The Omar Raddad Case (who killed Ghislaine Marchal ?)

The Omar Raddad case is like a labyrinth of mysteries, captivating and enigmatic at every turn. From the moment the investigation began, it was riddled with inconsistencies, making it a true crime saga that continues to captivate audiences worldwide.

At its heart lies the tragic death of Ghislaine Marchal, a wealthy socialite whose life was brutally cut short. The discovery of the cryptic message “Omar m’a tuer” written in blood added a layer of intrigue to the case, sparking a whirlwind of speculation and debate.

As the story unfolds, we encounter a cast of characters straight out of a noir thriller. From Omar Raddad, the humble gardener accused of the crime, to Jacques Verges, the legendary defense attorney who took on his case, each personality adds depth and complexity to the narrative.

But it’s not just the characters that make this case so fascinating; it’s the twists and turns of the investigation itself. From the mishandling of evidence to the questionable testimony of witnesses, every revelation brings us closer to the truth while shrouding it in further mystery.

And then there’s the backdrop of Mougins, a picturesque town on the French Riviera, where the crime took place. Its idyllic façade belies the darkness that lurks beneath, adding an eerie atmosphere to the unfolding drama.

Despite the passage of time, the Omar Raddad case remains as captivating as ever, drawing us into its web of intrigue and leaving us hungry for answers. It’s a true crime story that continues to haunt us, begging to be unravelled and understood.

Please, sign the petition demanding #justiceforOmarRaddad #JusticePourOmarRaddad : https://chng.it/4DBXHCbNz8

************************************************************************
Chapters :

00:00 Introduction
01:00 The Facts
08:00 Ghislaine & Omar
09:36 The Trial
17:48 Twists and Turns
25:15 A rushed and biaised investigation
51:16 Conclusion

************************************************************************

🔗 Connect with us:
* Instagram:

/ daily_amine
* TikTok :

/ dailyamine

And don’t forget to subscribe, like, comment and share !
Tags : Omar Raddad, Jacques Verges, Ghislaine Marchal, Latifa Raddad, Omar m’a tuer, La Chamade, Sylvie Noachovitch, Erreur Judiciaire, Européennes 2024, Jordan Bardella, True Crime, Meurtre non élucidé, Racism in France, Islamophobia in France, Mougins, La Huche à Pain, Nice, Côte d’Azur, Jardinier, Chaufferie, Lit Pliable, Francine Pascal, violences policières,

