Fact… Possibility… Imagination

Roy Clark says there are two rules of non-fiction.
‘Do not add. Do not deceive.’
Never put something into your story that hasn’t checked out.’[1]

 

I struggle with this
in crimes
of extravagant fear
Like the attack on Jacques M,
by his neighbour Joseph A,
who thought him a witch

I think.


Let’s begin with just the facts then,
as spelled out by an
indictment
drawn up on 11thSeptember 1886
by the Advocate General of the Assize Court of Dijon.[2]

(Like faithful
non-fiction authors
we will not change the order of this story.)

Jacques: works at the pottery factory in Pouilloux, 29.

Joseph: a wheelwright at the same pottery factory, 66, married.

The men were neighbours.
The scene unfolds on 28thApril 1886.

But even Roy Clark says
there are ‘many interesting exceptions,
gray areas
that… test’ the
line between

nonfiction

and fiction.[3]

Facts that are,
in themselves,
fuzzy.

The indictment says
the scene unfolds on 28thApril,

around midday, perhaps.
and how can
this
be a fact?

So vague.

The indictment continues

After lunch
(to use another fuzzy probability).

Now
if this detail is important,
its importance is hardly factual.

Does it matter
exactly when
it happened?

Perhaps
not.

But
it surely matters
that it was after
lunch. Did they drink wine with lunch? Did Joseph have an
argument with his wife? Did she tell him she was
sick of this filth,
that
it was time to do
something
about it?

I am adrift
in speculation, but
perhaps

that has always been necessary
to historians.
Where an anthropologist
a journalist
can go back to eyewitnesses
with
new questions,
most historians cannot.

They operate,

by necessity,

in the field of ‘historical possibilities’,

even ‘embellishments’
or ‘creative assumptions’.[4]


But what everyone
can agree is that on 

28thApril 1886
Jacques met Joseph
on the road
between his house and the factory.

Probably
about 100m from Jacques’ house.
Give or take.

It seems they were on their way back to work.
(This
must be considered merely probable,
because only one of the men will ever make it to work that day)

And yet again
the importance of this likely detail
is hardly in the fact itself.
What
a striking time to commit a crime:
so ordinary and so routine,
as if
the criminal
has timed his
moment,
plotted his crime.

Indeed,
this is what the prosecutor will want to suggest.

But I’m the one who can’t be trusted?

So.

What if
the inclusion of this ‘fact’
is less about accuracy
than about
narrative?
What if the story actually has precedence over the true details that will be
observable
recordable?

 

and then Joseph
fired
a
gun
at
Jacques

wounding
him
in
two
places.


so
two shots were fired.

Dare I
make some interpretation
of the attacker’s state of mind,
an interpretation
that cannot possibly
ever
be factual,

not just because he will
– most likely –
lie,
or at least forget. No,
there is no way to know his mind even if
– in a moment of contrition –
Joseph decides
to come
clean.

Which means
perhaps
the most important aspect of this scene,
the most basic thing that any novelist would be able, obliged even, to write,
the murderer’s state of mind

eludes the historian.

(me)

Perhaps he fired twice
because
his hand was unsteady.
Perhaps he did not really want
to kill his victim.
A confrontation, not an
execution. Perhaps it was meant to be a warning, not a punishment.

There is little from the indictment to suggest this.
It does not, in Clark’s terms,
‘check out’.


But

historians
faced with absences often think laterally

(which is why I am over here, I guess)

If I don’t really know what Joseph
was doing or
thinking,
I can look for
similar examples.[5]

Like
another Joseph

who fired a gun at a man named Julien F
in a village in the Alps
twelve years before.

Probably
for similar reasons to Joseph A.
Julien
– the intended victim –
was quick enough
lucky enough
to push the barrel of the gun away.

Questioned
about his motives, Joseph declared
that
he had not intended to kill Julien,
but only
sought ‘satisfaction’
for the wrong that he felt Julien had done to him.[6]

This is a ritual,

a staging of violence,
not an attempt to physically harm.

Perhaps something like the many times
victims of witchcraft
tried to frighten suspected witches
with fire.

Did
these people mean to kill witches?

Their actions suggest not.
They
command the witch
to lift the spell. They threaten, cajole, even bribe. They want something, and
it isn’t just revenge.
Not executions, but torture.


Or maybe
Joseph just
panicked.

So why was he so calm afterwards?

