Some criminal cases make history because questions remain unanswered. Perhaps there is just not enoug evidence to arrive at a firm conclusion, but a great injustice is done when suspects are wrongly imprisoned, or when the real culprits are not brought to justice. Here are some examples from the files of the French judicial system.
Despite the efforts of detectives and prosecutors, some murder cases just seem to slip through the cracks. Sometime there is not enough evidence, a lack of witnesses or else no body. The legal system is often not up to the challenge of difficult cases, and sensational reporting in the media promotes gossip and far-fetched hypotheses. In 1994-1995, the public was riveted by the trial of American football star O.J. Sikmpson, who was suspected of the murder of his wife and a companion. In spite of Simpson's suspicious behaviour and strong motive, as well as solid forensic evidence, prosecutors were unable to secure a conviction, while the intense media coverage contributed to a climate of hysteria. The cases described here are not as well known as the Simpson trial, but in each one lthe authorities are still far from the truth of what actually happened.
The Dominici Case
On August 5, 1952, the bodies of three campers were found along France's National Road 16. They were the British nutritionist Sir Jack Drummond, his wife Lady Ann and their 12-year-old daughter, Elizabeth.
Just 150m away was the farm Grand-Terre, the home of the Dominici family. Sluspicion immediately fell onthe family, and detectives homed in on the head of the household, Gaston Dominici, a father of nine children who could neither read nor write. Dominici was an alcoholic and was known to have a quick temper. After some of his sons testified against him, he confessed to the three murders in November 1953.
But only Clovis, the eldest son, stuck by his accusations. When his brothers withdrew their testimony, the evidence against their father became contradictory. Because of the discrepancies in the evidence, rumour and opinion ran wild. People anxiously awaited the outcome of the court proceedings, which were held in the town of Digne, in the foothills of the French Alps.
When the trial began, hordes of journalists thronged the narrow courtroom. From the testimony, it soon became obvious that the investigating officers had not prepared their case well, and the atmosphere in court grew heated and emotional.
For example, on the day of the killings eyewitnesses reported seeing a pir of trousers hanging on the line to dry at Grand-Terre. Had someone been trying to remove bloodstains> The police did not follow up this lead and did not present the trousers as evidence. Any observer who thought twice about the trial must have suspected that the identity of the killer would never be known, particularly since the family kept silent throughout the entire proceedings. Nevertheless, the court imposed the death sentence on Gaston Dominici.
After the verdict was handed down, many French people, including several prominent figures, expressed their sympathy with this simple man. For example, the author Jean Giono wrote, I do not say he is innocent. I only say his guilt has not been proven.
Naturally, the British public also paid attention to the case, and were quick to voice their outrage over the bumbling and inept police investigation. One British journalist wrote that it was 'a clumsy crime, a clumsy investigation, clumsy court proceedings and a clumsy sentence'.
The case is till a strange one. It is possible that there was more than one killer, but this is contradicted by Gaston Dominici's confession. He may have wated to protect one or more of his sons or grandsons, but no-one will ever know for sure.
Because of all the doubts surrounding the case, French President Rene Coty commuted Dominici's sentence to life imprisonment in January 1957. In 1960, Coty's successor, Charles de Gaulle (190-1970), ordered Gaston Dominici to be released from prison. In a television interview aired a few weeks earlier, Dominici had told of his extreme despair.
Serial Murderess?
InFebruary 1952, a few months before the terrible events at Grand-Terre, the city of Poitiers in western france was convulsed by new of murder. Suspicion fell on a woman named Marie Besnard, the so-calle widow of Loudon, who was accused of having murdered her husband, Leon. Subsequently, she was accused of a further 12 murders, including tose of her father, her mother, and her first husband, who had been dead for 22 years. Traces of arsenic were foun in all the corpses, but there was no evidence that Besnard had administered the poison. Nevertheless, the courts sentened her to many years in prison. Upon obtaining remission for good behaviour, she made the following statement: "You have possibly believed that Iwas guilty or still believe it. I am not angry at you fo rthat, for so many bad things have been said about me ... But suppose for one minute, just one minute, I were innocent ... for I am. Then you will understand what hardship I had to go through'. Were these the words of a liar or an innocent woman?
Sloppy Police Work
In October 1984, the police fished the body of four-year-old Gregory Villemin out of the Vologne River in the Bosges, a mountainous region in eastern France. The next day, the boy's parents received a letter from the 'crow' - a person who for many years had terrorised them with anonymous letters and telephone calls. This time, the crow admitted to having committed the murder.
On the basis of handwriting samples, the police suspected Bernard Laroche, a cousin of Gregory father, Jean-Marie. His sister-in-law, Muriel, confirmed that she had seen the child being abducted, but she retracted her statement the day after Laroche's arrest. Two months later, Laroche was released due to a lack of evidence.
At this point, the media began a hate campaign against the mother, Christine Villemin. Jean-Marie Villemin became so bitter that he went mad and killed Laroche with a sporting gun in March 1985. Four months after her husband was imprisoned, Christine Villemin was herself placed in police custody for her son's murder.
Her lawyer soon found that the police had been sloppy and had not taken the necessary steps to investigate whether the murderer had drowned Gregory in a bathtub and only then thrown the corpse into the river. And the letter from the 'crow' had been almost destroyed through fingerprint testing.
When
christine tried to commit suice, she and Jean-Marie were released from prison. Their terrible ordeal continued, however, as the trials went on for years. Not until June 1992 did Christine actually stand trial. The verdict stated that it is impossible to ascertain who has murdered the child, and this was confirmed by a court of appeal in 1993. In December 1993, Jean Marie was sentenced to four years in prison, but as he had been in detention for that long while awaiting trial, he was able to return to his family a few days later. The Villemins then left their home town, never to been again.
An Innocent Man
Most people at the time were utterly convinced that Guuillaume Seznec had, in 1924, killed his friend Pierre Quemeneur, a member of the French National Assembly (parliment) from Brittany. In their opinion, the carpenter deserved his sentence of 20 years hard labour in Cayenne, the infamous penal colony in France's South American colony, French Guiana.
Twenty years seemed excessively severe, especially when Quemeneur's body had not been found. Witness later admitted that they had been pressurised by police officers into giving false evidence. It seems that nobody pointed out the obvious holes in the evidence, possibly because people in high places wanted to see Seznec convicted.
Seznec and Quemeneur had been involved in illegal and highly lucrative business deals, including trafficking in American cars and counterfeit dollar notes. They had also illegally supplied alcohol to ccontacts in the United States. (Prohibition was in force at that time in the US, and the sale of alcohol was illegal). Strangely, the public prosecutor ignored these activities. He may not have been aware of them, but he also may have tried to hide the involvement of civil servants, who were anxious not to be linked to Seznec and Quemeneur.
In 1946, President Charles de Gaulle pardoned Seznec, who returned home the following year. For his family at least, his rehabilitation brought some comfort. As for Quemeneur, he was reportedly seen alive after his last meeting with Seznec. He may have fled to the US, or perhaps his enemies took revenge on him for his shady deals.
0 comments:
Post a Comment