HOME | EMAIL | FORUM "POUR LA VERITE" et "TRANSNATIONAL RADICAL PARTY"
Letter from Magistrate J.M.
CONNEROTTE to King ALBERT II High Court
of Neufchâteau His Majesty Albert II, Sire, I have the honour of addressing Your Majesty to inform you of facts which ought to be brought to your attention due to their gravity and to the interest with which I am sure you will consider them. For several years, like other investigators, I have been the object and the victim of a veritable campaign of defamation and misinformation at the hands of certain sectors of the media, for the simple reason that I have deal with two files, "Titres" and "Cools", and have investigated certain persons and certain criminal activities that seem to benefit from high-level protection. The continuation of these acts and their harmful effect on my professional life have led me to lodge a complaint against X, on the charge of violation of secrecy of investigation, calumny, defamation, and contempt of court. My complaint was passed on to the Crown Prosecutor of Neufchâteau on 23.11.95. The reply of the Crown Prosecutor on 13.12.95 to a reminder of my complaint led me to write to the Minister of Justice, the Public Prosecutor J. Velu and the Councillor of the Court of Appeal of Brussels P. Maffei on 14.12.95, with the attached supporting documents. The Public Prosecutor J. Velu, the Councillor of the Court of Appeal of Brussels P. Maffei and the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Brussels A. Van Oudenhove showed that they had received my correspondence by informing me that they were not competent to deal with my complaint. I have never had a reply from the authority empowered in this matter. Various letters and statements to the Crown Prosecutor of Neufchâteau, the Public Prosecutor J. Velu, the First Council for the Prosecution J. Schmitz and the Councillor P. Maffei have allowed me to record these media misdeeds consisting of a veritable destabilisation operation to which my investigation has been subjected: threats, pressure, acts of malice or sabotage, leaks and various other manoeuvres, to the benefit of the mafia-style criminal protection that began when the inquiry came upon certain facts and upset certain persons. In my complaint, I referred to a letter addressed on 24.04.94 to the Crown Prosecutor of Neufchâteau. In it I proposed my removal from the two files "Titres" and "Cools", due in particular to the manoeuvres of Detective Superintendent R. Brose in Liège, the very man responsible for the Cools unit! The lodging of an independent case for damages by the Cools family, which took place in my office in mid-April 1994, exposed my inquiry, the investigators and myself, and placed us in an even more dangerous and precarious situation in the face of the campaign of defamation and misinformation orchestrated by two agents: certain sectors of the media and high-level or influential members of the police force, acting together in the service of the same criminal motive of protection. In my soul and my conscience, as I explained in my complaint, I opted for the intermediary "solution" of urging my removal and denounced these serious and very real actions, well aware of the likely harmful consequences of such a decision for my role as investigating magistrate and for my person. My removal, in the logic of the incriminated process, did not free me from this precarious position as a target as a result of my handling of the two files. On the contrary, it allowed the continuation and the stepping-up of the operation to manipulate and appropriate an investigation followed very closely by the media to the benefit of the same criminal motive of protection probably linked to that of the murder which this investigation evidently has the task of unravelling. I suspect M. Raymond Brose of playing a decisive role in all this by relying on the influence or the trust he evidently enjoys among certain magistrates and certain officers in the Cools unit, people who are completely honest but, it seems, abused. In this respect I drew up a note containing a dozen precise and corroborating facts allowing us to trace evidence in his conduct of a veritable mission of protection or hushing-up. One of the most significant examples of this destabilisation operation is probably the systematic sabotage of an international rogatory commission carried out personally in Catania (Sicily) with three BSR officers. This mission was likely to provide material evidence essential to the demonstration of the truth in the "Titres" file and probably, according to certain information, in the "Cools" file. If it "talks", a piece of material evidence will not retract. Its relevance is essential for a file subject to so much contrary pressure and manoeuvres. Two persons under detention in Catania, having "frequented" certain convicted offenders or suspects, contacted us in writing informing us that they were willing to give evidence about the disappearance of the Citroën BX belonging to the office of M. Alan Vanderbiest and about the murder of André Cools; this information was immediately communicated to the Cools unit; on my orders, three officers from the BSR went to Catania to hear the two witnesses on the BX that played an important role in the "Titres" file; the two witnesses, after making certain revelations, asked for the two Belgian magistrates