A red face that we would recognize among a thousand. From the height of her 15 years, Murielle Bolle hastily passes from the status of a very normal teenager to that of a key witness in a murder case. Overnight, the young woman with her face dotted with freckles finds herself confronted with the violence of the press, the neglect of justice and the dereliction of her family.
Before the tragedy, which occurred on October 16, 1984, his daily life was that of anyone of his age. “She spent her day at college, came home in the evening and watched television while preparing her homework”, assures us Me Jean-Paul Teissonnière, her lawyer. Fan of Johnny Hallyday, she has a goat, red like her, and a gray dog, which responds to the name of “Tout p’tit”.
Together, his parents Jeanine Lavalée and Lucien Bolle had no less than eleven children, including Marie-Ange, big sister of Murielle. In 1984, the two sisters lived together with Bernard, Marie-Ange’s husband, and Sébastien, their son. “From memory, it was to keep the little one: they had a problem because Bernard worked at night at his factory and Marie-Ange worked during the day, so keeping Sébastien was quite complicated”, explains Me Teissonnière.
On Murielle Bolle’s November 2, 1984 hearing report, which Planet was able to obtain, the teenager is questioned about where she lives. She then confides: “Since the end of June 1984, I have stayed with my sister Marie-Ange who lives at La Fosse in Aumontzey. Because her husband works in the night shift, she does not want to be alone, I keep her company”.
Marie-Ange and Murielle got along very well according to the lawyer, “but above all, Murielle adored her brother-in-law Bernard Laroche”.
“Contrary to what has been said, he was someone who had a perfect reputation, he was considered generous and very kind, continues the advice of Murielle Bolle. It is a united family that does not poses no particular problem”.
Patricia Tourancheau, journalist and author of Grégory – La machination familial (Ed. Seuil), describes Marie-Ange as “the mistress woman”, who “leads” her youngest daughter like her husband.
The only downside at the time: the patriarch had “some weaknesses for alcohol and did not always behave very well”, sometimes indulging in bouts of violence. The mother was very protective of her cherubim.
At the time, Murielle was nicknamed “Bouboule” by her peers, or even “Mumu”, “carrot hair”… “That’s right. This nickname of Bouboule, it was Bernard who gave it to me on the occasion of a visit to a circus during which a monkey called Bouboule took my scarf,” she confided several years later during a confrontation with a cousin.
About the Villemin clan, his lawyer is formal: “Murielle did not know them. She must have met them, she may have met them two or three times in her life. What is true is that the Villemin and the Laroches are the descendants of a common family, in any case of the common ancestors, and that there were family frequentations at a time which very quickly distended “.
The assassination of Grégory, Murielle learns it “like all the people of Vologne”, by the press. She would have experienced it as one experiences a news item that happened ten kilometers from the place where she lives. “The type of collective emotion that we can feel when we are not in direct contact with the person concerned”, summarizes Me Teissonnière.
For her, everything really begins on October 31, 1984. In the evening, the gendarmes went to the home of Murielle Bolle’s parents and asked to hear her. The next day, they return to take him with them to the gendarmerie to question him about his schedule on the day Grégory Villemin disappeared.
“She invariably answers what is still her thesis today: she got on the school bus with her friend Nelly Demange and other college colleagues. She got off at Aumontzey, at her aunt Louisette’s, where Bernard Laroche was watching television”, lists Me Teissonnière.
While she was doing her homework, Bernard Laroche would have gone to recover his winnings from a trifecta and buy several boxes of wine “in a fairly large number” at the Champion supermarket, comments the lawyer.
On the side of the investigators, the discourse is quite different. Étienne Sesmat, the captain of the gendarmerie of Épinal who is leading the investigation at the material time, questioned Murielle Bolle during her first hearing. For Planet, he testifies: “So we are interested in her, in her schedule, we hear the bus driver telling us that she was not on the bus to come home from college that day; and friends of theirs say she was not present”, recalls the captain.