(As
I follow
the source itself,
there are whole sections devoid of ‘facts’.)
No use
to the historian then!


Instead,
something else that probably happened. Some women said
they saw Jacques first running,
then walking towards
Pouilloux.

The running makes sense:
he has just been shot and the first thing on his mind was surely to find safety.
He must have slowed
to a walk
as
he
tired.
After all, he is now bleeding heavily, unstoppably.

A man named Picard
said he saw Jacques

as he hurried away from the confrontation.
He said

Jacques told him
that Joseph had fired two shots at him.

So, perhaps Jacques
was not
hurrying away to safety,
but rushing to raise the alarm.

Imagine him,
bleeding
from his two wounds,
running and walking towards the village,
but stopping,
or at least

pausing

on his way

to tell Picard what has happened.

And showing him his wounds.

Then continuing on,
entering the first house he came to.


Jacques collapsed in the house of the mayor of Pouilloux,
Monsieur Gilliotte.

But now I
am suspicious.
Was the mayor’s house
really the first building on his way?

Wasn’t Jacques’ own house
100m away?

Jacques knows what he is doing:

the important thing
is to tell the mayor
his version of events.

To get even.

He was placed
in a bed at the mayor’s house.
He told
the mayor what had happened.

Sealing his version
for the most important figure in the village.

‘He described how,
as he returned to work,

(here you must imagine him pausing to regain strength)

he had seen Joseph a little ahead of him on the road.

(he groans, his face is slick with sweat)

Joseph had stopped,
and when Jacques caught up with him,

Joseph said:

“So I see you are still hounding me!’

(a longer pause while the injured man shifts
uncomfortably in the bed, pressing
his hand to his
own wounds)

And Jacques replied
‘F… off, you old idiot.

(he is not holding anything back in his story)

If you don’t leave me alone,
I’ll give you a slap.”
To which Joseph responded,
“Ah, that’s how it is,” and at the same time

(a long pause)

he drew back
a couple of paces
and fired
a revolver from his pocket
twice
at Jacques,
hitting him in the left arm

(his left arm is visibly bleeding)

and the lower stomach.’

(a bloody mess under his shirt)

Probably.


And this
is the version of events
that the police, the judge, and eventually a jury
will decide
probably happened,
based on the words of the only person (other than the shooter)
who had any idea
what passed between the two men.

And then Jacques,
the only witness,

died

of internal
bleeding

caused by the stomach wound.
Around 2am.

Having made sure that
Joseph
would get what
was coming to
him.

Well

it’s not what
you’d call
a

 

fact.

 

 


[1]Roy Peter Clark, ‘The Line Between Fact and Fiction’ in Mark Kramer and Wendy Call (eds.), Telling True Stories: A Nonfiction Writers’ Guide from the Nieman Foundation at Harvard University(2007), 164-9, 166, 167.

[2]Archives Départementales de la Saône-et-Loire, 2 U 738.

[3]Clark, ‘The Line Between Fact and Fiction’, 169.

[4]‘Historical possibilities’ is the phrase used by Natalie Zemon Davis, and quoted in Carlo Ginsburg, ‘Proofs and Possibilities: Postscript to Natalie Zemon Davis, The Return of Martin Guerre’, reprinted in Threads and Traces: True, False, Fictive(2012), 54-71, 55. ‘Embellishments’ and ‘creative assumptions’ are two of the phrases Kiera Lindsey uses in the afterword to her ‘biography’ The Convict’s Daughter: The Scandal that Shocked a Colony(2016), 284-5.

[5]This is the technique Adam Hochschild champions in ‘Reconstructing Scenes’, in Mark Kramer and Wendy Call (eds.), Telling True Stories: A Nonfiction Writers’ Guide from the Nieman Foundation at Harvard University(2007), 132-6.

[6]The case was noted by the Public Prosecutor in Digne in a letter of 31 October 1874, preserved in the Archives Départementales des Bouches-du-Rhône, 2 U 1/1134.

7 thoughts on “Fact… Possibility… Imagination

  1. Could wounding in two places be entry and exit wounds, rather than two shots? Sorry, I know that’s not really what this is all about… too much Line of Duty for me…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes… but witnesses also heard two shots. And the shooter would have to have been either v high or v low to cause the entry/exit to be so far apart on the torso (he says as if he knew anything about ballistics and forensics beyond what Bosch and The Wire have taught him)

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s