique and Albert Villemin, faced with a 'fait accompli', can only confirm the identification of the voice. The magistrate asks Grégory's parents to explain all the conditions for handling, recording and listening to this tape. They specify that they interrupted it after the first sequence without prospecting further. Obviously, no one else had the idea of listening to the tape any further. The hearing continues until the end of the B side, which contains only music and songs. Through negligence or incompetence, the Épinal investigation therefore missed one of the most valuable sources of information. But, even worse, the lack of questioning around exhibits like this has made scraps of stuff that can be made to say anything and everything at face value. In fact, this cassette seems to have circulated from hand to hand long before Grégory's death, on the occasion of various musical and other recordings that the brothers and sister exchanged. From year to year, these have overlapped and there is nothing exceptional about rediscovering each other's tangled voices. Nothing, anyway, to turn them into potential crows.
Whatever the emptiness of this element concerning Michel Villemin, he remains a key witness in the investigation.
It is interesting to note that Jean-Marie & Christine form a loving and solid couple. In parallel, Michel & Ginette are going through recurring problems. He is violent and their unhealthy jealousy takes a big place in the dynamics of their couple. Marie-Ange is confronted with Bernard's infidelity; their relationship has broken down over the years. Marie-Ange is a fun-loving party girl, Bernard is a lonely homebody. Marcel & Jacqueline resort to a sexual partner exchange to spice up their married life. Jacqueline left Marcel twice. We can see that these three couples were not particularly happy together.
In addition, Marie-Ange, Ginette and Jacqueline are dominant women, with a strong personality or manipulative.
Assuming Marcel is the crow: The instigator of the trio is undoubtedly Marcel. Especially from the point of view of his personality; in my humble opinion, his way of speaking with emphasis is capable of influencing Bernard and Michel wonderfully.
Marcel had the opportunity to reinforce their respective grudges. His hatred could only be contagious. Bernard & Michel's inability to overcome their frustration and to communicate with maturity and diplomacy, to talk about their feelings, greatly fueled their hatred. Like a pressure cooker.
In this case, the protagonists are deeply human, each one systematically puts his life in parallel in the family, friendly and social circle.
On the other hand, the reasons which explain the growing obsession and the disproportionate hatred of a small circle of people are not normal and difficult to justify by small stories of jealousy. Several people have united for years against Jean-Marie, "the traitor, the former worker who turns into a bourgeois, into a 'Giscardien'."
Quick summary on the protagonists
Bernard and Marie-Ange Laroche are a "wobbly" couple, but Bernard is not as aggressive or violent as Michel can be towards his wife. Everyone agrees that he is also a loving and good father. Bernard Laroche is helpful, hardworking, a "bon vivant", a good friend. Some describe him as a bit naive, an ordinary guy leading an ordinary life ... and a respectable man.
We also know that he can be cautious, calculating, and wise. Cheeky with law enforcement. Brutal with his aunt Louisette Jacob. Laugh stupidly while in police custody and in the police car pursued by journalists.
Shy and surly by nature, Bernard Laroche was not very expressive and never really showed his emotions. Despite his reassuring appearance and his blissful smile, Bernard could get angry at times ... like everyone else.
If I had to describe Marie-Ange Laroche from my personal point of view, she undeniably has a strong and authentic personality. She is raw and unvarnished. In the 1980s, her physical appearance was not her priority ... Bernard and his wife clearly no longer seemed to thrive in an already "dated" relationship.
Bernard and Marie-Ange were barely 27 and 28 yo, and yet they looked 10 older. Their neglected side betrays a slack in their relationship; an installed routine.
When they were younger, the two displayed a more polished appearance and seemed to make a very loving, fiery little couple. In a few years, they physically changed and their feelings inevitably waned. They also faced some difficulties in a short period of time; a fragile child, the death of a parent, a job loss, marital and financial problems. Maybe also some frustration and weariness.
Bernard tried for years to get the same job as Jean-Marie. He studied for this sole purpose. To take care of Sébastien, they needed the sisters of Marie-Ange, who were living with them. This whole situation inevitably resulted in clashes and tensions in their relationship, which was strained. Bernard was a fickle man who loved to flirt with any pair of breasts; the rumor speaks of an extramarital affair for Marie Ange. Under these conditions, I think Bernard obviously had secrets and was hiding things from his wife.
With hindsight and thanks to recent extensive criminal analyzes of everyone's potential role in Grégory’s murder, I remain convinced that Bernard's behavior in 1984/85 is the opposite of a naive, manipulated and betrayed man. As I said before, Bernard gives the feeling of having sacrificed himself for everyone.
