I shall be posting

here from time to

time but, in effect,

this blog has moved

to:

http://sablonneuse.wordpress.com/

All past posts are still here so

feel free to browse.

The prison at Charleville will soon be back to normal. Alpha and Beta, the nicknames of Michel Fourniret and Monique Olivier, are on the point of leaving for other prisons.

He is being taken to Chalons-en-Champagne and she is going to Valencienne. They are still in 'temporary accommodation' until the files are completed for the cases still being investigated.

However, their departure will be a great relief for the local residents. They will have their parking places back and they won't be subjected to the convoys to and from court with sirens wailing.

As for the prison staff,  they can, at last get their breath back after 24 hour surveillance over the couple; 25 guards in shifts, checking them every fifteen minutes. 

 Some of the 'normal' detainees had been sent to other, already overcrowded establishments during the trial and those who remained noticed a difference in the routine with all staff on full alert for Alpha and Beta.

Before the arrival of the Fournirets the prison was already over full with 34 prisoners but only 23 places. However, those who were sent away hope to be returned to Charleville.

It could be said that everyone will breathe a huge sigh of relief to see the back of this couple.

We have managed to reduce our routine visits to the vet to just three times a year - two cats each time.

Last week it was the turn of Toby and Chloe and we knew that if anyone caught a glimpse of a catbasket they would all disappear under the bed or behind the computer. So I prepared the willow basket and a new cat carrier that the vet had given us last time in the garage and then went to find the victims.

Toby was curled up  on an armchair so it was easy to pick him up but when he saw the basket he became amazingly active and it was a bit of a fight to get him in. Chloe, bless her, was more trusting and quite curious about this new bag so she didn't protest too much when I zipped her in.

Toby made  loud cries all the way there but Chloe didn't make a sound. Maybe she was too scared. Toby was sick within a few minutes and also did a poo. We had to open the sunroof and the windows - just a bit.

In the waiting room I managed to clean Toby's basket (he's usually carsick so we were prepared) and the receptionist took the 'Carnets de Santé'. The vet invited us in and proceeded to examine her patients before administering the jabs. I remember her when she started, five years ago, and was a bit inexperienced but now she handles the cats with calm assurance and sticks the needle in without making them flinch.

She gave them both a clean bill of health, made sure they didn't have any 'habitants' (such as fleas) and then we went to the desk for her to add up the bill. She didn't have a large bag of cat biscuits in stock but promised to bring them to us this week. it was then we discovered she has lived in our village for the last three years.

The only time I've seen her is at the surgery when we were both waiting for the physio. It was the season for 'bronchiolite' in young children and her seven month old daughter was booked in for her first session of torture.

Yes - torture! From what I gather they squeeze the child's chest to make her cough and it must feel like choking or being asphyxiated. The poor little things cry with terror and as the treatment is on a daily basis most of them start screaming as soon as mum parks the car outside the surgery. I'm sure they don't do that to children in England.

Anyway, to return to the visit to the vet, we bought six phials of 'Advocate' which treats fleas, worms, ticks and earmites (I like to use this twice a year but it's more expensive than Frontline which only repels fleas and ticks) paid in advance for the biscuits and came out with our precious bundles of fur 221 euros worse off.  Veterinery charges are increasing but I think they still compare favourably with costs in Britain. All the same, it's definitely worth it to protect them from most diseases, including rabies.

Some time ago I discovered Susie Vereker's blog and was intrigued by the title of one of her books - 'Pond Lane and Paris'.

Yesterday the package from Amazon was delivered and I was hooked. In the first couple of pages I was immediately drawn to the heroine, Laura, and couldn't put the book down till it was finished.

If you like Joanna Trollope you'll like Susie Vereker but I'm not going to give away any more details about the story.

Having a book in English completely distracted me from my resolve to read in French. I've borrowed Gerald Durrell's "Ma Famille et Autres Animaux" from the library (in large print) but it's slow going. 

Yvette has lent me Caligula (Camus) and another play, Clerambard, by Marcel Aymé (whom I'd never heard of), so, you see, that's why I haven't had so much time to write or read blogs recently.

Meanwhile, I apologise for the lack of anything interesting to report regarding daily life chez-nous.

