I watched and listened attentively to the interview given by Dominique Rizet & Philippe Gaudin. Several things should be noted :
1) Marcel Jacob speaks often, he is expressive and open. His wife is closed and cold as an ice cube. She is not very talkative.
~ We find this same behavior during their custody in 2017 ; Jacqueline kept her right to silence while her husband agreed to answer investigators' questions.
~ The couple's summons to Xonrupt by Judge Simon. Marcel had come alone and claimed to have thought he was the only one concerned. Jacqueline is still in the background, she is clearly thoughtful and savvy.
“He answers my questions for 3 hours 30 minutes but eludes them to such an extent that, without realizing it, he even more accredits Laroche's participation in the crime.”
Judge Simon's notebooks.
We find this same pattern in the dynamics of the pair of crows.
He is more prolific than his female accomplice. Indeed, he doesn't just insult, he talks often, up to 40 minutes with Jean-Marie.
The protagonists heard her voice only a few times ; she is heard by Jean-Marie singing, laughing hysterically or giggling. She is heard by Albert, a woman's voice insult him while Monique is away ; she also seems to avoid having Monique on the phone.
She is mostly heard by third parties in order to indirectly reach the Villemin family. And I'm pretty sure she was changing her voice as well.
Anyway, the woman in question has remained very cautious about her identity and takes fewer risks than her partner in crime.
2) I find them very confident about the outcome of the investigation.
Marcel Jacob seems relaxed and smiles several times at questions asked by reporters about their involvement in a child murder. For them, it's inconceivable to think that [of them]. They are not guilty and we must not question that and believe them almost blindly ... of course. They complain a lot
about the way they were treated and the conditions of their arrest and detention. They often bring their advanced age back to the table, as if this element grants them immunity.
I have the feeling that they feel untouchable. Have their lawyers worked in this direction ?
Question: "You necessarily have, like all French people, an idea of what happened ... what do you think is the most credible hypothesis ?
MJ: "The hypothesis ... we can't give ... because I ... oh no we can't say ... but what's happening to us is terrible."
Marcel evades the question and again evokes his 4 days in jail, complaining for about 30 seconds and without really answering. "It's monstrous, it's shameful."
They are deliberately trying to gain public sympathy. For me, Marcel does too much. He never clearly answers questions but takes advantage of the flaws in the justice system in this investigation to claim miscarriage of justice. It won't work every time.
The shirt Marcel is wearing was given to him by a co-inmate. The journalist asks him the question undoubtedly prompted by the latter's lawyers. A way to gain people's sympathy. This is why Marcel specifically wears this shirt, to show that he is lovable and even very pleasant on a daily basis. He has easy contact. He knows how to make friends. This detail makes him more human.
3) Journalists get annoyed at their false naivety. Dominique Rizet explains to them that they are in the hot seat and risk a trial. Marcel Jacob claims they didn't know. I have a strong feeling that they are trying to distance themselves, they want at all costs to appear innocent in the eyes of the world, but not a single one of them utters the word "innocent" during the interview. They just say they worked and that's all they can say. Also, let's be clear, Marcel Jacob knows he is in the sights of investigators thanks to, or rather, because of his nephew Jean-Marie.
Marcel knows this because he talks to Jean-Marie directly "stop accusing us like this".
I can't imagine they don't know what they're risking. They have obviously worked on this interview with their lawyers and their defense is simple :
play the naive and display overplayed 'sincerity'. They try to convince the French of their indisputable innocence and rely on their pseudo ignorance of the functioning of justice to prove that they "are far from all that".
Marcel also quickly talks about the horror of killing a child. His gaze falters and at that moment, I don't feel him being sincere in his statements.
4) When Christine and Jean-Marie are mentioned, Jacqueline will only say that they never saw them. And that they never talked about the case together since they had no relationship. Only Marcel really speaks of Jean-Marie, calling him by his first name. In a sense, he is more cooperative.
The paradox here is that Marcel is trying to make us believe that he had no grievance towards the latter. And that he “loved him just like his other nieces and nephews”. He feigns some connection to Jean-Marie by deliberately using his first name, or even Albert whom he nicknames "Bébert," thus assuring the public that there was no animosity between them. But they also tell us that they never saw each other ... then, in this situation, how to form bonds of affection and why speak of love ?
It’s common knowledge that Marcel & Albert did not like each other. Marcel talks about his last links with Albert and Monique, meals or barbecues together, etc. He's not lying, I saw pictures of them at family meals long after Grégory died. However, we do know that crows are close to their victims. I’m not surprised at Monique's behavior, constantly in denial. Refusing to believe in the involvement of one or more members of her family. Albert followed his wife, like always.
5) At the end of the interview, when Marcel returns to their terrible situation and the injustice they are experiencing, he expresses himself: "[...] after 44 years of work in the factory, it is ashamed to screw up our end of life”. Clearly, lawyers plead the good reputation of their clients : an ordinary couple appreciated and invested in the community. Two people who have worked in difficult conditions all their lives and who yearn for the peace of their well-deserved retirement.
Marcel does not understand that he could have been arrested and accused in this way. He seems to have a high opinion of himself.
6) To the question "Is there a family secret ?", Marcel says no. And I believe him. No, Jacky is not Marcel's son. The argument that his father Léon abused his daughter Louisette is not the proof or a sign of an incestuous relationship between Marcel and Monique.
7) Honestly, Marcel's “solar” personality is a surprise. He has a strong character and a certain presence. He seems more accessible than his wife similar to a wall of silence. I don't feel him embarrassed by the guilt and he seems comfortable.
If they are the culprits then they have no remorse or conscience issue. How could this couple fall into darkness like this ?
What to think of this interview ? It can be summed up as follows : we are not trying to help justice, we have no idea who killed Grégory, we have no assumptions and we are innocent period. Isn't that a bit too easy ?
Unfortunately, journalists were not given the freedom to ask all the questions they wanted. The interview was undoubtedly accepted under certain conditions. Thus, the relationship that this couple could have with Bernard / Marie-Ange or Michel / Ginette was never mentioned.
Comments