Prepare to delve into the most captivating criminal case in French judicial history: the Omar Raddad case. From the infamous inscription “Omar m’a tuer” (“Omar killed me” in French) written in blood to a web of twists & turns, this case embodies all the elements of a detective novel that not even Agatha Christie could have imagined. Picture a wealthy widow murdered in her luxurious home, a mysterious Moroccan gardener, a suspicious maid, and the ever-beautiful south of France. More than 30 years after the events unfolded, Omar Raddad still proclaims his innocence and seeks a second trial. In this video, we’ll dissect this intriguing enigma, reveal hidden shadows, and demonstrate how everything was orchestrated to accuse a man of a crime he did not commit. Please note: Our sources are based on books, press articles, documentaries, and French television archives related to this case. The Facts The story begins in Mougins, on the heights of Cannes, in the south of France, on Sunday, June 23, 1991. Ghislaine Marchal, the wealthy widow of Jean-Pierre Marchal, is in her luxurious residence, ‘La Chamade.’ As usual, Ghislaine wakes up late, has breakfast in bed, and prepares to visit her friend Colette, whose husband is celebrating his birthday. Before noon, she receives a call from her friend Erica, with whom she agrees to have lunch at La Chamade the next day. At 1:00 PM, Ghislaine still hasn’t arrived at Colette’s, who tries unsuccessfully to reach her. After lunch, Colette goes to Ghislaine’s house, but there’s no response. The next day, Monday, June 24, 1991, Erica arrives at La Chamade around 11:30 AM. Still no answer. Worried, Erica alerts Ghislaine’s neighbor, Francine Pascale, while Colette, who has returned in the meantime, calls the security company and then the gendarmes. The gendarmes arrive and find Ghislaine’s car in the garage. The house’s front door is open, the keys are in the lock, the alarm isn’t activated, and everything appears orderly. Ghislaine’s bed is unmade, the gift for Colette’s husband is visible, her bag is there, but there’s no sign of Ghislaine. They decide to inspect the cellar. The door is locked, but even after unlocking it, it refuses to open and resists for 20 minutes. Upon opening it, they discover that the door is blocked from the inside by a folding bed and a metal tube resting on a wooden beam, as if someone had barricaded themselves. After clearing the way, they find a blood-covered light switch in the darkness. As they proceed further into the cellar, they encounter an illegible inscription on a door, followed by the brutally mutilated body of Ghislaine Marchal, face down, in a bathrobe, bathed in blood, and stabbed. Leaving the cellar, the gendarmes discover another inscription on the door, this time legible: ‘OMAR M’A TUER’ (‘Omar killed me’). This phrase, written in the victim’s blood, contains a grammatical error that we’ll address later. It’s this inscription that will guide the entire investigation. The gendarmes take photos of the scene, inscriptions, and all elements present in the cellar. They then search for the infamous Omar and learn from Ms Pascale that there is indeed an Omar in Ghislaine Marchal’s life: Omar Raddad. He’s Ms Marchal’s gardner. Well-known in the neighborhood, he also works for Ms Pascale, Ghislaine’s neighbor and friend. He’s a married man, father of 2 children, in France for several years, and enjoys a good reputation with his employers. However, for the investigators, he becomes the prime suspect. Curiously, even before arresting him, the gendarmes send a message to all gendarmeries stating that the presumed assassin is a 30-year-old Moroccan subject on the run, as if he were already considered guilty. In reality, Omar Raddad is easily found at his in-laws’ place in Toulon. He accompanies the gendarmes to the Cannes police station, where he will be interrogated for twelve hours without a lawyer or interpreter. Omar Raddad claims to have worked the entire day of Sunday, June 23, at MS Pascale’s house, located about a hundred meters from La Chamade. Exceptionally, he worked on this Sunday to compensate for his planned absence on Monday, the day of Eid al-Adha, an islamic holiday, which he celebrates with his family in Toulon. According to his account, Omar left between 12:00 PM and 1:00 PM to have lunch at home in Le Cannet. He rode his moped, stopped at a bakery, then returned home, where he encountered a neighbor in the building’s hallway. He watched television, had lunch, smoked a cigarette, and then went back to work. On his way back, he made a phone call to his wife from a telephone booth before continuing his journey. He returned at 1:05 PM to Ms Pascale to finish his workday. The next day, Monday, June 24, he left for Toulon by train. However, no one can confirm his statements. The baker questioned is unable to confirm his visit, and although the call made from the telephone booth is traced, no one saw Omar in the hallway of his building. Only Ms Pascale confirms that he did work for her on Sunday, June 23, 1991 without noticing any change in his demeanor or bloodstains on his clothes. – Could he have been absent for half an hour…? – Well, it’s really hard to say! My daughter tells me it’s impossible because we had lunch outside, we heard the lawnmower at 1:15 p.m., and he came back dressed the same, just as he had left… The initial autopsy report indicates that the crime was committed between 12:00 PM and 2:00 PM on Monday, June 24, which would completely exonerate Raddad. However, shortly afterward, the three forensic experts corrected a typographical error in the report: the crime would have occurred on Sunday, June 23. Omar Raddad then becomes the sole suspect. The investigation reveals that he is one month behind on rent, and according to Liliane, Ms Marchal’s housekeeper he had repeatedly requested salary advances. Additionally, he is known at the Cannes casino, where he frequents, and rumors circulate about his associations with pr*stitutes. These factors lead the investigating judge to charge Omar Raddad, a Moroccan national. The judge primarily relies on Omar’s lack of an alibi at the presumed time of the crime, the incriminating message written on the door, Omar’s debts, the absence of forced entry into the victim’s home (he had a key), and the housekeeper’s testimony. Furthermore, the judge believes that only someone close to the victim would steal such a small amount of money from her wallet. Omar is then incarcerated at Grasse prison on June 27. Meanwhile, the judge signs a cremation permit on July 1 before receiving the forensic medical