PSYCHOLOGUE DE TUEURS EN SÉRIE : 15 000 ENTRETIENS AVEC DES CRIMINELS (FOURNIRET, LELANDAIS...)

Today, our guest is Jean-Luc Ployer. He is a criminal psychologist.

Michel Fournirelle, the first time I saw him in Belgium, I took 90 pages of notes. And there he looks me straight in the eyes and he says to me, Mr. Expert, if you ask me questions about my parents, I'm strangling you. And during this interview,

I had a brawl with him too.

Who won the brawl?

I won't tell you're going to start again. But it's a tell-shoot. It's almost the equivalent, if you will, of a heroin perfusion for a drug addict.

He had a child in prison, I think, in Ordea de Lourdes. There's a psychological follow-up of people

who contact, who send a psychiatrist in a detention centre, who met Guy Georges and fell in love with Guy Georges.

Hello everyone and welcome to Legends. Today our guest is Jean-Luc Ployer. He is a judicial expert and a criminal psychologist. He has met more than 15,000 people, he has done 15,000 expertises, or a little more, for more than 40 years now. He met, for example, Michel Fourniret, Monique Olivier, Francis Holm,

or Nordale Lelandais, who will tell us the worst things he has seen, understood and heard during his expertises, which sometimes last 9 hours face to face with these people. Anyway, thank you for being here. More and more people are on the agenda. Don't hesitate to subscribe to our our channel before starting the show. You can like the video. Don't hesitate to comment on the topics you want us to talk about

if we do another episode with Jean-Luc Ployer. Don't hesitate to click on the little bell to be notified of the next video releases every Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. We put you three shows or documentaries per week. And in podcast audio, if you want to listen to us on the road, if you want to listen to us while cooking, during the day or at home,

while doing sports, while running, you can put us directly. You can take Spotify, you can take Deezer, you can take Apple Podcasts, you can take Amazon Podcasts and then put the sound of the shows directly. You can put us 5 stars on these platforms, it really helps us a lot with the algorithm. Anyway, thank you for being here more and more. You are about 150,000 to 200,000 subscribers every month on our YouTube channel. And let's go with Jean-Luc Ployer, who is an expert and a criminal psychologist.

Now, a judicial expert on Legends of Ndiva. So Jean-Luc Ployer, I am a judicial expert. I examined between 14,000 and 15,000 people, either authors, notably serial killers, but also 5,000 or 6,000 victims.

Well, you can clap, Jean-Luc. And we're starting. Welcome to Legends, Jean-Luc. I'm happy to have you here. It's a pleasure to have you here. You are a judicial expert and a criminal psychologist. We'll explain. You've seen the biggest French scams.

More or less.

When we see the names, we have to expertise Michel Fournieré, Jacques Rançon, who was the killer of the Perpignan station at the time. We have seen mythomaniacs, grandfathers who abused their children, robbers, traffickers, gurus, scams, serial killers.

Absolutely.

Psychologically, does it impact a little or not?

Yes, absolutely. We can't cheat anyway. In any case, I don't cheat. So, yes, there are some side effects, in a way. To use a neutral expression, where we leave some feathers, that's clear. At the same time, it's a passion.

It's fascinating. We started preparing the show together, it's great, you'll see lots of anecdotes. Jean-Luc will tell us a bit about what you've heard. Sometimes you spend several hours, it lasts a very long time, the interrogations, the moments.

Are they not really interrogations you do? Is it expertise? So you don't judge them?

Not at all, not at all. I'm not here to...

Even if it's going to be difficult, why?

... write a verbal interrogation trial. So I have a mission. I have questions that are asked to me, about an individual, and I have to answer them. In general, it is the justice that asks me these kinds of questions.

What do you mean, questions like is he guilty or not? Or is he crazy or not? No.

Yes, so, is he crazy or not, it's more about the psychiatrist's competence. I'm a psychologist. The psychiatrist is a doctorate but I'm not a doctor. So, alteration, the abolition of discernment, for example, is the skill of the psychiatrist.

The psychologist, him, will work on the level of personality. What happened? For what reason did this happen? That's what's exciting, by the way. A little bit like that, we pull a thread and we try to see what happened. Especially in the course of life, in personal history,

professional, affectivity, sexuality. So we ask questions about that.

You have Monique Olivier, the wife of Michel Fournieret. You will talk about his intelligence later. We do tests to evaluate the IQ of the person, so an intellectual position, to know if he's telling the truth or not, if he's narcissistic, if he used that bias,

you try to know as much as possible about him, and then in the end, what do you do? You do a countdown?

That's it, and I answer the questions that are asked to me, anyway, it's the mission, nothing but the mission. It's not a military speech, it's still very important. You said you've done 15,000? Between 14,000 and 15,000, I examined about 6,000 victims. I declined the term resilience in all directions. Whether it's little boys who are being bullied, young women,

much older women, child murderers. I examined religious women, I've examined two bishops in my career. I've had the chance to examine serial killers. I say it's a chance professionally, I have colleagues who don't accept to do it. Simply because it's not easy.

Why is it not easy?

Because they are the characters who bring out things that will touch us in our most intimate values in relation to the human being. They are also... We leave some feathers in the air, in a way. I often say this expression, but it seems important to me because to get into their heads, because you have to get into their heads, it's absolutely essential,

to try to understand why they took the action. I took 25-30 years to understand. I don't hold any truth. I often say that the more I do this job, the more I show humility, if you will. That's also fundamental. There is a relationship with this type of character,

it's a relationship of master and student. Except that if you arrive as an expert with your little briefcase saying, I'm the one who knows, I'm the doctor, it's not you, answer my questions, it doesn't work. In any case, we are led after one or two hours and then it's over.

So you are the student when you are with them?

Completely. I take notes.

Really?

Completely. For example, Michel Fournirelle, the first time I saw him in Belgium, I took 90 pages of notes. Without stopping. We are a kind of sponge, in a way. But then you have to get all of this out, which is not easy.

Are they happy? They are a bit like teachers and you are the students.

Completely. You make them talk? Yes, yes. I'm talking about the Twerks in the series, I'm not talking about the others. On the one hand, they receive us very courteously. They are happy, because in fact we are going to flatten their narcissism, in a way. But we know that. We know that. I'm not a fan of this kind of character, I'm doing my job. I'm trying to do my best.

But at the same time, what you need to know is that when they're free, when they kill, over and over again, it's a kind of addiction for them too. I tried to understand how it was going in their heads, about that. They all said the same thing.

They kill for the first time, they don't know they're going to start again. But it's such a shoot, to have all the power. I have someone in front of me, I make sure I have someone in front of me, and I can either make sure

she's still alive, or I can kill her. It's a terrible shoot, it's almost the equivalent, if you will, of a heroin overdose for a drug addict. And so the brain records that.

It's a satisfaction.

It's an immense pleasure. It's more than a coitus, if you will, to use a slightly sexual metaphor. More than a drug. Yes, completely. And so the brain records, and at some point point the brain is missing, and it starts again. That's the reason why we talk about serial killers, if you like.

They all told me the same thing. The first time they kill, they don't know they're going to start again.

From how many people do we assume it's a serial killer?

So, that's on a criminal level. It's a criminal use. It's three murders. Three? It's a criminal use. It's three murders in three different files with a relatively long period of time between each file.

So it's not someone who killed three people on the same day.

No, no. It's what we call a mass murderer. For example, Dupont de Ligonnes, the family, when it's an intrafamilial case. Let's talk about Pierre Chanal first, if you don't mind.

Because at the beginning of your career, if you don't mind. Yes. Because at the beginning of your career, you were a profiler.

Absolutely, without knowing it.

That's the term. Wasn't that the term used at the time? No. Because it didn't really exist in France. Not at all.

You were in Reims, yes, I'm still fine. Do you still work? Of course, yes. Oh yes, I can't stop.

Oh, really? No.

Do you love your job? Oh, completely.

I'm passionate. Pierre Chanal, you're going to be called directly by who? So, I'm called by the investigation director, at the time Captain Vaillant, who is actually lost, in a way. It's Joël Vaillant? Joël Vaillant, yes. He's a gendarmerie officer in Reims?

Yes, that's him. He did a lot of interrogations, etc. He called me, he had seen me a few times being deposed at the court of assassination. He thought, this expert speaks French, he speaks normally, because when you're an expert, you can have an extremely esoteric or very technical speech. It's not the case for me at all.

I speak because I want to be heard by the people who are there.

You adapt your language.

Exactly. And so, they call me, they tell me, here, I heard you, etc. I'm completely lost, we can't get there, there are young soldiers who disappear, especially on Friday afternoons. They make a stop to go home on the weekend,

and they don't come back. It's the same operating mode, more or less. Exactly. And at the time, it was very complicated for a gendarme to investigate the soldiers. A kind of impenetrable omerta.

Yet the gendarmer code is the army.

Yes, but it wasn't obvious at all. And so he said to me, can you make a profile?

So I was flattered, if you will. What did you do at the time as a job?

I was already a judicial expert.

Ah, judicial expert, okay.

But for a relatively short time, for 5 or 6 years. Besides, I was the director of the. Already a judicial expert, okay. But for a relatively short time, 5 or 6 years. I was also the director of an institution for mentally disabled people, but that's another story. So I said, yes, yes, yes. I go into my office, I take a sheet of paper, I split it in two. You know, like a separation when you split up on a jugal plant, for example.

We go to the notary, and there are the most and the least. So I was a victim, relatively easily, because they showed me some files of victims. They were young callers, 17, 18, 19 years old, who were still very immature, in a male environment. So we could also consider that there was a problem of sexuality,

of homosexuality. So that was relatively simple. And then the other part of the sheet... Two columns, in fact. Yes, that's it. The other part of the column, author. I had the intuition to consider that it was one author.

It could very well be several authors. Well, I'm already part of the fact that it was criminal.

How many soldiers disappeared?

11 or 12, I think.

So it's a lot.

Yes, yes.

Excuse me, what year was it? What period are we in, to imagine, roughly? 2000. 2000, okay.