In her deposition, Murielle Bolle describes the bus driver as follows:
“I don’t know his name but can describe him to you. He is young, has a black mustache and a beard on his chin. He is quite tall. During all my trips, I only dealt with this driver” .
But this description does not correspond to that of the driver who drove the bus on October 16, 1984. A simple error, according to Me Teissonnière. Having been questioned more than two weeks after the facts, Murielle had “quite simply confused the two drivers”.
The rationale is not suitable for investigators. “We realize that there is a wolf,” says Étienne Sesmat. The gendarmes place the teenager in police custody in order to confront her with what they call her “contradictions”. According to Étienne Sesmat, she “cracks” and returns to her first version of the facts. “I didn’t tell you the truth, my brother-in-law came to pick me up, picked up a little boy before dropping him off elsewhere, then we left,” continues the gendarme, before concluding: “On November 7, the judge Lambert decides to arrest Bernard Laroche, and he is indicted and placed in pre-trial detention. The next day, Murielle retracts “.
A story that Murielle Bolle’s lawyer strongly disputes: “At the express request and accompanied by pressure from the gendarmes who are questioning her, she will finally agree to endorse the gendarmes’ thesis, although she will not formulate it”, he certifies.
“If we read the minutes of Murielle’s statements, there is nothing in her statements that is not already in the minds of the gendarmes: she only answers with yes or no”, continues the lawyer, insinuating that what were later called Murielle’s “confessions” were not spontaneous, but dictated by the investigators.
Reading the contents of the minutes of the hearing, Planet finds that Murielle Bolle tells, in the first place, the version of the story that she still maintains today. She says she took the school bus to her aunt Louisette, where she found Bernard Laroche and his son, and then did her homework while watching television.
On this document, where it is true that the questions do not appear, the teenager indeed begins certain statements with “Indeed”, “I come back to what I say”, “It is true that…”.
Still according to the advice of the one who was only a teenager at the time, it was a real “brainwashing” that was imposed on her, the investigators threatening to send her to a reformatory if she refused to corroborate their version of the facts. He also denounces the fact that Murielle, at times, uses words that do not resemble her, something which would prove that her words are imposed by the gendarmes.
“We guess once again in hollow the questions of the gendarmes, because she answers at a given moment in a language which is not hers by saying: ‘I cannot give you any indication of the clothing effects that Grégory wore’. It’s a gendarmes vocabulary that she wouldn’t understand, it’s not Murielle’s language”, takes offense at Me Teissonnière.
The 15-year-old woman specifies in her report that she “cannot give any details about the child’s clothing”… “However, it seems to me that he was wearing a cap”, she continues.
“She makes even fewer sentences since she has nothing in mind when answering the gendarmes, except that she made her trip as she did every day by taking the bus to go home” , he recalls.
The content of the report, however, indicates the two versions of the story, because Murielle Bolle ends up changing the version by claiming to have been with Bernard Laroche when he took with him in the car a child “who actually corresponds to Gregory’s photo.
In a second hearing, carried out a few hours later the same day, Murielle Bolle recounts the facts as follows:
“When Bernard stopped the car at a crossroads in the heights of Lépanges-sur-Vologne (Vosges), he got out alone. He said to me ‘Pay attention to bibiche’. He wanted to talk about Sébastien, his son, who was in the back of the car. He calls it that.
When he left the car, he didn’t search in the trunk or in the storage compartment. I don’t remember how he was dressed that day.
Once Bernard had little Grégory and we returned to Bruyères (88), it seems to me if I remember correctly that there was a road that was blocked. We pulled into this street and it looks like he left the car in a spot. Bernard came down alone and it seems to me that he had nothing in his hands. I saw him take the road that goes towards Bruyères (88) and after that I didn’t see him anymore. He must have been gone for about a minute, it was quick. On the way back, he didn’t say anything to me and I didn’t ask him anything.
During the journey, it seems to me that little Grégory spoke to Sébastien. However, I cannot tell you what they said to each other. When Bernard came back with Grégory, I thought he was taking him to a friend of Jean-Marie’s. The friend in question, I do not know him.
