Hello everyone, I hope you’re doing well!

The case I’m going to tell you about today is somewhat reminiscent of the Hennequin case, as it also involves an angry person who feels attacked by everyone. However, Jean-Baptiste Hennequin found his imaginary tormentors at work, while today’s false culprit is sadly much closer to home. Without further ado, here is the Sylviane Fabre case.

It all begins in 2011, in Lorgues. It is a small Southern town of about 10,000 inhabitants located near Draguignan. Although burglaries can be frequent there, life is fairly quiet. People are not afraid of being attacked in Lorgues.

They are not her only supporters. Sylviane Fabre, the sister of her second ex-husband, is a good friend. The two even run a real estate investment company together after buying a villa in 2008. The ground floor is rented out, while Colette lives with one of her daughters upstairs.

The villa, the children, the work, the routine… seen like this, there is no sign of the tragedy that is about to unfold.

On April 15, 2011, one of Colette’s daughters calls the police. She has just returned from a school trip, and Colette didn’t come to pick her up at her school. What’s more, when she arrived home, the gate was open and Colette’s car was parked outside with the keys in the ignition. There was no sign of her mother in the house, which was perfectly tidy. When the police arrive, they find Colette’s purse, containing all her personal belongings, in the car.

For the family, it’s impossible that Colette left voluntarily. She always lets them know when she is going somewhere, and she has planned a birthday party for the next day.

Investigators retrace her steps and discover that she has in fact disappeared the day before. On April 14, Colette left work at 11:40 a.m. and stopped at the tobacco shop. She was then seen at 3:30 p.m. by a friend, in her car driving towards Draguignan. From there, no more traces of her. She received a call at around 7:30 p.m., but did not answer. She also did not go to work the next day.

On April 17, the prosecutor’s office opens a judicial investigation into her disappearance, and a special task force is set up. A search begins, but despite extensive efforts, Colette remains missing.

Michel, her former partner, is obviously the prime suspect. However, when the police find him, he is too ill to be a danger to anyone. The investigators therefore begin to look for another lead, and they don’t have to look far.

One of Colette and Sylviane’s tenants, Bernard Cubat, quickly catches their attention. Everyone close to Colette knows that he is attracted to her and watches her every move. Yet he seems calm and makes strange remarks. He tells anyone who will listen that something has happened to Colette and that it is easy to get rid of someone. These remarks, beyond their cruel lack of tact (I mean, he said all this to Colette’s children for god’s sake), are disturbing because Bernard has proven in the past that he is capable of this kind of thing. In fact, investigators quickly discover that he has already been convicted before, for the attempted murder of his ex-partner’s new boyfriend, and was released from prison in 2003. Anyone with common sense would keep a low profile in such circumstances, but Bernard has apparently decided that now is the time to take center stage.

When questioned by investigators, he appears to cooperate, but his testimony is inconsistent. He says that when he last saw Colette on April 14, he was watching a television program, but when investigators dig a little deeper, they discover that this program does not exist. From that point on, he is unable to say precisely when he last saw Colette.

Intrigued, the investigators search his home, and he once again cooperates, to the point of moving furniture. This could be seen as a sign of good faith, but also as a way of taunting the police, so I understand why he remains on the list of suspects and starts being wiretapped even though nothing was found at his home.

Bernard is soon joined by another person on the list of suspects (he still remains in first place), because when asked if Colette had any enemies, the missing woman’s children explain that her relationship with Bernard was cordial, but that she had recently fallen out with Sylviane, her ex-sister-in-law. The two friends disagreed about the management of the real estate company, and the dispute was being handled by a mediator. Sylviane is questioned, but tells investigators that despite the situation, her relationship with Colette remained respectful. She even called Colette to remind her of their next meeting with the mediator on the day of her disappearance.

At this stage of the investigation, the police have two suspects, but a discovery soon points to a third. And this one is particularly dangerous.

A month after the disappearance, the investigation takes a sad turn. On May 15, 2011, two tourists stop at a parking area on the county road to take photos of the landscape and are immediately assailed by a foul odor. One of them volunteers to investigate the source of the smell and finds Colette Deromme’s body, covered with stones, below. The body is in an advanced state of decomposition, but the medical examiner is still able to determine that Colette has been strangled on the day of her disappearance.

