25811: Benodin: (comment) TWISTING THE TRUTH ABOUT JACQUES ROCHE (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Robert Benodin <r.benodin@worldnet.att.net>

TWISTING THE TRUTH ABOUT JACQUES ROCHE
Gerard Jean-Juste and Bill Quigley Caught in a Lie; Marguerite Laurent, Amy 
Goodman and John Maxwell Are Accomplices
Once again, the nefarious pro-Aristide forces are conspiring to misinform the 
public about the macabre role Reverend Jean-Juste and his kidnapping squads 
have played in these past few weeks' horrible events, including the 
assassination of journalist Jacques Roche. It is particularly telling that the 
pro-Aristide camp, caught in its plot to have Jacques Roche killed simply for 
having been associated to the "Groupe des 184", would then unleash a public 
relations campaign for the purpose of whitewashing their authorship, moral if 
not physical, of the Jacques Roche murder and then bizarrely associating 
themselves with Jacques Roche once they realized the magnitude of the gaffe 
their goons had committed.

In this respect, the total incompetence of the current provisional authorities 
explains why there has been no attempt to discredit this malicious campaign and 
why Rev. Jean-Juste is now able to portray himself as a victim once again for 
having committed the "crime" of attending his "cousin" Jacques Roche's funeral. 
Let us now examine the sequence of events that have led to the arrest of 
Jean-Juste and to the flurry of emails from Aristide apologists trying to 
deflect the attention away from their involvement in Jacques Roche's murder:

July 14, 2005
The body of journalist Jacques Roche, who had been kidnapped on July 10 is 
found in Delmas 4. Jacques Roche had been tortured before being executed: his 
arms were broken, his tongue had been ripped out, and his body bore marks of 
extreme corporal punishment. He was killed by several gun shots in the mouth. 
[1] [2] Jacques Roche was not simply a dedicated journalist; he was also a 
talented poet and a passionate lover of Haiti. He believed in social justice 
and had militated for many changes, including the unconditional cancellation of 
Haiti's foreign debt and the fight against the free zone established 
unilaterally by Aristide in Maribahoux (North East.)
According to press reports, his kidnappers took issue with his role to host a 
radio show about civil society, sponsored by the "Groupe des 184." This led to 
their decision to assassinate him despite his family having made a partial 
payment of $10,000 on the ransom they had requested. [3] He had become, in the 
eyes of his kidnappers, an enemy of Jean-Bertrand Aristide and of Lavalas and 
therefore had to be eliminated.

July 17, 2005
In one of her signature diatribes, lawyer Marguerite Laurent, a pro-Aristide 
apologist and his chief defender in the United States, puts in context the 
death of Jacques Roche and explains why it was understandable; she says in 
essence that the current wave of kidnappings are in retribution for the 
kidnapping of "democracy" when Jean-Bertrand Aristide left power. She writes:
The kidnappings in Haiti for political and economic purposes began with the
kidnapping of Democracy by the powerful Coup D'etat nations of the US,
Canada and France, intent on imposing privatization, neoliberalism in Haiti,
no matter the will of the people, the nation nor its duly elected
representative.

Last Thursday, July 14, 2005, Jacques Roche, a well-known cultural and sport 
news reporter for Le Matin, and television host of a show on "civil society" 
issues for Group of 184, who had been kidnapped on July 10, 2005, was found 
dead. His tortured and bullet ridden body was found still handcuffed,
[...]

Let's begin by questioning WHY Jacques Roche was killed? In sum, Roche's death 
is the fruit of a poison tree that must first be uprooted before justice can 
ring in Haiti. It's the fruit of an ongoing international crime of kidnapping 
democracy begun with the kidnapping of President Aristide from Haiti.

As a friend wrote to me today, "The handcuffs (left on Roches body) already 
told us WHO did it. I can't imagine slum dwellers possessing handcuffs, and if 
they did, having enough to leave them on a dead body. We are dealing with 
really evil people." Moreover, according to an AHP news report "People close to 
the cultural journalist condemned his execution and declared that if they had 
received support from some sectors they didn't name, to complete the ransom, 
the victim's life would have probably been saved....One of his collaborators, 
Roudy Sanon, who was involved in the negotiations with the kidnappers, declared 
that it was his work colleagues who helped to get the 10.000 dollars given to 
the kidnappers. He also deplored that the Police General Direction did not help 
to get Jacques Roche's release, despite the fact that it had enough clues to 
help, he said. "This authority of the police is therefore responsible on this 
level of his death, Roudy Sanon said on a private radio station of the 
capital." [4]
In a few paragraphs, Marguerite Laurent manages to mangle the truth, turn the 
events of Jacques Roche's death on their head, and turn his employers into the 
ones responsible for his death all in one fell swoop:

Lie #1: Slum dwellers do not possess handcuffs.
Marguerite Laurent chooses to ignore that a large number of Cite Soleil 
criminals were enlisted in the last two Haitian National Police classes under 
Aristide (at his request) and were let go after his departure because of their 
shameful criminal records. In addition, a number of policemen linked to Lavalas 
have been arrested recently for their involvement in kidnappings and murders. 
It is not that difficult to figure where the handcuffs might have come from. 
And it is possible to buy handcuffs in Haiti today from private shops. Dany 
Toussaint, another murderer linked to Lavalas until he split with Aristide, 
sold such goodies at his store recently.