report, making any counter-expertise impossible, especially since Ghislaine Marchal had purchased a burial vault in a cemetery and had never expressed a desire for cremation. Omar and Ghislaine In Omar Raddad’s circle, it was a shock. Having arrived in France just five years before his employer’s murder, Omar barely spoke French and was illiterate. He came to Mougins to join his father, who taught him the trade. Married to Latifa, with whom he had two children, Omar lived in a studio in Le Cannet and returned home on weekends to be with his family in Toulon. Those around him described him as a devoted father and a loving husband, a discreet and hardworking man who maintained excellent relationships with his employers, especially Francine Pascal, who had introduced him and recommended him to Ghislaine Marchal. Ghislaine Marchal came from a bourgeois background. The daughter of an industrialist who had been involved in the Resistance during World War II and died in deportation, she was divorced from her first husband, with whom she had a son, Christian Veilleux. In 1991, she was the wealthy widow of Jean-Pierre Marchal and the sister of lawyer Claude du Granrut. She led a quiet life between Switzerland and the French Riviera, employing Omar as a gardener and Liliane as a housekeeper. Ghislaine and Omar had a very good relationship. Omar had even lived with Ms Marchal and his wife for a time after staying with Francine Pascal. During the initial interrogations, Omar referred to Ghislaine as a second mother, stating that she never missed an opportunity to give him gifts and had insisted on celebrating the birth of his baby. The Trial Before the opening of Omar Raddad’s trial at the Alpes-Maritimes Assize Court, the gardener’s defense is handled by three lawyers: Mr. Girard, Mr. Guidicelli, and Mr. Baudoux. However, due to disagreements over the crime scenario, they end up quarreling and are replaced by the leading figure of the bar, Jacques Vergès. According to him, the writing on the wall was that of the murderer. The trial begins on January 24, 1994, before the Assize Court of Nice and weighs heavily on Raddad, who tries to remain calm. To communicate with the court, the gardener goes through his interpreter. Ghislaine Marchal’s family calls upon Mr. Henri Leclerc, vice-president of the League of Human Rights, friend, and colleague of the bar president Bernard du Granrut, brother-in-law of the victim. The President of the Court, Armand Djian, is described by Captain Cenci as a man of great experience and intellectual rigor, who knows his cases perfectly and possesses natural authority. The prosecution presents Omar Raddad as a financially desperate man, having withdrawn nearly 80,000 francs over two years to fuel his passion for gambling, while concealing the truth from his wife by claiming that the money was being used to feed a savings account in Morocco. Staff at the Croisette casino in Cannes confirms his regular presence. The prosecution also highlights his incessant requests for salary advances, finally refused by Ms Marchal, and the lack of an alibi at the time of the crime. No one saw him at the bakery, nor did he arrive home that day. A woman, waiting for her daughter on the balcony, claims not to have seen him on his moped. The president questions Omar about his alleged visits to pr*stitutes, which he vehemently denies, stating that he does not know these women and that their statements are unfounded. A pr*stitute questioned by the gendarmes will ultimately not testify. Another pr*stitute, N.X., declares having noticed Omar on the Croisette but never having had him as a client, and she was not yet engaged in pr*stitution at the time of the events. President Djian, who lived in Algeria, cites the Quran several times to express surprise at Omar’s illiteracy, that he was seen eating on a Ramadan day, and to criticize his gambling and supposed visits to pr*stitutes, contrary to Islamic precepts. During Raddad’s trial, his wife testified to the court that her husband was "incapable of hurting a fly." In response, President Armand Djian said: "Yes, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t know how to slaughter a sheep!" alluding to the ritual of Eid Al Kebir. Liliane, the housekeeper, describes Omar’s requests for money to her employer, leading Omar to protest and accuse her of lying. She also states that on Saturday, June 22, around 10 a.m., Ms Marchal received a phone call before giving her leave until Tuesday morning, which led Liliane to believe that Ms Marchal must be leaving far away. This revelation shocks the court. A resident of the building, MS Marie-Maryse B., testifies that she stayed on her balcony from 11:30 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. to watch for her daughter’s arrival, never seeing Omar arrive on his moped. Her husband, questioned by Mr. Vergès, admits that although they did not see him, it is possible that he came. After all, it’s not impossible that Omar arrived at a time when this lady was putting a dish in the oven or setting her table. On the sixth day, the president has the two doors with the blood-written inscriptions brought in. According to the graphologists, the handwriting belongs to the victim. Mr. Henri Leclerc, lawyer for the civil party, emphasizes the importance of these inscriptions as the ultimate display of courage by the dying Ghislaine Marchal. For Judge Renard, these doors had an undeniable psychological impact on the investigators and the Assize Court. On the evening of February 2,Raddad is sentenced to 18 years of imprisonment; the jurors finding him guilty of the crime with mitigating circumstances. His wife, Latifa, collapses and screams in anguish. Many penalists present note the lack of combativeness from the defense and, according to some, Mr. Vergès’s unfamiliarity with the case. Vergès explains that he deliberately kept a low profile because, convinced of his client’s innocence, he did not want a confrontational strategy that might alienate the jurors. He also criticizes President Djian’s attitude during the deliberation, alleging that he influenced the jurors by going over the entire case in detail whenever a doubt was expressed, thus exerting subtle pressure. A juror later confides that preconceived notions about the "supposed Maghrebian mentality" also played a role. After the conviction, on the steps of the courthouse, Vergès delivers a memorable line. "A hundred years ago, an officer was condemned for the sole reason of being Jewish; today a gardener is condemned for the sole reason of being North African." The verdict was