What self-control in front of the investigators, the investigating judge, the journalists and the public! But on screen, Bernard Laroche is a mystery, his interviews are trivial and his answers are almost monosyllabic. If the journalist did not leave an insistent blank, Bernard Laroche would not form many sentences.
His wife is his watchdog. On several occasions, I have observed the fighting spirit of Marie-Ange, unlike Bernard who insists on displaying an alleged naivety and withdrawn personality. In the couple, Marie-Ange is undeniably the dominant one. At least, in front of the journalists' cameras. Marie-Ange has always been known to say things frankly, forcefully or crudely. But to defend her husband and appear in Tv shows, then we can see a dressed and feminine Marie-Ange. She expresses herself better, with decent French without overdoing it. The black cloud in this idyllic setting is at her side. Surrounded by her bodyguards, ~ brothers and brothers-in-law ~ difficult for Marie-Ange to really restore her image and to plead for Bernard's innocence. Indeed, I do not wish to judge anyone but let's be honest, these men were not very reassuring. As cold and closed as prison doors ready to draw their fists if anyone dared to say a wrong word, a real bunch of thugs and boors. Locked in their hatred against Jean-Marie for having killed Bernard. The Bolle family were dragged through the mud and also very affected by this invasion of vultures on their territory and in their personal lives.
The Bolle family have been thrown into the spotlight in a sordid crime case. Their lives have been shelled, studied, analyzed, trampled on and even sullied by strangers. False things have been said, rumors and lies thrown out to the public. We can understand their behavior. But this is a prime example of the snake biting its tail. The Bolle family face stigma, but they pay the price for their primitive and radical methods.
Murielle Bolle canceled her testimony due to the family storm. Marie-Ange and her family have opted for a plot by the gendarmes : They forced Murielle to confess by putting pressure on her and threatening her with blackmail - confession or juvenile reformatory.
We know this is false, the justice has also ruled in their direction and cleared Étienne Sesmat and his colleagues for a long time. Murielle never lied or even made up this story. Marie-Ange and her family kept a close watch on Murielle.
I think that Murielle will never go back on her first statements. The last hope of reaching the truth thanks to Murielle was definitely stifled by Marie-Ange, her family and their lawyers. Forty years later, Murielle is now mother and grandmother. Her speech in 2017 was the same after her turnaround in 1984.
I sometimes think Murielle is convinced that Bernard did not come to pick her up from high school on October 16. By dint of hearing it rehashed and repeat over and over again, Murielle is stuck on this version.
Marie-Ange lies in some of her statements and her animosity towards Jean-Marie & Christine is tangible, even today. Bernard also lies with ease. He seems harmless and a little intellectually limited, but that's just a picture.
I've always had a really bad intuition about Bernard. We know he is phlegmatic and does not particularly disclose his thoughts or feelings. When he smiles, he gives off an obvious benevolence and warmth, but something about him feels extremely weird … and in those moments, we can see a weariness on his face and a subtle darkness in his gaze. This frustration, which he never expresses in words, then transpires furtively in front of journalists' cameras.
Michel Villemin has obviously been extremely jealous since his earliest childhood. He has behavioral difficulties from his teenage years; most notably, an inability to deal with explosive anger.
Michel is the only one of his siblings to express excessive frustration and jealousy. In a very aggressive way ... sometimes mean and cruel. A man consumed by the frustration of his intellectual weaknesses and in search of some recognition. Michel doesn't like losing face, but he persists in playing the role of the victim to attract attention. Michel is very close to his mother, who constantly protects him. However, his relationship with Albert is a roller coaster ride.
Ginette has a difficult past, she lost her mother quite young and also her brother in a traffic accident. She did not have a good relationship with her stepmother and thus became closer to Monique when she started dating Michel.
Ginette Villemin is extremely jealous and envious. When the crow evokes Liliane's so-called remarks about Christine's outfits, "she doesn't dare go home to her in-laws, Christine is always well dressed, with designer clothes", I'm sure that he's actually talking about Ginette. Jacky and Liliane are not obsessed with appearance and material possessions. For them, simplicity was a way of life.
On the other hand, the slightest display of wealth is very badly experienced by Michel and his wife. Christine's rabbit skin jacket, the stroller offered to the couple at the birth of Grégory, the prestige of Jean-Marie and his promotion, the second car… etc.
Ginette acts in the shadows; beneath her sweet and innocent appearance hides a deceitful woman. We can see it at Jean-Marie's trial when Michel talks to journalists, Ginette often takes him aside and slips words into his ear. Ginette is always there to check Michel's potential missteps. She is more thoughtful and careful than her husband.
"Sunday November 1, Michel Villemin, the elder brother of Jean-Marie, cannot come on Monday to see Maurice Simon but rather Thursday, and with his wife Ginette."
