Reminds me of the Sacco and Vanzetti case, which I learned as a kid was an unambiguous miscarriage of justice and xenophobia. It's perhaps not well known, but there's pretty good reason to think they were guilty all along:
...but generally people feel when stories catalyze social progress that's more important than the details. I think about this a lot, and how it applies to stories we tell in every aspect of life, from personal to business to policy. I'm not sure how I feel about it.
This is making me think of the OJ case, where although he actually did it (as found in the subsequent civil suit), at the time it was obvious to everyone that he was being lazily framed and the post-Rodney King LAPD was still profoundly racist.
Then there's the Lockerbie case, which was weird on a whole number of levels; I can believe it was carried out by Libya but the actual evidence is unconvincing.
We remember the circumstances of the OJ case at the time somewhat differently.
LAPD were still in the news for the Rodney King riots when the OJ Simpson trial kicked off. There were some pretty damning recordings of the lead detective (Fuhrman; had to look it up) with a lot of racist content and talk of planting evidence.
But opinions of the case, by my recollection, fell along predictable racial and political lines. There were an awful lot of people that were certain from the beginning that he was guilty, and they had among their spokespeople Rush Limbaugh, who started practicing talking out of both sides of his mouth right around then by refusing to talk directly about the OJ case but instead spending a lot of air time on the "cultural differences" between white people and black people.
I remember it somewhat distinctly because, unfortunately, both my dad and his dad were listeners of that show and that was about the time I first realized that they were a little bit racist.
> But opinions of the case, by my recollection, fell along predictable racial and political lines.
Just racial. Hard to believe now, but polling on racial scandals in the 80s and 90s, including OJ, Rodney King, Goetz, etc. didn't show much difference between Republicans and Democrats.
The opposite is true now, of course. Basically the Limbaugh wing now dominates the Republican party.
My opinion: not sure if he was guilty,but in the criminal case at least, the accuser (the state) failed to maintain integrity which casted doubt on the evidence they presented(the gloves thing for example) and if they were acting in good faith. There seems to be reasonable doubt of his guilt.
Social politics aside, it is better for a criminal to go unpunished than for an innocent person to be punished wrongfully. If only everyone accused of a crime was given similar luxury of presumption of innocence, the media circus made a joke out of the process. It shouldn't have been televised.
This is why it is important for police and prosecutors to have integrity and good reputation, else it will be difficult to catch or punish criminals.
> at the time it was obvious to everyone that he was being lazily framed
Yeah, and what a good thing it was that everyone was in agreement about the obviousness of him being lazily framed. It would have certainly caused a certain amount of discomfort and cultural strife if people disagreed on a matter of such importance. I can't even imagine what it would have been like if such lines were drawn largely based on race. Thank goodness it was all obvious to everyone.
...but generally people feel when stories catalyze social progress that's more important than the details.
Once it's in the past, especially long ago and everyone directly impacted has died, we tend to feel pretty free to co-opt stories for our own current needs. It's also hard to not filter stories through the lens of our current lives and culture and draw sometimes wildly erroneous conclusions.
Sort of the reverse of this process or perhaps the antidote (sometimes!) is modern takes on classic stories, such as West Side Story. Retelling it with updated language and updated cultural references can serve to make the story more understandable and relatable.
Of course, it can also just butcher the original story. It can be a case of imposing our current ideas on a story in a way that wildly misconstrues the original tale.
But the general intent is to place a classic story in a more relatable setting so you don't need a lot of explaining to get important details.
It’s pretty clearly not the last judicial duel in France as the most famous such duel, that of Jarnac and Châtaigneraie (and source of the term coup de Jarnac) was caught in 1547 almost 200 years after the events described here, of Carrouges and Le Gris. And Châtaigneraie had evidentially been the victor in several previous judicial battles.
This one of the last time a duel could replace a proper trial. Somehow, in case an dispute between two nobles could not be resolved in a trial (no witnesses is the first thing that came to mind), they could re-enact thes kind of trial.
I think one of the last duel en France was as late as the 1960, between two french politicians, so yes, not the last.
The Wikipedia entry (sorry only in French) glosses the background including multiple appeals to the monarch (there was a change of king which helped) and the fight was presided over by the king. Here’s a lengthy discussion in English that describes the process of the trial with multiple appeals to the king as it was in process: http://www.thearma.org/essays/DOTC.htm Per the standards of the era it was a judicial trial.
Though I have an undergraduate degree in French History I didn’t study medieval law (!) which in any case wasn’t as formal as it was today. But this was clearly not taught under the rules of private duel which would have been arranged and resolved relatively quickly.
> Louvel’s naming of Le Gris just prior to the squire’s own arrival would seem to put Le Gris indisputably there—unless Marguerite’s story was a deliberate fabrication.
There's a third option: a framing of Le Gris by Louvel. The attacker wasn't Le Gris, he just sort of looked like him, and after the assault, disappears. Both Le Gris and Marguerite are telling the truth.
Some of the themes here continue to be true to this day.
Women get accused of lying or making up the assault and it's dangerous to them to even report the rape.
A man's reputation is often deemed to be more important than a woman's actual welfare. Male careers are founded upon reputation. They don't want it besmirched by insinuations or ugly truths and will happily do yet worse things to silence such.
Often, a woman has no real power to seek justice in the world. To this day, justice all too often hinges on her having a de facto male champion.
The community at large often tries to sweep sexual scandal under the rug, often very much at some woman's expense, especially if the man in question is "a pillar of the community" type. You will note Le Gris was a squire. In other words, he was (as I understand it) a young nobleman, not a peasant. His reputation, future and career mattered.
We no longer duel to the death, but we still don't seem to have good solutions for a lot of the issues that swirl around such a case.
Excellent read overall, but perhaps an uncomfortable read for a lot of women who have, themselves, been raped or sexually harassed by a man in a position of power, etc.
This story goes to pains to explain how the actual events might have unfolded. But in France at the time, I cannot imagine that mattered one whit. What mattered was, who had who's favor in court, who had leverage upon the judges, and who paid more or less for advantages.
To discuss this woman's claims at this date is silly. Its not about that at all.
The author was pretty clear about the role of favoritism: it strongly influenced the initial judges, but became less important during the appeals.
“But when he returned a few days later and heard his wife’s story, he angrily brought charges against Le Gris in the court of Count Pierre of Alençon, overlord to both men. Le Gris was the count’s favorite and his administrative right hand. A large and powerful man, Le Gris was well educated and very wealthy, though from an only recently ennobled family. He also had a reputation as a seducer—or worse. But the count, infuriated by the accusation against his favorite, declared at a legal hearing that Marguerite “must have dreamed it” and summarily dismissed the charges, ordering that “no further questions ever be raised about it.”
“Carrouges, without whom his wife could not even bring a case, resolutely rode off to Paris to appeal for justice to the king.”
It also doesn’t explain why the parlement decided “we have no idea.”
They couldn't decide without offending one of two powerful men. So they didn't decide.
I don't see how that quote advances the case at all. It illustrates my point exactly, then with the brief 'appeal for justice to the king'. Why does anyone imagine that went any differently? It didn't. They wanted to see blood sport, so they decided that way - as the huge crowd confirms, it was a popular decision, not a just one.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=524575...
...but generally people feel when stories catalyze social progress that's more important than the details. I think about this a lot, and how it applies to stories we tell in every aspect of life, from personal to business to policy. I'm not sure how I feel about it.