When we arrived in Docelles (88), I am positive, Bernard parked his car in a square. He didn’t search his car. He opened the back door, and asked the little one, whom he called by his name I mean his first name “Grégory” then they left. I watched them leave but I can’t tell you where they went.”
Following this statement, Murielle Bolle spent the night in police custody and confirmed this version of the facts the next morning, at 8:30 a.m. Questioned again, the teenager explains the reasons for her “lie”. Extract.
Question – During your hearing on October 31, 1984 at 10:30 p.m. at your parents’ home, why did you state that you had taken the bus on October 16, 1984 at 5:00 p.m. to leave Bruyères and to go to Aumontzey?
Answer – I lied to you so that my brother-in-law and my sister would not be annoyed. I was actually taken care of by Laroche Bernard and his car.
Question – Why did you agree to reconsider your statement and recount what had happened on Tuesday, October 16, 1984?
Answer – I thought about it and thought it was better to tell the truth because it was too serious a thing to hide – I am relieved to have said everything about this case. I have no details to add to my present statement.
In her book, The Forgotten Tears of Vologne (ed. L’Archipel), Marie-Ange Laroche reports what her little sister told her after this famous hearing. “I didn’t say anything! I didn’t accuse Bernard… I swear to you… It was the gendarmes who wrote everything. They scared me. They told me that I would go to a reformatory if I did not sign the sheets that they had typed”, would have stammered the kid.
About another policeman, she also confides the following words: “He threatened me with a horrible punishment. He told me in a mean voice that after the house of correction, at eighteen , I would go to prison and the other girls would kill me … Because in prison the accomplices of child killers, they are skinned”, she would have told, writes the widow of Laroche.
One element particularly annoys Me Teissonnière: “It’s completely extravagant. We decide to go and kidnap the child to assassinate him. We put Sébastien, the son of Bernard Laroche, and Murielle Bolle in the car, and we leave in this crew to carry out this abduction. Rationally, it still seems absolutely incomprehensible”.
Why would Bernard Laroche have encumbered himself with Murielle Bolle, if he really intended to commit the kidnapping of a child, followed by his abominable assassination?
According to journalist Patricia Tourancheau, the answer is simple: Murielle was in the front of the car to watch little Sébastien. “That day, he couldn’t go to the swimming pool because of his brain drain. Bernard Laroche had his kid on his arms and if he took Murielle on board, it was to keep him”, enlightens us the author.
A hypothesis confirmed by Murielle Bolle herself in her testimony of November 3, 1984.
The day after the arrest of her brother-in-law, Murielle Bolle retracts. In front of the journalists, her voice full of tears, she stammers:
Statements that sow discord in an already complex affair.
If Bernard Laroche is finally released, then killed by his cousin Jean-Marie, the track is nevertheless relaunched in 2017 with the indictment of Marcel and Jacqueline Jacob, but also of Murielle Bolle. An unexpected twist, 33 years after the tragedy, which gave rise to new revelations.
Hearing the news, Patrick Faivre, a first cousin of Murielle, then 54 years old, calls the investigators to tell them that he has information of the utmost importance about the murder of little Grégory.
“They came to audition me at my house. I could have testified under X, on condition of anonymity. I completely refused it. I felt guilty for 33 years for not having said anything and I had want to go to the end of things to forgive myself for my silence. I was then heard by Madame Barbier with her clerk. I was heard as a witness. Without constraint, nor forced”, he recalls during an exclusive interview with L’Est Républicain.
Who is this man Murielle Bolle swears she does not remember? What does he have to say that is so unprecedented in this case where all leads seem exhausted?
To the investigators, Patrick Faivre delivers very intriguing elements. He claims that on November 5, the day of Bernard Laroche’s indictment, he was staying with the Bolles. During the evening, he assures us that the teenager was the victim of a real family lynching for having denounced her brother-in-law… But also that she would have entrusted him with “the truth” about the kidnapping of Grégory Villemin. Here is his presentation.