"That does not surprise me. Michel Villemin is a key figure who may know the truth, but he is a coward, a manipulated person who is afraid to reveal what he does know."
- Maurice Simon
"Ginette may have a role in the organization linked to the murder of Grégory." For the authors of AnaCrim's PV, Ginette, "instead of appeasing the existing tensions between Michel and his family, has never ceased to stir up discord within the clan, showing her talents as a manipulator. Her unhealthy jealousy may have indirectly enabled a discreet revenge of one or more individuals."
- Anacrim
Their common jealousy probably fed and increased their negative feelings towards Jean-Marie & Christine. Investigators themselves are unsure of Michel and Ginette's involvement, which is why the word "indirectly" is used in the Anacrim report. I myself am divided on this element.
Why call Michel if he was not included in the harassment and the elaboration of the crime? Why call and send a letter? Did the crow have an irrepressible urge to sign his crime?
Except the need to claim the crime, the only conceivable answer is his role in keeping Jean-Marie away from the river. For me, this call is real; Michel cannot be sure that Grégory was kidnapped without having confirmation from the kidnapper or the killers. Michel's involvement is appealing, but there are rational reasons that may explain his behavior, especially on the evening of October 16.
He does not immediately tell Jean-Marie that the crow spoke of "strangulation" and of his body "being thrown into the river". Michel will say that he did not want to worry his brother more. We quickly forget that Albert and Monique knew about it and that they didn't say anything for fear of scaring Jean-Marie. Are they, however, guilty? No.
It’s easy to imagine that Michel willfully delayed the research in order to allow the killers to carry out their misdeed. However, 'La Vologne' is a river that stretches for 50 km. No one could know where Grégory was precisely.
Besides,the killers probably didn't stay with Grégory for long. Once dead, it was over. The last step was to stage his little body with weaver's knots; Marcel, Jacqueline and Bernard worked in spinning mills. If the insulin was not used - the killer had neither the time nor the patience - we can be sure that Grégory was quickly "neutralized". What I'm trying to say: All that mattered was to kill this child to FINALLY get revenge on his father, after almost three years of waiting.
Do you really think the killers were going to hang out at the crime scene or wait near the body, at the risk of being surprised?
Investigators cannot say for sure if Michel helped Bernard and the crows. We know he had an ambiguous relationship with his brother and hated him as much as he loved him. And that he was close to his cousin Bernard. But that is not enough to make him an accomplice in murder.
In this case, Michel is the only protagonist on which my opinion is unclear.
I have said this often, but at least two women played a major role. Ginette was, according to many, a manipulative and jealous woman. I think she could manipulate her vulnerable and easily influenced husband.
Ginette was affected by Bernard's death. If we dig a little deeper, we can see that these two had quite analogous personalities. Discreet and calculating, but also cautious and devious. On the other hand, Ginette was not so saddened by Grégory's death.
The night of the murder, she was sitting in Jean-Marie & Christine's kitchen, smoking a cigarette, impassive. There was general panic, followed by growing concern and shock to learn of the little boy's death. Ginette didn't seem to have any attachment to Grégory.
We don't have a lot of information about Marcel & Jacqueline Jacob. We know their name mainly from the 2017 investigations and have remained in the shadows for over 30 years. I was stunned to learn that they had been cited in Christine's 'Non-Lieu' as early as 1993 since I did not have this document in my possession.
I would like to be a little mouse to see how these people behave when they take off the mask.
Judge Simon noted in his notebooks, I quote: Marcel is “all sugar, all honey” (this French expression characterizes any person whose appearance is extremely nice but whose character is suspected of being contrary to this facade.)
I think Marcel can be very pleasant with the people he likes. Friendly and sociable. On the other hand, if he is upset by someone, he can be very resentful, violent and hateful. Two different people, interesting.
We know the exhaustive list of the various clashes between the Jacob couple and the Villemin family. Marcel's striking aversion to Jean-Marie. His hatred towards Albert whom he despises strongly.
What hypocrisy to say that he loved Jean-Marie like all his nephews and nieces when we know his relationship with Bernard and the distance he put between Jean-Marie & himself. What hypocrisy to say he had no problem with Albert when he would have gladly spat on him.
In the recent interview with Dominique Rizet & Philippe Gaudin, he specifies that from his house he could only see the roof and a window of Albert and Monique's house.
It doesn't change anything; actually, his house was located facing the valley, like a viewpoint on a panorama. The window he talks about is on the right side of the house. If he saw this window, he inevitably should have seen the passage leading to the main entrance of the house. Albert and Monique's house was exposed, with no tall bushes or trees in front. And, to use the words of Valérie Jacob, - about the trees in front of the Jacob's house - "more than 30 years ago, the trees were not so big".