heavily criticized, both in France and in Morocco, where it sparked public anger. In France, it reignited the debate on reforming the Assize Court, accused of handing down heavy convictions without evidence and without the possibility of appeal.. Eighteen lawyers released a statement as early as February 5 denouncing Omar Raddad’s conviction as "insufficiently substantiated" and demanding a new trial. In March 1994, writer Jean-Marie Rouart published a book on the case, evocatively titled "Omar: the Construction of a Guilty Man." Rouart believes that Omar Raddad was the victim of a conspiracy and implicates the victim’s family and judges, against the backdrop of potential murky political settlements. He criticizes the investigation, laments the errors, supports the theory of a murder on June 24, even sneaks into the garden of La Chamade by crossing fences and hedges to prove that the murderer could have entered without a key. He details the multiple activities, particularly in Africa, and the numerous business connections of one of Ghislaine Marchal’s brothers-in-law and questions the potential risks of the contacts he may have had. He also questions the possible influence of Ghislaine Marchal’s brother-in-law, the bar president du Granrut, and suggests in an article in “Le Figaro” that "justice gave the impression of having its decisions dictated by a camarilla of ‘dear colleagues.’" Highly engaged in this case, he meets with Raddad’s lawyers and organizes a defense committee for Omar Raddad, gathering signatures for a petition from celebrities, famous writers, academics, and lawyers. Following a defamation lawsuit, examined in January 2002, he will be ordered to pay damages to the victim’s family. It was also in March 1994 that Mr. Vergès’s book, "Omar m’a tuer: Histoire d’un crime," was published. At that time, Vergès was being prosecuted by the Nice prosecutor’s office for his comments on the supposed racism of the verdict. He briefly revisits the details of the case, emphasizing the criticism of graphological expertise and graphologists in general, and proposes a reform of the Assize Court. Targeted are the participation of magistrates in the deliberation, the lack of motivation in the court’s decisions, and the impossibility of appealing a conviction in the Assize Court. On March 9, 1995, the defense’s appeal to the Court of Cassation was rejected, as the Court found no procedural errors and argued that the accused had been given a fair trial. Twists and Turns Following the trial, two private detectives are commissioned by the defense to conduct a counter-investigation and find new evidence that could lead to a review of the conviction. Jacques Vergès enlists the services of detective Roger-Marc Moreau, while Girard, one of Raddad’s first lawyers recommended by Prince Moulay Hicham ben Abdellah el-Alaoui (nephew of Hassan II), commissions detective Bernard Naranjo. The latter’s investigations are funded by an associate of King Hassan II. In May 1994, Vergès presents a witness at a press conference, Patricia Clark. She’s a neighbor of Ms Marchal, claims to have seen a van with bloodstains inside parked near the victim’s property on the day of the crime. The van was towed away by the municipal police, and a plastic bag containing brown-stained paper towels and a 40 cm long by 1.5 cm wide flat screwdriver, also stained, was found on the sidewalk. The defense argues that this is the murder weapon and the assassin’s van. The gendarmerie of Mougins discovers that a painter, a neighbor of Patricia, owns a van matching this description and had transported wooden planks and a red- carpet product, mistaken by the witness for blood. In late May 1994, “Libération” mentions the lead of a "second Omar." Detective Naranjo reports that Ghislaine knew a young man named Omar, seen with her some time before the murder outside a casino. The gendarmerie of Mougins questions this man and concludes that it is a malicious denunciation. The only connection to the accused Omar Raddad is the first name. On September 12, 1995, Mohamed Moumen, a former inmate of the Clairvaux prison, revealed in the Moroccan daily “L’Opinion” that one of his former cellmates allegedly confessed to him about being the true murderer of Ghislaine Marchal. He claimed to have had a relationship with a former maid of Ghislaine Marchal, dismissed after the disappearance of a sum of money. They allegedly killed Ms Marchal by surprising her during a burglary. The writing "OMAR M’A TUER" would be from him. – He told me, "Listen, don’t talk to me about this matter anymore! Don’t talk to me about t his matter anymore!" The next day, he told me everything. He said it was him. He didn’t go to her place to kill her but to rob her. Because she fired his wife… – Because Mrs. Marchal fired his wife? – Exactly! – He wanted to take revenge. – Exactly. – And he went there to rob her… And what happened? – He found her inside, and she didn’t know who he was. They ended up in the same room, and that’s when he killed her with Ms’ Marchal’s knife because he didn’t have a weapon. He had nothing! A preliminary investigation was opened by the Grasse prosecutor’s office to question the inmate, Alain Villas-Boas, who was quickly cleared as he was hospitalized at Saint-Roch, in Nice, on the day of the crime. The theory of a burglary gone wrong was dismissed, as no theft or break-in was reported. On May 10, 1996, President Jacques Chirac granted a partial pardon to Omar Raddad, reducing his sentence by four years and eight months, notably at the request of King Hassan II, in exchange for the release of a french detained in Morocco. Omar Raddad, eligible for parole halfway through his sentence, hoped to be released in January 1998. But the Omar Raddad case didn’t end there. On February 2, 2000, the Commission for the Review of Criminal Convictions ordered new investigations, including handwriting analysis to determine if Ms Marchal was the author of the inscriptions "OMAR M’A TUER." Two experts, Anne Bisotti and Françoise Ricci D’Arnoux, were appointed. On January 14, 2001, the court ordered a new examination of the doors and the wooden beam used to strike Ms Marchal. DNA was discovered on all three items. On February 20, 2001, the experts declared that the male DNA found on the boiler room doors and the beam did not belong to Omar Raddad, but their origin could not be identified. Two male DNA profiles were mixed with the victim’s blood, making contamination by investigators unlikely. The prosecution suggested that the crime scene may have been "polluted" after the initial findings, and