dealing with the "Titres" and "Cools" files to be present; I contacted the "Cools" unit, my colleague Mme Ancia agreed to come to Catania; from the first questioning, one of the two witnesses asked for guarantees about their safety, the problem is real, considering the object of the mission and the particular prison population in their place of detention (Sicily); the witnesses were particularly concerned about the problems of the media, they demanded, and we understand perfectly, absolute discretion with regard to the press; the Italian authorities (the Catania CID) aware of the importance of our mission and the danger to which the two witnesses were exposed, had seen to their protection in this respect; from the first questioning, a representative of the "Cools" unit responded to these legitimate demands with incredible, disagreeable remarks; the witness practically refused to speak after this incident; the members of the "Cools" unit returned to Belgium the day after the questioning; I stayed in Catania with the three BSR officers for a supplementary hearing a few arranged for days later; the day after the return of the members of the "Cools" unit to Belgium, the names of the two witnesses and certain facts about the international rogatory commission were revealed by the newspapers, the radio and the TV; these leaks were obviously a genuine catastrophe; subsequently, the two witnesses withdrew their statements after receiving strong pressure and death threats which, in the local criminal context, were obviously taken seriously; on our return to Belgium, in May 1994 we received new evidence concerning the Citroën BX that confirmed what we had heard in Sicily, the officers left for Dijon on a preparatory mission in view of a further international rogatory commission, the BX had allegedly been found in the Dijon region; on 1 June 1994, the Court of Cassation removed the "Titres" and "Cools" files from the jurisdiction of Neufchâteau; having reacquired the files, the Belgian investigators apparently lost interest in the search for the BX; it seemed to be more important to follow up the accusations of certain convicted offenders concerning alleged pressure, offers or payments of money made by the investigating magistrate of Neufchâteau and his officers in order to recover the BX or obtain certain statements; the media, after leaks occurred, disclosed these extremely serious accusations; during this time, the French police service (the Dijon CID), aware of the importance of the BX for the furtherance of the inquiry, carried out investigations on the basis of information received by the Belgian police in May 1994, allowing the embarrassing vehicle to be found in October 1994; there followed in Belgium a press campaign aiming to minimise the importance of this discovery for the two files; letters to this effect were sent by fax to the Belgian agency by unidentified judiciary authorities in Liège; it was necessary, in fact, for the good of the inquiry to repatriate the BX to Belgium as soon as possible in order to proceed to an examination in a highly specialised laboratory; pressure was allegedly applied to prevent this repatriation, which would have been implemented for examination a few months after the discovery of the vehicle… We are probably faced with the emergence of a concept, which is not new, accepted, without being the concern of the Constitution and of the Laws – that of "protected or legitimated crime", with regard to and to the benefit of serious offences of which the "judiciary dysfunction" in the penal domain is the principal culprit. The judiciary dysfunction thus turns into a veritable "institution" whose smooth running assures the legitimacy of certain criminal activities and the impunity of those responsible. This institution seems to acquire its authority and supremacy over sectors of the justice system by relying on a complex and secret modus operandi, that of the appropriation of certain key circuits of our institutions created and regulated by the Law. It is a matter essentially of political, financial, police, and media circuits. This mafia-style criminal phenomenon is evidently not peculiar to Belgium, but it involves particular manifestations that are well suited to this small country. We can imagine the obstacles that a judiciary inquiry will meet when investigating such facts: numerous taboos, problems of mentality, and a lack of cultural reference on the issue in order to be able to become aware of or deal with such criminal phenomena, taking advantage in Belgium of official reticence in terms of their acknowledgement, which favours or supports their occultation. The function of a criminal system of this sort is obviously to serve its fundamental purpose, the pursuance of particularly profitable illicit activities, such as money-laundering, and to protect the "legitimacy" of its activities and the impunity of its agents. This indispensable function corresponds to the motive of criminal protection that assures the permanency of the incriminated system by means of the infiltration of the certain circuits of our institutions, especially the police force, a veritable "knot" which my whole investigation has come up against. For example, I might refer to a report drawn up on my request "in tempore non suspecto" on 16.12.1993. This document records the offensive remarks