Bousquet then questioned him at length about the various versions he had given of events that morning. Gaston repeatedly answered by saying, “I’ve done no harm to anybody!” He then said that he was standing by Elizabeth’s body when someone found a piece of wood under her head. That person handed it to him, and he gave it to the police. His previous story was that he was the one who had discovered the splinter of wood from the carbine’s butt and handed it over to the police. When challenged on this point, he said, “Perhaps I’ve made a mistake. I was out of my mind. I can’t remember.” In fact, it was a gravedigger from Forcalquier, sent to bring the bodies to the morgue, who had made the discovery. Asked about Clovis’s reaction when he saw the carbine, he said, “If Sébeille had done a decent job, he would have gone after Clovis. I don’t want to pay for another.”
The judge then asked Gaston about the statements he had made to Victor Guérino in the law courts in Digne. The judge reminded Gaston that he had said, “It’s Gustave who did it, but I’m going to confess to the crime in order to save the honor of the family.” He then admitted that he was the guilty party. Gaston said he had been interrogated from five in the afternoon until eight in the evening the following day. A policeman had approached him, his mouth agape, yelling that he was an assassin. Gaston told the court, “I had only had a glass of water and was feeling a bit gaga. Mister President, what would you have done in my place?” The courtroom burst out in laughter. Bousquet called for order, testily remarking that this was no laughing matter. When asked about what he had said to his son when they were confronted in front of Examining Magistrate Roger Périès, Gaston said that he could not remember.
He was utterly exhausted and simply let things roll over him. To most questions he wearily repeated that he was innocent.
The judge then addressed the question of the reconstruction of the crime on 16 November 1953. Gaston said, “What they did to me that day showed them up to be a bunch of cowards!” Bousquet brusquely called him to order. Gaston told the court that during the reenactment of the crime, he had been “crazy” and that the investigators had a fine old time making a mockery of him. The judge reminded Gaston that on nine separate occasions he had confessed to the triple crime. Gaston flatly denied it. Bousquet then said that he had confessed to save the honor of his grandchildren. Gaston grunted, “Don’t go over all that again!” Bousquet’s final question was about the carbine. Gaston replied, “I have never seen it. I haven’t killed anyone, and my conscience is clear.”
The court resumed the next day, Thursday, 18 November, at 9:15 a.m. Gaston appeared to be well rested. The presiding judge opened the proceedings by stating, “Among your statements you have accused your sons Gustave and then Clovis. On another occasion you let it be known that your grandson Roger (Zézé) Perrin might also be guilty. So I am now asking you bluntly whether you have a solid suspicion, a precise fact, or a clear accusation. You must make a categorical statement to the court and not simply cast suspicions.”
Bousquet was thus trying to get Gaston to accuse Gustave, Clovis, and Zézé Perrin, but Gaston hit back: “I have one simple thing to say. I do not accuse either Gustave or Clovis. I have sometimes said what I thought of Roger (Zézé) Perrin, because he’s a ne’er-do-well. But it was only a suspicion.” Gaston then accused the judge of speaking as though he thought he was guilty. He continued to insist that he was innocent. Bousquet turned to the jurymen and asked them whether they had any questions. They remained silent. A series of questions were asked about his acting as a midwife for his wife on three occasions and for one of his daughters on another, the implication being that this was singularly primitive and brutal behavior. Gaston muttered, “They were alone in the house. Should I have left them to die in agony?”
Gaston’s principal defense lawyer, Pollak, cut a strange figure with his olive skin, his mane of grey hair, his muffled voice, and his childish pout. He obviously had not done his homework, but he compensated for his lack of detailed knowledge with his neat turns of phrase and his commanding presence. He made elaborate gestures with his hands, which were embellished with incredibly long nails. Renowned in the courts for his verbosity, he was known as “The Word.” He tried to defend his client by saying that although violence had not been used against him, the sheer length of his interrogation was such that an old man’s wits were liable to become dulled.