She is buried on June 19, and the police notice that someone is very visibly absent. Sylviane did not attend the funeral. Even stranger, she attempts suicide two days later. She takes pills with alcohol and tries to throw herself out of a window. Her neighbor calls the police, who arrive in time to save her. They find a letter in her room addressed to her son, David Parel. The contents of the letter are disturbing: “[…] you would have preferred that I disappear instead of Colette, well, that’s what’s going to happen.”

Naturally, David is questioned. Faced with the investigators’ suspicions, he defends his mother and even gives her an alibi. According to him, April 14 was an ordinary day, and in the evening they were both out for a drive. They broke down on the road to Draguignan and had to walk back and forth in the pouring rain to get something to fix the car and then return to repair it.

When Sylviane is questioned again, she confirms her son’s version word for word. Their story is well prepared, but the pair have gone too far with the details.

The investigators check the weather reports, and it didn’t rain that evening. In addition, both claimed that there was no one on the road at the time, whereas the local vehicle counting system recorded 58 vehicles that took it during the period in question. Finally, both claim to have walked the route in 5 hours, but when investigators retrace it, it takes 2.5 hours. These are just details, but they are a lot of details. If they lie about such insignificant things, are they lying about the rest?

The mother and son are placed under surveillance, and their lives are scrutinized.

Sylviane Fabre grew up in a home without compassion or affection. Her mother, an alcoholic and violent woman, would not hesitate to pull out a gun when she was drunk. She forced Sylviane to do chores around the house while her father, described as “rough,” took her with him to do carpentry work. This environment isolated her from other children, with whom she shared no hobbies and whom she could not bring home.

As an adult, she is described as a “Schwarzenegger with earrings,” an authoritarian, cold, and manipulative woman. She always has to have the biggest, if you know what I mean. She is a strict and violent mother who shows no affection to her children and does not hesitate to beat them with a belt and her fists. This upbringing produces unstable sons. One, a pedophile, is convicted of rape, and the other, David, is terrified of his mother.

She has befriended Colette, yes, but the two women are very different. One is intimidating and unattractive, while the other is pleasant and successful with men. One is a strict mother whom her children avoid, and the other is so loving that David, Sylviane’s son, feels closer to her than to his own mother. The relationship seems beautiful from the outside, but when you dig a little deeper, you find something unhealthy. Something that looks like a time bomb.

The investigators finally find the trigger. A few months before Colette’s disappearance, David warned her that Sylviane had embezzled around €4,000 (4,694 USD) from the real estate company for personal works. Colette then demanded control of the company and threatened to report her. This enraged Sylviane, who did not hesitate to go to her workplace to threaten her, telling her that “things” would happen to her. Colette had been avoiding contact ever since, and Sylviane was hurling insults at her. Colette was a “bitch,” and her daughters were “pests,” “sluts,” and “morons.” David also received his share of insults, of course.

The wiretaps continue, and investigators realize that Sylviane is not at all saddened by Colette’s death, far from it. She even tells a close friend: “She was living it up at the top, now she’s six feet under.”

The police’s suspicions are confirmed with the return of a character who clearly does not want to keep a low profile. On February 8, 2012, Bernard calls Sylviane and tells her that he saw her driving Colette’s car home on the day she disappeared. Remember, when Colette’s daughter came home from school, the car was parked, the keys were in the ignition, and her purse was inside. Why bring Colette’s car back with all her belongings, but not bring Colette back?

Faced with an accusation less subtle than a friend gifting you deodorant, Sylviane defends herself. However, after hanging up, she immediately calls David to tell him to keep quiet, to which her son replies that he is a man of his word. That word will not hold for long, as the police and his conscience don’t quit.

On February 20, 2012, Sylviane, David, and Bernard (because you never know) are taken into custody. The pressure intensifies, and David soon breaks down.

He recounts that on April 14, 2011, Sylviane called Colette to arrange a meeting at the property where he lived. Colette arrived around 3:45 p.m., and Sylviane immediately lured her into the shed adjacent to her son’s house. He was playing video games in the house and had no idea what was going on. Sylviane then attacked Colette and strangled her for 15 minutes.

When David, worried, came out of the house, he found his mother in a trance, drooling. She was wearing surgical gloves and holding a piece of string. In the shed, he found Colette’s lifeless body with a purple mark around her neck. Sylviane then said to him, “She took a long time to die.” She forced him to help her, telling him that he was involved anyway since Colette died in his house and that she would not take the fall on her own. She already seemed to have a plan to cover her tracks and gave her son instructions before putting on a parka and driving Colette’s car back to her house.

