A large crowd of onlookers was trampling all over the scene of the crime, and the atmosphere reminded Sébeille of a country fair as all manner of people arrived during the day. They wandered around, sought shade from the blistering summer heat, excitedly discussed the mystery of the murder, and had eagerly awaited the arrival of the criminal investigation team. Efforts by Captain Albert and his gendarmes from Forcalquier to control the crowd had proved singularly ineffectual.
Precisely what Sébeille did and at what time is somewhat unclear, prompting all manner of wild speculation. The records of the police, the gendarmes, and the examining magistrate do not give the exact time of his arrival at the crime scene. There is no compelling reason to doubt that Sébeille arrived in time to examine the bodies and have them photographed before they were taken to Forcalquier for a postmortem examination. He claims that he did, and the examining magistrate did not contradict his testimony. Had he arrived after the bodies had been removed it would have constituted a more serious infraction of due procedure that would have brought the entire case into question. Sébeille also claims to have gone to Forcalquier at five o’clock to assist at the autopsies, but there is no corroborating evidence that he was there.
One thing is certain: the scene of the crime had been seriously compromised before Sébeille’s arrival. Contrary to due procedure, the gendarmes had rummaged around in the Hillman in an attempt to discover the victims’ identity. In addition, Dr. Dragon had clumsily moved the bodies and had cut some of the victims’ clothing.
Captain Albert showed Sébeille two cartridges that had been found—one, a few yards in front of the Hillman; the other, 2 yards behind it. He had also found two rounds that had not been fired. From this evidence Sébeille concluded that the weapon used was a semiautomatic gun and that whoever had fired the weapon was unfamiliar with its use.
Further confusion arises over who discovered a bullet mark on the right-hand side of the bridge and when this happened. Commissioner Sébeille claimed that he was the first to have noticed it and did so soon after his arrival on the scene of the crime. Pierre Carrias, Périès’s successor as examining magistrate, insisted that it was not spotted until 16 November 1953, when Gaston Dominici pointed it out in the course of reconstructing the crime and claimed to have shot at little Elizabeth, who was “running away like a rabbit.” There is no mention, however, of this astonishing and improbable confession in the police records. An employee of the ministry of transport also claimed that he was the first to discover it, but Captain Albert testified that he had noticed it during the evening of 7 August.20
Similar confusion exists concerning a second piece of important evidence—namely, a splinter of wood found on the ground near Elizabeth’s head. On 6 August Gaston Dominici claimed in a statement to Commissioner Sébeille that he had found it about a foot from the girl’s head at eight o’clock the previous morning, when he was covering up her body. He said he gave the piece of wood to one of two gendarmes, but he could not remember which one. Neither of them had any recollection of this ever happening. Months later two laborers claimed that one of their colleagues had found the piece of wood about four inches from Elizabeth’s head and that it had been passed from hand to hand. The two men denied that Gaston had handed it over to the gendarmes. Much later Gaston’s son Marcel claimed that he had found it, but he could not remember to whom he had given it.
This piece of wood came from the stock of the murder weapon, which had not yet been found. That Gaston showed such interest in this splinter clearly indicated that he knew that it had come from the weapon and that he knew that Elizabeth had been hit over the head with it. His motives for claiming to have been directly involved in bringing this important piece of evidence forward are obscure. Sébeille argued that it was to explain away any fingerprints that might have been on it, but this makes little sense. If Gaston’s first version was true and assuming that he was indeed the murderer, then he would have disposed of this incriminating piece of evidence. Perhaps he invented the story to show that he was willing to cooperate fully with the investigation, but quite why he should cook up this story, which was flatly contradicted by the laborers’ plausible testimony, is difficult to comprehend.
Even more perplexing than the question of the bullet mark and the piece of wood was a critical piece of evidence that was completely ignored. According to testimony given by Inspector Girolami, Sébeille’s assistant, three years after the murders, at about 3:00 p.m. on 5 August he had seen a pair of well-worn corduroy trousers hanging on a clothesline outside the entrance to Gaston and Marie’s part of the Grand Terre. The trousers were still wet, and no other garments were beside them. Girolami asked Gustave Dominici to whom they belonged. He replied that they were probably his father’s, since they were certainly not his. The inspector then asked him who did the washing in the Grand Terre. Gustave replied that two of his sisters, either Clotilde Araman or Augusta Caillat, took the dirty washing home and brought it back dried and ironed. Girolami reported this to his superior, who promptly told him to get on with more important business.
Sébeille, who did not see anything exceptional about a pair of trousers hanging out to dry near a farmhouse, chose to ignore them, and it was not until the investigation was reopened in 1955 that they took on a central importance. The Dominici daughters confirmed that they did all the washing for the Grand Terre and stated that neither of them had done any washing around the fifth of August 1952. They also stated that their sister-in-law Yvette had read about these trousers in the newspaper account and had confirmed that they had been hanging out to dry that day. But she had added that they had been washed several days before and not because of any bloodstains. Given that the weather was particularly dry and hot in August, there could be no question of them being still soaking wet after several days; nor was there any reason why they should have been left out to dry for days on end.