that the DNA samples were not properly documented. On June 25, 2001, the Commission for the Review of Criminal Convictions referred the case to the Revision Court, believing that the new evidence supported the request. However, on November 20, 2002, the Revision Court rejected the request, ruling that the new evidence was not sufficient to challenge Raddad’s guilt. In May 2011, Sylvie Noachovitch, Omar Raddad’s new lawyer, succeeded in having the Grasse prosecutor’s office request a DNA profile from the DNA traces found in 2001. On June 29, 2011, the Grasse prosecutor’s office stated that it was not possible to establish a DNA profile from the samples already used. However, the DNA profiles found on three separate items did not match that of Omar Raddad. These traces appeared to be mixed with blood, proving that they were not contamination DNA. In September 2013, the Ministry of Justice authorized new DNA tests. In 2016, DNA analysis revealed that traces found on two doors and a beam belonged to four men, but not to Omar Raddad. The prosecutor emphasized that these prints could have been added during subsequent handling. On June 21, 2021, Le Monde announced that Noachovitch would file a new request for revision based on DNA analysis conducted in 2019, identifying around thirty traces of the same male DNA, not attributed to Omar Raddad, in the bloodstains. By the end of 2021, the case was reopened. However, on October 13, 2022, the latest request for revision was rejected by the instruction commission of the Revision Court, ruling that the discovery of new prints was not enough to establish their connection to the facts. « We are outraged by this decision, which not only violates human rights but disregards the 2014 law that allows for revision in case of mere doubt. I will never abandon Raddad. My determination is even stronger. Stronger than ever. We will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, and I will be his voice. The review court will indeed reconsider this decision. » A Rushed and Biased Investigation Upon examining the Raddad case, it becomes apparent that the investigation was biased from the outset, with the scenario adapting to fit the elements found by the investigators. The testimony of Mimoun Barkhani, loyal butler to Jean-Pierre and Ghislaine Marshall and uncle to Omar Raddad, was never taken seriously. Mimoun confided in Jean Ker, a Paris Match journalist, that two months before her death, Ms Marchal felt threatened. She allegedly said to him: "What I have to tell you, Mimoun, is serious. I believe my life is in danger, I’m afraid… I have someone close to me who scares me, he wants money, he’s insistent, he wants to start a company… if something were to happen to me, you would know that he’s the one who killed me." In 1996, Mimoun was questioned by the Marseille gendarmes, but his testimony was quickly discredited because of his family ties to Omar. Furthermore, according to Ker, other witnesses confirmed that a month before her death, Marchal had expressed her fears about them; these included her grocer, her caterer, her friend Tania Varo, and Ms Marti, who was the director of a real estate agency. Some even claimed to know the name of the person who was threatening her. They never dared to speak out, and the police never came to question them. Ghislaine Marchal was allegedly stabbed several times before writing the messages on the doors, while defending herself with a 12-kilo folding bed. This scenario is challenged by Jean Pagliuzza, a forensic doctor consulted by the defense, who believes that the murder could have taken place in 3 or 4 minutes. The initial blows would have neutralized the victim, quickly followed by stab wounds. According to Pagliuzza, the assailant was probably left-handed, whereas Omar Raddad is right-handed. Furthermore, the assailant would have inevitably gotten blood on them, but Omar had none on his clothes, as confirmed by MS Pascal, who noted that her dog would not have left him alone if he had. The autopsy on November 1991, signed by three forensic doctors, noted the absence of significant internal bleeding, suggesting that Ms Marchal did not move much after being injured. This implies that she did not get up to write the messages. The injuries, including fractures to the hands and a nearly torn-off phalanx, indicate that she was physically incapable of tracing letters accurately. Pagliuzza concludes that the victim died quickly from bleeding, making it impossible for her to have written the messages or barricaded herself. The presence of blood only where she was found supports this hypothesis. According to the findings of the autopsy dated November 2, 1991, and signed by three forensic doctors, there was no significant internal hemorrhage in the skull, thorax, or abdomen. This suggests that Ms Marchal did not move much after receiving her injuries. Indeed, a cataclysmic hemorrhage would have filled the abdominal cavity with blood if she had moved. The fact that she remained in place implies that she did not get up to write the messages. Furthermore, the nature of the injuries, including fractures to the hands and a nearly torn-off phalanx, indicates that she was physically incapable of tracing letters accurately. The message "Omar m’a tuer" (Omar killed me) is also controversial. The grammatical error in the inscription seems unlikely coming from Ms Marchal, a woman who regularly did crossword puzzles. In French, the past participle "tuée" (killed) should have been used instead of the infinitive "tuer" (to kill). It’s as if, in English, instead of writing "Omar killed me," the victim had written "Omar kill me." The prosecution did not hesitate to point out that Ms Marchal regularly made this mistake by presenting notes on which the verbs were in the infinitive. Indeed, when examining the notes in question, one notices that the verbs are written in the infinitive, which is normal since it is a list of actions to be performed such as "sweep the terrace" or "mow the lawn." But then, who conjugates the verbs on a to-do list? Since everything hinges on this inscription in blood, let’s consider some hypotheses. The victim would have written this message with her own blood while still alive. First, it is very strange for a living woman to write a message where she already considers herself dead. We are told that she wrote these messages after barricading herself to protect herself from a possible return of the assailant. In that case, it would mean that she thought she would survive her injuries. So why consider herself already dead? It makes no sense. Let’s take a