Jacqueline speaks very little and sometimes even seems elsewhere. But when she deigns to open her mouth, I find her virulent in the tone of her voice. Marcel Jacob tries to attract sympathy and he does it quite well. Jacqueline doesn't give a damn about the image she portrays to the public.
She seems distant, Marcel leans towards her and searches for her eyes several times very quickly. He expects support to validate his words with the approval of his wife. A way to strengthen their statements and their credibility. But Jacqueline looks at journalists or into the void, and even at the ceiling.
To better define their personality, I used the reports of expert psychologists, the testimonies of their relatives and the book by Thibaut Solano.
The expertise of Grégory's great-uncle reveals a man "immature and easily influenced" but devoid of any "psychiatric pathology". Nor of "disorders" or "deficiencies" likely "to influence his behavior".
Dr Michel Lecamp paints a portrait of Jacqueline Jacob very close to the "smooth" and "submissive" woman described by a psychiatrist during a previous examination. "She controls her emotions and is generally phlegmatic," notes the psychologist. There remains the description of "a woman rather withdrawn into herself and her marriage" and who "leads a regulated life and does not intend to change it, even if it means appearing stubborn or rigid", according to the psychologist's conclusions. For more information on this, see the articles on crows.
Marcel gives the impression to be a man who has "power" over his wife.
However, their own daughter said Jacqueline was "the dominant one", sometimes very harsh in her words towards her husband, even in public. She was very directive and authoritarian. She states that her mother was "distant and cold".
According to Jacqueline, Valérie is "a liar". Marcel is less rough with his daughter. Jacqueline is resentful, their daugter spoke to journalists about her parents and she cannot digest it. Jacqueline even adds: "SHE was the one who often looked through the binoculars, not necessarily towards the house [Villemin]". What pettiness !
Marcel is an apparently dominant man, in reality dominated by a cunning wife, acting in the shadows, and who, basically, "wore the panties". Marcel relies on Jacqueline, this can give him a feeling - or a semblance - of security, a state in which he feels guided.
Even though the crime was probably premeditated, we cannot ignore the evidence of an impulse. On October 14, Michel came as a “scout” to test the waters. No one had imagined that a family conspiracy was at work. Jean-Marie now knows that there are other individuals in the shadows, at the top of the pyramid. The desire to destroy Jean-Marie was at its height; the brutality of the events which led to the death of Grégory betrays an impulsive side and we know that Marcel is described with the same adjective. We know that Jacqueline could escalate the conflict by encouraging her husband and Marcel was receptive, his anger rose crescendo, stronger and stronger.
Jacqueline could very well embody this mystery woman. She was rude and vulgar, we saw her with Christine "Move your ass Bitch !", Jean-Marie, Gilbert and Albert, whom she insults copiously.
She also insults factory workers, those who do not want to get involved in a labor strike. Women in the Villemin family are also targeted with insults, in letters sent by the black bird, [whore, bitch, « connasse », « pimbêche », her dirty pig face].
Jacqueline was hateful towards Albert and we know the mystery woman was mainly after him. She was contemplative; like Jacqueline who intervenes a few times during the interview. If Jacqueline wrote these threatening letters, I don't think Marcel dictated anything to his wife. They probably agreed on the content of the text. The feminine writing, the use of a local feminine expression "[...] who have the right to dirty your plates on Sunday", (Michel also used this expression), the insults towards the women whereas the men are "spared", "old idiots," and most importantly the similarity to Jacqueline's writing, are a few things that point in her direction.
Thirty seven years after the murder of little Grégory, still no culprit or explanations. Most professions have lost control in this matter. Some have been more introspective than others. Why did this crime, admittedly horrible, take on such a dimension? At the heart of the 80s and the explosion of the audiovisual landscape, the media played a preponderant role, not always glorious. From the first hours, the ingredients for a tragedy were gathered around this valley soiled by so much ink and legal failures. The setting, the environment, the colorful protagonists and the intricacies of the family background greatly fueled the aura of mystery and the public interest. The fascination around this case lies mainly in the fact that the murderer is part of Grégory's family and that this child was killed for apparently ludicrous reasons.
Despite my determination to distinguish one individual among many, I cannot speak with conviction on the identity of the killers. Indeed, information on the history of the protagonists is ultimately very limited and does not add much to the substance of the case. Our judgment is biased by controlled television appearances and staged interviews. Trying to dig into their personalities through these archives is a waste of time, obviously none of them reveal who they really are.
The crow is a very good actor. It's extremely difficult to imagine Bernard or Marcel playing this cruel man thirsty for revenge and obsessed with Jean-Marie.