and threats made by a Detective Superintendent from the Liège force against the inquiry following the charging of Detective Inspector Gilbert Preud’homme, also including the articles by Serge Dumont published in "Le Vif l’Express’. This report provided us with indications regarding the probable sources of information used by this journalist, leaked with the evident goal of opposing or influencing the course of justice, and regarding police collusion to the benefit of the accused. The twelve articles by Serge Dumont, published in "Le Vif l’Express’ from December 1993 to July 1994, substantially repeat the criticisms formulated by this police officer in providing all the details useful for his purpose. Moreover, during a TV broadcast ("Controverse" on RTL-TV1, broadcast on 13.12.92) Serge Dumont also recognised that he had benefited from leaks from police circles or investigators. Some articles could hardly have been written without police complicity, or without that of a motivated investigator. The Crown Prosecutor of Neufchâteau officially denounced these facts with respect to an article published on 10.06.94 disclosing the contents of a report. I refer also to his letter of 28.11.94, very precise and clear with regard to the facts of the case, addressed to the Public Prosecutor L. Giet. The systematic desire of sectors of the media to influence the course of justice was also demonstrated by the presentation of an image of two poles of the inquiry, Liège and Neufchâteau, antagonists vowed to disagreement, in accordance with simplistic images verging on caricature, and to present the Neufchâteau investigators and magistrates as incompetent, grotesque and dishonest figures following an improbable trail on the basis of an empty file… the cruder it is, the better it works. This image was also reproduced in various TV programmes (Controverse on RTL-TV1) presented by M. Vrebos, in the presence in particular of Serge Dumont. In a programme broadcast on 13.12.92, Dumont openly described an episode in which he listened at the door of my office during the questioning of a suspect in the "Titres" file. The following are some useful extracts from the programme in question: Questioned by M. Vrebos, Serge Dumont replies: "It’s no secret that I was behind the door of the magistrate’s office when Mr Vanderbiest was charged… so I heard things, it seemed to me… I don’t know… I think it was really my duty to say it because there are things… I think that there’s something wrong at Neufchâteau… " (…) Question from M. Vrebos: "…and so you listen at doors, you said, was it acceptable in terms of professional ethics to go and listen behind doors while Alain Vanderbiest was being questioned?" Dumont’s reply: "Listen, as the proverb says, opportunity makes the thief. I was completely alone there. The large room was empty. I saw Vanderbiest enter the office. I went just outside… I didn’t … (laughter) I must point out that I didn’t hear everything but I did hear… when the tone rose because… it’s not Vanderbiest saying it but me… Vanderbiest got worked up with the magistrate…" The removal of Neufchâteau by the Court of Cassation couldn’t have been a better tribute, certainly involuntary, for a tableau of this sort and for its creator. The charge lodged against the investigating magistrate of Neufchâteau by Detective Inspector Preud’homme refers mainly to the articles by Serge Dumont, a procedure of which Dumont would later boast, after the fashion of Roland Planchar, to explain in a fallacious and calumnious manner the removal of Neufchâteau by the Court of Cassation on 1 June 1994; moreover, the article by Serge Dumont of 24.06.94, entitled "Les pressions de Neufchâteau": "…During this time, the investigating officers also sought the reordering of the file on the murder of Cools put together by Jean-Marc Connerotte, the investigating magistrate in Neufchâteau. Everything points to the fact that the methods employed by the magistrate and the officers of the BSR of Bastogne, who assisted him, will lead to great upheaval in the magistracy. Some people even foresee that the affair will be brought before the Permanent Police Watchdog Committee, created to ensure that the constitutional rights of persons facing trial are respected."… "According to our information, Di Mauro, and also Patrick Rinder and Cosimo Solazzo, two other men charged in the context of the "Titres volés" file, were also subjected to this sort of pressure…which was allegedly sometimes exercised by magistrate Connerotte in person. In fact, the magistrate promised them a swifter release, or the return of confiscated goods, in exchange for statements backing the thesis that the "titres volés" (stolen bonds) affair was linked to the murder of Cools. This is how he amassed the ‘overwhelming evidence" that obviously collapsed when verified by the "Cools unit". (see also the article of 10.06.94 "Les pièces montées"; the article of 15.07.94 "Les dix questions clefs du dossier Cools", and the report by the Crown Prosecutor of 28.11.95 - attached) Certain information and clues relating to these manoeuvres are likely to provide us with evidence of probable collusion, or at least of significant convergence of points of view, between Raymond Brose and Serge Dumont, whose real name is Maurice Serfatti, since it is a matter of tackling facts concerning certain suspects.