close look at the message on the door. The letters are well drawn, some even retraced, and she even wrote the apostrophe. The handwriting is straight, as if the victim’s hand had not been injured. However, the autopsy report mentions injuries and fractures to the hands, with a nearly torn-off phalanx, suggesting that she had protected herself by raising her hands to her face. I tried to recreate the scene under comparable circumstances, even though I’m not in my sixties or facing imminent death. Using lipstick and oil, I attempted to mimic the texture of blood and wrote a message in the dark. Here’s he result : the writing’s irregular, the letters poorly drawn and the message is difficult to read. The analyses by Danielle Dumont, a doctor in language sciences and an expert in handwriting near the Court of Appeal of Dijon, are particularly interesting. According to her, the conditions in which Ghislaine would have written the accusations against her gardener make it improbable that she is the author. When she does crossword puzzles, her gesture is less assured than when she writes freehand. The letters are then isolated, and the firmness of her writing is not extraordinary. On the other hand, the assurance of the gesture observed on the cellar door is much greater. It’s troubling that a person in agony presents a more assured writing than the same person in good health. "What I conclude from this work is that she did not write it. Now, besides the expert’s opinion, the opinion of Ms Everybody is that it looks frankly like a staged event. But that’s my personal opinion at that time." Journalist Eve Livet gained access to the autopsy report & noticed something very interesting. Here’s what she stated on television: "The hands are covered in gray dust, and upon examination, one notices that there’s no blood around the nails. Blood is sticky. Ms Marchal wrote long messages with a lot of blood, so there should automatically be some blood remaining around her nails… Yet, we can’t find any blood. Ms Marchal’s nails were cut and sent to a laboratory for analysis. When the scientist received these nails, he described the samples, and what did he say? From memory, he said, ‘the nails have significant traces of dirt,’ but he did not mention blood!" Ève Livet is also a photographer. After carefully examining the crime scene album, she points out another disturbing detail. Indeed, in a photograph taken during the documentation of the crime scene, we can see, under Ms Marchal’s gluteal fold, whose robe is lifted, a stab wound. And from this stab wound, a residual bleeding flows perpendicularly to the ground. What does this mean? It simply means that after this stab wound, Ghislaine Marshall did not get up. So, if she was stabbed and did not get up because the bleeding was perpendicular to the ground, it means she could not have written the inscriptions. Therefore, if Ms Marchal did not write the two messages, she certainly could not have set up the door blocking system. Even an amateur investigator would have conducted a fingerprint search, whether on the door or on the wooden beam found in the cellar. Yet, the gendarmerie report simply states ‘no fingerprints were noticed.’ Noticed or searched for? The nuance is crucial. During the visit of investigators, magistrates, and lawyers to the crime scene, it was concluded that Ghislaine Marchal had placed a metal tube supporting a wooden beam, thus raising the opposite side of the door. This inclination prevented the door from opening. The gap under the door narrowed near the hinge due to the uneven floor. The end of the metal tube was close to this hinge, and its thickness was sufficient to block the door, as evidenced by the sliding mark on the ground. The bed could have momentarily jammed against a large PVC pipe on the other side of the hallway. Detective Roger-Marc Moreau claimed to have found a way to block the door under similar conditions from the outside. An important point raised by Eve Livet is the possibility that the assailant exited in another way. She noticed a gap in the file: no description of the wine cellar was available. She asserts that no one, including the lawyers, judges, and even Omar Raddad himself, can describe it. Furthermore, a statement from a mason indicates that in 1989, ventilation work was carried out in the wine cellar, followed by the opening of two windows in the summer of 1990 to improve ventilation. It is therefore conceivable that someone could have exited through these vents or windows. Omar Raddad’s defense even denounces the destruction of evidence. Indeed, Ms Marchal had a camera in her room. The gendarmes seized it and had photos developed. Without the examining magistrate seeing the pictures, the magistrate agreed to let the gendarmes destroy the photos and the negatives. Without indicating what was contained in these photographs, what tells us that these pictures could not have provided evidence, clues, or dating elements? Why destroy the photos? Omar Raddad was designated guilty from the beginning of the case, allegedly because of the victim’s refusal of an advance on her salary. This accusation seems light and unconvincing, but the investigation tried to corroborate it. As for his debts, he was only a month behind on rent. Omar Raddad admits to playing slot machines, but testimonies from casino staff describe him as an average player and not in debt. Allegations that Omar Raddad frequented pr*stitutes also emerged. The police searched the entire Croisette for evidence of this claim, but only two young women were found. One of them only remembers being looked at by Omar (as if it were a crime or related to Ghislaine Marchal’s murder!). The other claims to have had him as a client, describing him as "very insistent and excited," but she ultimately did not testify at the trial and denied making such statements afterward. She was tracked down by a television crew, and here is what she said: – I’m not at all sure it was Omar Raddad. It’s possible there was a mix-up. It’s very possible I encountered someone who looks like him. – And did you tell the gendarmes that? – Yes, I told the gendarmes because I’m not sure at all… They asked me to identify him, and as soon as I said, "this face looks familiar, but be careful, it’s not certain it’s him…" for them, that was enough. – Did you reread your statement? – No. I was agitated, upset. I signed and left. – Did the gendarmes ask you to reread it? – No, not at all. – What did they ask you to do? – To sign it, and that’s all. The prosecution claims that Omar Raddad went to his employer’s house during his