IS THIS MAN THE NEW DREYFUS?
Douglas Johnson exposes a possible miscarriage of French justice against a Muslim
Paris THIS AUGUST, in the Black Mountains of western Brittany, I came across a creperie that was selling, among its normal wares, copies of a book proclaiming the innocence of Guillaume Seznec. He was the man who served 24 years in prison for having allegedly murdered his travelling companion, although no body was ever found. Now, 45 years after his death, his grandson is defending him.
But in a small town some 30 kilometres to the north, a furniture shop was promi- nently displaying another book, one that claims that Seznec was guilty, at least of having concealed the body of the mur- dered man. It would seem that Brittany is still divided between Seznecians and anti- Seznecians.
Now a new affaire has begun. On 4 September, Omar Raddan was released from prison in the Haute Garonne. In 1994 he had been found guilty of the mur- der of his employer, Madame Gyslaine Marchal. She was a rich widow, aged 65, whose villa, La Chamade, was situated in the hills above Cannes. Omar was her gar- dener. He was sentenced to 18 years in prison.
On Sunday, 23 June 1991, Madame Marchal made a number of phone calls in the morning, but after midday nothing was heard from her. She did not answer the telephone and she did not keep her lunch engagement. This silence continued into the next day, and her alarmed friends and neighbours got in touch with the authori- ties. At about 7.30 on the Monday evening (24 June) two gendarmes broke into La Chamade and eventually found her body in the cellar. She had been stabbed several times. No weapon was found, but on the door were written the words 'Omar m'a tuer' (NB the mistake, the infinitive `tuer' instead of the past participle que). The words were written in blood and apparent- ly with a finger.
Medical experts thought that the victim had been killed at midday on the Monday. Omar was immediately found in his tower- block flat in Cannes. But he had a clear alibi for that day, since he had been in Toulon with other people. The medical experts then changed their minds. Madame Marchal had been killed on the Sunday at about midday. Omar's account of his movements then was more compli- cated. He had been working in the garden of his other employer, Madame Pascal, which was only some 500 metres from La Chamade. He had left his work at midday and had gone to Cannes by motorbike. He had arrived home at about 12.20, and had stayed there eating his lunch and watching television until about 12.45, when he had returned to Madame Pascal's, starting work again just after 1 p.m. But no one could confirm this story. He had called in at a baker's shop, as he often did, to buy half a baguette, but the girls who had been working there said that they had been very busy and they could not remember whether they had served him or not.
The police recorded that no one remem- bered seeing him in the baker's shop. They were convinced that Omar was the mur- derer. He was known to be short of money and it seemed that Madame Marchal had had some 40,000 francs in her handbag. This was missing. The victim had had the strength to write in her own blood that Omar had killed her (and what was more natural than that in her dying moments she should make a mistake in grammar?).
`It's Prescott's car, that's the only left wing view he has.' They did not think it necessary to ask if the victim, who had been stabbed in the lower part of her body as well as in her head, would have had the strength to get up and to write on the door with her blood. Nor was any fingerprint test carried out on the writing.
But Omar was a Muslim. Then aged 30, he had come to France from his native Morocco some nine years earlier. To begin with he was an illegal immigrant, but he had regularised his position and was earn- ing about £8 an hour working for Madame Marchal. He had never been in trouble with the police. He was married with two children. But the authorities were deter- mined to demonstrate that he was a bad Muslim. The police showed that he fre- quented prostitutes. The judge asked how, if he had never learned to read, he could read the Koran. And when Omar's wife stated in court that he would not hurt a fly, the judge's answer was immediate. 'He might not hurt a fly, but he's able to cut a sheep's throat if it's a Muslim ceremony.'
The verdict of guilty that the jury passed on Omar was obviously influenced by the fact that he was a Muslim and apparently a bad one. And the next step in his destiny was equally political. It was reported that the King of Morocco raised the question of Omar with the newly elected President of the Republic. Jacques Chirac knew about the campaign in favour of a retrial for Omar which was led by Jean-Marie Rouart, literary editor of the Figaro (and now a member of the Academie Frangaise). Therefore on 10 May 1996 he issued a par- tial pardon because of 'extenuating circum- stances' (the same meaningless phrase had been used with reference to Dreyfus in September 1899) and the prison sentence was reduced. Omar eventually walked free, demanding a retrial.
There are many who say, if Omar did not kill Madame Marchal then who did? Although suspicions exist and are being cultivated, there is no answer. But it is clear that this is a political scandal, since there is a collective suspicion of those in authority. There are those who believe that Omar is innocent and that he was prosecut- ed only because he is Moroccan and Mus- lim. There are those who believe that Omar is guilty and that he was freed only because he is Moroccan, protected by the King of Morocco and by the fear of those in power that they might be accused of being racist.
There are scandals that involve money and scandals that involve murder. Who ordered the killing of the deputy Yann Piat in 1991? Was it the local mafia or the more official politicians? Why has the murderer of four-year-old Gregory in the Vosges never been identified? Was it because in 1984 the examining magistrate was totally inexperienced but a loyal socialist? Perhaps one should say that there is a long-standing pattern of injustice in France's institutions and culture.
Previous page
