01.03.19, contribution10, bataclan, gendarmes, colonel, massacre, prosecutor, obstruction

blog: madic50.blogspot.com / Book: The two forms, ed. Amazon

Paris, Saturday, March 1st, 2019

REFLECTION ON THE OBSTRUCTION MADE TO JUDICIAL ACTION IN THE STUDY OF THE MASSACRE OF BATACLAN AND ON A DUALITY OF THE JUDICIAL ATTENTION WHICH LEADS TO THE OPENING OF AN INVESTIGATION ON THE FIELD OR NOT AT ALL ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA DARTS. (See contribution 9, 19.02.19)

1) - The object

The extraordinary nature of ordinary court cases tells us that the attention of magistrates is retained in some cases and not in others, however identical.

I want to know why the public prosecutor does not hear the denunciations of the gendarmes in the case of Bataclan and why does not it open an investigation into the actions of the Colonel implicated by them.

A) - A case unworthy of judicial attention

2) - The Bataclan case

The Chained Duck of February 27, 2019, p.1 "A Feeling of GI-Hinder", reports an article in Le Monde on February 23 by which some GIGN gendarmes are questioning their leader, a colonel, about the Bataclan, 13 November 2015, and the Kouachi case, January 9, 2015.

The newspaper recalled that he had already reproduced a letter of the same, dated July 13, 2016, "addressed to the No. 1 of the Gendarmerie", in which they claimed that the Colonel had prevented them from attacking terrorists Bataclan .

On several occasions, the press has reported the remarks of this Colonel who opposed the transfer of the Famas from a static soldier to the Police Commissioner ready to fight. We owe him this formula "I do not send my men in a pot of ink".

The Police Commissioner and his deputy alone arrested the massacre with 80 dead. To do this, they had to go beyond the prohibition on acting.

It has been knowingly accepted that there are logically many more deaths.

The public prosecutor is aware of these facts and he has never brought legal action even though this is by right.

This repetition of arrests of public authorities by the gendarmes makes their request explicit and invalid the media rumor that justice does not act because the French are too cowardly to file a complaint.

3) - The judicial presence

It is insulting for the victims and the French to argue that the acts of this man are the only administrative reflection.

1- Men have died because of their decision-making. Several dozen deaths could have been avoided by the action of the gendarmerie. He knew that he logically programmed others.

2- The question of the possible criminal character of this action, or of this inaction, concerns primarily the public prosecutor.

4) - The night and the light

1- In the Saboundjian case, the magistrates very well knew how to study closely the errors of responsibility which they imputed to the policeman and to condemn him in an infamous way.

What had he done? He protected us by firing a shot that was otherwise deadly on a recidivist thug on the run who had taken a gun out of his holster to evade by all means his arrest.

2- In the Bataclan case, the gendarmes make it clear publicly that they refuse to silence the obstruction of their actions in a situation where this paralysis has directly resulted in the death of dozens of people.

a- Without the clandestine, virtually illegal intervention of a police commissioner, the toll would have been much greater.

b- They therefore require the public authorities to report what they themselves have the competence to qualify as fault.

Here, however, justice no longer knows how to deal with the responsibilities taken by state decision-makers in the scale of the massacre.

By each of these contradictory provisions, the magistrates leave the forces of order in the night and place the criminals in the light.

B) - Two cases worthy of judicial attention

Yet, unlike this evasion, there is other press information whose logic is similar and to which the justice has however given an immediate follow-up.

5) - The Fillon case

Wikipedia reminds us of this case:

1- On January 25, 2017, the affair begins with an article of the Chained Duck which states that Penelope Fillon, wife of François Fillon, was paid 500 000 euros gross for jobs of parliamentary attaché with her husband and his substitute Marc Joulaud between 1998 and 2007 and in 2012. He also claims that she had, in 2012-2013, a job as a literary advisor to the Revue des deux Mondes paid 100 000 euros gross. The absence of convincing traces of Penelope Fillon's work and her distance from her husband's political life lead the newspaper to suspect that these jobs would be fictitious.

2- On 25 January 2017, the same day, the National Public Prosecutor's Office opens a preliminary investigation for embezzlement of public funds, abuse of social property and the concealment of these offenses.

3- As early as January 26, François Fillon challenged the fictitious nature of these jobs in an interview on the television news.

6) - The Ventura Affair

On January 17, Luigi Ventura, 74, representative of the Pope in France, is on an official visit to the Paris City Hall,

According to the City of Paris: "The Apostolic Nuncio repeatedly caressed the buttocks of the agent who was in charge of welcoming him. It is about a man of about thirty years, member of the direction of the foreign affairs of the city hall of Paris. The facts took place in front of several witnesses, including other agents of the town hall ",

On January 23, the mayor of Paris made a report to the prosecutor, under Article 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

January 24, the next day, the public prosecutor opens an investigation of the head of sexual assault, Several employees of the mayor of Paris were called to testify as part of the investigation, entrusted to the judicial police.

7) - Two judicial attentions

1- Mr. Fillon and Mr. Ventura

a- Justice opens an investigation on the field.

b- they dispute the journalistic statements

c- Justice continues its action.

2- The Bataclan

a- the gendarmes insist on several years for the public authorities to answer the questions raised by the action of this colonel.

b- the justice continues its obstruction of the judicial action.

8) - Conclusion

The French are entitled to know which right:

1- Are the repeated denunciations of the gendarmes less honorable than those of a weekly newspaper or the City of Paris?

2- Is the life of the customers of the Bataclan less valuable than the taxpayer's or the buttocks of the communal agents.

3- Does a Colonel of gendarmerie benefit from a judicial immunity that can not be claimed either by a former Prime Minister, a deputy, a candidate in the presidential election or a representative of the Pope enjoying diplomatic immunity.

1- The gendarmes repeat for years: "we are ashamed for him as we are ashamed of us".

2- Magistrates can not be subordinated to "shame". They instruct and they judge.

Why do judges do it for some and not for others?

Marc SALOMONE

Retired worker