After a hearing lasting 35 days Monique Olivier and Michel Fourniret entered their box  surrounded by police.

For the first time since March 27th, the jurors appeared relieved.  All present held their breath as the verdict was read out.

Michel Fourniret was sentenced to life imprisonment with no remission or early release. Such a sentence has only been passed three times so far.

Monique Olivier also got life but may be eligible for release after 28 years.

It is pretty certain that neither of the accused will appeal.

However, the Fournirets were given this warning:

"N'imaginez surtout pas que la police et la justice belges et francaises vont vous laisser tranquilles"

"Don't imagine for a moment that the Belgian and French police and justice will leave you in peace."

They are gathering evidence implicating the couple in the disappearance of Marie-Angele Domece and the murder of Joanne Parrish.

There could be another Fourniret trial.

After more than a month of prosecution testimony the last two days have been given over to an attempt at finding a defence argument for the Fourniret couple.

On Monday, Monique Olivier's lawyer could only argue that although she had no alternative but to admit her guilt, her crimes were slightly less horrific than her husband's, and therefore, he hoped that her sentence might be a bit more lenient.

Yesterday, it was the turn of Fourniret's counsel. How does one defend the indefensible? Just one of his crimes should merit a life sentence but the court had endured a whole catalogue of horror.

If he searched for a grain of humanity he couldn't find one. All he could say at the end of his summing up was that Fourniret would not appeal.

At three o'clock the sitting was almost over. The accused were asked if they had any final words. Monique Olivier mumbled her regrets. Fourniret wanted to read out more of his scribblings - some even in verse.

His lawyer held his head in his hands.

One of the victim's fathers muttered. "Pauvre type".

All rests now in the hands of the jury.

The Sentence:

Fourniret is to serve the rest of his life in prison. His wife is to serve 28 years.

The families of their victims will also serve the rest of their lives  mourning the young girls who fell prey to this evil pair.

During this week many lawyers and expert witnesses reached the conclusion that Fourniret and his wife were equal partners in crime. Indeed, she may even have masterminded the operation, or at least given him his 'licence to kill'.

One advocate  said to Olivier, "Vous etes une insulte aux femmes."  "You are an insult to women"

She likened the accused to the wolf in Red Riding Hood and a witch: Fourniret ensnaring his victims with politeness and Olivier, cunning as an old crone.

At least, Fourniret knew how to tell his daughter he loved her but Olivier seemed unable to understand love in any form. She showed not the slightest compassion for their victims when she lured them into the traps which would lead to their death.

It is not surprising then that they are asking for the same penalty for both the 'executioner and his accomplice'.

The families are not seeking pity nor revenge. All they want is justice and the knowledge that lessons have been learned from this case. There were many weaknesses in the judicial system which allowed the Fournirets to get away with murder for far too long.

Serial killers are, more often than not, caught by chance and not because of an allout effort to find them.

One lawyer pointed out mistakes made by magistrates, and other incompetent goings on which extended Fourniret's freedom to carry on. At the moment the French judiciary comes out badly compared to the system in Belgium.

All the families of the victims share the hope that criminals like these will be caught before they can commit so many heinous crimes again.

(Other posts on the lighter side of life to be found here)

This week, according to the local paper, Fourniret started speaking and it was difficult to stop him.

When the news first hit the headlines and there was talk of finding bodies in a Chateau he had once owned I remember wondering how he could have lived in such apparent luxury.

The answer came this week.

He had been in prison with a certain Jean-Pierre Hellegouarch and the pair had become friendly. Jean-Pierre promised Fourniret a share of his booty from a previous crime if  he would 'rescue' it before the rest of the gang claimed it.

Fourniret agreed but when he was released he killed Jean-Pierre's wife and took the 80 kilos of gold for himself. When J-Pierre appeared as a witness he explained how he had tracked them down over a year later and even fired a couple of shots at him but missed.

In his testimony he described his wife, aged 30 at the time, and said there was no need to kill her to steal the gold.

Fourniret decided to speak about his crimes, relishing the details and not sparing the feelings of his victims' families.

He likened himself to a poacher, hunting for prey but despite his verbosity and precision he was tripped up over the case of Marie, who escaped his clutches. He tried to say that he let her escape because he wanted to be arrested to put an end to his activities.