On the evening of November 5, 1984, Murielle Bolle was allegedly beaten by her mother, Jeanine, but also by her sister, Marie-Ange. Her father, Lucien, allegedly insulted her as a “bitch” or even a “whore”. Violence interrupted by Me Paul Prompt, lawyer for Bernard Laroche, who would have tried to calm them down, notably by advancing: “We don’t care about the bus driver, he may very well have forgotten a head”.
A first component whose veracity is called into question by the simple fact that, this famous evening, Me Prompt was not yet Bernard Laroche’s counsel and did not know that he was going to intervene in the file, as assured Me Teissonniere.
To which Patrick Faivre invariably retorts as follows: “Me Prompt was present. Do not come and tell me that he only took the case on the 7th. I identified him on a photo among a dozen people. It was this gentleman who calmed the herd that was going on Murielle.
In The forgotten tears of Vologne, Marie-Ange Bolle swears not to have raised her hand on her youngest: “I did not slap her. I took refuge in my room so that no one saw me cry”, she reports. .
Still, the story of Patrick Faivre does not stop there. Then in his early twenties, he said he found the young red-haired girl “curled up on herself, downstairs, on the veranda”. There, she would have poured out, admitting to him that she never lied and that she had actually witnessed the kidnapping of Grégory Villemin by Bernard Laroche.
She would have delivered in these words: “We took the child in front of the pile of sand. We took the child from Jean-Marie Villemin to lead him to a point B”. There, they would have left the little one in the hands of two people that Murielle was then unable to identify.
The first cousin of the concerned also claims to have participated in chasing the journalists who camped in front of the family home, in Laveline-les-Bruyères.
For Jean-Paul Teissonnière, there is no doubt: “Patrick Faivre is indisputably a very great mythomaniac who invented scenes that never existed. He woke up in 2017 to, all of a sudden, marry the thesis of the guilt of Bernard Laroche, to overwhelm Bernard Laroche, his family and incidentally Murielle Bolle”.
Me Thomas Hellenbrand, lawyer for Patrick Faivre, also agreed to answer our questions. “My client claims that he did not lie and that Ms. Bolle’s remarks are defamatory towards him. In the most formal way, he confirms the veracity of his statements”, he maintains.
Patricia Tourancheau, she tempers. The journalist explains that Marie-Ange would have been very angry that evening, not understanding Murielle’s testimony. “She got slapped, she got beaten up, but on the other hand, you have to put it into perspective, because when Murielle goes to the courthouse with her mother and her brothers to withdraw her testimony and tell something else, she has no traces of blows on the face”, tells us the one who has been following the case closely for years.
“I think Marie-Ange must have had a nervous breakdown that evening, the family doctor also came, and at that time Murielle Bolle was still there, and no one noticed any blows or complains of beatings. There was no violence. There is simply Marie-Ange who, I believe, felt unwell in the evening”, assures us for his part Me Teissonnière.
No matter who is right, one thing is certain: that night, Murielle Bolle’s existence was derailed. Taken by a fit of hysteria, his body does not seem to support the guilt of having sent his brother-in-law behind bars. She screams, stamps, cries, and storms out of the house.
In a few seconds, the red head vanishes and its mother, worried, reports the disappearance to the other members of the siblings. The whole family goes in search of the 15-year-old girl.
Two hours later, a neighbor of the Bolles came to meet them to alert them: he saw Murielle on the railway line between Épinal and Saint-Dié-des-Vosges. Frightened, Jeanine is convinced: her daughter wants to commit suicide. When she returns home, in the arms of her father and her brothers, the young woman has her face frozen and her clothes soiled by the earth.
“I don’t want to live anymore… It’s my fault if Bernard is in prison. Why are there no more trains at this time?” she sobbed. The family doctor was notified of Murielle’s attempt to end her life.
Back to Patrick Faivre. This is a question that has often been asked to him: why does he wake up, 35 years after the fact?
“It was an episode that caused a lot of noise when the facts were declared. Patrick Faivre scoured the television sets to repeat in all directions the accusations against the members of the Laroche family, the lawyers of the Laroches and all of this made pschitt. We must consider that this unfortunate episode is definitively closed, “says Me Teissonnière.