Yes, about 98-2000. Yes, a little earlier. So I decide that it's an author, that it's a soldier, a soldier among soldiers. And so the passage to the criminal act,

for me, it is mostly, especially, what we call in our jargon, a narcissistic wound. You know, narcissism in the court of law is very present, very present, or a frustration. So I had considered that it was a military man frustrated by the army,

with a military man's over-investment in relation to the army, and frustrated. So he avenges himself in a way, and he also responds to sexual fantasies.

Because they had been found, the bodies of the eleven other...

No, no, no, there were two or three when they were found, that's all.

And there was a relationship with the soil, on which no one was found or not? No. No, there was no post-mortem thing?

No, but for me it was obvious that it was a matter of sexuality. And therefore, men's's environment, homosexuality, I have nothing against homosexuals, of course, but here it was a sadistic, repressed homosexuality. And so, I even went, and it's quite true, to give the rank, simply because a few years before, I had done my military service,

I was born in the century of the Kalash. So I had done my military service, and I realized that in the military hierarchy, you had the officers, the men of the troops, and you had what I call a blind spot, like in a car, the chief adjutants. Simply because the chief adjutants, they didn't care about anyone.

So they could do whatever they wanted. So I had declined several criteria like that. I gave this profile to Mr Vaillant, who distributed it to him in all the French gendarmerie. And in a somewhat concomitant way, they arrested Pierre Chanal for another reason.

They found him in a Volkswagen Gourbet. They stopped Pierre Chanal for another reason. They found him in a Volkswagen Gourbet. There was a young man, we believe, Mr. Falvey, who had kidnapped him, kidnapped him, and had sexually assaulted him. But he hadn't killed him, he didn't have time. In fact, there was a gendarme who...

He was arrested, road control? That's it, that's it. He asked for his papers, etc.

There's a lot of influence for him, behind.

Completely, completely. And then, given the profiling, if you will, they actually put Pierre Chanal on trial in relation to the profiling I had done. And I am very proud of that, simply because it was validated by the FBI in Quintico,

in the United States. And I've known about it for only a few years. In fact, it was Mr. Vaillant who found himself in some sort of joint conferences.

I'll show you some pictures, so you can see Pierre Chanal's face. Is Pierre Chanal still alive today?

No, no, he committed suicide on the second day of his trial. He wasn't judged, by the way. He's called the serial killer, but he was not judged, because he committed suicide the second day of his trial.

So we never knew officially if he was the one who killed the other 12 people. But the disappearances stopped when he...

Yes, yes, yes, completely.

There is not much doubt about it.

There are many elements in any case.

So he would be responsible, we always put it in the conditional, in court, of 8 to 12 murders. Yes. In court, from 8 to 12 murders, he will be found guilty of 3, officially by law, even if everyone suspects that it was him too. Will you meet him in prison before he turns himself in?

Yes, I see him twice. The first time I see him, he has already gone to the Assezies in Châlons-sur-Saône for another case, where he took 10 years, and where the experts who put him on the bench beat him up, according to his own words. They did their job, in a way, quite simply. But he said, I don't speak to the experts anymore, it's over.

I don't want to expose myself anymore, etc. So I see him for the first time, and it lasts two minutes. But I still remember his piercing blue eyes, really terrible eyes. He was also someone who took care of his body, etc. If you have his face, he is carved like a snake, really,

a lot of muscles, etc. And so it lasts two minutes. He gives me his name, his first name, his registration number, he's a soldier, obviously, and he told me, it's over. I don't talk to the experts. It's the first time I see him. And on the other hand, he is relatively courteous,

because he is concerned to know if I will be paid for my travel expenses, which is nice of him.

You say you won't talk to him, but have you been reimbursed? That's it, yes, he was nice.

But I didn't tell him I profiled him.

Because you told him you imagined...

It could have connected something, etc. I didn't do it.

Profiler is someone who will imagine the type profile of the killer.

Yes, that's it.

So you will talk to him and he says goodbye, thank you. Does he tell you anything else about David Toussaint? No, not at all.

No, he doesn't talk to you. No, no, it only lasts two minutes and he leaves. I see him again a few years later for his trial.

Yes.

Before his trial, I would like to, etc.

And then he spoke to me. I don't know why. I don't know. Did he recognize you?

I think so.

And what did he say to you?

He spoke to me in a long speech the first time, he told me a little bit about his story, etc. With a positioning of what we call a joke, he will victimize himself essentially. That is to say, in fact, he is a victim of a judicial error.

He says it's not him?

It's not him. Anyway, I am condemned even before being judged, so I will not be judged. I can suicide whenever I want.

He told you that before he committed suicide?

Completely.

We are a few days before that.

No, no, we are three months before. Three months before. He tells you, I explain myself whenever I want. Yes, yes. And he asks me to send a message to the president of the Assise Court, through my report, in a way, saying, if she lets me go out to my sister's house a little bit before the trial, then, possibly, I would accept to talk to the trial. She never let him go out, obviously.

Obviously. Obviously. It's a kind of blackmail, in a way. However, there was one point that was absolutely not approachable in his case, a kind of fortress, absolutely not acceptable, unacceptable, it's sexuality.

You tried to approach it?

Yes, of course. You know, the psychiatrists, we know very well how it works.

And you bring it up on the subject and he tells you what?

Yes, yes. Zero. Nothing at all. So he's going to tell me about his relationship with the press, etc. With a pseudo-paranoid position. I'm persecuted, anyway, I'm judged, it's clear and clear.

What did he say about the fact that he's a naked man, tied up in his trunk, that he was abused?

That he was aing. At some point, he tells me, about the gendarme who discovered this Hungarian who was tied up, chained up in his... in his... in his vest. He tells me, when they examined the body, we never speak of someone alive.

You know, it's an expression of a doctor. It means that if the gendarme hadn't arrived, the guy would have died. He didn't go far. No, he was lucky. I met him, by the way, Mr. Falvet, in a few TV shows.

The one who got tied up? Yes, exactly.

He had made a stop.

Yes, completely. I don't understand, when we know that there is a disappearance every Friday, why do people continue to make stops on Fridays? At the time, it was quite common. Yes, but when you know that there are in the region disappearances every Friday of stoppers... I will give you a file if you want to say that it is information that has been collected.

The young military did not necessarily know. You told me earlier, so it's been 40 years that you do your job. More than 40 years, you have done almost, it's about 15,000 expertises, which is monstrous. Judicial expert, it's at the request,

to understand well, one last time, what you do and your job, it's at the request of whom exactly, that you are going to examine?

And then we will talk about anecdotes. It is at the request of the judicial authority, essentially. So, we can work for several magistrates, especially in criminal matters, these are just instructions. Before the trial takes place, we study the personality in the case, if you will. So, there, necessarily, in a criminal case, you have a psychiatrist, a psychologist, it is mandatory, who determines the personality traits. Psychiatrist is the doctor? That's it. Psychologist is not a psychologist, it's mandatory. They determine the personality traits. Psychiatrist is the doctor, psychologist is not a doctor.

That's it, exactly. You can also be sued, I do a lot of it, for example, by the Penal Code. After a while, given the Penal Code, they can ask for what is called a penalty arrangement. And besides, we often talk about us when we make mistakes. I have colleagues, for example, where it certainly happened to me,

to make someone come out saying, there is no danger, or there is no more danger, and they start again. And there, on the other hand, the press gets away from it, and indeed, the psychiatrists, they have hot ears.

Have you ever made a mistake?

Officially, no. But I think I have. I'm also ashamed to say it.

But everyone makes mistakes.

Because I'm a judicial expert, but I'm not an expert in metal scraping. I'm an expert in human scraping. And so it's not an exact science. So I must have made a mistake, either in relation to the authors,

or in relation to the victims who manipulated me.

Do you remember your first expertise? Yes. What was it?

It was a young woman who had killed her child.

Infanticide.

Does that happen often? Yes, I have about ten or fifteen infanticides a year. Just for you? Yes, yes. about 10-15 child murders a year. Just for you? Yes, yes, yes. There are many experts. Multiplied by the 35 calls, you see what it represents.

You will be surprised, shocked, what you hear. For a first time, you are all fresh, all new. You come face to face with this person.

Yes, I am at the same time motivated because that's what I want to do. And they call me. I'm motivated at the same time, because that's what I want to do. And I'm being called upon. You see, it also corresponds to a personal need, if you will. And at the same time, I have to do my job as best as I can. So I ask as many questions as possible, I think, I'm extremely focused, etc. Which allows me to forget a little bit about all that brings us emotional burden.

Why did this lady kill her child? Because she had had a miscarriage at first, so things were already badly triggered, in a way. She came out of a miscarriage, I think it was after six months, and so in fact, this child, somehow, psychologically, was made to die and not to be born.

In a way. Because it was a baby. Does he tell you details or do you avoid that? It depends. Some details are said, I'm not a seeker, I'm not interested at all. On the other hand, if these details are part of a level of understanding of what happened in the act, then I'll go.

Do you have a case that really marked you, of child murder, that you have a hard time forgetting today?

So, what is quite surprising is that it is very recent. I've done a lot. It's been about three months, a judge from the north of France asked me to examine a mother who had had her three children. Three years, five years, seven years. Three boys. The day of her return from school. It's to explain the context.

Yes, of course, Why did it affect you? And in fact, what happened, I stayed 4 hours, 5 hours with her to try to understand. She was totally destroyed by guilt.

Oh yes, that is to say that even people who do that...

Because unlike serial killers, they have a lot of guilt. She was completely destroyed. She was treated at the psychiatric level because she had to be kept alive. There was a huge car, it was completely destroyed. It was treated at a psychiatric level, because it had to be kept alive. There was a terrible suicidal risk. Because what I often explain in the sitting-down classes, when I drop off, is that a mother is made to give life, she's not made to give death.

But we have the opposite of the medal, if you will, in relation to that. And in fact, when I got into my car, after, you like, in relation to that. And in fact, when I got into my car, after, you know, I always need a decompression sac, because... I have a playlist of the 80s, containing my youth.

To...

Yes.

To clear your mind a bit? Before getting back on the road, if you like,

to go back to normal life, somewhere.

