Outreau Case : the other truth

Let’s start with the many blatant omissions and biases (about which English speakers in particular are revolting!)

In the first episode: it is indicated that the youngest of the Marécaux children made revelations of touching. Too bad it is not specified that he said that on at least 3 occasions, that with his brother and sister they frequently ran away, aged between 6 and 10 years old… that their father sometimes beat them, made them afraid at night (like Thierry Delay to his children…) and even that Alain Marécaux had apologized in audience to his son for having done all this harm to him… All this is not indicated in the series.

What the report also does not say: Thierry Delay (Jonathan’s father) was summoned to the police station before his home was searched: he therefore had the opportunity to get rid of the sensitive cassettes. Also, his passion for human skeletons and skulls, which he was going to dig up in cemeteries, and for which he had previously been condemned, would strongly increase the possibility of a movement of the corpse of the little girl not found in the allotment garden.

In the same way, the time elapsed between the searches and arrests of the other members of the network was several weeks, which made it possible to get rid of a lot of evidence, probably in particular the video cassettes at Marécaux, which the Marécaux daughter spoke about :

“Mom and Dad spend a lot of money on TV cassettes, one a day” Céline Marécaux

The preponderant place of defense lawyers is so constant and intermittent that one don’t necessarily realize it…

But why give the vast majority of speaking time to defense lawyers? and only a few minutes for child victims and their lawyer?

Throughout, we give the floor to lawyers Hubert Delarue, Frank Berton and Fabienne Roy Manson. Besides, doesn’t the latter have a conflict of interest? She is a friend of Alain Marécaux, they studied together. And being the lawyer of one of the condemned (Delplanque), in what honor does she come to strut around the lawyers of the acquitted?

These lawyers, with Eric Dupont Moretti as a bonus (now Minister of Justice), comment on the unfolding of events throughout. While the children and their representatives only detail their participation in the affair and do not comment on each other’s actions. Why such a bias towards the acquitted?

Overall, especially in episodes 3 and 4, it is about wealthy white heterosexual men who spend their time denigrating children and a woman, Myriam Badaoui.

It is also revealing that their judgment on Myriam Badaoui changes when she suddenly says that the 13 other accused are innocent. Then she would finally be honest… Here, then. Too bad the documentary does not indicate that she will quickly return to her initial version and continue to denounce the other accused. The documentary also does not mention that Myriam Badaoui’s retractions may have occurred within the framework of negotiations between the lawyers. This is indicated by several people involved in the case in the documentary Outreau l’autre vérité.

In episode 2 concerning the murder of the little girl, many details do not appear, in fact new corresponding elements (in addition to the letter written by Legrand) were added by Myriam Badaoui, the children and Daniel Legrand during interrogations (and without indication given by the judge). Notably that the little girl had blue pajamas and was tanned, North African type.

In episode 3, why does no one clearly indicate that the defense lawyers had a real media monopoly, because the civil parties had chosen not to publicize the case further, affecting children…

Why does no one indicate clearly the imbalance between the representation of the accused and the child victims? There were 2 lawyers for the children compared to 19 lawyers for the accused!

Also, how can the directors leave without counterbalance the declarations of lawyer Delarue who says that children “talk nonsense”?

The defense lawyers chose to focus on the relationships mentioned by the children with animals. For those who doubt it, yes, it is unfortunately possible to engage animals in sexual activity, zoophilic videos are proof of this, and are available in all sex shops… The defense focused attention on these facts in order to hide the specific accusations against the accused.