Pollak then attempted to cast doubt on the medical evidence, but it made very little impression. First, he pointed out that the autopsy showed that Lady Drummond had been hit by three bullets, whereas Gaston had testified that he had fired only once. Similarly, the autopsy revealed that Elizabeth had received three or four blows to the head, whereas during the reconstruction of the crime, Gaston had indicated having hit her only once. He made much of the two statements Gaston was reported to have made about Anne’s death. One was “the woman did not suffer”; the other, “the woman can’t have suffered.” Then he took up the issue that the footprints at the murder site had not been duly examined. He mocked the notion that had Dominici been the murderer, he would not have disposed of the carbine by throwing it into the river only a few yards from his home. Then he asked why the mason who claimed to have seen Gaston buying a carbine from some American soldiers had not been produced as a witness. Rozan glibly replied that it would have served no purpose, because the man was a hopeless drunk.
Pollak then addressed the question of Gaston’s confessions and the circumstances in which they were made. There followed a lengthy discussion of the precise meaning of the statements Gaston had made to Guérino, with Pollak insinuating that it had been Pierre Prudhomme who had suggested the sexual motive as having triggered the murders.
The presiding judge now announced that he had received an interesting letter from Madame Duron, who lived in the Rue des Grands-Augustins in Paris. She had discovered an American gabardine raincoat in the abandoned railway station at Lurs where Clovis worked. It had stains on it that might have been blood. He thought that the lady was on her way to Digne and would appear in court as soon as she arrived. The defense team did not seem particularly interested in this witness.
Subsequent investigations revealed that a British-made blue gabardine raincoat had been found by a “private agent”—that is, a psychic specializing in the examination of electromagnetic radiations—by the name of Reine Ribot, who had spent some time at the murder site in the early stages of the investigation.11 A cutting with the stain and the label was sent to Scotland Yard for analysis. The raincoat was manufactured in Chorley but was not exported to France. The stain, which the French police with their belief in “applied psychology” had not even bothered to analyze, proved to be red oxide from house paint. None of the Drummonds’ neighbors recognized the raincoat. Although Sir Jack was known as an enthusiastic do-it-yourself man, the most recent paint job, on a greenhouse, had used a paint containing white lead. Besides, the work had been done by men from Boots, much to the management’s surprise and annoyance. Further, it is unlikely that Sir Jack, known to be a dapper dresser, would have taken a heavy, paint-stained raincoat with him during the dog days of August in Provence. It was later discovered that a railwayman by the name of Squillari had been living with his family in the abandoned railway station’s bunkhouse. He was a Frenchman who had lived in England, hence the provenance of the raincoat, which he had left behind when he moved out shortly after the crime.12
The next witness was Dr. Merlan, a psychologist who had examined Gaston Dominici at Les Baumettes prison. He stated that Gaston was a strong man who was physically and psychologically normal. He had shown no signs of being sexually obsessed and was in all respects perfectly normal, apart from slight traces of amnesia. The good doctor did not think it abnormal that “he liked to joke about women.” When Pollak asked him whether Gaston was “sensually obsessed,” the doctor replied that he was not. As were many Frenchmen, he was merely égrillard (dirty minded). Gaston thanked the doctor profusely as he left the witness stand. Dr. Merlan’
s assessment was seconded by that of Dr. Henri Alliez, who added without a hint of irony that Gaston was “mildly alcoholic.”
When Bousquet said that a number of Gaston’s acquaintances had said that he was “somewhat lacking in gallantry towards women,” the old peasant reacted violently. He muttered, “I had my own wife!” When the presiding judge asked him whether that was enough, Gaston replied, “You can bet your life on it!” Sébeille was convinced that he was excessively prurient. Once, when an airplane flew overhead, he had said, “Those fellows up there have all the luck. They can see the couples making out in the bushes!”