You have so much darkness in front of you.

It's terrible, it's terrible. Except that I was totally overwhelmed by emotion and I started to cry. Uncontrollable, uncontrollable. It's to answer your question about the child abuse that left a mark on me.

But why did she do that? What does she do that?

What does she tell you? Why, all of a sudden, a mother with three, five children? There's always... Of course, we're Cartesian. The jury of ASI are Cartesian. They have to understand. The families of the victims are Cartesian. Why? And it's absolutely legitimate. We're here to try to answer this question. In fact, it was about a separation, obviously, with the father.

The day before, she had received a letter from a judge of family affairs, telling her, we are taking away your children's custody. So, they were taking away something extremely powerful from her. Precious for her. And she negotiated with her husband, with her father, in a way, not to give her back right away. She asked him, do you still accept that I do the return of the classes?

You know, for a mother, the return of the classes is very important, symbolically. Yes, for parents in general. Yes, in my generation, it's the mothers. So now maybe the dads do something else. So, in fact, she had an idea, saying to herself,

I won't be able to bear not having my children, so I'll commit suicide. But if I commit suicide, my children will have no more mothers. They will suffer. So, so that they don't suffer, I'm going to kill them. And I'm going to kill myself afterwards.

It's a logic I've been hearing for 40 years, in relation to this type of infanticide mechanism, if you will.

They say they will have no more mothers, so they kill their children. So that they won't have any mothers left, so they kill their children. Yes. So that they won't be sad.

Exactly.

It's crazy.

If they kill one, they have to kill the others, because otherwise the little brother, they won't have any little brothers. The two others.

It's almost crazy.

You see? What was the most symbolic for me as a psychologist, was that she killed them by taking her belt from her bedroom dress. Like the umbilical cord.

And she instantly realized the mistake?

Yes.

Because to kill all three, you have to start over.

And in fact, the father came in the morning of the class reunion, with some kind of intuition like that and he discovered the crime scene.

And she didn't try to kill herself at all?

Yes, yes. But 9 out of 10 times, she stops in principle.

What made you want to do this job? I think it was in 1972 at the time.

Yes, that's it, I was waiting for my high school graduation. It was in the dawn, at 3 in the dawn. There was a trial next door, in my high school. There was a court and a very important trial. It was the trial of Buffet-Bontemps, for those who know a little about criminal history. These are the last convicts who were guillotined. And their lawyer, their advice was Maître Baninter.

The one who was later...

The guard of the assaults, etc. Against the death penalty, etc. You know, when you're 17, 18, you're looking for heroes like that. So I had two hours to lose, I was lucky enough to be able to enter the room and attend a part of the plenary of the Master Baninter.

And it completely overwhelmed me. I thought, this guy is extraordinary, I have to do something like that. So it started a little bit like that, and then I followed my first wife in the Marnes, I met a doctor who was doing expertise, but the psychological part didn't interest him at all. So he said to me, can you do it yourself?

So I started like that, I started by doing 3-4 expertise, as we all start at some point. And then, now I do several hundred.

We talked about Pierre Chanal just before, the military, who was taking out military hitchhikers. I know we're talking about serial killers. You saw Michel Fournieré, you saw Francis Solm too. We'll talk about him later. Jacques Ranson, he was the killer of the Perpignan station. I lived in Perpignan at the end of the 90s-2000s, and there were disappearances of people, of girls, towards the train station. It was not very far away, in the train station district, we will come back to that.

It was his hunting area, his hunting ground.

You met, by the way, we will talk about this gentleman who was discovered afterwards, finally the perpetrator of the train station, you met him, Jacques Ranson.

Yes.

Just, is there a common point? You did 15,000 expertises, not all serial killers, but many too. Is there a common point between all these serial killers?

I am a university student, so if you want, I collect information and I try to find links between them, in a way. And all the serial killers I examined, there is a common point, it's the sexuality. It's the sexuality. Meaning? The common path is sexuality. It's sexuality. That is to say? Chronologically, Pierre Chanal, homosexuality, repressed, sadistic,

he could only have sexual relations by attaching people, by killing them afterwards, in a way. It was like that. He killed them... We say that giving life was utilitarian, to find the body, etc. He is hidden, by the way, in the Marnese countryside. But I think that above all,

his pleasure was to be killed, in a way. To have sexual relations or to seduce him, in a way. Then I saw Francis Holm, what the press called the criminal retard. We'll talk about that later. Holm was totally helpless.

He had a very specific medical syndrome, totally helpless. So he had a problem with virility. To assert his virility, it was a kind of criminal error. He went around France, he was a drunkard. He was a bit of a... His initial motivation was sexuality.

But it was very difficult for him to profile the victims, because it went in all directions. He took what he had in his hand. A little boy, a grandmother, a young woman, a young man...

It was a bit of a coincidence.

Yes, exactly. It was a bit of a net and he saw what he was doing. He shouldn't have been there at the wrong time, in the wrong place with Francis Fulm. Then, the Fourniret couple, it's well known, it's the delirium of virginity. Fourniray considers that he was born of a natural mother. Here too, a very important narcissistic wound. What does it mean, born of a natural mother?

Your father.

Ah yes, being...

So, shame, in a way. In any case, at the time, it was like that. And so, he considered that all women who were not virgins were venal. He called them rotten. He was only interested in the Virgin Mary, of course, and in the virgins.

He was crazy about that.

Did you meet Fournier-Héron?

I met him more than 20 hours.

Let's come back to this. Are we born serial killers or do we become serial killers?

No, no. To plagiarize Simone de Beauvoir, I would say that we are not born criminals, we become them.

Can everyone be a serial killer?

No, no, no. Serial killers, as far as I'm concerned, in any case, do not breathe the same oxygen as we do, if you will, in my opinion, and fortunately for us. But it's still very, very rare. I've seen 7 or 8, if you like, but in my career I've seen a lot of murderers. Yes, who were killed once. Killed once or twice.

Everyone can be killed once, you think? I think so, yes. I think so.

But you really need a set of circumstances.

And factors.

And factors. I compare the passage to the criminal act to a plane crash. I know people who fly helicopters. You can crash. So when there is a plane crash, what happens? We take the black box. There are study offices that analyze the black boxes.

The criminal act is the same for serial killers. I will try to see the black box in their brain. And I realize that for a plane crash, it's because there is a parameter that didn't articulate with another. But it's a set of parameters. The criminal act is the same thing.

To answer your question, we are not criminal. It's too easy to say... It's in the genes. We are criminal. So, on the one hand, the Anglo-Saxons say that it can be dependent on chromosomes. I don't believe it at all.

I think it depends on the story of the individual. But it's a necessary condition. Childhood. Yes, but it's not enough. You need a set of parameters that at some point lead to...

Frustration, childhood...

Exactly, but it's a set. And so my job, and what's fascinating, is to try to pull the feeling when I see the person and with her I try to get the feeling of the story of the passage of time.

You do tests, we will talk about it, Rorschach, etc. We have several, Weiss too. These are the tests that I did not know. We will talk about Weiss, we talked a little bit about it before preparing the show, but we will come back to it. You wrote two books, The Approach of Evil, by Jean-Luc Ployer,

by the psychologist expert of the Fourniré couple, Francis Hulme and Pierre Chanal. You published another one, the first one, and the second one is The Passion of Evil. This one is more autobiographical, we're getting into your own background.

Page 234, The Approach of Evil, you say, there is sometimes a physical dimension, I feel the breath of my interlocutor, the smell of his perspiration, I observe his curious gestures, the vein of his temple that palpitates, I wash away his inner boiling, etc. You describe, you feel everything when you are facing a killer, you know?

Completely. I mean, I try. I don't pretend to feel everything. In any case, I try to be as much as possible in the listening or to collect his speech. And I evoke any notion of judgment or morality from the moment I listen. And at that moment, I actually go more and more into his gestures. As I say in the book, there's not only the verbal speech, if you will. Profilers will tell you now that there is body language, which is also very, very important.

Have you ever had reactions that could be natural when a serial killer tells you sordid things or details, like how they killed someone. Have you ever thought, have you ever left your gongs?

Never. Never. But when I examined the foodstuffs for the first time, there was a break, it was in Belgium, there was a break, a meal for 40 minutes, I didn't eat, impossible.

Impossible. And I didn't go to work for 15 days. Impossible. So much... So much that I was disgusted, in a way. To use a metaphor

about food, I was disgusted by everything he told me.

How did it happen? We can talk about him, Michel Fourniret. How many times did you meet him?

I met him him three times.

Three times?

Three times.

How did it happen? Did you have a relationship with him?

Yes, yes, yes. Now I give lectures and people ask me if he was your friend. I joke a bit, saying, no, no, he wasn't my friend. But we made fun of each other, too. He had a sense of humor too. He was extremely dangerous, very crazy.

How did it happen the first time you met him?

The first time... I was much younger, and when you are a judicial expert, when a magistrate asks you to go and examine Fournieret, it's the Grail, in a way.

You see? It's not everyday life. to go and examine a supplier, it's the Grail somewhere.

It's not everyday. It's not pejorative, but I'm going to meet a guy who killed a lot of people. Yes, it's a big deal for your job. It's a big deal. And so I'm thinking about how I'm going to approach it.

You're stressed before meeting a supplier, when you're an expert. You think, this is the biggest and worst thing in your profession, so I shouldn't fail. Yes, yes, absolutely. I'm trusted to go and see him, so I have to be good.

Absolutely, and I have to give something back. We also have a duty, in a way. And in fact, I'm went to see his file before, at the court. I never do it, but I did it, because I prefer not to have interference with the file. I prefer the person in front of me, a kind of face to face. And in fact, I realize that he was in cell with a guy I examined 15 years before,

from the gang of postage workers in Paris, who had killed a gendarme. And they both ended up in a cell.

Wasn't Fourniret alone?

No, no.

He must have not slept well, the other one.