lunch break on June 23, 1991, to ask for an advance once again. Knowing the need to persuade and negotiate, he would have planned to spend a lot of time with her and probably not had time to go home after buying bread at the bakery and calling his wife from a telephone booth. He would, therefore, most likely have informed Ms Pascal of a possible delay, being usually punctual and respectful to his employers. However, he returned home without needing to do so. At the beginning of the investigation, the baker and the saleswoman stated that it was "impossible for them to say if they had seen Omar Raddad" before testifying at the trial against him by affirming that they were sure they had not seen him. Indeed, Raddad had gone to another bakery nearby, where the police did not conduct an investigation. Strangely, the gendarmes only went to La Huche à Pain and completely neglected to question the owners of the other bakery. – I know him by sight as a customer, but not personally… – Do you see him often at the bakery? – I had seen him a few times… The saleswoman I employed saw him quite often… – So he came to your place regularly? – Yes… The gendarmes went to La Huche à Pain where there were two saleswomen at at that time, but they never came to our place. – Did you see the gendarmes? – No, no one ever asked me any questions. How can one believe that Omar Raddad had the time to argue with his employer, cold-bloodedly kill her, take his moped to call his wife from a telephone booth & return to work without showing any emotion? How can one conceive that Raddad, who spent his day mowing Ms Pascal’s lawn, could have committed a heinous crime in a cellar and left no trace of his presence? How to explain that he did not have a single drop of Ghislaine Marchal’s blood on his clothes, which he did not change, while investigators discovered blood on the ceiling of the cellar? Here, next to what used to be La Chamade, there was a house under construction. All day long, workers were working there. The gendarmes questioned one of the workers, named Sala , who said, "Yes, I saw something on Monday." An ATV arrived. A man in his thirties was driving it. He had medium-length, light brown hair. He got out of the vehicle to ring the bell at La Chamade. And then, a woman from inside answered, "Who is it?" At this point, the gendarmes interrupted Salah, and we don’t have the rest of the statement. This witness disappeared. According to an investigation conducted by private detectives, we learned that this man was an illegal Tunisian immigrant and had been advised to keep quiet if he didn’t want to be deported. Can we mention the murder weapon? On August 9, 1991, a month and a half after the murder, the police seized a hedge trimmer from the garden shed at La Chamade. For the prosecution, as well as for the Marchal family, there is no doubt that the hedge trimmer is the murder weapon. Why the hedge trimmer? Firstly, Omar Raddad is a gardener, and secondly, he is not known to carry a knife on him. Thus, the only blade available to him would be the hedge trimmer. However, a problem arises: the weapon used, as described by the pathologists, does not match the hedge trimmer in terms of configuration, dimensions, or structure. Indeed, according to the autopsy report, the murder weapon more closely resembles a sharp double-edged blade, measuring between 15 and 20 centimeters long and up to 2 centimeters wide at most. The injuries would have been inflicted more likely with a letter opener that Detective Roger Marc Moreaux would find a few years later during his investigation. He showed it to Liliane and her reaction is… interesting! – When I show her this knife, because I made sure to bring a knife with a blade similar to the one described by the medical examiners and when I put it on the table, she got speechless. – I said there was one like that at MS Marchal’s, and it seems to me that it’s no longer there because I went back to do some cleaning, and I don’t remember seeing it… – So, according to her, this weapon disappeared following Ghislaine’s death… As for the housekeeper, her statements are not favorable to the gardener. She seems to have an accusatory attitude toward Omar Raddad. Strangely, no investigation was conducted on her or her surroundings, although Ghislaine Marchal had already suspected her of theft. When Roger Marc Moreau investigates the housekeeper, he discovers that she told her partner that she was going to Ms Marchal’s house on the morning of the tragedy, whereas she was off duty on the day of the murder and the next day. Where was she really on Sunday, June 23? Her alibi is not verified, her contradictions are not examined, even though it is proven that she lied. Her lie seems to be linked to her partner, whom she wanted to protect from the truth about her lover. However, it is surprising that no one investigated this lover, a violent individual involved in several burglaries and already convicted of murder. To the already extensive list of arguments, a stunning revelation has been added: the existence of a secret investigation conducted for two years by a lieutenant colonel of the Marseille gendarmerie and two gendarmes from the territorial brigade of Nice. They explored an alternative lead, that of a burglary gone wrong, orchestrated by two brothers from the French Riviera, owners of a restaurant in Cros-de-Cagnes, an establishment frequented by Ghislaine This counter-investigation was triggered by the late revelations of a resident of La Colle-sur-Loup and is documented in the book "Ministry of Injustice" published in 2022. It all started in 2002, after the broadcast of a television program dedicated to the Omar Raddad case, when this resident, troubled by the idea that an innocent person had been convicted, confided astonishing information to the head of the criminal police office of the Southern Region in Marseille. She mentioned a burglary gone wrong, commissioned by 2 brothers from the local Gypsy community. The brothers would have hired two henchmen, one of whom was from Eastern Europe. At that time, the two brothers owned a restaurant located in Cros-de-Cagnes, where Ghislaine Marchal used to visit. According to this witness, the wealthy widow openly discussed her lifestyle with the employees and the boss, with whom she was familiar. She also mentioned Omar, her gardener, whom she particularly appreciated. Investigators took this information very seriously because the informant provided precise details about the personalities of the two individuals and other ongoing legal matters concerning them, details that turned out