Dr. Henri Dragon, who had been the first to examine the bodies, was the next medical witness. The seventy-year-old, speaking in an affected manner, said that he had first examined Elizabeth. She had suffered two terrible blows in the face. Her nostrils were bloody. Her bare feet showed no signs of any abrasions. He then examined Lady Drummond’s body. One bullet had pierced her heart, which would have proved mortal. A second had gone through her lung. Sir Jack had received a bullet through the liver. The parents’ bodies were already stiff but not that of the daughter, from which he surmised that Elizabeth had died two or three hour later. Questioned on the state of Elizabeth’s feet, the doctor said that she might have run barefoot, or she might have been carried. The police testified that they had tested another ten-year-old, who ran barefoot on the same route. Her feet had shown no signs of abrasions. The doctor further stated that with such massive blows to the head Elizabeth would have died instantly.
Questioned about how long Elizabeth Drummond might have lived having received such terrible blows to the head, Dr. Paul Jouve—a specialist in cranial injuries who readily admitted that he had not examined the body—confidently stated that she could have survived for several hours. He cited two cases to support this view. One involved a child who had fallen from a second-floor window, resulting in a serious fracture of the skull. The child survived for eight hours. Another was that of a young man on a motor scooter who had driven into a reinforced concrete post, and his skull was fractured in two places. He had been in a coma for several hours. This testimony directly contradicted that of Dr. Dragon. An inconclusive argument ensued as to whether Elizabeth had tried to run away or she had been killed as she was lying down and then carried to the slope down to the river.
The court was then adjourned until 3:00 p.m.
The afternoon’s proceedings began with the testimony of Dr. Paul Nalin, one of the two doctors who had conducted the autopsies. He disagreed with his colleague Dr. Dragon on several issues. He argued that the difference in the degree of rigidity between the parents and the child was not a result of the times at which they were killed but because of their difference in ages. There was considerable discussion of the pool of blood near the cesspit. How big was it? Had Jack died there? Could he have crossed the road on his own after having lost so much blood? No definite conclusions were reached.
Professor Guy Marrian was the next witness questioned. He spoke in English with a teacher from the high school in Digne acting as an interpreter. Speaking in a low and dignified voice, he insisted that at no time had his close friend ever worked for the secret service and that the entire notion of the murders involving espionage or clandestine operations was utterly absurd. Later in the trial Commissioner Fernand Constant stated that Roger Autheville, the former Communist Party boss in the Basses-Alpes and captain in the Francs-Tireurs et Partisans Français, had assured him that the prevalent idea that Sir Jack had anything to do with the local Maquis was pure fantasy.
Guy Marrian also stated that the Drummonds had expressed their intention of camping out that night. With distinct disgust he told of how Gaston Dominici had shown him the places where his dear friends had died: he had done so with the detachment of a museum guide and clearly expected a tip, by holding out his right hand and rubbing the thumb and index finger together. Gaston was outraged at this insinuation and growled that peasants in the Basses-Alpes never asked for a reward when passing on information. At this point someone in the courtroom yelled out, “Bravo!”
Mrs. Phyllis Marrian confirmed her husband’s version of Gaston’s behavior, thus provoking another outburst from Gaston. He accused her of lying in such outrageous terms that Pollak ordered him to be silent.
Professor André Ollivier then testified about the carbine and the weapons found in the possession of Paul Maillet. He stated that all the cartridges and bullets found at the scene of the crime had been fired by the Rock-Ola. He had discovered a certain similarity between the oil used on the carbine and the guns belonging to Clovis. Paul Maillet had used a totally different type of oil on his weapons. Pollak was able to get the professor to admit that although the oil used on the Rock-Ola and on Clovis’s guns was similar, it bore no resemblance to that used on the guns at the Grand’ Terre.
There followed a lengthy technical discussion of the distance at which the shots had been fired. The result was inconclusive, with Ollivier arguing that with the techniques then available it was impossible to establish precisely the exact degree of closeness. The principal issue here revolved around the wound on Sir Jack’s hand. The doctors all agreed that it certainly was not a bullet wound.
Several minor witnesses then followed. Marceau Blanc, a truck driver from Gap, had passed the scene of the crime at 4:30 a.m. He reported the rear doors of the Hillman had been open, and a camp bed was in front of the vehicle. Joseph Moynier, a chauffeur from Laragne, drove past half an hour later. The car’s rear doors were then shut, and the camp bed was no longer in front of the Hillman.