To sleep with Fourniret in his cell, you still have a doubt of whether he will wake you up in the morning. He was incarcerated at that time, not because he had killed, but it was a relatively common path for us, if you will. And so I arrive, so what you should also know is that serial killers, when they are incarcerated, they are not judged, so they are called like that, but hey, in fact, they are chained, so we call them that, but well... In fact, they are chained, locked up, for security reasons.

They are chained between the legs, the arms, with a chain between the two. They can't get away.

No, it's complicated. And in fact, I systematically ask to be removed all that. I'm not interested. The Belgian guards, I saw them in Brussels, they ask me, are you sure, Mr. Expert? I say yes, yes, yes.

You can remove everything. Simply because I want there to be a kind of face-to-face or body-to-body, if you like, but that we are equal. In any case, in relation to that. Are you alone in the room with him? Yes, it's like in the movies, but it's true. Small room.

I still look at him where the alarm is. A little reflex, if you like. Of survival.

There is not a small window where there is a...

Yes, yes, yes, there is a big window. There is a big window where there is a guardian. Oh yes, who sees if he jumps on you. He's there, he's safe. Except that... It's been about three hours that Fournireme was telling me how he had, with delictation,

how he had killed the girls. With delictation? Yes, because he relives things, his fantasy.

Wait, but, sorry, you enter the room, how does it go? First contact.

Is it cold at first? No, no, no, because actually I shake his hand. There are people, when I give conferences, who tell me, you shook the hand of a monster. You see? I shake his hand, I say hello Mr. Fourniret,

and I say, Mr. Fourniret, we have a mutual friend. So there, having a mutual friend with Fourniret, a judicial expert, that's not great. And I said, well, Mr. Untel, etc. You were in a meeting with him, I examined him before, at the Paris Health Prison.

Ah, you know Mr. Untel, etc. And there, he gave me a red carpet for 9 hours.

It was a story of having a link.

An approach.

You prepare it as much as possible when you have big names? Do you try to find links, sentences, places, cities, where he is from, I don't know. I went on vacation to a city, I know a little bit about it.

Yes, yes.

In general, I try to find an element that will narcissize him. He will be happy.

To recall the case, I had noted 2-3 details, but basically Michel Fournieret was married to a woman named Monique Olivier, who is still alive.

Yes, absolutely.

It was a couple, I don't know, diabolical, one could say. Completely. Atrocious, in the 90s, 2000s, who took virgin girls from him, sometimes, who were minors, so that Michel Fournieret could have a relationship with them.

And kill them. so that Michel Fournier could have an official relationship with her. He killed her.

He killed her every time.

He will confess 11 murders, Michel Fournier, at the end.

He is suspected in 21 other cases,

but he played a lot, he manipulated a lot the gendarmes, the investigators,

you will tell us later, the experts, etc.

Absolutely. With a lot of narcissism, to give, from time to time, details,

but he never revealed too much I show you some pictures of Michel Fournieré which are displayed on the screen he was rather small

he was a small baby he was given the body without confession you know, people who say ah yes, this killer is my neighbor I never imagined anything we live in very particular bubbles.

A little bit worse, but he has big hands. He has big hands. So after three hours of interview, I look at his hands. And they have a terrible kind of intuitive intelligence. That is, he knows very well what I'm thinking at that moment.

You have to look at his hands?

Yes, you have to know that he strangled him with his hands. Out of the 8 files I had, I think there were 6. He strangled them. So I look at his hands, he knows exactly what I was thinking at that moment. And then he looks me straight in the eyes and says, Mr. Expert, if you ask me questions about my parents, I'll strangle you.

A little moment of solitude.

Even though he was pretty nice to you?

Yes, yes, yes, I was taking notes, it was going well, etc. A little moment of solitude. Same thing, like Chanal, look, piercing blue eyes. I still have them in my head, you my head when I tell you this.

Did you ask him about his parents? So, I look at the alarm clock and I have two seconds to decide whether I go or not. On the alarm? No, on the question. Because you had questions about his parents?

Of course, of course. Obviously, it's part of the protocol, if you like. And so, I keep an eye on the alarm. I also keep an eye on the guardian, the Belgian Penitentiary Administration. To see if he's still watching you. Who is supposed to secure me. But after three hours, he has a little tendency to fall asleep.

So, well... So,, I have two solutions. Either I do what he knows, I'm the knower, it's not you. Listen, no, we move on to something else, you see. I take over the management of the interview. Something I've never done before. And so, I go.

And I say, Mr. Fourniret, and your parents, how did it go with them, etc. And he talked to me for two hours. You see, that's the sadism of the pervert. That is, he spotted a kind of fragility in me, a crack somewhere, and he hid inside.

Did he scare you at other times? Did you feel that he was... feel he could be dangerous with you?

No, no, no. Because, as you said earlier, I think, he likes to have fun. It's terrible, compared to what he did. And when I say that, I always think of the victim's family, if you will. You see, he doesn't have fun, that's the least we can say. But he was manipulating everyone, if you will. He didn't have fun, that's all I can say. But he was manipulating everyone, in a way. The magistrates, the experts, the journalists, the press, etc.

He wrote to me, for example, I see him in Belgium, when we see Fourniret at 9am, we're fed up, if you will. We're protecting ourselves, in a way. So I give my expertise back to the judge of instruction.

Sorry to say, but you see him at 9am, you don't have lunch with him at noon. You leave, it's really... It could have been a semblance of a man-to-man discussion,

but it's not possible. In prison, it's not possible. And in fact, I give my report, and maybe a few months later, I go to my office, I take my mail, and I see a letter with the writing of Fourniret, number of the Belgian NCO, Brussels, I recognize it, between a thousand, of course,

very particular writing, a kind of weird paté, a bit like the character, of course.

Do you know that they have weird writing?

He has it in all cases, it's clear. In terms of graphology, I'm not a graphologist, but I think there's a lot to say. And it was at the time, yes, you've known, of anthrax. Anthrax was a kind of powder.

George Bush was there at the time.

There was a kind of psychosis. You open an envelope and there's powder that could kill a lot of people. And so, I swear it's true, during this letter, I spent three days opening it. I was afraid he'd put powder in it. I was caught in the psychosis. And in fact, he wanted to see me again. He wanted to see me again.

Because he wasn't happy at all with my conclusions. Which for me is an excellent thing professionally. He even wrote me down, because he gave me 4 out of 20.

He sent you, I gave you 4 out of 20?

Yes, he gave me 4 out of 20.

It's incredible. He thinks he's a teacher.

Yes, for example, in terms of French literature, in prison he revisited all of French literature. He considered that French writers were bad. Well, there you go. This character is very, very peculiar. And in fact, I didn't want to see them again, but I had to.

I had to. The first president of the Court of Appeal told me, Mr. Expert, for the case, we absolutely want there to be a trial, etc. because he was doing a hunger strike. He wanted to see me again.

A hunger strike for you?

Yes, a hunger strike, he would provide it. He was eating chocolate anyway. And so I had to see him again. I went to see him again. It didn't last long, because in fact... He told me, the mail, etc.

I said, no, no, no, all that was for you to come. So that the judge asks you to come back, etc. And at that moment, he tells me, So, Mr. Expert, how's your family? And then I took my suitcase and left.

Really?

Yes.

Why?

Because I couldn't stand him talking about my family. It had nothing to do with it.

Did it look like a threat?

He was incarcerated, it's complicated, but... In any case, I had a kind of protection reflex.

You're going to see him again after two or three times?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, I see him again, yes. The last time I see him is in Alsace.

He didn't take it for your friend?

A little, a little, but he had plenty. He also wrote to the prosecutor of the Republic, he wrote to lawyers, he had epistolary relations with relationship with many people. I saw him again a third time in 2017, just before his trial in Versailles. It lasted a little less long, but we know each other. we know each other well. So I had to see him, because it was the president of the court of the 6th who asked me to see him. And there were also, in terms of anecdotes, especially, another story of hands.

The hands would provide,iret, it's still going on. Simply because at the end of the interview, he was 78 years old. At the time, I was a little younger. He looked at me and said, you're tired, aren't you? And it was true, I was fed up. And I was fed up with Fourniret. And so I said, yes, yes, yes, yes.

We might stop here. He said, yes, yes, we might stop here. He said, yes, yes, we'll stop here. I packed my things, etc. He got up, he left, and he put his hand on my shoulder. On my shoulder, saying, welcome back. I turned around in my car, you know, the famous decompression sac, like that,

and I think of the hand of Fourniret who put me on his shoulder, and it makes me think of my father's hand. Wow! I say to myself, but wait, Jean-Luc, you're still incredible, you know? Do you realize? You make an association between your father's hand and the hand of Fourniret. Not for the same reasons, of course, because I made the association simply because

my father, when I was a kid, put his hand on my shoulder to protect me.

It reminded you of a paternal gesture. Exactly. A protector in the shoulder.

All this to explain that we were actually leaving some feathers. Seriously. Seriously. And during this interview, the last interview he would give, I had an arm-wrestling with him too. A physical arm-wrestling? Yes, he proposed to me to have an arm-wrestling.

But no. It was fun. Yes. As a judicial expert, it was worse. No, no, as Jean-Luc body, etc. You know, for the families. Of course, of course. So he goes to see a judge, and on the other hand he says to her, Madam Judge, before I give you the confidences, that's the reason you brought me here,

I would like you to... It's a given, you have to do me a favor. So the judge says to him, What do you say,, Mr Fournieret, I would like you to calculate my retirement points.

No, that's not true.

Yes it is.

It's not possible.

He was completely...

He was having fun. He knew he if he gave everything, there would be no interest. That's why he didn't give, right? There is that, but there is also another very important aspect that I have analyzed for many years, it's the system of the couple with Monique Olivier. That is to say that during the last years,

it was she who gave a lot of information to the judge. And after, Fourniret ran after her and gave her more details, if you want.

We didn't give any information, Jean-Luc? Who won the Iron Arm?

I won't tell you. Because I'm proud.

And did you accept it? When he said, we're doing an Iron Arm, you said, we have to do it like that, he won't give you any more details. I had the hand of Fourniret like that.

That's it.

Did he talk to you more about playing with him?

It was at the end, but we knew each other well.