In 1954 the sub-prefect of Forcalquier, Pierre Degrave, wrote to Captain Albert, the head of the gendarmes in the town, saying that on 5 August 1952 he had heard that another witness had seen a pair of blue work trousers while looking through the window blinds into Gustave’s bedroom. Albert confirmed that on 3 September 1952 he had asked Gustave’s wife about these trousers. She had replied that she had indeed washed a pair of her husband’s trousers that day so that he could have a clean pair for the market in Oraison and had added somewhat truculently that she had a perfect right to do so if she wished.
It is indeed quite extraordinary that Sébeille should have totally ignored the deeply suspicious facts: two pairs of trousers, belonging to Gaston and Gustave Dominici, respectively, were hanging out to dry the same day three horrendous murders had been committed almost on their doorstep and that this was not the normal method of doing the washing at the Grand’ Terre. The Dominicis later denied that this was true, but the testimonies of Inspector Girolami, Sub-prefect Degrave, and Captain Albert—and confirmed by Aimé, another Dominici son—removed any shadow of doubt that this was indeed the case. There are only two credible explanations why they had been either washed or hanging out to dry: First, it could have been that there were bloodstains resulting from the blow to Elizabeth’s head or from moving her parents’ bodies. Second, they could also have gotten wet while disposing the murder weapon in the shallow waters of the Durance.
Sébeille’s astonishing reason for failing to take any notice of such pieces of evidence is that he believed that material evidence in such a case was of minor importance when compared with questions of motive. The case was eventually closed by Gaston Dominici’s confession. In such circumstances, Sébeille argued, the question of whether the trousers were covered with blood or not was of secondary importance. By twisted logic the inspector excused his negligence by saying that if traces of blood had indeed been found on the trousers, they would have simply made Gaston the prime suspect. But since he was that already, the discovery would have made no difference.21
3
The Police Investigatio
n
Given the slipshod nature of the investigation so far, it comes as no surprise that the autopsies were conducted in an amateur fashion. This was a remote and backward part of France, in the depths of la France profonde. The hospital at Forcalquier was small and ill equipped. The two doctors appointed by the court to conduct the autopsy—Dr. Nalin from Forcalquier and Dr. Girard from Digne—were competent general practitioners but had little or no experience in criminal investigations, even though Girard had the title of forensic scientist (médecin légiste). Girard had visited the scene of the crime the morning of 5 August and had made a perfunctory examination of the bodies. He had noticed a wound on Jack Drummond’s hand and mentioned it to the examining magistrate, Roger Périès. Dr. Nalin did not go to the Grand’ Terre. Neither doctor spoke to their colleague Dr. Dragon, who had first examined the bodies. It does not seem that they inspected the victims’ clothes for evidence of rips or bloodstains. They took no photographs, and their conclusions, which were not ready until 17 August, were terse and contradictory. Their report did not enter the public domain until the trial.
The autopsy reports do not mention any powder marks on Jack and Anne’s bodies, and that indicates the shots were fired at a distance of at least 5 feet. It is obvious that neither of the two doctors had any experience in examining gunshot wounds. There is no mention in their reports of the criteria used to establish entry and exit wounds. Nor were they able to establish exactly the angle at which the shots were fired.
A great deal of confusion also exists over the gashes on Jack’s right hand.1 One was diagonally across the muscle at the base of the thumb; the other, across the bottom joints of the middle and ring fingers. Girard associated these injuries with a small piece of flesh that had been found on the rear bumper of the Hillman, but he did not mention this in the autopsy report and assumed that it was the result of a gunshot. During the trial Dr. Nalin insisted that he knew nothing about the piece of flesh that had been found at the murder site. His colleague Girard had died before the trial began, so it was no longer possible to pursue the matter any further. Sébeille kept this piece of flesh in a matchbox, and it was never produced in evidence.
Since there is no mention in the autopsy report of any powder marks or burns on Jack’s hand, it is safe to assume that he was not shot at close range. The alignment of the wounds is such that they could only have been caused when the hand was closed, in which case a gunshot would have caused considerably more damage. It is therefore highly unlikely that this was the result of him grabbing the rifle in self-defense, as the prosecution argued. Nor was the damage done some time before the murder, because in that case it would have been bandaged. The most probable explanation is that he stumbled and grasped hold of the Hillman’s rear bumper while trying to avoid his assassin.
Jack was hit in the back by two bullets. The first went through the right shoulder blade and the right lung, causing a massive hemorrhage, and the exit wound was to the right of the sternum. The shot was fired at a certain distance when the victim was in an upright position. The second bullet entered the body at the waistline, damaging the first lumbar vertebra; went through the liver, causing a further major loss of blood; and exited through the cartilage of the sixth right rib, some 2.0–2.4 inches from the first shot. This indicates that at the time of impact, the body was leaning forward at about thirty degrees. These were mortal wounds, but death would not have been instantaneous. An important conclusion that was not drawn in the report was that the injury to the lumbar vertebra would have damaged the spinal marrow and made it virtually impossible for the victim to remain standing for long. His stomach was virtually empty, indicating that he had not eaten that evening. There was no hint of any alcohol. His bladder was empty, and that finding explained why he was wearing shoes.