In the columns of the East Republican, the main interested party invokes fear.
Me Hellenbrand, his lawyer, explains to us: “To know if at one time he should have gone to testify, you know, there are steps that are taken and which are not taken, communities in which things are done and others don’t happen… It’s not the first time I’ve seen this kind of thing”.
He adds: “Like any citizen, he hopes that one day a legal enigma will be solved which has resulted in a tragedy like the death of a child, he is human like all of us and if he can contribute to it in a any way… If you ask him questions, he gives answers”.
The battle between the two cousins does not end there.
In her book, Breaking the silence (ed. Michel Lafon), Murielle Bolle accuses, by devoting an entire chapter to “cousin Patrick’s testimony”, Patrick Faivre of lying, among other things to enjoy the notoriety of the case.
“What she’s saying is rubbish. The reality is that I know my client well, he’s a funny, original guy, who doesn’t have a life like you and me, but the day he comes to see me, I don’t even know if he had already spoken to me about the fact that he knew about the Grégory affair, he didn’t make much of it, nor a cause for boasting”, tells us Mr. Thomas Hellenbrand.
This is not the only reason why Patrick Faivre filed a complaint.
According to Me Teissonnière, Murielle Bolle’s lawyer, Patrick Faivre ended up “taking his feet in the procedure” and “all of this ended in a dismissal”.
In disagreement, Me Hellenbrand replies: “For the moment, Murielle Bolle has only escaped conviction for purely procedural reasons, linked to the bad summonses issued by the investigating magistrate, who modified the articles that I had initially referred to in the case of my complaint”. Today, the lawyer and his client no longer have recourse.
Patrick Faivre’s testimony pre-existed, however, those of neighbors, who allegedly heard cries on that famous evening of November 5, 1984. According to Murielle’s lawyer, when we tried to find the neighbors in question, only a local resident intervened before the court. of assizes of Dijon, during the trial of Jean-Marie Villemin in 1993, to say that he was absent at that time, and that he therefore could not hear anything.
Murielle Bolle’s unexpected change of version is far from being the only twist in the affair.
During an interview with Planet, Me Teissonnière brought to our attention a very disturbing adventure between Jacques Corazzi, head of the criminal section at the Nancy SRPJ, openly in favor of the Christine Villemin track, and Jacqueline Golbain, the family nurse. Bolle.
“It’s a frightening file, because there are characters who play a very particular role like nurse Golbain, who is now deceased. She was the mistress of Commissioner Corazzi of the SRPJ, the rival of the gendarmerie in this case”, begins the lawyer, specifying that it is not a question of gossip, these elements being in the file.
Initially, nurse Golbain declared that she did not attend any lynching of Murielle Bolle on the evening of November 5, 1984. of the evening, that the atmosphere was not good within the family, but that she had never witnessed a scene of violence”, tells us Me Teissonnière.
Only here it is: after a while, Golbain and Corazzi separate, angry, and the version of the nurse changes completely.
A few years later, heard on exactly the same questions, she will say that she witnessed scenes of incredible violence against Murielle. “We hit her in the face, her face was bruised from the beatings she received,” said Jacqueline Golbain.
“It’s almost more false testimony, there is something pathological in this file, but it is not the only one to do this kind of exercise, to say something very precisely and a few years later adopt a completely opposite thesis”, sighs Jean-Paul Teissonnière.
In the columns of Paris Match, in 1990, Jacqueline Golbain persists and signs.
Jacqueline Golbain. I think Marie-Ange and her father, Lucien Bolle, severely corrected her. It is obvious that Murielle took a beating.
Paris Match. How can you be sure?
Jacqueline Golbain. As for Lucien Bolle, because Jeanine told me. As for Marie-Ange’s participation in the correction, I learned of it later, through a blunder made by certain members of the family.
According to the lawyer, Jacqueline Golbain was also the close friend of Laurence Lacour, journalist and author of the Bûcher des innocents (Ed. Les Arènes)… Who was herself the mistress of President Maurice Simon, the judge who took over the investigation of the Grégory case in 1987.