And in the evening, you go to bed and you say to yourself, there is something weird in my life. Do you manage to detach yourself from your job?

It's complicated. It's complicated. I often tell, I don't want to get angry with the young fathers of the current generation, but from my generation, in any case, when a man came home from work in the evening, he would sit on the couch, read his newspaper and ask to his wife, what are we eating? For me, that was not possible. You see? When I come home from...

To answer your question, when I come home from 7 or 8 o'clock, from Fourniret or elsewhere, it's... In any case, I... What did you have for dinner?

I didn't know... I didn't know how had happened to me. To your wife at the time? Yes, I had three girlfriends. At a certain point, it's no longer their space, it's no longer their oxygen. So at that point, it still creates problems.

Was it complicated in your relationship life because of your job? Do you think it influenced?

I think so, yes.

In your personal life too, friendly? Is it complicated when you do this kind of thing.

Yes, yes, and I suffered a lot. Quite simply because, you know, when we... At one point, I was doing a lot of meals, etc. I was also part of the club, etc. You see, when you're young, etc. To have networks, etc.

And in fact, given my job, I was always asked questions. And I, as a passionate person, had to get away from it. The problem was that I was attracting everyone's attention and that people were a little fed up, I think. You see, because I was rather reserved in my private life.

Did you feel sadness,, if you will, any pain in relation to what he had done, any empathy? No, absolutely not. At all? Absolutely not. Any regrets?

Not at all. And he himself says it, he says, you know, my fucking pride prevents me from regretting anything anyway.

You see, it's an expression, but it's quite interesting to hear. I can't help but regret anything.

It's an expression, but it's quite interesting to hear. In all the serial killer trials I've done, the families who are there, there were a lot of families, it was a terrible psychodrama, I mean, for them it's extremely important, but to explain that they have no regret, no connection to guilt.

They are... Yeah, it's crazy.

Not at all. Not at all?

Not at all. Oh yes, not at all. I'm formal about that. It's one of the things I'm formal about. Simply because the victims are not subjects, they have no history, they are objects of fantasy. Whereas in the case of families, they were taken away from their loved ones. So there is a kind of impossible confrontation.

What was the profile you drew up for Michel Fourniret before telling an anecdote you had lived with him? What was your account for the judges?

Michel Fournieré? In terms of diagnosis, for example, the clinic was a narcissist, a sadistic, deceitful person. He was at the limit of the psycho, he had a kind of delirium about virginity. And so he took action.

You say, page 13 in your book, The Approach of Evil, your first book, you say, Michel Founeré confesses to being in love with his mother and that he will cry.

Yes, exactly. So, he is also very theatrical. He will cry, I mean, he doesn't cry at any time and we can feel very well that he is not invaded somewhere. That is to say, he is staging himself, in a way. So that's part of the character.

Do you have discussions? If a man like that tells you and suddenly he talks about something else, a passion, I don't know, do you go into the discussion to justify it, to make it easier for him to talk more afterwards?

Exactly. So what do you find to talk about? Yes, it's the strategies. For example, I'm not talking about the supply, I'm talking about Pierre Chenal, who we talked about earlier. He was very interested in paratrooping. He had a lot of thousands of jumps, etc.

He was a soldier, too.

He was an instructor, by the way. And so, from the moment I felt, if you will, that he had subjects where you shouldn't press a button, especially with sexuality, for example, he was full of tics, at that moment, nervous, at the level of the face. I said to him, ah yes, so you are an instructor, outside the army, you are part of such a club, etc. And there, for 15 minutes, he was relaxing. Then I tried to ask the question that interested me the most.

You met Monique Odivier, his wife. What did Michel Fournier say about his wife? Wasn't he nice to his wife?

Not at all, no. He was not nice at all. They lived together for 20 years. He said his wife was intelligent like a robotized chicken. He said she had nothing between her ears. A metaphor for the radio. She was a nanny.

Not a big fan of her. Actually, in terms of the couple, he was very manipulative. He was a narcissist to a maximum. She was a woman who lived in a male environment, a very masculine environment, so she didn't exist.

She was very inhibited. If she had been able to go between the wall and the wallpaper, she would have done it, if you like. So she had a first sexual and marital experience. He was in prison, he made a small announcement, they met like that.

He was very perverse, he noticed that immediately, he narcissized her to the maximum, he said to her, you're beautiful, I'm going to paint you, you're a really pretty woman, you he narcissized her. He said to her, you're beautiful, I'll even paint you, you're a pretty woman, you have a beautiful body, etc. And she was totally invested, she liked it a lot, she was very seduced. And he said to her, if you want us to get together,

there is a charge book. The charge book. The charge book is what we call the famous criminal pact, which they both signed. That is, my fantasy, my obsession, is virgin girls. You were Michel Fournieret.

I was Michel Fournieret, so you're going to help me find some. And she said, OK. She signed. And so she also participated.

When you say she signed, they did it it under the guise of a real contract?

Yes, of a contract. Which exists today? It's in the file. Yes, yes. Yes, yes, absolutely.

So she was a little disturbed, basically?

She needed to meet a guy like that. It's still quite special. In any case... To go and answer a little announcement from of detainees, wanting to help her find the girls. So after that, there was a whole speech around the fact that, was she subject to Michel Fournier? Under his grip, in a way.

There are a lot of criminals, we'll come back to that later, we'll finish on Monique Lodivier, but we'll come back to that later, that there are a lot of women who write to criminals, who sometimes have sexual relations in prison, even children, I think Nordahl Lelandais Lelandais, yes, I also examined, yes We'll talk about it later, but that's something common, there's a kind of fascination of some people

We see that, yes, so it's a technical term, I don't remember, and it's really a very complicated technical term to remember In any case, these are women who are attracted to the killers, to death They gave birth, so they are attracted. In general, these are women who are not sure of themselves, who need all the power to compensate. And so, that's what I call, in her case,

in any case, what I call the nurse's syndrome or the savior's syndrome.

Yes, the famous one.

You know? Yes, yes.

You talked about perverted narcissists earlier. Yes. Some psychiatrists or psychologists say that it doesn't exist, that it's a bit of a fashion thing to say, perverted narcissists.

I quite agree with that. Yes? In any case, it's a term that is used a lot.

That is used in any...

For example, currently, I receive 5 or 6 women who are victims of sexual violence. It's a good thing.

To free the speech?

Completely. Of the 5 or 6, 2 thirds tell me that I'm a narcissist. We are extremely careful about that.

Is she going to look like that, Monique Olivier, when you open the door? You met her several times?

No, I saw Monique Olivier 8 hours.

8 hours at once?

Yes.

And when you open the door, will it really mark you? Is that exactly the profile you gave Michel Fournieret? A little stupid girl?

Not at all. Not at all. So, I'm going to put quotation marks on it, but I had that chance. In fact, so...

What do you mean, that chance?

Well, in fact, the judge had asked me to examine Fourniret and also examine Monique Olivier in the same expertise. What is called the system of the couple. The interactions. You see, a couple... See who was wearing the panties, basically. Yes, so, to put it in a more scientific way,

but also...

Who dominates, who gives orders.

It's a bit like two muscles working in synergy. One feeds the other and reciprocally. You see? So what happened in criminal matters in relation to this couple? So, on Thursday, I'll give you back, I will tell you about it, and as it was not enough for me, they were both in Belgium,

on Friday I see Monique Olivier, I will not do it again, if it were to start again, I would put a time lapse between the two, if you want, because you have to digest. And so the Belgian administration had forgotten to warn Monique Olivier that I was coming to see her. So I arrived in the morning, at 8.30, in Namur, the house of the Queen of Namur, and I took her to bed, if you like. I mean, in a surveillance suit, in a cap, in a suit, not wearing any make-up, etc.

We spent the whole morning, in the interview, etc. I gave her an IQ test.

An IQ test Of intelligence?

The famous WISE, IQ test.

How much IQ did you get?

130.

For a stupid girl, that's a lot.

Which is considerable.

It's overrated, 130. From 100, it's the average, I think, right?

Yes, yes, above 125, 128, let's say that the IQ corresponds to of 3% of the French population. In terms of intelligence, so she's very intelligent. Yes, but it's not that she can't be submissive, it has nothing to do with it. But she's more intelligent than 97% of the French. Yes, still. So it's not a good excuse.

It's still not bad, you see. And so, in fact, I thought, it's not possible, it's not at all what I see in the file, so... weird. So I asked a colleague to go back to see it, to recalculate. Maybe we were wrong, you see,

because it's the same, there are scales, etc. It's scientifically validated, but, well, he finds 131. So the same thing. For er1. So the same thing. For a deration, the same thing. So, that interested me.

Because I thought, for someone who has nothing between his ears, it's a bit weird. So, the IQ, we did a terrible deal, at the level of the lawyers, etc. But that's another story. Monique Olivier, when we asked her what she wanted to do later,

she wanted to be either an archaeologist or a doctor. It's the same, it's still...

It's a job where you still need a doctor.

It's a job that's a bit special, to find interest in this job, in a way. And then I had another test, a drawing test, where they have to read little bubbles and answer.

They have to write. And so at some point I said, Mrs. Olivier, I'm going to give you this test. She said, no, no, no, I can't. I said, but why can't you? Because, you'll see, I write very badly and it's full of mistakes.

I said, it's not a big deal, you know, everyone makes mistakes, etc. I insist, she does it, there are 24 situations, and in fact, out of the 24 situations, she made me two mistakes. Again, in relation to the French population, too. So, it's very, very peculiar.

What do you see in these tests? In them?

Yes, it must reveal things. Excellent situational intelligence. They take initiatives. They are not submissive at all.

In relation to a situation.

Interesting, yes. For example, there is a situation in everyday life, to put it simply, you are at the cinema, and a lady in front of you is hiding the screen with her hat. And so there is a lady next to you, a friend you brought to the cinema, who says to you, but you can't see anything. So there...

What do you do? How do you react? So, there are Some people say, I'm going to ask the lady to take off her hat, politely, please, madam, etc. There are others,

for example those who are in a relationship of submission or dependence, they say, it's okay, I'm going to move a little bit, but I don't want to disturb her, you see? Or it's okay working, I move a little bit, but I don't want to disturb her. You see? Or when it's not working, I hear, it's enough for me, I don't see, but I hear.