The final witness on the second day was Roger Roche, a farmer who lived at Dabise, a village situated on the opposite bank of the Durance and a little farther than a mile from the Grand’ Terre. He had heard five shots at 1:15 a.m. When asked whether they were fired in a burst or shot by shot, he replied shot by shot. He clearly stated that he had looked in the direction of the shots for a quarter of an hour. He saw no vehicles pass along the route nationale N96 that went past the Grand’ Terre.
The first two days of the trial had failed to shine much light on the case. There was a massive police file against Gaston Dominici, but no tangible evidence had been presented. It was therefore hoped that when Gustave, Clovis, and Zézé were questioned the case against Gaston would be more compelling.
The third day of the trial began with other witnesses who had driven past the Grand’ Terre on the night of 4–5 August 1952. An eagerly awaited witness that Friday morning was a distinct disappointment. Aristide Panayotou claimed to have been at the scene of the crime at about 1:10 a.m. He had stopped about 80 yards from the crime scene, not as he had previously claimed to relieve himself, but because his lights had failed. He heard some screams and a number of shots, but he was unable to say how many. He saw a man staggering across the road. That man was followed by a “gentleman” who was about forty years old and had prominent cheekbones. He was carrying some unidentifiable object in his left hand. The judge asked him why he had not informed the police, but Panayotou did not reply. Then the judge pointed out a number of inconsistencies and contradictions in Panayotou’s testimony. He claimed that there had been two bursts of fire, while all other witnesses spoke of single shots. He had not heard any dogs barking, whereas others had. Panayotou was such an unreliable witness, his testimony so full of contradictions and nonsense, that the court soon grew impatient. Pollak asked why he had not been charged for giving the police such a patently absurd story. The advocate general, Rozan, gave the rather lame explanation that the court had decided to give Panayotou a final chance to tell the truth in the assize court. Sabatier apologized for having wasted the court’s time while still seconding Rozan’s reasoning.
It was with some relief when Jean-Marie Olivier, a rather more serious witness, took the stand. He stated that he had been stopped at 5:50 a.m. by Gustave, who had asked him to inform the police. He had seen Marie and Yvette standing by the garden wall. He reaffirmed his statement that Gustave
had emerged from behind the Hillman. Prior to the trial, he had insisted that Gustave had not stopped him; rather, he had stopped of his own accord because of the disarray around the Hillman.
Faustin Roure was the next witness. Gustave had visited him on the evening of 4 August to tell him about the landslide. Roure got up early the next day to examine the damage, taking a red flag with him in case he had to stop the train. He had found Clovis standing by Elizabeth’s body, the sight of which had shocked him deeply. He then followed Clovis toward the house. It was then that he saw a camp bed that was parallel to the Hillman. At the farmhouse Yvette told Roure that she had heard shots during the night. Clovis asked Gustave whether he had informed the police. He said that he had, but that it would take some time before they arrived. At that point Gaston returned to the farmhouse. He said something had happened during the night and asked what it was. Yvette said that there had been a killing, and Gaston asked where. She said at the end of the field. He then left to take a look.
Roure was thus witness to a nice little charade, with Gaston pretending to know nothing of the murders and to be surprised at being put into the picture by his daughter-in-law. On 6 August Gaston had told Sébeille that it was Gustave who had first told him of the murders. Why had they felt it necessary to change the story?
For the defense Charrier pointed out that the witness had failed to mention that he had stopped at La Serre on his way back, where he had seen Zézé Perrin. The defense lawyer asked why he had only mentioned Elizabeth and not the other two bodies. Roure replied that he had not seen the others; one was covered with a blanket, the other by a camp bed. Charrier solemnly declared that it contradicted the testimony of Madame Roure on what her husband had told her. Her statement was then read out loud. It was identical to what her husband had just said, leading the courtroom to burst out in loud guffaws. No reference was made to Roure’s statement in March 1953 that he could not remember if he had visited La Serre that morning and his categorical denial of having told Zézé Perrin about the murders.13
The Dominici Affair Page 22