Yet someone killed this child and the list of suspects is small. Moreover, the black bird changes his voice and his way of expressing himself so successfully that his own family does not recognize him. The only real suspect will be Roger Jacquel. If you have read the article on Dr. André Gassiot, an expert in this field, you will know that this man suffers from a psychological disorder.
For me, there is no doubt about it, this individual is mentally ill. Why doesn't he kill Jean-Marie, the object of his hatred? "I'll put a bullet between your shoulders and if I miss you, I'll bring you oranges to the hospital." A threat he never fulfills.
The stalker's confidence has increased over time; he quickly realizes that he is not identified by his family and that they stubbornly focus on Roger Jacquel, Jacky and Liliane Villemin.
The pleasure he experiences has played a role in the persistence of his activities. To ensure this sustainability, he cannot and does not want to kill Jean-Marie.
If he kills him, he will no longer see him struggling, suffering or worrying through his fault. However, the enjoyable urge to see him in this state either changed or was no longer sufficient. He wants to see him suffer first (for three years he will live and act for this sole purpose) before killing him indirectly through the murder of his son.
Indeed, the most affected emotionally and psychologically is undeniably Albert. Jean-Marie was angry, his corner of paradise and his nascent happiness were threatened. Of a combative nature, he refused to give in to fear. He tried to fix the problem and trapped the crow himself many times. Jean-Marie may not have been as touched as the crow would have hoped. He was young and did not accept that his safe haven was put in danger.
In the letter of October 16, the crow mentions Jean-Marie's money. During his harassment, he kept coming back to this element. Leader status and money.
When Marcel Laroche died, Bernard had found a sheet of paper on which were scribbled these words: "Albert blackmailed me, he extorted money from me"; Bernard had explained that it was actually Albert Jacob, one of the brothers of Marcel & Monique Jacob. Bernard's middle name is Albert and his mother Thérèse “would have had” a sexual relationship with Albert Villemin. We know that Albert was close to his brother-in-law Marcel Laroche.
Albert's name comes up frequently. Is it possible that Albert deliberately withheld information about his relationship with Bernard's father?
Indeed, Bernard was like Marcel, a good and helpful man, quite submissive, a "good pear". Both could bury their frustration. This would explain why potential accounts of this event - Albert and the supposed blackmail - have never been heard; only those involved in this conflict know it. This "detail" has been neglected in favor of the media fantasy of Monique's imaginary illegitimate child, the second bastard. Yet I think it is important.
Albert could be violent and hit his wife; he was difficult to live with and imposed a lot of constraints on his family. Of a rather impetuous character, he has drawn the wrath of many around him.
In conflict with the Jacobs, mainly Marcel & Léon; a rumor linked to Thérèse Jacob, his wife's full sister and the wife of his very good friend Marcel Laroche; a complex and turbulent relationship with his son Michel. Albert Villemin is connected to Marcel, Bernard and Michel through negative elements and vectors of resentment. In this context and in view of the brazen success of Jean-Marie, a deep desire for revenge could thus have arisen in the minds of Marcel, Bernard or Michel.
The jealousy factor is predominant, but the feeling of humiliation and offense is also prevalent. I think the role of Albert weighed heavily in the hatred towards his son Jean-Marie. Family stories unfairly affect subsequent generations. Everything is mixed up. Jean-Marie suffered revenge by proxy, he paid the bill for the faults of his family.
The great feeling of injustice felt by Bernard and Michel is palpable when Jean-Marie rises professionally. Both struggle with more difficulty for a better life. For them, life is already thankless. The pride of Jean-Marie's parents and the feeling of being despised for the benefit of the prodigy son is also unbearable. The crow keeps demanding that Monique and Albert abandon Jean-Marie. "You have to put him aside like the bastard." We have the evidence that one (or more people) wants to isolate Jean-Marie from his family as a punishment. These people are affected by their own exclusion ... or the exclusion of a person they value.
We are dealing with an individual who takes himself for a vigilante and who thinks of restoring the balance within the family. The gap between the protagonists obviously widened when Jean-Marie became leader. The revolt of being constantly rejected has intensified and the embers of past conflicts were instantly rekindled.
Who likes to play the role of vigilante, defender, protector? Marcel Jacob of course. With his sister Monique, he protects her from Albert; or with Bernard and Marie-Ange for example, he drives Bernard to his work, Jean-Marie had threatened to kill him. He supports Marie-Ange after his death. With Murielle, when he hugs her. Marcel is kind to the people he cares about.
The 3 years of harassment, and the murder of Grégory, certainly brought great enjoyment to our masked avenger. As well as the hell that Jean-Marie & Christine then faced. At Marcel & Jacqueline's home, investigators unearthed multiple press clippings related to the investigation, including the trial of Jean-Marie in Dijon, carefully sorted in a notebook. Marcel followed the investigation closely and preserved these articles as souvenirs. In the interview with his wife, both say they know nothing and have no assumptions about the killer's identity. And that they did not know they were facing a potential trial in the near future. However, they kept many press articles and Marcel often appeared around Marie-Ange in her public appearances.