Oh yes, no, but... There. She took the initiative to say, Excuse me, madam, can you take off your hat? We're at the cinema, you see? It's what I call a positive initiative, but adapted in a way.

Yes, she wasn't... So, those 24 situations make me think that she's not that submissive. So, it also means that, in her relationship with Mr Fournier, she finds personal interest in it.

And so, why did she act? What is she? What are you going to deduce from her meetings with Monique Olivier, the wife of Mr Fournier? Why did she do that?

I think he found...

Is it stadilism?

I think he found pleasure. So, again, in relation to her personal story, she tells me that she doesn't know what love is. She never... I don't know.

No guilt either? About the girls who were killed?

No, no, no. She gradually, as the trials progressed, had a kind of, what I call, a Judeo-Christian exorcism, where, in some way, towards relation to the families, she says, I regret it, but it's an effect of announcement, or an effect of revenge from her lawyer, if you will.

Have you had serial killers, dangerous people, because there are still a lot of dangerous people, most of the people you meet are still people who have been dangerous for someone or for them, who have threatened you with death. Have you ever been threatened?

Of course. In your private life? Yes, of course. Even in a detention centre, I had a stool that went very close to my right ear, there was a hole in the wall.

Did someone try to physically attack you?

Yes, I have already pressed the alarm three or four times. And it's never the moment you expect it. Never. It's unpredictable.

So it's calm, and then suddenly it goes...

It goes, we don't know why.

It goes from 0 to 200 in one go. Yes, absolutely.

So, I lived... My last partner, I lived last partner for 20 years, and she had forbidden me to examine terrorists. Whereas I was interested in that professionally. And in fact, I never... I've been separated for 7 or 8 years,

and since then I've been examining terrorists. It's really interested me. But before, I couldn't. Simply because they have networks, and it's dangerous.

We had children, etc. and it's dangerous. You were afraid of repercussions. Yes, completely. Now you're not afraid anymore?

Yes, but I say it in the conclusion of my second book, for a few years now, You're not afraid anymore? You're still afraid? Yes, but I say it in the conclusion of my second book, for a few years I've been living in a big house all alone.

You say it has impacted your social life, really, we talked about it before. And it has impacted your health too, we'll come back to Dutch, to terrorism. But on October 13, 2013, you had a heart attack. In relation to your work, too much pressure, too much stress, too much...

Yes, I think it's the same, it's multifactorial. I think there are several origins. I worked a lot at the time, I was also general director of an association where I had several hundred people under my command. It also allowed me to keep my head on my shoulders. But at the same time, I did a lot of expertise.

So I worked 60-70 hours a week.

A lot.

At some point, you absorb, you absorb. So I did have a serious heart problem.

How does it look like? How does it go? It's interesting, if there are any.

The same symptoms that are coming? Yes, I can give some indications. How did it go? For you, at least. I was doing a lot of sports, I was running a lot. I was preparing myself to do a semi-marathon. So, 15 days before, I trained.

I had to do, I don't remember how many, 17, 18 laps, whatever. I got back in my car and I felt my left arm. I felt ants in my left arm. And it was going up. It was going up, it was going up. The shoulder, etc.

I was driving hard. So, I went home. My girlfriend wasn't there, she was in Lyon, so I told her I was not well. She told me to call a friend, a doctor, etc. But it was a Sunday, I didn't want to disturb anyone. So I had two solutions. Either I would sit on my couch to rest, or I would take my car and I was going to the emergency. I took my car, I went to the emergency. Alone?

Alone. But I didn't park at the emergency. It was in the middle of October, but it was still sunny. So I said to myself, you're going to walk a little, it's going to relax you. And I got to the emergency, it was the only time I didn't wait. Did you understand that it was that? Well, they understood. I didn't. I wasn't feeling well.

They understood right away.

You're going to be hospitalized? Yes. There's an operation? Yes. What happens when you have a heart attack?

What do they do? I arrived, like in the movies, they put me on a stretcher, they opened the doors, etc. I found myself like this. There was a big TV set where I could see my heart

and I could see my arteries doing like that They told me, ah, there, there, you see, you see, you're in... There, again, so they put me... Anyway, they do their job, they saved my life And they put me a stent, for those who know a little...

A kind of spring inside, so that it is more open at the level of...

That's it, so that it doesn't start again.

Did you calm down afterwards or not? In terms of schedule, in any case?

So I retired from my job as Director General two years later. Director General of what you were? Des Papillons Blancs, it's an association for disabled children. A national association. I had 12 establishments in Champagne-Ardennes.

To come back to the story, you spoke earlier about Nord-Hollandais, I didn't know you had seen him. Yes. You met him. Yes. So he killed Arthur Noyer at the beginning.

And then the little Maelis.

And the little Maelis, then, by arresting him for the little Maellise who realized about Arthur Noyer's case a while before, who was a soldier too, I think. Yes, yes. And the little Maïlise was the young girl who was at a wedding with her parents and he was invited, I think, a little late, or at the last moment, he was a little the friend, come if you want, and then he left with the little Maïlise in the evening.

How many times did you meet him? I met him once. Once?

Once. Long time. All day. In August. It was very hot. And actually, the Dutchman is a big manipulator too. I saw him for 9 hours.

You do long sessions, right? Yes, yes, yes.

And during the 9 hours, I think he told me 8 hours of lies. During 8 hours, he only told me lies. But then, in a way...

Sure of himself?

Sure of himself. Really... Very well done.

Did you know that they were lies? Or did you check afterwards?

Afterwards. Afterwards. Afterwards, with the file, etc. And then, the way he positioned himself. He told me how he... He's a guy... He also acts, very theatrical. It was in December, it was very hot. In the cell, they have the TV,

so he watched the news. He told me cell, so they were watching the news. And he said to me, I'm fed up with watching the news. Every time it reminds me of Arthur. Arthur, Arthur Noyer. He says to me, yes, yes,

it reminds me of him, because every time they say there was still so much Noyer. You know, the people who are going to bathe.

It has nothing to do with... It's the name of Arthur Noyer's family.

Yes, yes. So he made the association... But he killed him. He made the association immediately with that, by saying, every time I hear the word Noyer, I'm not good at all. While he had nothing to do with it. And little Maelis, he told me a story...

His version of the facts, is that it? Yes, yes, yes.

What did he tell you? He was judged guilty since...

I can tell you, because he was judged on that. And it won't bother him, he won't sue me either, no problem. In fact, he told me that he was actually at a wedding, as you said, that he knew the mother, and and he had dogs. He was a drug addict, and he ran out of powder. So he went to his mother's house, and he was with his laptop at the table,

and little Maelis came to see him, and her screen photo on her phone is her dogs. And so the little Maelis looks at her phone and says, oh your dogs are beautiful, etc. and she says to him, can I see them? The little Maelis.

That's his version of the facts. Yes, yes.

I'm talking about his version. What interests me is the way he places himself he relates to the facts. So I can analyze the gap. A mother, the little one was 8, I think, 8 or 9, she was very young, very young. A mother is never very far away in a group.

There is always the eye of the mother who watches.

And of the father, normally.

And of the father. So there is the mother who comes, who says to the Lelandais, your daughter wants to see my dogs, do you agree? And the mother says yes. It's very important, the way he says things,

because legally it removes the notion of kidnapping and kidnapping, because in fact there was the agreement of the mother's. So they took him to his mother's.

To the mother of Norda Lelandé?

Yes, to get some powder, etc. And it was indeed when he was in the car that he was taken by some kind of pulse. I think it was sexual. We never really knew if she had been raped or not. We never knew on a medical-legal level. Because they found the body, but it was calcined, so it was very complicated.

And in any case, what he explained to me, and I think it's absolutely true, and it's cold in my back compared to the malagamy, even now, he explained to me that he had killed her in the same way as Arthur Noyer in the same way as Arthur was drowning. The same way of operation. Three, four punches.

Can you kill someone with a punch?

Yes, yes, no problem. And that comes from both cases.

But he didn't say that he didn't do it on purpose, that he didn't want to give it to him. It's still weird because when you don't want to kill someone, you don't kill them.

Of course, Of course. Obviously.

You never kill someone on purpose, unless it's a car accident.

So, the problem with Le Landel is that he's mainly concerned with sexuality. Arthur Noyer, Cirque, so for him, in terms of the operating mode, in general, serial killers have a hunting ground. For him, the hunting ground was either parties, or gatherings, weddings, where there is a collective, where he can melt into the crowd.

You see? That's the operational mode. And I know, for example, that there are still investigators who work on files, and they try to find other files. Personally, in terms of my work as an expert, I don't really believe it. I think that the Dutchman was caught in a kind of

toxicomaniacal frenzy, where he tried, being completely destroyed, I'll put it simply, he tried all forms of sexualities.

If you met him in the street without knowing he was a killer... Yes.

In series, for once?

Yes. No, no, no, no, two for now.

A killer... A real cynicist, in any case.

Yes, yes, yes, he had potential in any case.

Could you have physically told yourself, Hey, he's a killer. I can see in his eyes that something is wrong. No, not at all. In all the people you've met. Not at all.

This guy is charming. Charming. I'm telling you, it was hot in August when I saw him. After two hours, he told me, you're thirsty. He went to see a guardian, he took a bottle of water and all day he served me water. No, no, they are very courteous.

It's weird to hear that.

Well, yes, it's what I lived.

We imagine them because you see them, we imagine them. That's what I lived. So, there are counter-examples to what I'm telling you. Holm, he is still wired in a morphological way a little weirdly. Francis Holm, he's the one who was nicknamed, you said it earlier, the router of crime. That's it.

When you talk about it, I'll put a picture in the picture, so you can see a picture of him. We see this picture and this one, we see that there is something.

There is something. He's scary. So he's scary. I can also tell you an anecdote about Holmes. Have you met him? Yes, of course. I met him for the first time, I didn't know it was him. So I went to a detention centre to see another detainee.

