Murder of Justine Vayrac: the 3 hours that question


The Justine Vayrac affair, whose body was found on Thursday October 27 following the confessions of her alleged murderer, still conceals some gray areas… The young woman’s autopsy identified strangulation as the cause of death, while Lucas L. had confessed to having punched him, which would have proved fatal.

The results of the toxicology report, supposed to rule out or confirm the hypothesis that the 20-year-old mother was drugged during the evening before her death, have still not fallen. Doubts hang over this last question: the young woman, who felt very nauseous throughout the night, would have repeated several times to her friend Theo that she thought she had been drugged.

The mobile potential of the indicted for kidnapping, rape and murder also remains to be defined. Suspicions of rape, verbalized as soon as the words of the key witness in the case and friend of Justine, Théo, were broadcast, could not be either invalidated or confirmed for the moment. While in police custody, the suspect first confessed to having raped her under the threats of another man, before retracting this statement and claiming to have had consensual sex with his victim before killing him. .

The course of the evening, the night and the next morning could be partially reconstructed thanks to the testimonies of Justine’s friends and the calls and messages received and sent to Lucas L. Many clues indicate that the young man acted with a certain composure: he would have started to fashion an alibi very quickly.

A crucial time slot remains in the shadows. Indeed, we still do not know anything about the whereabouts of Lucas L. between 8:30 a.m. and 11:20 a.m., as reported by BFMTV.

In a nightclub in Brive-la-Gaillarde on Saturday evening, Théo loses sight of his friend Justine at 4 a.m., leaving her in the company of Lucas L., whom he contacts as soon as he realizes that she was not not where he had left her 40 minutes earlier. But this one does not follow up on Theo’s requests, who asks for his address and is rebuffed on the pretext that Lucas is in the company of another woman.

According to the testimony of the main interested party, the young man would then have found around 6:40 a.m. another woman, with whom he would have spent the rest of the night at home, at his home. At 8:30 a.m., the young woman falls asleep by his side. When she wakes up at 10:30 a.m., Lucas is gone.

He will return at 11:20 a.m., claiming that he had “something to do”. So we end up with a 2.5 hour gap in the main suspect’s schedule the day after the alleged murder… But what happened after that?

Once back at his home and after finding his one-night companion, he takes her home in his car. It was then that an unidentified phone started ringing in the vehicle. Following questions from his co-pilot, he pretends to have a professional telephone.

The suspect would also have sent a message on Instagram to the then deceased victim, writing to him that his friends are worried about her… The rest of his day passes in a way that could not be more normal. Lucas would have had lunch with the family, before going to a football match with friends.

What new questions raise these hours spent under the radar, as well as his attitude the day after the events?

Where was Lucas during those 3 hours? What was he trying to do? Could this be when he buried his victim in the nearest forest using an agricultural machine, as he recounted in police custody on Thursday, October 27?

What does the presence of the phone in his car mean after he returns? If it was the victim’s phone, and he’d been there that night, wouldn’t it have already rung repeatedly when Lucas drove his friend home?

So many questions that remain unanswered for the moment, just like the crucial issue of a mobile potential for this murder, on which hypotheses abound but definitive conclusions are lacking.

As a reminder, the suspect still benefits from the presumption of innocence at this stage.