France pierced by the murder trial “no bodies”

A French murder trial that opened Monday pierced the public because of the basis of the basis: where is the body of the victim?

Cédric Jubillar, a 38-year-old painter-decorator, is accused of having killed his wife Delphine almost five years ago in a jealous rage crisis.

He always denied the accusations and, apart from the circumstantial evidence, the investigators had trouble building a case. There is no body, no blood, no confession and no witness.

With its unexplained central fact and its distribution of characters from the small town in the south of France, the case has become a feeling of social media.

Self -proclaimed investigators have set up countless discussion groups where they exchange theories and share testimonies – to the great irritation of the police and families.

“These groups are the equivalent of the Bistrot counter – but with more people,” said psychoanalyst Patrick Avrane, author of a book on attitudes to crime.

“Everyone builds the theory that suits them best.”

The mystery of Jubillar began at the height of the locking coche when – in the early hours of December 16, 2020 – Cédric Jubillar contacted the gendarmes to point out that his wife had disappeared.

Delphine, who was 33 years old at the time, was a night nurse in a clinic not far from their home in Cagnac-le-Mines in the South West region of Occitania. The couple had two children, six and 18 months old.

Police understood that jubilee had no happy relationship.

Cédric Jubillar was a usual cannabis user and barely held a job. Delphine was in a relationship with a man she had met on the internet. She and Cédric spoke of divorce.

Police and residents have made numerous searches in the surrounding countryside – with potholeurs descending into some of the disused mine trees with which the area is strewn.

Delphine’s body has never been found, but a case was gradually built against her husband and in mid-20121, he was placed and detained.

The accusation of the trial of the city of Albi will tell the court that Cédric Jubillar had a clear motivation to kill his wife, because of their imminent split.

Lawyers will lift other points: certain strange actions of Cédric in the night of disappearance; signs of a fight, including a pair of broken glasses; A neighbor who heard a woman cry.

The character of Cédric Jubillar will be put under the spotlight, with expected witnesses who will speak of her threatening language in Delphine before disappearing, and her lack of apparent concern afterwards.

Two of his acquaintances – a former cell companion and a former girlfriend – will also repeat what they said to the police: that Cédric confessed to the murder and told them where his body was.

But after more excavations, no body has been found, and the defense should raise doubts about the veracity of the pair accounts.

Indeed, the heart of the case of Cédric Jubillar is that there is nothing – beyond the popular opinion that he is the ideal culprit – to prove that he has suppressed his wife. He himself has always protested his innocence.

The trial should last four weeks, with 65 witnesses called and 11 experts. More than 16,000 pages of evidence have been compiled.

Explaining the grip of the case on the public spirit, the writer Thibault de Montaigu declared in the newspaper Le Figaro that it was like “a novel by Georges Simenon” – Creator of the fictional detective inspector Maigret.

In a long analysis of the case, he declared that for all the circumstantial evidence against Cédric Jubillar, the central question was as follows: how a “guys from the blurred and red eyes which smoked ten joints per day could have carried out perfect crime?

“Kill his wife without leaving the slightest trace; secretly transports his body, burying him in an uninhabitable place, then come back to say it to the police – everything while his two children were sleeping quietly in their rooms.

“And it was a guy who praised the cops in Panda pajamas and then played Game of Thrones on his phone the same morning of disappearance.

“Then: Genius bluffer; lucky fool; or poor innocent?”

The court will decide.