Murielle Bolle’s lawyer accuses the latter of having written a book against Bernard Laroche, a book “which is not badly done, Laurence Lacour is intelligent, only there are falsifications of the file which are utterly dreadful.”
Contacted by Planet, Laurence Lacour did not wish to respond to our requests, wishing not to discredit the work of President Simon.
In this file where the letters are synonymous with bad omen, another missive comes to sow the trouble. At the end of 1984, the examining magistrate Jean-Michel Lambert received a letter signed by a certain Corinne. Inside, the revelations are like an earthquake.
According to the one who presents herself as “a college friend of Murielle”, the red-haired teenager had an affair with her brother-in-law, Bernard, who hated Christine Villemin because she had refused his advances… Which would explain why Bernard Laroche killed the little Grégory, with the complicity of Murielle.
For twenty years, the investigators will look for this famous Corinne who is oddly not in the lists of the college of Jean Lurçat de Bruyères.
According to Me Teissonnière, the police discover in 2017 that this famous letter from Corinne is a fake. “It was written by Monique Villemin, Jean-Marie’s mother, who invented this preposterous and despicable story to corner Bernard Laroche. We don’t really know why, because relations between Bernard Laroche and Monique were not bad relationships, maybe she had a debt to pay with regard to Jean-Marie Villemin…”, he adds.
Let’s go back to Murielle Bolle’s first version. When she recounts her day of October 16, 1984, she insists on one point: her best friend, Nelly Demange, accompanies her on the school bus.
“This is a file in which the witnesses have been heard at least four times on the same facts. The testimonies of the girls on the bus are all contradictory to each other. We will have to investigate the conditions in which these testimonies are collected to realize that when the testimonies did not correspond to what the gendarmes wanted to hear, the witnesses were summoned again”, protests Me Teissonnière.
According to the lawyer, the investigators threatened Murielle Bolle’s classmates until they obtained a satisfactory testimony in their eyes.
Before the Dijon Assize Court, the father of Nelly Demange, who is Murielle’s best friend, will testify to the violence with which the gendarmes heard her daughter after she said things that did not correspond to what they wanted to hear, again according to the lawyer.
“Nelly is the absolute witness who allows Murielle to be protected and therefore the gendarmes will never stop hearing her again to ask her to modify her testimony, to threaten her if she does not do so”, is indignant. he.
“His life has been destroyed. We can put it in a pithy but fair way: his life has been devastated by this affair”. These are the words of Jean-Paul Teissonnière with regard to his client, Murielle, collateral victim of this atrocious murder, this failed investigation, and the exclusion of her peers.
Naturally, this sordid affair cast a chill within the Bolle family. “For months, if not years, Marie-Ange did not really forgive her sister for the statements she had not contradicted. It is certain that this created a natural difficulty between them”, reports Me Teissonniere.
This disagreement between the two women was used to prove the scenes of violence against Murielle. However, his lawyer assures him: “Murielle’s mother asked Marie-Thérèse, one of Murielle’s sisters, to take her with her and bring her to her home for a few days. She lived in a small village in 10 or 20 kilometers from the place of residence of the Bolles. So the idea was to shelter her a little, not from physical violence which never existed, but from the climate which was not good.
Shortly after the start of the affair, Murielle had to put an end to her schooling. “She suffered insults from colleagues and even passers-by. She was never able to find a job”, tells us her lawyer. Despite her intense job search, especially with supermarkets, she only manages to land a job as a babysitter. He is one of the only central characters in this case to have never left the region: despite the advice of Me Teissonnière, she refuses to abandon “her country”.
Even today, she suffers the humiliations of local residents, calling her “redhead”, “fat” or even “bouboule”. In any case, this is what her first husband, – Martial Jacquel, confided to the press in 2017.
She would always be very surrounded by a few members of her family, in particular by a few brothers and sisters. On social networks, where she wishes to remain anonymous, Murielle indeed shares her love for her peers, and in particular for her brother, René, who died.