Certain preliminary conclusions can be drawn from the nature of these wounds. Jack was clearly shot from behind. The assassin must have been somewhere to the rear of the car. A pool of blood near a sump, about 2 yards behind the Hillman and directly across the road from where the body was found, indicated that perhaps Jack had collapsed there. Traces of blood on the road suggested that Jack had managed to stagger across the road, but after such a traumatic injury and massive loss of blood, would he have been able to cross the road on his own? The most likely scenario is that Jack had gone among the oak trees behind the Hillman to relieve himself. Walking back toward the car he saw a man, probably with his back to him, threatening his wife and child. He rushed forward to protect them, thus overtaking the assassin, who shot him twice in the back, firing from the hip. Jack fell forward as a result of the second shot and grabbed ahold of the Hillman’s rear bumper to steady himself. Rapidly losing consciousness and incapacitated by the gunshot wounds, he stumbled along the side of the road and collapsed in the vicinity of the sump. He had then managed to drag himself across the road. There is no compelling reason why the assassin should have moved the body to the other side of the road.
The autopsy of Anne’s body presents even greater problems than those of her husband’s. Apart from the gunshot wounds, there was no evidence of any injury or signs of violence, nor was there the slightest evidence of a sexual assault. Her stomach was also empty. The autopsy report says that there were seven bullet wounds, but it did not distinguish between entry and exit wounds. She appeared to have been hit by four bullets, but the mystery remains why no bullet was found in the body. The autopsy concluded that Anne had been shot while lying down or possibly in a sitting position. The doctors were unable to determine the position of the assassin relative to her body.2
The inconclusive nature of the autopsy report, given the uncertainty about which were exit and which were entry wounds, as well as the alignment of the shots and the fact that the bodies had been moved gave rise to all manner of conjecture and speculation.3 One such argument is that the difference in the diameter of two of the supposed entry wounds in Anne’s body suggests that a second weapon, probably a handgun, was involved. If so, there might have been two assassins. This theory, propounded fifty years after the murders and based on a most unsatisfactory autopsy report, is hardly convincing.
The autopsy report on ten-year-old Elizabeth stated that the body was completely rigid, so it was assumed that she died at the same time as her parents. This clearly indicates that Girard and Nalin did not consult Dr. Dragon, who had examined the bodies the morning of the murders at about nine o’clock. He had noted that whereas Jack and Anne’s bodies were “as stiff as a board,” Elizabeth’s was not yet affected by rigor mortis. Dr. Girard had visited the murder site that morning, but he obviously had not examined the bodies with due care.
Elizabeth received a blow to the head that had severely damaged the area around her right ear. The doctors considered that this wound—probably caused by a blunt instrument, although possibly by a large-caliber bullet—would have been sufficient for Elizabeth to have lost consciousness but would not have been mortal. Her death was caused by two massive blows to the head by a blunt instrument that formed a V shape just above her nose. These blows are described as having been extremely violent and delivered by a very robust attacker while Elizabeth was lying down. All three doctors agreed that Elizabeth likely would not have lived for more than an hour after suffering such severe damage to her skull, but this is contradicted by the statement in the autopsy report that her cerebral matter had not been affected. Blood had oozed from her nose and ears, so it is possible that Elizabeth, who was lying on her back, might have died not from the blows to the head but from blood flowing from the nasal cavity into the bronchi, causing asphyxiation.4
Elizabeth was found barefoot. The autopsy report makes no mention of any marks on the soles of her feet, suggesting that she had not run away from the campsite across rough terrain. There is, however, a possibility that like her parents, she might have been wearing shoes. Only one pair of her sandals was found, but they were carefully packed away and thus were unlikely to have been the ones that she had been wearing th
at day. But if she had been wearing shoes, it is difficult to see why her murderer would have removed and disposed of them. The police report clearly states that there was grit on the soles of her feet. An experiment conducted later with a girl of Elizabeth’s weight and build showed that it was possible to run along the same path without leaving traces on the soles of the feet.
It would seem highly likely that Elizabeth had been killed where she was found. The piece of wood from the murder weapon was discovered nearby, and a pool of blood was on the ground under her head. Although it is impossible to know the precise sequence in which the blows to her head were delivered, the most likely order would be that she first received a blow to the ear that rendered her unconscious and lying on her back. This injury was then followed by two blows to the skull.
Inspector Sébeille left the Grand’ Terre at about 5:00 p.m. on 5 August, ostensibly to attend the postmortem examination. It is uncertain whether he actually did, but whatever the case, he returned to the scene of the crime some two hours later. During his absence two of his assistants, Antoine Cullioli and Henri Ranchin, ably supported by Mr. Chapart from Agence France-Presse, carefully examined the area around Elizabeth’s body. Wading in the shallow waters of the Durance, they found the stock of a rifle floating next to a sheep’s rotting carcass amid a mass of detritus forming a small dam. It was about 20 yards downstream from where Elizabeth’s body had been found. The rest of the weapon was buried in the sludge 30 yards upstream.
The Dominici Affair Page 6