It was pointed out that her wrists were bleeding because he had tied her so tightly. It was obvious he was trying to twist the truth to suit himself.

As for Monique Olivier, the court tried to come to a conclusion about her mentality and personality.  A psychologist for the defence wasn't able to testlfy but several experts for the prosecution claimed that there was no evidence of mental illness, that she knew perfectly well what she was doing in helping her husband and showed not the slightest compassion for their victims. They dismissed her claims of being a passive slave to his will. 

(The lighter side of life in France is now to be found on my other blog, here.

Both of the previous wives of Michel Fourniret had been won over by a man who seemed kind and considerate, a hard worker who seduced them by his way with words and his letters to them.

Annette was his wife for four years. She said their marriage had no major problems until the time he attacked a child in his car. It was the daughter of one of Annette's employees and it spelt the end of their marriage.

She never remarried but brought up their son on her own. Fourniret seemed to take a wicked pleasure in blaming her for setting him on the path of crime because she had lost her virginity to another before they were married.

When she asked him to break his silence his hatred of her was apparent.

However,  he was much better disposed towards his second wife, Nicole. She, too had been seduced by his love letters and they married after a short courtship. But she explained that she felt she never really knew the real Fourniret. After thirteen years of marriage, when he was arrested for a series of rapes and sexual assaults, Nicole divorced him.

A police officer who tried to gain his confidence at that time was convinced that he was still in love with Nicole. 

Their children, Jean-Christophe, now 44, and Anne, 36 had never really known their father but these three people are the only ones whom Fourniret seems to care about.

When Nicole asked him to speak, he sobbed and eventually promised that he would break his silence. But he said before saying anything in public he would have to try to gather his thoughts together.

We shall see if he keeps his promise.

Fourniret's elder brother, André gave the impression of being an honest man, very intelligent and not in the least like his sibling, who appeared even more insignificant, stuck behind his glass screen, obstinately mute.

André prefers to be known as Fournier nowadays but that doesn't mean he wants to deny his relationship with his brother. However, he admitted to being pulled in opposite directions, not wanting to to attack a close relative but not being able to defend a murderer and paedophile.

He wanted to tell the families of the victims, face to face, that his sympathy for them was stronger than his blood ties.

Fot the last five years he had been trying to understamd the dual personality that made up his brother: the 'good Michel', kind and hardworking and the 'bad', an assassin he could only condemn.

He demystified Michel's pretensions of being ultra clever - some sort of super being - with the words:

"Son intelligence est surfaite. Il a une bonne memoire. C'est un pseudo-intellectual, megalomane, excellente manuel, mais sans competence administrative ou commerciale."

"His intelligence is over-rated. He has a good memory. He is a pseudo-intellectual, megalomaniac, excellent with his hands but has no administrative or business sense."

He went on to dismiss claims of incest between Michel and their mother or sexual abuse of their sister by Michel, as sheer fantasy. He described their parents as a well balanced couple.

When asked about the humiliation claimed by his brother, André explained that he had a complex about his small stature, but this wasn't enough to turn him into a killer.

His theory as to why Michel refuses to speak at his trial is this: 'he is made up of two personalities, like a werewolf. Inside his head he is a martyr and the tragic loss of two of his own children reinforces this. According to this persona he has done nothing wrong but when both sides of his personality come together and he tries to reconcile black and white he could kill himself.'

"Do you think he would have spoken 'in camera?'" asked one of the mothers.

"He would have spoken but he wouldn't have said anything" was the response.

When asked at what point his brother changed, André was convinced it was when he met Monique.

'He needed an audience, an accomplice, an alibi, material assistance and someone with a passive nature so that he could show himself as all-powerful.'

Then it was the turn of Dominique Catoire to take the stand: the daughter of his late employer, Georges Catoire - a man  he idolised.

He showed not the slightest emotion during the descriptions of rapes and murders of his young, innocent victims but bringing up his past when he worked for Georges Catoire was enough to crack the hard shell he had so meticulously built up during his trial.

Dominique reminded him that her father had taught him love and respect and that he would be ashamed of him. Fourniret cracked and shed a tear.

The lawyers tried to press home the advantage but Fourniret would not respond. He quickly put up his wall of silence to hide behind. His ultimate protection.