In a publication, she cries her joy of living, her niaque, and says “respect her choice”, suggesting a suicide. He was called a “bringueur” and a “drinking brawler” by Martial Jacquel, in particular because of a conviction for violence.
“She now has three children with whom she has very good relations, she is an extremely balanced person, only she lives on social assistance and the solidarity of her relatives”, sighs Jean-Paul Teissonnière.
She is also the grandmother of a little girl. Still an admirer of rocker Johnny Hallyday and a true supporter of Olympique Marseille, the now 53-year-old woman also shares photos of her dogs and cats.
After her intimacy and her family ties, another aspect of Murielle Bolle’s life was destroyed by the Grégory affair: her love affairs.
She married first with Martial Jacquel, mentioned earlier. The man has overcome Murielle’s painful past and lives with her at Father Bolle’s. From this first union were born Fabien, in 1989, and Johnny, in 1992. After fourteen years together, the couple separated.
After this first divorce, the mother finds love again with Yannick Jacquel, met on the frequencies of the “cibi”, radio open to all that we pick up on certain frequencies.
Together they have a son, also called Yannick. There, the couple cannot withstand the upheavals and waves of the investigation into Grégory’s murder. When Murielle Bolle was indicted and imprisoned in 2017, her husband was “missioned” by the judge to extract a confession from him, assures us Me Teissonnière.
According to the lawyer, justice would have used his companion, and in particular the tapping of the couple’s phones to make her confess… “Even if it’s not true, so that they can finally be at peace”, recalls Jean-Paul Teissonniere.
And Murielle, responding each time that it was out of the question for her to betray Bernard Laroche, in any case her memory, vehemently ended her conversations with Yannick, “which obviously were guided by the magistrates”, he continues. . Altercations following which the second husband of Murielle Bolle leaves her.
Me Teissonnière readily admits it: he also encouraged his client to give in to the demands of the gendarmes. Considering her age and the fact that she had never had the end of the story, she probably could have gotten away with it. “The only project of the gendarmes is to instrumentalize the testimony of Murielle in order to be able to overwhelm Bernard Laroche. She was not an issue at the start, it is only because she resisted”, he reproves.
A proposal that would have put Murielle Bolle in a black rage, refusing to betray the memory of her brother-in-law for the benefit of her couple or her personal comfort. “All the inconveniences, and the term is weak, all the considerable troubles and problems that Murielle has experienced are due to the fact that she never wanted to betray Bernard, notifies Me Teissonnière, she bears the responsibility for his death” .
A detail that is not one, proving the unspeakable loyalty of Murielle Bolle to this man. “She adored her brother-in-law and still today she goes, every day, to flower her mother’s grave and the grave of Bernard Laroche”, continues her advice.
The latter also describes her as a whole and determined woman, with an extremely endearing personality, a bad temper but always with her heart on her sleeve. “She has some difficulty in verbalizing things because her level of education is not very high but she is an intelligent and extremely sensitive woman,” he adds.
Unfortunately, the misfortune of Murielle Bolle does not stop at her private life. From the beginning, the rights of the teenager are flouted, the gendarmes not informing her, among other things, of her right to remain silent. Worse still, the young girl with the red mane seems to have been thrown into the lion’s cage.
“During a press conference, Judge Lambert responds publicly in front of the cameras that the indictment of Bernard Laroche was based on a partial handwriting expertise and on a key witness. RTL journalist Bezzina asks ‘It’s Murielle Bolle?’, and the judge nods,” says journalist Patricia Tourancheau. Not only does he denounce his capital witness, but he does not protect her and sends her back to her family, and everyone falls on her, starting with her sister Marie-Ange.
This regret is shared by Captain Sesmat, who confides to us: “The mistake is that she was released between Saturday and Sunday, so she was able to return home on Sunday, and during this time Judge Lambert gave a press conference explaining that it was thanks to Murielle that Bernard Laroche had been arrested.
