Outreau: Un cauchemar français

This series has everything you would watch a true crime documentary for. Unbelievably horrible crimes, a failing judicial system, false confessions, media frenzies etc. It strikes the right balance between the accusers and the accused and shows the views of all parties involved. It asks a very tough question: should you believe traumatized children without any hessitation?

At some times it was hard to follow because of all the names, but in the end, it was a thrilling watch with some unexpected outcomes.

All other reviews here show a subjective view on the series, which is understandable with this topic. If people can't help but express their emotions in the review, you know it's a good documentary.

Pretty bad stuff here. It's grim. But the way the French legal system operates here is a complete disgrace. Perhaps another example of why English common law is the fairest way. Adversarial, in the correct way, is obviously better than the inquisitorial concept as played out in this documentary. France always has some good ideas, but ultimately the Anglosphere knows best.

I have to write more? I love France. Baguettes, wine and pain du chocolat. Moule mariner and Truffaut. Alain Delon? Yep. Tres classique. At the end of the day, good concept, bad delivery. The French legal system. Liberty? Non. Just my opinion.

This series shows why it is important that the legal system is run by professionals with the highest level of competence and integrity. The documentary focuses on a scandal that erupted after an investigation involving paedophilia in one family in Outreau, France. The children in this family were one hundred percent victims of this horrible crime. Unfortunately, their mother, apart from being an enabler of abuse, was a pathological liar, and this led to many innocent people being accused of this crime. When word of this got out, it sparked a scandal in France, and many of the accused were cleared of any wrong-doing. Perhaps prematurely (which the documentary does not address). Three people who were cleared were subsequently charged and convicted of crimes against children. The trail itself was a sham....child victims were subjected to hours of testimony in public court, which is not something that is good for them, or conducive to the interest of justice. The defence lawyers were permitted to ruin the character of children. If a child is required to testify about such a matter, it should happen behind closed doors, with no cross-examination. My conclusion is that such investigations should not be reported to the public until a verdict is reached.

One might wonder why Netflix repackaged this colossal story over just 4 45-minute episodes. For example, for the Gregory affair (much less complex) we have 5 one-hour episodes... All the twists and turns and repercussions of the affair could and should have made it possible to develop the series over 10 episodes. For example, the potential murder of the little girl should have been the subject of an entire episode in itself.

The series seems made for French audiences. We have very little immersion in the atmosphere, in the Delay family before the scandal breaks out for example...

In the first episode: one of the Marécaux children made revelations of touching on at least 3 occasions + frequent running away with his sister, then aged 6 to 10... their father beat them violently. All of this is not stated in the series.

What the report also does not say: Father Delay was summoned to the police station before his home was searched: he therefore had the opportunity to get rid of the sensitive cassettes.

In the same way, the time elapsed between the searches and arrests of the other members of the network was several weeks, which made it possible to get rid of a lot of evidence, probably in particular video cassettes at Marécaux, of which the Marécaux daughter spoke of "they were buying video tapes every week.

The preponderant place of defense lawyers, why so ?

Why give more than half the speaking time to defense lawyers? And only a few minutes for child victims and their lawyer?

Throughout, we give the floor to lawyers Hubert Delarue, Frank Berton and Fabienne Roy Manson (doesn't she have a conflict of interest? Being a childhood friend of Alain Marécaux, they studied together)

They comment on the course of events throughout. While the children and their representatives only detail their participation in the affair and do not comment on each other's actions. Why such a bias towards the acquitted?

Episode 2 concerning the murder of the little girl. Many details do not appear in the documentary. In fact, corresponding elements were provided and overlap: added by Myriam Badaoui, the children and Daniel Legrand during interrogations (and without indication given by the judge). Notably that the little girl had blue pajamas and had a North African tan.

Episode 3: why does no one clearly indicate the media monopoly of the defense lawyers, because the civil parties had chosen not to give more media coverage to the case, affecting children... Why does no one clearly indicate the imbalance between representation accused and child victims? There were 2 lawyers for the children compared to 19 lawyers for the accused!

At minute 23:20 how can the directors leave without counterbalance the declarations of lawyer Delarue who says that children "talk nonsense"?

The defense lawyers chose to focus on the relationships mentioned by the children with animals. And yes, it is unfortunately possible to engage animals in sexual activity, zoophilic videos are proof! The defense focused attention on these facts in order to hide the specific accusations against the accused.

No one indicates in episode 3 that Myriam Badaoui's retractions may have occurred within the framework of negotiations between the lawyers. This is indicated by several people involved in the case in the documentary Outreau the other truth.

The episode 4 of the series focuses on the children's version changes. But who can, even as an adult, ensure that he would describe with exactly the same words things experienced, late after the facts occured ? (the 2 trials happened between 4 and 7 years later) ? Faced with angry lawyers who leave no room for reflection?

Odile Mondileu-Héderer, president of the Paris Court of Appeal in 2001-2007, attacks, for example, the testimony of the Laviers' daughter because the doctor would not have found any after-effects of a rape suffered. But the examination was carried out several months, even several years after the facts denounced. So what evidentiary value should it have?

In order to open up reflection, I invite everyone to find out about the Angers pedophile network affair, which is proof that a pedophile prostitution network is possible in a small town in France...

This docu series is a bit of a mixed bag and I'm not sure where it was trying to place it's focus. Pdf ring conviction? Unreliable testimony? Police malpractice? People getting away with it? I mean it's all over the place.

The beginning is solid. There are the accusations, the people involved, the web is built...sort of. You never learn really how everyone is connected at all, so they're all floating 'monsters', but the children's testimonies are horrific and it's terrible. Enough said.

At some point in this series a seed of doubt is planted. There is something not quite right going on. The main mother seems to have some form of Munchausens, in whatever form that takes shape in this situation of her feeding off attention.

Then this docu series decends into inchoerent chaos. Suddenly there are more people accused, more kids never actually introduced. More horrific crimes, more accusations. It's actually impossible to clarify what's true and what's not. People confessed, people proclaimed innocence. People got convicted.

And pause.

Now would be the time to sober up in this series, and try to sort the wheat from the chaff of everything that came before. Nope. It diverts it's course from the actual crimes commited to the people who were wrongly convicted. It's bizarre.

You would assume that it would focus on the childrens testimonials. Were they 100% genuine? What actually happened and what did the police/caregivers do to influence the implication of potentially innocent people? Nope, nothing.

One thing you never learn, is how much was true and how much actually happened, and how it ended up the way it did. It's actually heartbreaking. Because clearly something happened, but it was put on the back burner for this.