We understand it, the cursed bird wants to punish Jean-Marie and the Villemin family. As I mentioned earlier, the impulsive side of the murder is striking. We feel great anger. Like a brutal slap. This anger is present in Marcel. When his daughter disobeys him, he explodes (then regrets it, cries and apologizes to his daughter like a kid). When Jacqueline leaves him in two stages for another man; after despair, he wanted to “kill everyone, my mother, her lover, the parents…”, I quote Valérie Jacob. In December 1982, after the altercation with Jean-Marie and his family, Marcel returns to stand in front of Albert and Monique's house to confront and provoke Jean-Marie. Strongly encouraged by his wife. Marcel Jacob is a volcano of anger, he acts under the influence of emotion, in the moment.
Marcel shows great confidence, "they have a clear conscience". They are not stupid, their lawyers plead the unreliability and the dangerousness of an expertise in writing or stylometry. The proof with the fiasco of the eighties.
But in this field, science has made tremendous progress. Marcel & Jacqueline are therefore quite serene. The crow was also very confident, “you will never know who I am”. Michel has greatly helped to increase the suspicion around Roger Jacquel, Jacky and Liliane. These people really acted in complete freedom, Jean-Marie was convinced of the involvement of Roger J.
When Monique is targeted, the raven has a special relationship with her, he insults her very often. He even says "she's the dumbest of them all." He has no respect for her and he knows the name of Jacky's biological father. When we listen to their conversations, sometimes we have the impression that they know each other intimately and that she knows who he is. But she's not sure.
Marcel is, in my humble opinion, quite treacherous. This "honey" figure is regular and a little false, he feigns his innocence with too much fervor. His smooth and friendly image is not a reflection of his true personality. When I listen to the testimonies, Marcel and Jacqueline are extremely appreciated in their village. They are helpful and discreet. His brother René Jacob describes him as a chicken - especially with the law. Jacqueline's brother, Daniel, doesn't believe in their guilt. Their daughter has never witnessed anything in their home. Paradoxically, the testimonies of the Villemin family converge in the opposite direction. We can say that Marcel and Jacqueline hide their game well. Don't get stuck on their physical appearance today, either. These people were hateful and vindictive.
Bernard is the first to receive anonymous calls; a young woman calls several times over a fairly long period (February 1981 to December 1981). A young woman fakes an orgasm and declares her love with sweet words. Of course it's a joke, maybe to make fun of his womanizer side or to annoy his wife. These calls are independent of those linked to the investigation, but we know that they created serious tensions within the couple. Marcel knew the situation and had even heard Marie-Ange scream "It's still the bitch !?" from his house next door. Obviously, these events may have triggered ideas in the minds of the protagonists. Marcel was in the front row to see the damage caused to the Laroche couple. Several silent calls are recorded in the months preceding the beginnings of the harassment, in July 1981.
I have previously stated that I did not recognize Marcel's voice behind the black bird voice. After repeatedly comparing the voices of our two suspects, Marcel & Bernard, I cannot deny that I am struck by the similarity between Marcel and the crow.
Although it is difficult to identify him formally, the timber of his voice is subtly recognizable. The only difference is the speed of speech. Marcel sometimes speaks very quickly, he "eats" his words. The crow speaks very slowly and spells out his sentences like a wizard. Our crow sometimes speaks with his nose, as if he has a cold. Marcel Jacob too.
Regarding handwriting (raven), I cannot position myself with certainty on the identity of the author, two solutions are possible: 1) Jacqueline wrote these letters in perfect harmony with the usual and recurrent words of the crow-man, Marcel.
On the day of the crime, one detail was forgotten: the letter of October 16 was not written in advance. However, it was necessary to provide a postage stamp, a pen and an envelope. Indeed, it is possible that, in the stress, the impatience or the adrenaline, the last preparations etc., everyone forgot to think about this detail, to write a nice little note to Jean-Marie. But I'm not sure since it was written on a notebook, that would mean they had planned to send a final letter. Did they wait the day of the crime ? Indeed, if the letter had been written before, the author would have been more careful and written in block letters, much more complex to analyze. If Jacqueline is the author, she wrote it in the car while Marcel was driving. Bernard posted the letter, he stopped near the post office. They necessarily met Bernard in the afternoon to give him this letter, shortly before Gregory's kidnapping. They are seen in Deycimont (speculation of the investigators based on the testimonies) and Bernard is seen repeatedly prowling in Lépanges.