Other manoeuvres, once again with the aim of influencing the course of justice, have taken place, including meetings within the Liège CID devoted to exercising influence with completely upright magistrates, with the result in particular that some of these magistrates felt obliged to decline when it was a question of deciding whether to remand two accused police officers on custody. Moreover, according to an article by Serge Dumont entitled "L’homme au 9 millions" written on the occasion of the arrest of Gilbert Preud’homme and Richard Taxquet: "…this affair causes unrest within the CID. Because, if it turns out that the chief investigator is innocent and that he has been deprived of his freedom on the basis of doubtful allegations, several of his colleagues would publicly demand explanations from the magistrates concerned, and also from their superiors in the public prosecutor’s department. An environment…" Under these conditions, we can understand the apparent reluctance of the Public Prosecutor L. Giet to follow up my complaint, as well as the silence that followed my subsequent moves, from my letter of 24.04.94 to the Crown Prosecutor of Neufchâteau, and the silence following another twelve complaints or reports. This situation is most regrettable, considering that the solution of the incriminated facts related to the leaks, the media attacks and the misinformation campaign probably constitutes the necessary premise to the solution of the murder of André Cools. Finally, I must point out that my investigation has also met with pressure because it carried out a search within an important financial institution, some of whose directors benefit from links with influential or highly-regarded police officers and, indirectly, from protection through certain spheres of influence. For the remainder of my account, I refer to my previous letters and statements, in particular my letter of 8 September 1994 to the Public Prosecutor J. Velu. Sire, I can solemnly state that in May 1994 we possessed tangible proof that would have led to the solution of the murder of André Cools by the end of the year. Unfortunately, after our removal on 1 June 1994, they were not equipped to withstand the incriminated process, contrary to the demonstration of the truth, to which they were exposed. My action, probably unprecedented, reflects the gravity and the extraordinary nature of the facts of the case. The concept of "protected or legitimised crime" is inadmissible in a democracy based on justice and rights. It leads to the denial of essential values that affect the very foundations of a society, of a culture and an education to which we are all intimately linked. For my part, I could never subscribe to it in the exercise of my duties as an investigating magistrate despite the incredibly harmful consequences of such a position. I am thinking of other suspects, especially in the "Titres" file, who do not benefit from such protection, which deprives them of investigations likely to find proof leading to their discharge. Is there not a risk of the violation of the rights of defence and of some fundamental principles laid down in the European Convention on the Safeguard of the Rights of Man? Is this sort of discriminatory regime to the benefit of certain crimes (or suspected crimes) and their authors admissible in a democracy based on justice and rights? I am also thinking of the victims, in the "Titres" affair, of those elderly people who were savagely tortured to rob them of their coupons. Does the family of a victim of murder not have the right to consideration, with regard to its dignity and to the truth? If, by some remote chance, the facts denounced in my complaint were to benefit from the same legitimisation and impunity, my situation would risk becoming so precarious and infamous that it would be difficult for me, professionally and humanly, to carry out my duties as an investigating magistrate. Would this magistrate now be forced to work against his conscience sealed by the duty of reserve? What would become of the oath of this magistrate, the loyalty sworn to the King, to the Constitution and to the Laws of the Belgian people? These are the conclusions of the editorial by Philippe Toussaint, characterised by disturbing, remarkable and courageous lucidity: "Take heart! Let us recognise once and for all that justice is made only for the unshaven, and that the mafia order is, after all, an order?" (Journal des Procès, no. 268 of 14 October 1994). Were these words a forewarning? I remain your faithful servant. Magistrate J.M. CONNEROTTE ANNEXES:
|
HOME | EMAIL | FORUM "POUR LA
VERITE" et "TRANSNATIONAL RADICAL PARTY"