to be accurate. Their credibility was reinforced by the fact that one of the two brothers, considered the most involved and dangerous, was incarcerated at the time for attempted homicide. Investigators developed a hypothesis that the two henchmen were sent to burglarize the Villa La Chamade, accompanied by one of the brothers. Convinced that there was a safe, they would have fatally assaulted Ghislaine to extort information from her. In 2004, when investigators requested additional measures, such as wiretapping, the public prosecutor’s office did not follow up, and the lead was abandoned. "Yet, the key to the mystery may well lie there," write the authors of "Ministry of Injustice." There, in this restaurant, La Bolognaise, registered with the Antibes Chamber of Commerce in August 1990, located on the Promenade de la Plage in Cagnes-sur-Mer. It closed its doors a year later, in August 1991, just two months after Ghislaine Marchal’s disappearance. Lastly, I find the reactions of Ms Marchal’s entourage very curious. I’m not accusing them of anything, but I’ll let you judge the comments of her sister. Regarding Omar’s guilt: "I am completely convinced of Omar’s guilt." Regarding Guylaine Marchal’s handwriting and the possibility that she did not write the message: "It’s her, it’s her. It’s her blood, too! Listen, these are truly horrible things. Imagine someone tampering with her blood to write." Regarding the grammatical error: "She wrote it, and she wrote it twice. If someone could even imagine You know what they imagined… Why write it twice? Once is enough. She wrote it twice. A syntactical error by my sister. I’m not saying it was common… Well, it happens. Besides, under the circumstances… You can’t ask the impossible from someone who’s about to die." Regarding the error about the date of death in the report by the three experts: "I consider that this is what we call expert disputes or things like that. No, it does not affect my conviction. If I had to handle this in a case like I’ve had before, I would have said, ‘Yes, blue eyes, eyes rolled back…’ No. The facts are the facts. She died on Sunday." Regarding Omar Raddad’s alibi: "People say, ‘we didn’t see him at the bakery. The baker says "no," the saleswoman says "no." And the customer who stayed there waiting for the next batch said, "No, I didn’t see him!"’" Regarding the murder weapon: "Indeed, one might think it was the hedge trimmer, especially since the hedge trimmer was well secured in the small shed. It’s still a gardener’s tool." Regarding Guylaine Marchal’s cremation: – She had requested to be cremated. – Did she express her wish to be cremated in writing, or did she tell her family verbally? – That, I won’t answer! Regarding the camera destroyed by the gendarmes: – My sister indeed had a small camera. She took pictures. But if the gendarmes considered it could be destroyed, that’s not a problem for me… – After all, these might have been the last photos of your sister; you had the right to reclaim them… – Yes, listen, no, no, I wasn’t shocked by that, and I only learned about it afterward, and it didn’t shock me at all! Regarding the judge’s racist remark: "Sometimes, you need to let a little phrase slip, which is more intended to lighten the atmosphere…" I have always found it strange that all the people who genuinely believe Omar Raddad is guilty, despite there being no evidence against him apart from the dubious message found on the door, deny all obvious facts, including scientific ones, and have no trouble imagining Raddad as a double-faced man capable of the worst. These people refuse to accept that someone might have tried to frame Raddad as the murderer. Yet, they accept the notion that Omar Raddad is a deceitful person, leading a double life, capable of killing his employer, a woman he loved like a mother. If you mention the DNA traces, they claim it’s coincidental. No trace of Omar Raddad at the crime scene? They say it’s because his shoe soles were smooth! No trace of the victim’s blood on Raddad, even though it splattered on the cellar ceiling? It’s because the victim’s robe absorbed all the blood! Omar Raddad didn’t talk to his wife about his passion for casino slot machines? That apparently makes him a dangerous murderer! It seems they refuse to consider that the killer could be anyone other than Omar. I find it very surprising that these people accepted the destruction of evidence, the quick cremation of a woman who had bought a burial plot, and the focus on the bloody message written on the door. Conclusion Omar Raddad, Ms Marchal’s gardener, was unfairly accused from the outset by a dubious police investigation. An inscription in blood letters, the origin of which remains uncertain, was used to designate him as guilty. To make him responsible, he was attributed vices, and a negative portrait was drawn after interrogations conducted in a questionable manner, addressing him in a language he barely understood and treating him as if he were already guilty. Throughout his trial, he was mistreated, he, the resourceless immigrant, while the white bourgeois population of Mougins, the city where he worked, defended him against blatant injustice. No material evidence ties Omar Raddad to the crime: no signs of his presence in the cellar, no traces of the victim’s blood on his clothes, no missing money from his home that could come from Ms Marchal’s purse, and no murder weapon found. All that remains is this enigmatic inscription in blood letters, devoid of his DNA. Moreover, the forensic experts made several mistakes, including confusion about the date of death. The victim’s body was cremated even though she had purchased a vault, and some witnesses and experts were manipulated to support claims they had not actually made. Omar Raddad’s story is a stark reminder of injustice, highlighting how racism can warp the truth and lead to wrongful convictions. His experience resonates with every person of color who understands that sometimes, we are judged based on our skin color, ethnicity, or religion before our actions or character. This cycle must end. If you also believe in reopening his case, I encourage you to sign the petition available in the information bar. Additionally, this story intertwines with that of Ghislaine Marchal. She embodied the enigmatic persona of a wealthy socialite, yet she was also a victim brutally assaulted and left for dead. By seeking justice for Omar Raddad, we advocate for justice for this woman as well. A woman who did not deserve such a fate. May she find peace and may we one day uncover the truth behind that fateful day.