How to explain the visible trace of his initials corresponding with his personal signature affixed to the bottom of the letter? Did Marcel & Jacqueline use Bernard's Citroen Ami8 and find his notebook and envelopes in the glove box? It is possible. However, this leads us to these 3 questions: The letters were written on the same notebook in large squares. Was Bernard lending his notebook to Jacqueline? Why not, but it's still weird. What was Bernard doing with a mail kit in his glove box? If Jacqueline embodies the feminine crow, she, who is cautious, why does she suddenly decide to take risks by delivering her cursive writing to potential eyes experienced in this field? Everyone knew that the Villemin family had already met the Gendarmes, (Telephone tapping tables were set up, letters thus replaced calls). Finally, the letters were written in an interval of one or several months; several envelopes have the same lot number. All this remains very confused.
2) Bernard is the author. He can write the letter while waiting for Murielle in the parking lot, with the engine running. This does not mean that he is the killer but a willing and active accomplice. Marcel telephones while transforming his voice, Jacqueline takes care of joining professionals of the medical sector or other and sends these same people to the residence of the Villemin parents, Bernard writes the letters. I always found it very strange that the crow used two ways to sign his crime: a call and a letter. Either one was enough. This could mean that two people have, in fact, announced their revenge, Marcel & Bernard or Marcel & Jacqueline of course. In addition, Jacqueline and Marcel could also post it by returning to the factory in one of the villages between Lépanges and Aumontzey, in Bruyères for example, (one of the letters of the crow had been sent via Bruyères). Obviously, the letter would have arrived 1 or 2 days after the crime. In addition, between the letter and the call, there is an interval of approx. 10/15 min max. Is the call in question just to warn Michel and try to get Jean-Marie away from the river? It's possible.
Christine's mother had witnessed an intrusion on the property of her daughter and her son-in-law while she looked after Grégory during their absence. She will say to have seen, in the middle of the night, "a vaulted man, perhaps old, and the shadow of a car of square, rectangular shape. Perhaps type Renault 4L. He had left discreetly without starting the engine, in releasing his hand brake." This description instinctively reminds me of Bernard's Citroën (Ami 8). When Jean-Marie had decided to stay a week at home to watch and observe the surroundings, (he did not mention it to anyone in his family), he had received a call from Bernard who could not know that he was at home.
He had seemed a little taken aback or surprised and had pretexted a detail on his tapestry. Is it possible that Bernard came to lurk to Lépanges at night, before he worked with the night shift? Totally. The call send to Monique (she hears Valerie and Isabelle with Sebastien in the background, I think Marcel was with Bernard), to Jean-Marie, and to Jacky who receives a call from Bernard only a few seconds after having conversed with the crow to which he would have said by provoking him "I don't work, I have time, I am listening to you". Bernard knows he is working and he invites him to do a belote (card game). Yeah, it's a bit "big"! All these testimonies invite me to believe that Marcel was not the only one to 1) play crows, (of course we already know that) but above all, 2) Bernard also went to Lépanges at night, wrote letters (?), etc ... Two men totally accomplices in the crime?
I spoke of vulgarity above. Marcel and Jacqueline use insults regularly. They punctuated their words with insults. Our two crows use offensive words repeatedly. Marcel's violence transpires also in the attempted intrusion; the pane of the front door had been smashed and Christine had caught an arm waving inside. What would he have done if she had holed up with Grégory in a corner of the house? For most normal humans, when the desire for revenge becomes feverish and then tangible, the enjoyment resides mainly when the other finds out who he / she is. In this case it is different.
Our suspects like to stay in the dark, the idea of being the source of the Villemin's misfortune while letting the mystery hang out is extremely pleasant. Thus, they have power over their victims.
By carefully analyzing the order of the calls and the information shared, we realize that Bernard was informing Marcel, like Michel. And sometimes, they were together. His uncle is very talkative and enjoys telling anecdotes. He has an answer for each question, and, with aplomb. In this behavior, the crow is identical. He lies, invents and deceives his victims with phenomenal nerve. How could Marcel lack self-confidence? He has covered his tracks and escaped justice for almost 40 years.
Marcel Jacob could have blamed Jean-Marie's sudden promotion for himself and for his nephew Bernard, who had been trying to achieve the same rank for almost 7 consecutive years. Bernard Laroche never said anything; unlike her uncle who made no secret of his contempt and hatred towards their family.
At that moment, I think of Jean Ker and his testimony on his first meeting with Bernard at Louisette's (Docu Netflix): "Let's talk about this family, it's unfortunate for the kid but they paid for everything they did." I often fail to mention it because I am like Jean-Marie, I love the man but not the journalist. I remain cautious about the comments reported by Mr. Jean Ker. Maybe Bernard didn't express himself so drastically.
