| Excelsior 02 novembre 1924 |
|
QUIMPER, November 1st. These were second- and third-hand witnesses who came to the bar. They spoke about Seznec's presence in Le Havre on June 13th. One comes to tell amidst laughter that he had had a conversation with a tobacconist from Le Havre, Mrs. Bastard. This lady who had read the newspapers relating to the Seznec case, had seen him in Le Havre on June 13. She was sure of it. She gave precise information on Seznec. The suitcase The day of June 20 A neighbor of Angèle Lebigou, Mrs. Le Flohic, then comes to declare that, on June 20, in the evening, Angèle Lebigou told her: "My boss has been in bed for two hours and Mr. Seznec is away." At these words, Angèle Lebigou shouts from her seat: It's lies! The hearing was suspended at 3:15 p.m. When it resumed, we heard Mr. de Jaegher, a broker in Morlaix, who was supposed to make sensational statements and who, in reality, had only conversations of little interest with Seznec, whom he had known for a long time. The value of the house in Traorez Pouliquen, three times Breton, by name, accent and costume, former cellmate of Seznec, received from the latter the offer to provide him with false witnesses. The aim was to prove that Seznec was in Brest on June 13; Seznec was willing to give 5,000 francs to each of the witnesses that could be found, and Pouliquen would have received an equal sum for his remuneration.
Seznec opposes a denial to the witness. Pouliquen has the attitude of an embarrassed man who plays a distressing role. He does not balk at the denial, but he maintains his testimony firmly. Mr. Maingour, from Landivisiau, reports that the driver Samson asked his daughter-in-law to declare that Seznec was in Brest on June 13. From his seat, without getting up, Mr. Samson shouts: — That’s false! But the witness, then his wife, confirm this deposition with such precision that Mr. Samson no longer protests. It is the president who invites him to a confrontation that he no longer thought of demanding. — Is Mrs. Maingour lying? asks the president. — No, replies Samson, but she is confused. — I called you here for a serious confrontation and not for jokes. Answer clearly, did you take the approach to the witness that he reports? The cheerful driver no longer jokes. In a dry tone, not without insolence, he replies: “No”, does a quick pirouette and returns to his place in the audience. Rospars, who claims to be a hairdresser, is the former prisoner of Quimper prison to whom Seznec had given the famous receipts and a letter for his wife on October 21. He stated that the accused had promised him that his wife would give him three to four hundred francs as a deposit. He was to receive 3,000 francs if the deal was successful. And Rospars added cynically: — I only got 25 francs, but I would have informed the police even if I had received the promised deposit. Seznec maintains that Rospars offered to get him the witnesses and that he gave in to his suggestion.
— The proof to the contrary, retorted Rospars, is that I do not know either of the two people who were to sign the receipts. Those who have seen Mr. Quémeneur since his disappearance
A movement of attention when the court usher calls Mr. Lajat, a printer in Morlaix. Mr. Lajat is said to have seen Mr. Quémeneur on May 30, at noon, at the Café de Versailles, at the Montparnasse train station, in Paris. — I saw Quémeneur, he said, I recognized him. I did not want to speak to him for personal reasons. I saw him first from the front, then from three-quarters. I am as sure of it as one can be of such a thing, adds the witness, especially when one has not spoken to the person one has recognized.
Mr. Mauviel, a resident of Morlaix, received the confidences of Mr. Lajat, who shared with him his worries and anxieties regarding his meeting on May 30. We know that Mr. Lajat was afraid he was seeing things. He told this meeting to a priest, director of the free school of Morlaix, Mr. Jean-Marie Prigent, and to a farmer from Cliguant, Mr. Francois-Marie Bleas. They in turn repeated the conversation they had with Mr. Lajat. Here is another witness who saw Mr. Quémeneur. It was on May 27, while having lunch in a Parisian restaurant, Mr. Lebert, a railway employee in Dusseldorf, saw Mr. Quémeneur passing by. "I didn't speak to him," he said, "because I wasn't dressed properly." When Attorney General Guillot was imprudent enough to use the word "joke" in connection with Mr. Lebert's testimony, Mr. Kahn got angry. The attorney general reads a letter signed Nicole, a former merchant in Brest, currently avenue du Roule, in Neuilly. Mr. Nicole writes that he explains the errors of Messrs. Le Her, Lajat and Lebert, by the fact that there must be a double of Mr. Quémeneur in Paris. He has the same appearance, the same gait, the same face, the same gold tooth. The whole is of a striking resemblance. He himself was the plaything of this resemblance. Had he not thought he would meet Mr. Quémeneur on his way to take the metro? He came forward, his hand outstretched. Then, facing the character, he recognized his error. On this reading, the hearing is adjourned at 7 p.m. Mr. Quémeneur's body is not in La Queue-les-Yvelines We know that, from La Queue-les-Yvelines, an anonymous letter reached the president of the assizes yesterday, to warn him that Mr. Quémeneur's body could well be hidden in the garden of a property in this locality belonging to Mr. Christoflou. The president of the assizes immediately ordered that searches be carried out. It results from the investigation of the Rambouillet prosecutor's office that this letter is the work of an anonymous maniac, accustomed to baseless denunciations and eager to take revenge on very honorable people by causing them some trouble. Frequently, the prosecutor of Rambouillet receives letters from the same anonymous person making false accusations. The prosecutor's office has informed the president of the Quimper assizes by telegraph. |
![]() |
| Retour - Back 02 novembre 1924 |