There was a wait, there was no more free desk, etc. So they put me in a small room where they receive, what they call the arrivals, people who arrive in prison. The new ones. The new ones, yes. And so there, indeed, he undressed them.

You know, as we see in the movies, that's how it happens. And so, I was waiting, I wasn't there for that at all. And I see a guy coming, the guard makes him take off his shirt, etc. He was bare-breasted. And I see that this guy has scars everywhere. Like a kind of self-mutilation.

Scars everywhere. On the chest? Everywhere, yes, on the arms, on the chest. In the back. Well, I'm not here for that, I don't know who he is. Three or four months later,

an instructor asked me to examine Mr. Francis Hollem. If he had committed any acts...

Yes, I'll put it back. I have an instructor who asks me to examine Mr. Francis Holm. If he had committed any acts...

I will quote again. Francis Holm, serial killer, recognized guilty, because we never know the real numbers, but recognized guilty today of 11 murders, between 1984 and 1992, for the murders he was really found guilty, and throughout France.

There was a very large territorial maillage. That's why they called it the crime route. They didn't know, there was no particular zone.

Absolutely. There were no victim profiles either.

Yes, it's very large.

It's all azimuth, in a way. And in fact, I see him there, really. So I ask to see Mr. Francis Olm. So I'm sitting see Mr. Francis Holmes So I sat in my office A small office, very small Not very comfortable In a prison, at least at the time

And I see the man arrive The man I had seen Some time before With scars But I'm not a doctor, so I don't examine him physically So I knew he had scars

Because he had undressed 3-4 months before Not on my initiative You recognized him? So I knew he had scars because he had undressed 3-4 months before. Not on my initiative, by the way. You recognized him? Yes, completely.

Because you must have seen plenty of people.

Yes, yes, but there was no problem. And so at some point I said to him, but Mr. Holm, I saw you had a torso, I told him that I had seen it, etc. And he explains to me that he mutilates himself every time he kills someone.

As if he had remorse.

A kind of Judeo-Christian exorcism. I mutilate myself because what have I done? It's not possible. Why did I do that? My sister will blame me because he was very fusional with one of his sisters.

He didn't have a smart physique. Physically, we could see that...

No, no, no, even intellectually, it was very limited.

And he still managed to kill at least 11 people. Yes. Being very stupid.

Yes, but with extreme violence. For example, the two little boys from Montigny-les-Messes, because there was also Dils, the Dils affair... Patrick Dils, he was judged a coup d'état, he was innocent. Exactly, because what was happening, in general, was that Holmes, as he was powerless, etc.,

in his criminal path, never went alone. In his error, he always found a a companion who was not far away. And that's how Dills was arrested, etc. while he was for nothing.

Find a companion, that is to say an accomplice, that means? Ah, that's an interpretation of justice, it's different. We'll come back to it, but did you meet Patrick Dills? No.

No.

He was a gentleman who spent, I think, 20 years in prison, while he had done nothing. Absolutely. He was a man who spent 20 years in prison, while he had done nothing. He was judged after being completely innocent and not guilty. Absolutely. And then he was disfavored by the French state. It's a well-known case. This man who is shown on the screen, Patrick Dils.

And so you are going to discuss with Francis Holle, not very clever, but very violent.

Extremely violent, absolutely. Why was he more violent than the others? Because the way he acted was not sophisticated at all. For example, the two little boys from Montigny-les-Vests, for whom he was convicted, he killed them with stone. It's also a bit primitive.

How could he kill two people? Alone, if there wasn't someone who ran?

I don't know, I wasn't at the crime scene.

What did he say? Was he an accomplice?

He didn't say much. He had a very particular way of acknowledging facts. He had a record on a police officer, a police officer, a police officer. He only wanted to talk to him. With a very particular way of denouncing. He said, I want to see this gendarme.

He wrote a book about this gendarme. I want to see this gendarme because I have something to tell him. I had a dream last night. I dreamed that I had been violent with a person who was in this place.

So he denounces a...

And the gendarme then takes a team, they go to the place, etc., and they such a place. In fact, they denounce a... And in fact, the gendarme, after, takes a team, they go to the place, etc.

and they find a body. Yes, in fact, it's a kind of way of... Yes, it's very particular. With you, he is rather, you said, rather nice? He was not...

Yes, yes, yes. He knows how to read? It's the limit. It's the limit. He knows how to write... Yes, the same. Counting? Yes, the same.

It's really... Primary, you mean. Yes, the equivalent of... of CE2, something like that.

So he did that because he had virility problems, he was impotent, that's what was...

So, after that, it's, let's say, the psychological interpretation that can be made.

You were talking earlier about impotence, etc., the relation with sexuality, we were talking about Nordahl Lelandé. Yes. He had a child in prison, I think, Nordahl Lelandé.

Yes.

What is your opinion on that? Do you see family cells...

No, not at all. Nandal Delandey, his child, he has nothing to do with it. It doesn't interest him at all. What interests him is that we are interested in him. It's different.

You understand girls who want to fall in love with a guy like that, go to jail, have a child with this guy.

Well, I would say that... To answer your question...

I'm talking about men, not the expert.

Exactly. We take off the cap. If we take off the cap, no, I don't understand. They're sick, there's a problem.

You could be attracted to that, yes.

Oh, completely.

Is there a psychological follow-up of people who contact, who send letters to people like that, serial killers? No?

I don't think so. I don't think so. It makes me think of one of my concerns, who was a psychologist in a mental hospital, who met Guy Georges and fell in love with Guy Georges.

But no.

But yes.

Who was a judicial expert?

Who was a psychologist, who was not a judicial expert, who was a psychologist at the prison. Can you remind us of Guy Georges? Guy Georges is a serial killer. His hunting ground was in the Paris region.

West Paris, I think.

West Paris, yes.

It was a very special place. A very small space, actually. He would kidnap would kill young women, who were of a rather... between 25 and 35 years old, brown, it was really a particular profile.

I'm talking about the man, the father, even, of the family, Jean-Luc the father, and the husband, etc. Did you advise your daughter, the children of your family, in a broad sense, the cousins, nieces, etc., to hitchhike? Do you think it's a bad idea to hitchhike

when you see all the murders that have been committed?

Yes, of course, of course. I have a completely natural reflex of protection in relation to that. Yes, absolutely. Of course.

What else? You have become more paranoid than usual.

Yes, I still have that problem. I have children, but I also have grandchildren. And usually my daughter or son tell me, yes, dad, you're a bit deformed. They tell me that the people I see are not necessarily society. Whereas I think that they are. I think I'm more the receptacle of the words of society, of the words M-A-X.

Because I see in the mirror, in evil that is going on in the generations, in all the social levels, it's obvious.

You analyze everything, all the time, still today. Is there a professional reflex that makes you talk to someone, that frames someone, for example? When you say hello, do you look at the details? Do you analyze the person in front of you?

I would answer in a humorous way, of course, it goes very fast. It's already done. But at the same time, it's wrong. Sometimes it's cold in my back, it happens to me.

You see? But maybe I'm completely wrong.

Sometimes you meet someone and you say, there's something wrong with him. Paradoxically, the more I experience evil,

the more I need to respect the other.

Today, fortunately, we have DNA, cameras, we are more protected than at the time.

Yes, now it's much more complicated, I think. Potentially, there are still some who are free. It's obvious to me. It's not a fact of winter, it's a fact of society. It's obvious to me. It's not a diverse fact, it's a fact of society. It's different for me. And on the other hand, with the criminal case,

now with the means we have, at the level of the police, etc., it's much more complicated. A guy like Fourniret could never have done everything he did, now. He would have been arrested a long time ago.

So just before talking about Jacques Ranson, the killer of the Perpignan train station, to finish the show, I wanted to talk about your tools. You told us earlier, you did a test with Monique Olivier, it's Rosenzweig, this one, right? It's a test where there's a kind of comic strip,

where there are holes instead of bubbles, and it's up to the person to fill in the situations of everyday life to see how he would have reacted, to try to know a little bit the psychological profile. You have two other tests too.

Yes.

The one of VICE.

Yes.

It's written W-A-I-S. Yes. What is that? If you could explain a little.

So that's the test of, when we do it in a global way, we spend 3-4 hours. Everyone can do it? Of course.

Everyone can go to a psychologist to know what's going on?

Yes, absolutely. So, it allows us to see a little bit how he apprehends, if he has the potential to understand the questions we ask him, for example, on an intellectual level. Does he know what a concept is, etc. It allows us to measure his level of performance, but also his level of general culture.

So it also gives us indications in relation to personality.

There is a third test, so that's Rosenzweig, Weiss, and there is also a third one, Rorschach's test, which is more famous, or maybe you've already seen it, even if you don't know the name. I'll put it on the screen, for example, images, ink stains, that's what you open on a sheet, right?

Yes, exactly. So if you see on the screen, on the different different boards little dolls, butterflies, birds, bats, etc. Don't worry, you are in good mental health. Don't worry.

And if we see what?

Then, on the other hand, after it's a little more searched. There are, for example, people who are pedophiles, for example. I've seen them, I've had hundreds of them, it's like that, it's factual, it's empirical, but we still have indications. We realize that there are boards, for example,

which evoke the relationship to sexuality. In general, they are completely blocked in relation to that. 98% of people see teddy bears.

Some people see s*** in there.

Yes, I can tell you an anecdote about a case. It's a judge who asks me to examine a pervert stepfather. These perverts are men between 60 and 75 or 80 years old, retired and have small children. I want files like this. It was a grandfather who was accused of having touched his little daughter.

I examine the grandfather, I see nothing at all. For an hour, an hour and a half, nothing. It seems completely normal to me. And he says, I did nothing at all. For an hour, an hour and a half, nothing. It seems completely normal to me. He says, I did nothing. He says, but it's a mistake, I did absolutely nothing, I don't understand. It's a revenge, etc.

A legacy story. Can it happen sometimes? Have you seen it? Yes. False denunciations for legacy stories, Of course, of course. So you still have to be careful.