The following night, she and David loaded Colette’s body into their car to take it to the Verdon Gorge and dispose of it. On the way, the car’s alternator broke down. So the two of them dumped the body below the road, and David covered it with rocks, moving them with his foot because he didn’t want to get close to the body. Once the body was covered, the two walked back, since the car was still broken down. On the road, Sylviane gloated, “Colette wanted to report me […], but no one fucks with my money.”

Faced with her son’s testimony, Sylviane finally confesses, but she has far fewer regrets than David. She says that Colette had looked down on her, which caused her to snap. Talking about the moment she grabbed the cord, she says, “It could have been an axe, but unfortunately there wasn’t one.” She also says that Colette deserved what she did to her. She denies premeditation, but the fact that she was wearing latex gloves and directly lured Colette into the shed raises doubts. In addition, David explains to investigators that Sylviane had been talking about killing Colette in a humorous tone some time before the murders, asking him if he would kill Colette if she asked him to.

The investigators have heard enough. Sylviane is charged with murder, and her son with concealing a corpse and failing to report a crime. These last two charges are rarely discussed on here, so let me give you some explanations. Concealment of a corpse involves moving or hiding the body of a person who has died as a result of violence, whether homicidal or not, and is punishable by two years in prison and a €30,000 fine. Failure to report a crime is a little more complicated. Article 434-1 of the French Penal Code provides for the conviction of anyone who doesn’t report “a crime of which effects can still be prevented or limited, or of which perpetrators are likely to commit further crimes that could be prevented”. However, this article provides immunity for immediate family members and spouses. It is therefore more likely that Article 434-4 was invoked in the prosecution of David Parel. This provides for three years’ imprisonment and a €45,000 fine for any person who alters “the scene of a crime or offense, either by altering, falsifying, or erasing traces or clues, or by adding, moving, or removing any objects.” There is no immunity in this case. Alright, end of the law lesson, let’s get back to the case.

David is freed under judicial supervision while his mother is incarcerated at Les Baumettes prison in Marseille.

Despite his apparent good faith and remorse, many doubt David’s version of events. Why did he leave his mother alone with Colette, knowing how intense the conflict between the two was?

To add to this, Sylviane tells everyone that during the murder, David came to ask her if she was finished. But she’s shooting herself in the foot here, isn’t she? If she denies premeditation, how could David have known that she was going to kill Colette?

There’s no need to think too hard about it, since investigators are able to prove that David was playing online at the time of the murder, so he couldn’t have left the house in the middle of it.

There are no further twists and turns during the proceedings, and Sylviane and David’s trial begins on January 21, 2014 in Draguignan. When they see their cousin, who is tried as a free man, Colette’s children insult him. He doesn’t react and seems full of remorse. His mother, on the other hand, seems unwilling to just calm the hell down. She still hates Colette and does not hesitate to let her know.

David still finds it difficult to stand up to her, but after one insult too many, he confronts his mother with her shortcomings. He reminds her of the abuse, the scheming, the cruelty, but Sylviane refuses to listen.

Whenever he has the opportunity, David apologizes to his cousins, but they remain unmoved.

On January 24, Sylviane Fabre is sentenced to thirty years in prison. However, this sentence is curious because although the prosecution sought 25 years for first-degree murder, she was convicted of second-degree murder. More time in prison for a lesser charge? It’s strange enough to be worth mentioning.

As for David Parel, he is sentenced to three years in prison with one year suspended and probation. Regarding this sentence, David says a few years later, “I had to go to prison.” He also says that if Colette’s body had never been found, he would probably have ended up committing suicide.

As you might expect, Sylviane is not as contrite. She appeals, and when she appears before the judges on October 5, 2015, she is as detestable as ever. When reminded of the facts, she dares to declare: “I killed my sister-in-law, so what?” However, she apologizes to her victim’s children, but only for stirring up bad memories. On October 8, her sentence is upheld. She will therefore be eligible for parole in 2027.

David has cut off all contact with his mother and has never visited her in prison.

That’s it for today! Let me know what you think about this case in the comments, or on Reddit / Tumblr / Bluesky ! I hope you find some money on the ground, and I’ll see you next time !