We remember that during his testimony at the Dijon trial on November 10, 1993, 'Paris Match' reporter Jean Ker said he heard Bernard Laroche thunder in front of him: “The bastards, they paid for what they did."
This would have taken place nine days after the death of Grégory, on October 23, 1984, during their first (fortuitous) meeting in the house of Louisette Jacob, aunt of Bernard Laroche, in Aumontzey. I would point out that Jean Ker had already spoken of this meeting to two of his colleagues from 'Le Parisien', Bernard Groslier and Catherine Tardrew, who then referred to it in their book, the very first on the affair … published in June 1985. And what were then the words lent to Bernard Laroche? Here is: “Oh, the Villemin! They weren't always perfect… There would be things to say… ”
Strange, it's a bit as if we wanted to go over the same dish eight years apart, but adding spice: of “not always perfect”, we switched to a much more radical expression: “The bastards”. And the words attributed in November 1993 to the first accused in the case resembled the vocabulary of the crow during his phone calls.
Anyways, Jacky's condition is not the issue. The crow persists in continually defending Jean-Marie's brother, but he harasses him with as much cruelty as the others, until he accuses Liliane of complicity. This element also reinforces the suspicion of the Villemins around Roger Jacquel, Liliane's father. In my humble opinion, Marcel "intervenes" for Bernard. Marcel can thus take the opportunity to take revenge for his own grievances towards the family.
On the recording of Jean Ker's interview with Louisette Jacob, we hear her say "Bernard is sleeping here, the shutters are closed up there" (The couple's home on the heights); "Marie-Ange and Bernard are afraid, that's because of the kid" (Grégory).
This event follows Jean-Marie's declaration to his parents in Aumontzey when they are present. Jean-Marie had threatened to kill his son's killer in the middle of the night. Of course Bernard is involved and if he's not the killer he knows who they are. Jean Ker was right "If you kill Laroche, you will never know the truth". Bernard's murder, Jean-Marie's trial, and the focus on Christine erected a wall between the investigation and the potential culprits.
After working many weeks, I think I have answered the main questions of the Grégory case. I now look forward to the results of DNA analyzes accepted in January 2021 - expert conclusions are expected soon. I will undoubtedly publish a detailed chronology of the case in the coming days.
I recently received a message from a Redditor asking for information on the Jacobs and their connection to the Villemin family; everything is available on my blog, mainly in the 5 articles dedicated to the protagonists in the viewfinder of the investigators.
I literally dissect intra-family relationships and reading the study is certainly tedious, but very interesting. I am neither an expert nor a professional investigator, but I believe I have identified our "characters" and the thesis of a family conspiracy is no longer, in my eyes, a theory ... but a reality.
Let’s never forget Grégory, he was innocent. He was only 4 years old and a lively, cheerful little boy, very attached to his parents. He would now be 41 years old and probably have a family.
No Justice for this child. It’s terrible and it breaks my heart. I feel close to Grégory, like most French people. I deeply admire his father Jean-Marie and his tenacity to bring out the truth. Jean-Marie & Christine have always stood together, united until death. Jean-Marie worked very hard to bring new elements to the file. In France, the statute of limitations for a crime - murder or assassination - is : 20 years in general and 30 years for certain serious crimes (terrorism, drug trafficking in an organized gang, war crimes, etc.). Jean-Marie's strength and courage are reminiscent of Mr André Bamberski's own fierce determination to convict the murderer of his daughter, Kalinka. (Kalinka case). Both are amazing fathers. In comparison, John Ramsey has never fought so hard for his daughter, JonBenét Ramsey. I believe that says a lot about the truth of this absolutely appalling case. The crow(s), and no one, will never have succeeded in breaking their powerful love.
They never forgot their beloved child
Jean-Marie & Christine deserve justice. Grégory deserves justice. Think of those children whose murder goes unpunished. These children who are suffering and who are abused. Let’s never forget these victims of human madness.
👼
Life imprisonment is a criminal sanction for the most serious criminal offenses. Consequently, this sanction is especially pronounced in matters of crimes. In theory, this sanction consists of the incarceration of a criminal until his death.
In France, the maximum prison sentence is life imprisonment with a 30-year safety period. Thus, in the strict sense of the term, life imprisonment, i.e. imprisonment until the death of the convicted person, does not exist in France.
“Conditional release” is a measure of prison sentence adjustment. It allows an inmate to be released before the end of his sentence, under certain conditions: Convicted over 70 years old ; Sentenced with child or pregnant ; Condemned having benefited from a suspension of sentence for medical reasons.
If the person has been given a life sentence, they can apply for parole after 18 years (or 22 years if they are a repeat offender).
Commentaires