Human Values and Legal Evidence Evaluation

On 2012-08-09 I tried to open a debate on the Film General Board on Human Values and Legal Evidence Evaluation in Movies. Despite many messages by myself, no one else got any inclination to discuss these problems. One of my messages was an analysis of Omar Killed Me, and with a few changes I shall move this message to the present board. I have worked for 20 years within the Swedish legal system. Hence, conviction of innocent people can never be without tension to me.

Around 1950 a number of French directors made an impressive number of movies which strongly criticised the legal system, and threw much light on errors that often led to false convictions. – During recent years an analogous wave of criticism of the legal system has become prominent. I do not think it is relevant that important "Omar m'a tuer" formally was made in Morocco. It is about an authentic French case, the murder of a rich lady (Mz. Marchal) in 1991, and the conviction of her young Arabian gardener Omar in 1994. He got an 18-year-sentence. He himself told that the woman was like a mother to him.
- - She was found dead in a room in the basement. She had been stabbed many times. None of the stabs was deadly. Neither were all of them together deadly, if she had got medical treatment in time. The room was locked from the inside with a crossbar. And on the door was written twice with the woman's blood: "Omar killed me."
- - Some reviewers think first of all of racism. However, the point that is most central in my mind is that the corpse was cremated after a week. Some authority person claimed that this is altogether in accordance with the law. But whatever may be lawful, a large amount of dishonesty must be present in the persons who made this decision, when a 20-year-sentence was at stake for the arrested person.
- - Okay, there are sadists. But the most probable scenario is that someone tortured her with the aim of extracting some information, for instance about how to come over some of her assets.
- - The exact places of the cuttings could have been crucial, and could well have convinced any jury of the torture scenario and, in turn, of the innocence of Omar.
- - Some but not all of my objections were included in the movie. I am not proficient in French, in particular not in spoken (i contrast to printed) French, and I saw this movie with English subtitles. I wonder how difficult it would be to lock the door from the outside with crossbar. Maybe a simple lace would suffice?
- - To a normal human being it would be a natural hypothesis that the real murder might try to avoid detection by producing indications toward someone else. Okay, it was certified that the blood with which the text was written twice came from Mz. Marchal. But with what did she write? Her finger? Was there any indication related to her finger? – I also wonder if there could be fingerprints on the text. However, if someone else wrote the text, he or she would probably have used gloves or some such thing.
- - As I understand the movie, it was clear on what place in the room Mz. Marchal had been left by the torturer. Then the problem emerges whether she would be capable of the physical effort of creeping to the door, and rise high enough to put the crossbar in place.
- - As you can see, there was a lot of evidence that could have been obtained (and perhaps was obtained but concealed?).
- - In turn, there is the question who should collect such facts? In many countries defence counsels think that this is not their job. But finding them may be more significant for the verdict than anything they could say or do during the proceedings.
- - [In the present message I shall not discuss another aspect. But it is my sincere conviction that there is an urgent need of a public defence office, at the same level as the prosecutor's office.]
- - As regards the movie about Omar I shall for pedagogical reason I present a few details from a Swedish case. Someone (one or more?) placed explosives in a luxury restaurant and made them detonate. The next day the police found the wrappings of the explosives in the garbage place belonging to the apartment of the owner. To most TV viewers that matter was clear: the owner had blown up his own restaurant in order to swindle the insurance company. Somehow they could not imagine that an enemy would at the same time (a) annihilate his restaurant; (b) prevent the owner from receiving damages from insurance company; and in the best case (c) succeed in having him sent in jail for attempted insurance swindle.
- - In my books on the psychology of lying I have introduced the concept "twin lie". It is not important that some lies can be classified in a certain category. The crux is that twin lies have an enormous persuasive power. For instance, a psychiatrist may fabricate a false theory. But to convince his readers of its truth he may assure that he had during many years entertained the very opposite view. It was only under the hard pressure of unambiguous clinical observations that he was forced to realise that his former and opposite view had been wrong.
- - Judges are particularly prone to believe in by twin lies. I have extensively documented this in my two volumes of 1996. (Nevertheless, the owner of the restaurant was not convicted of insurance swindle.)
- - It may be a bold assumption that the judges, prosecutor, and policemen were honest in the Omar case. But if they were, they were incapable of imagining that the murderer could have written an accusation against another person in order to escape punishment himself.
- - Some legal theorists claim that the stronger evidence we demand for a conviction, the more guilty defendants will escape punishment. However, the case of Omar and Mz. Marchal reveals that quite the opposite is true. The real murder completely escaped punishment.




As proof, false evidence is in general of a higher
value than true evidence, first and foremost because
it has been explicitly manufactured in accordance
with the concrete needs of the trial.
- - - - - - - - - - Anatole France