Episode 4 of the series focuses on the children’s version changes. But who can, even an adult, guarantee that he will describe with exactly the same words the things experienced, late after the events occurred (the two tests took place between 4 and 7 years later)? All in the face of angry lawyers who leave no room for reflection…

Odile Mondileu-Héderer, president of the Paris Court of Appeal in 2001-2007, begins her intervention in the series by saying that she would have read everyone’s hearings (which one can doubt given the 30,000 pages of the file), and indicates that the statements of Myriam Badaoui were “delirious”, revealing her opinion that a pedophile prostitution network is impossible (let’s present the Angers affair to her…). She indicates that the Delay children’s statements would have evolved over time. But as the months and years pass, and given the traumas suffered, changes do not seem incoherent or necessarily synonymous with lies. She also criticizes that “justice worked with its little details, its little things, as it has always worked.” Her tone, her formulations and her extrapolation from the case clearly demonstrate that this judge did not come to re-examine the case on the merits, but to repair the judicial fiasco, thus called and thesis imposed by the defense lawyers (and therefore the media, thanks to the media monopoly).

For example, she attacks the testimony of the Laviers’ daughter because the doctor would not have found any after-effects of a rape she had suffered.

One should know that virginity tests are scientifically unfounded

and that the discredit cast on experts by this argument is therefore in no way valid. In fact, lesions linked to sexual intercourse are not necessarily detectable, for several reasons: diversity of hymens, elasticity and regeneration of organs in children… Moreover, the examination having been carried out several months, even several years later the facts denounced, it should have no evidentiary value.

One might wonder why Netflix repackaged this colossal story over just 4 45-minute episodes. For example for the Gregory affair (much less complex) we have 5 one-hour episodes… All the twists and turns and repercussions of the affair could and should have allowed the series to be developed over 10 episodes, and would have allowed a real immersion in the affair and above all a more in-depth study of the psychologies of the actors in the affair. For example, the potential murder of the little girl should have been the subject of an entire episode in itself so that viewers could have all the facts to form an opinion on the credibility of the murder.

The series seems made for French audiences. We have very little immersion in the atmosphere, in the Delay family before the case breaks out for example… Watch the Lindsey Olson video for much better understanding of the case and people’s motives.

In order to open up reflection, everyone is invited to find out about the Angers pedophile ring case, which is proof that a pedophile prostitution network is possible in a small town in France…

Here’s some more to say, thanks to Jacques Thomet, french journalist

Jonathan Delay, the only one of the 12 child victims invited, was able to at least express himself and exclaim at the end: “none of the acquitted, none, should have left prison”. We inevitably ask ourselves the question: who are the 11 other child victims? simply erased?
But this voice was swept away during the four episodes by the repeated interventions of the defense lawyers, like a repeat of the trials of 2004 and 2005.
Even one of them, Dupond-Moretti, intervenes in his capacity as Keeper of the Seals, in a scandalous conflict of interest. He and his colleagues from Lille, Berton, Lescene, Delarue, are careful not to recognize their intolerable verbal violence against the little victims, cornered in Douai in the box… of the accused, and even less to apologize to them.
Judge Fabrice Burgaud was able to intervene on several occasions, which is a positive element. But he forgot to recall that he had left the file in July 2002 to his successor Cyril Lacombe (current prosecutor in Poitiers), who had not carried out any interrogation or release before the 2004 trial. Marie-Christine Gryson -Dejehansart, one of the legal experts in Outreau, recounts the group harassment she suffered at the hearing from defense lawyers. A new revised and expanded edition of his book “Outreau, la vérité abusee” has been on sale since today (Fabert Éditions).
Omissions (or lies by omission?) abound in the series: no reading of the precise details in the accusations against the priest Dominique Wiel (acquitted) by many children, no allusion to the confessions and then the convictions of Franck Lavier (acquitted) in 2012 and 2023 for violence against his two children and sexual assault on his minor daughter, no mention of the accusations of little another parallel rape investigation against Daniel Legrand fils (acquitted), also closed, no mention by Mourmand before his arrest, in front of his daughter, of the murder of a little girl at the Delays, no reminder of the real judicial dictatorship imposed to children at the Paris Assizes by the sinister president and attorney general, Odile Mondineu-Hederer and Yves Jannier.