On the side of the defense of Laroche and Bolle, it is the anger that continues to reign years later. “They behaved with Murielle Bolle at the limit of the judicial system of North Korea!”, Even fumes with Planet Me Frédéric Berna, Jacqueline Jacob’s lawyer.
In 2017, as mentioned above, Murielle Bolle was placed in police custody at the Remiremont premises on the remainder of her first detention. A “late and aberrant” counter-offensive by the judicial institution, denounces his lawyer. “I came from Paris immediately to assist him during this second part of police custody, since this police custody began in 1995 and ended in 2017, they could only exploit the three or four hours they had left. compared to the first”, he continues.
“All means will be used against her”, plagues her lawyer, telling us that this indictment was based on the letter from the famous Corinne, which is now attributed to the hand of Monique Villemin, and on the declarations ” bis” by Jacqueline Golbain.
Murielle Bolle was therefore transferred and then brought before the investigating judge Claire Barbier who, in the words of her counsel, would have “mistreated” her in custody. An indictment that he describes as a strategic change in the face of his refusal to return to the accusations against Bernard Laroche, and which will ultimately be canceled.
Justice has indeed considered that police custody was not in accordance with the rights, something to which Étienne Sesmat, confident, retorts: “We know that she has been under pressure in her family, it is well before us that “She told the truth (…) we had taken all the precautions, we had fully respected the code of criminal procedure”.
In 2002, the Versailles Court of Appeal condemned the State to pay 15,245 euros in damages to Murielle Bolle in compensation for “inability to fulfill her mission” due to “a total lack of control and in the conduct of the investigation and the investigation”.
And in 2020, the 1984 police custody of the young Murielle was simply canceled, and therefore, withdrawn from the file, because deemed unconstitutional by the Court of Cassation, seized by the advice of the unfortunate witness.
“A judicial shipwreck”, according to Me Teissonnière, “an investigation parasitized by a bunch of enlightened people”, according to Me Berna, a “Pandora’s box” for Me Giuranna.
It’s very simple: few are those who still hope that this enigma will be solved one day. “There is not, there is little equivalent, because I have to have the file in a paper version which obstructs part of my office, tens of thousands of procedural documents which have accumulated with strata different”, says Murielle Bolle’s lawyer.
“We didn’t make any mistakes in what we did, but we made a few mistakes. We weren’t rigorous enough in protecting the material clues, in particular the famous letter claiming the crime”, tells us Étienne Sesmat.
France was about twenty years behind in the field of document processing, compared to its German colleagues, among others. “The gendarmerie learned a lot of lessons from this affair, we learned to better manage relations with the media as well”, notes the captain, however.
Me Berna has a very clear opinion on the subject. “Captain Sesmat is primarily responsible for the failure of the investigation. I tell you this with hindsight, because all the protagonists settle their accounts. I am taking the file 35 years later”, affirms the lawyer with a strong character.
During our interview, Captain Sesmat complains about the lack of trust of his superiors. “The media storm was so crazy that no one could think it wasn’t Christine Villemin, they said it was us the gendarmes who had planted ourselves, and that was hard, we even had complaints against us , we had to explain ourselves”, he says.
Nearly 40 years after the events, Étienne Sesmat considers it “difficult to catch” the perpetrators of the crime independently of their will. “But I don’t think everyone has said everything they know about this case, people can still talk,” he concludes.
Among the players in the investigation who could have undermined the chances of solving the enigma, President Simon. This judge, who took over the investigation from scratch in 1987, left very revealing notebooks after his death.
Me Teissonnière informs us in particular that the writings of the magistrate included insults towards his person, and towards the other defense lawyers: “It is to tell you the neutrality of the type…”.
We also learn that Maurice Simon burned candles every evening at Dijon Cathedral in memory of Grégory, who came to speak to him in his sleep, and that he prayed to the Black Virgin, as Mr. Berna. This medieval female effigy would be a symbol of death and regression before the transition to a rebirth, even a higher awareness.
The resounding fiasco of the investigation is also noted in the inability of justice to determine, once and for all, the identity of the crow(s)…