the diary of an ex-hostage of the Bataclan, week 15

Since September 8, 2021 the trial of the November 13 attacks is held in Paris. David Fritz Goeppinger, victim of these attacks is today a photographer and author. He agreed to share through this logbook his feelings, in images and in writing, during the long months that this river trial will last. Here is his account of the fifteenth week.

>> The journal of the fourteenth week

Tuesday January 11. After an unusual warmth at the end of December, the cold is back. As a sign of the passing of time, the brewery where I took my first coffees has closed. White paint covers its windows, its closed door, what happened to the waiter? These are the kinds of thoughts that roam my mind as I walk towards Île de la Cité.

I swallow a sandwich and sit in the auction room to follow the debates. I join Gwendal in the main courtroom when the bells ring. I am invariably sent back to school, with anxiety on top of that. Today we are supposed to resume the hearing with the questioning of an accused and his relatives. This phase of the trial has been awaited for some time by the parties since we will hear them on their journey in Syria but also on the “religious” aspect, in other words, on their radicalization. Today, we are finally touching the most sensitive topics of this trial and I admit I can’t wait for it to begin. This “background” has been mentioned in the past but avoided many times.

At the opening of the hearing, a new debate arose concerning four incident files on the behavior of certain defendants, files drawn up by gendarmes during one of the hearings last week. Maître Nicolas Braconnay, General Counsel, takes the floor and asks for the files to be transferred to the files. Maître Violleau responds in return, because one of the notes concerns his client. After lively exchanges between the parties, the president’s face changes, he loses patience. The debate continued for over half an hour. I share the President’s annoyance and look forward to the rest.

The president asks the accused to stand up. He is wearing a small checked shirt and it is difficult to make out the shape of his face behind the surgical mask. Right away, we learn that the three witnesses called to the stand, all three close to the accused, will not come, I am a little disappointed but I am starting to get used to the absence of witnesses. As with the first interrogations of the accused, what shocks me is the ease with which he answers the president’s questions. To justify his radicalization, he seems to want to explain historical facts: “Islamic State everyone saw it as something new but there have always been Islamic States […]”. Hearing him try to find words and arguments for the presiding judge’s questions makes me cringe, anger returning. Although I am aware that we will never understand the origin of his radicalization as well as that of the terrorists (deceased), each attempt at an explanation rings hollow and this, in spite of the changes of angles of the President in the continuation of the interrogation . Some of his answers resonate loudly and my anger grows stronger. I am taking notes when I hear the president make a remark: “But these people on the terraces, they’re not at war.” the accused, to answer with the nonchalance that has characterized him since the beginning of the trial: “no they are not at war.” Then, the president begins the reading of the hearings of the witnesses absent from the trial.

The hearing is suspended and I take this opportunity to exchange quickly with some regulars of the trial and we are unanimously appalled by the words of the accused.

While the writing of this note finishes, Master Topaloff, lawyer of civil parties is in full interrogation. Dialogue seems difficult and the man often replies: “excuse me I did not understand the question.” Then, master Maktouf, presents his questions but the accused immediately retorts that he will not answer her because of a statement she allegedly made to the press. In the auction room, the clicking of computer keys follows the rhythm of the exchange.

I think I’ll stop writing for today.

See you tomorrow.

Thursday January 6. This new week of hearing is having a hard time getting started. This is not new, most of the information about the trial is filtering through social networks and the press. I have the feeling that everything is transformed by the trial, transformed by the Covid, transformed by the lingering traces of the attack in our lives. Finally, I wonder if the trial has not become a form of physical expression of the symptoms felt during the last six years: an absolute gap vis-à-vis society and the outside world. It has become difficult, if not impossible, not to mix up the subjects and if the trial is now practically at a standstill, it is indeed because of the virus which slows down, or even immobilizes the world. Everything echoes everything and everything mixes with us at the center of this storm of immobility and slowness. At first, the questions surrounding the trial of the attacks were first of all around the facts and the accused but over the days of the hearing, the life of the trial changes, the questions evolve and we become the witnesses of a judicial machine. whose mechanisms sometimes escape us. Sometimes I feel like I’m hanging out in front of a noisy machine.

The hearing was to resume its course today but it remains suspended to the state of health of the main accused. Obviously, the man is positive for Covid-19, and is present in the box. Before the end of the hearing on Tuesday, Mr. Ronen had nevertheless indicated that his client was not in a condition to appear but after a medical examination yesterday, the doctor indicated that he was. At the opening of the hearing, another debate takes place in the courtroom, one of the accused absent since November still refuses to appear. After the usual summons to the accused by a bailiff and after resuming the hearing, the accused’s counsel begins reading a letter written by the latter, in which it spells out his motivation not to not appear. The president wishes to hear the accused on this subject and adds: “I ask the escort leader to ensure that the accused is brought in despite his opposition.” I didn’t think it was possible. Upon his return to the courtroom, the President greeted his presence: “It’s good that you came on purpose. It seemed important to me that you were there. ”

First installed in the main room, I realize while searching my bag that I did not have a notebook and decide to migrate to the auction room after a coffee break accompanied by my two friends Gwendal and Bruno, whom I photograph. on the steps of the Palace. The rest of the debates, a real crossover between the lawyers and the court, a series of pleadings where once again, lawyers from both parties find themselves on positions: some want the hearing to be stopped while the accused is no longer positive, and others plead for his prosecution. Last year, during the trial of the January 2015 attacks, the hearing had already been suspended for several weeks because of the Covid.

This emergence of the epidemic in the heart of the sanctuary seems to weaken its balance, will the court take the risk of continuing the debates when a person is positive? Despite my absence for the future, I will remain attentive via Twitter.

Today, I can not stay until the end but I admit that it suits me well. I have the impression that the Covid is taking us away from the subject.

The hearing is suspended during deliberation.
I am quitting writing for today.