Absolutely. I see nothing and at the end I have this test. I show him the first board. He says to me, this is the sex of a little girl. It's starting to get bad. Considering what we blame him for. Is it this board?

Yes, absolutely.

It's always the same? Yes, completely. There are 10 in the test I use. The second board, he tells me, ah, well, that's a little bit of color, but it's also a vulva, well, good. Third board, he looks at me, he tells me,

Mr. expert, you are vicious, you have only that to show me. He completely projects, well. So, I make conclusions, the judge... I say, it's a bit annoying, we have to look at it from this side. You have to know that an expertise is in charge and out of charge in the case.

So he has a lawyer who has the conclusions of the expertise, and so it was not good for his file, in a way. And so, in fact, he asks for a counter-expertise, which is also classic in our profession, because we can be wrong, we can, you see, we do not hold any truth.

And so, the magistrate does not want to appoint another expert, on the other hand, he asks me to do a complement of expertise, so to review the gentleman. So I review another expert, but he asked me to do a complement of expertise. So to see the man again. So I see the man again, maybe 6 or 8 months later, because we have a lot of volume, of activity, etc. I see him again, again he tells me, I did nothing, I don't understand, I don't agree with your conclusions, etc. I have the test passed again at the end, the same protocol,

and I showed him the first plan, and he said, this is a bat, this is a teddy bear, this is a butterfly, you see? I said, I don't understand sir, because the first time you gave me

completely different interpretations, which exposed you to difficulties, he said, yes, but it's because I didn't have my glasses.

He finds an excuse.

You see, that's it.

So he was guilty?

Guilty, it's not for me to say. Guilty? But in any case, there were still a lot of elements in his personality that made him... There was a risk. He was able to commit these acts.

I would say things like that. I would like to finish with the killer of the Perpignan train station. You said you saw terrorists. I would like to ask you a question about that. I don't have any information about the girls, so we will find out together. The killer of the Perpignan train station was, I quote well, with the precise dates, between 1995 and 2001, there were four women who women, young women,

will disappear around the Perpignan station. It's always located in that area. They have the same profile. So it was a fact. You didn't know that before. We saw that they were young, students and pretty.

Those were the three criteria, really, out of the four. There was a girl named Tatiana, another Marie-Hélène, Mokhtaria and Fatima, so four women. Three bodies will be found mutilated, these are horror scenes, they are sectioned limbs, etc.

For almost 20 years, I lived in Perpignan at the time, for 20 years there was a kind of fear, the killer of the Perpignan station, no one knew who it was. It was difficult because no one was arrested for 20 years.

Finally, there are some who were arrested, but who were not the good guys. And you, you will meet the man who is guilty, who is called Jacques Ranson, who was found on October 14, 2014, 17 years precisely after the events, thanks to the advances and DNA tests that were done in the following years.

So I put you a picture, well known police services, already in prison for murder before, also recognized as guilty of rape. You will meet him a year later, in 2015, in prison. You are the expert in charge of analyzing him for his trial. Yes.

What are you going to see about Jacques Ranson? So, I call Jacques Ranson the man of the woods. He is an extremely sharp guy, 1.90m tall, extremely limited in his intellectual level, but in his normality, relatively limited, very frustrated, extremely frustrated, the man of the woods. He lived in the woods for many years, with his parents, etc. And I see it in relation to a call case,

that is, a case that was brought up by Parisian lawyers on a Picardy case, Isabelle Ménage. I see it in this context. The judge of instruction who appointed me, asked me to analyze the operating mode he used. You mentioned the problem of mutilation. We found the bodies, but without the chest or the sex. They were cut.

So there were difficulties, because in the first investigations on Perpignan, there was a legislative expert, I suppose, who had concluded that in fact, to cut meat as he did, it was necessary that it was a professional of the cutting, in quotation marks.

A surgeon?

Either a surgeon, or a butcher, well, it's not pejorative, but someone who actually manages the scalpel in a very precise way, scalpel. And he is, just for the record, but it's important anyway, in the investigation, a surgeon who was there at the wrong time, in the wrong place,

who had no alibi, and who was incarcerated for 6 months, and who was absolutely innocent. So the instruction judge, when he asks me to examine Ranson, he asks me a complementary question.

I have colleagues who have done extremely relevant, brilliant analyses on the symbolism of cutting the chest and the sex. So that's all. I said to myself, my little boy, what are you going to do? You are going to ask the question directly to Jacques Rançon. But you have to ask the question in a very rustic way.

How do you cut it? Why? How long does it take? If you start saying, you understand, it's a lot of...

It's not working.

It's not working. Yes, yes, absolutely. And so he tells me, it's not complicated. He said, in fact, he kidnaps young women, he rapes them. So, depending on the reaction of the young women, that's also very complicated on a criminal level, is that, depending on their reactions, for example, he let a few escape on Perpignan.

They didn't die. Because they let themselves be more or less done, and at some point, I think there was even one who took a phone number, etc., so that he could see himself.

To pretend.

Exactly, to make her pretend a little bit. But most of them defend themselves. And the more they defend themselves, the more the criminal's fury increases, and the more intense the fury is.

But what should they do?

Try to communicate with them. Which is not easy at all. Not easy at all. So I ask him, why are you cutting I said to him, why are you cutting? I said, how are you cutting? He said, I have a knife.

He said, I do this as fast as possible. I look, there is no one. He has a bag, a small bag. He cuts the chest and the sex, he puts them in a small bag and throws them away, like that. I said, but why are you doing this? They said, it's for the DNA.

Whereas in fact, DNA traces, when you look at them, they're everywhere. But this, well, he... He was limited too? Yes, he has a very particular logic.

And so he got arrested, how? In relation to the DNA?

Yes, in a shoe, I think. They found him.

And so in the end, he has remorse or not, for the viewers?

Not at all. So, he too, it's at the level of sexuality that it happens. He never gives satisfaction to his partners. Well, it's things that can happen. In general, a couple, when it's like that, we'll go see a sexologist, we talk about it, we communicate, we go to a sexologist and talk about it. We communicate, we try to communicate a little bit. He, no, no, not at all.

He is frustrated, he is very angry, and at that moment, he goes for a ride. He takes his car, and there he has to affirm his virility, his omnipotence. So he takes a girl, he calls her and he kills her. It was his mode of operation. He never has any remorse either. So, there too, it is to compensate for his narcissistic injury in terms of virility.

But the girl in question does not exist as a person. She exists as the object of his fantasy. There you insist, in your report, to conclude, you say that he has a danger, it is a major danger for society, which can really start start again if you let him out and do it again. Yes, there is another one. I was asked the question, and I had an expression, it's a bit of a provocation,

about Michel Fournieret. At the bar of the court of appeal, I said that on his deathbed, the nurse who raised him had to be secured.

It would never stop.

Exactly.

In 2018, Jacques Rançon was found guilty of at least two murders. The others could not be proven precisely. He is sentenced to life imprisonment with a 22-year sentence. I think that's the biggest sentence in France. He is 65 years old and still alive. Jacques Ranson.

You can see the victims, because we are talking about criminals, we haven't talked about the victims yet. We will probably have the opportunity to do another show together, we will go into more detail. It's very important to do a show, especially what you have seen on the other side,

because it was very important to do a show about what you saw on the other side because it was very complete. You did 15,000 expertises, so it's... Philippe Boxo did 10 or 15,000 autopsies, Saint-Légis, so we did several shows. You did 15,000 expertises, so we could do more with great pleasure. Just, you said, to finish, you saw terrorists.

Your wife didn't want for to see them for years, for security reasons. Which one did you meet?

I went to Charlie Hebdo's trial. You have to know that in the trial, all the terrorists were dead. They were dead? Kouachi? They were dead. On the other hand, there were 14 people who were in the box, and they were the ones who were in charge of the proceedings.

Those who provided the cars, the phones, the Kalashnikovs, etc. And it so happened that I had examined a guy who had provided the Kalashnikovs. I had examined him for a robbery, etc. And so I went to this trial, and I was extremely... state of shock emotionally, because we are not insensitive, we are experts, we are not insensitive, we are men.

And so when you cross this great room of the court of appeals, in the Charlie Hebdo trial, it's really very, very impressive. What impressed me the most were the security measures. That is, each interrogation had a guy from the GIGN behind him, with a machine gun, a hood, etc. And the guy had nothing to do with it.

I went there, I dropped him off in the early afternoon, they were taking a nap. They didn't care at all.

But they were interrogated? Of course, completely, saying, They would drop them off in the early afternoon, take a nap. They didn't care about the protest. The guys were questioned?

Of course, completely, saying, I'm not interested in religion, I wasn't there for that. They were small blows, in a way.

Thank you for answering our questions. You told us a little bit, we actually told only 3 or 4 anecdotes. You met on 15000, so it's very little. I will put the links of the books, if you want to order them directly,

in the description of the video on YouTube, if you want to listen to us in podcast audio on Spotify, Deezer, Apple Podcast, Amazon Podcast, there are also descriptions on the platforms, each time, you just have to click on see the description and then you will see the links of the two books, so it's the approach of evil, it's both at Grasse the approach of evil and the passion of evil, here are two books that were

the first is on business in particular, the second is also on your personality how you found yourself in there, psychologically what it does to you etc. Exactly. It's more around you personally, so here are the two books, I will put them directly in the description of the YouTube video, do not hesitate to like the video, it helps us a lot on the algorithm, to comment on the show, to tell us what you thought about it, if you want to talk about particular cases, like that, if we do other shows to address the topics,

to put a little bell too to be aware of the next releases, we put you three shows or documentaries per week, on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday, it's about 150,000 to subscribe every month on our YouTube channel, channel, just click on subscribe. Have you ever seen a show before coming to our place? I watched it last week. You can see where you are going. Yes, a little bit.

Thank you Jean-Luc for coming. You're welcome. It's a pleasure to see you and to talk with you about your job, your career.

Thank you for inviting me.

Thank you to the whole team topic, because it's not easy to talk about these topics, to get your nose in it. I send you a big hug, and we'll see each other again very soon for another video. and we'll see each other again very soon for another video. Thank you for being more and more numerous on Legend.