Lie #2: Jacques Roche did not receive support from some sectors that might have 
saved him.
Jacques Roche's kidnapping was not about ransom. The kidnappers went though the 
masquerade to make it appear as such. His political death had been 
pre-ordained, and no amount of money would have saved him from his certain 
execution. Let's remember one clear point: Jacques Roche was assassinated for 
having collaborated with "Groupe des 184", not because his family could not 
come up with the ransom. The vast majority of kidnappings in Haiti have been 
settled for much less than $10,000. So to pretend that his employers could have 
saved him simply by contributing money is a lie.

Lie #3 - The Haitian Police is responsible for his death.
Roudy Sanon, AHP and Marguerite Laurent should hang their heads in shame for 
propagating such a lie. The police explained very clearly that they had leads, 
but not enough information to quickly react to the murder. [5] This was 
confirmed when they arrested Roger Etienne, one of Jacques Roche's murderers, 
who explained that he was constantly being moved.

Beyond the obvious lies, Marguerite Laurent's obvious message, though the words 
of a "friend", is that only the "murderous" regime of Latortue could have 
killed Jacques Roche, but certainly not the "peaceful" gangs that are 
terrorizing the slum dwellers she was talking about. Even more ominous is the 
message, subsequently picked up by Gerard Jean Juste, that the "kidnapping" of 
Aristide on February 29, 2004, justifies the wave of such crimes in Haiti today 
and that only his return will end the wave. If that is the case, then isn't it 
a clear acknowledgement of WHO is responsible for the kidnappings? After all, 
it is such a poisonous tree ... but who planted it in the first place?

July 20, 2005
In an interview on Radio Kiskeya, Rev. Jean Juste picks up on the theme of 
Aristide's kidnapping as being the first instance of this crime. His message: 
since our leader was the victim of a kidnapping, we Lavalas certainly cannot be 
responsible for this type of crime. But he went on to state that the end of the 
violence from below depends on the end of the violence from above. [6]

What is then the violence from below that he is referring to? Isn't it the 
kidnappings, murders and rapes that the pro-Lavalas gangs have been 
perpetrating, not only on Haitian society as a whole but especially on the 
residents of the slums in which they have taken residence? We should be under 
no illusion that, despite the class warfare message that is being spread by 
Marguerite Laurent and Gerard Jean-Juste, the majority of the victims of 
violence of any sort in Haiti today are poor. And contrary to what they would 
have us believe, the perpetrators for the most part are the pro-Lavalas gangs 
that were armed and trained by Aristide and his henchmen, like Paul Raymond, 
René Civil, Hermione Leonard, et al from 2001 until his departure.

As a side note, what is most disingenuous from Marguerite Laurent is her 
systematic silence on one of the worst crimes perpetrated by gangs like that of 
the late Dred Wilme's: rape. The principal victims of crimes in Cite Soleil, 
Solino, Bel Air, Delmas 2, Grande Ravine, etc. are women (primarily young) and 
even in some cases pre-pubescent girls who are preyed upon by depraved gang 
members who have turned to a new form of bodily mutilation to inflict further 
pain on their rape victims: the incrustation of parts of plastic or metal in 
their penises. [7] This was the case, for example, of Dred Wilme's lieutenant 
Emmanuel Coriolan (aka "Dom Laj") who underwent "surgery" while in jail to have 
his penis augmented with bits of plastic and metal. He had it done to better 
torture any female kidnapping victim that his gang would seize.

July 21, 2005
Jacques Roche's funeral is marked by moving tributes from speakers from all 
walks of life. But it will also be remembered for Rev. Jean-Juste's audacious 
attempt to officiate at the ceremony - when he can be considered as a moral 
author of Roche's murder - and the subsequent false statements which have 
revealed his talent as a pathological liar and the unethical lapses of a 
certain William Quigley, attorney-at-law.

Before the funeral, Jean-Juste had an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy 
Now! where he stated:
So right now, today I'm on my way to attend the funeral of Jacques Roche, a 
prominent journalist who had been kidnapped and killed. And I'm going to show 
myself because his parents are from my town, and at a certain time, one of his 
relatives saved my life. I was being attacked by a mob, and then Mrs. Roche 
came out, saw me, and get me off the gangs and sheltered me at her house. So 
this is why I feel that I should be there regardless that they keep accusing 
Lavalas people of participating in the killings. [8]
What happened at the funeral? Rev. Jean-Juste and his attorney William Quigley, 
decided to participate at the ceremony. Notwithstanding the gall of Jean Juste, 
the fact that he came dressed in full priest garb and had every intention of 
officiating at the ceremony can only be interpreted as an act of provocation or 
sheer folly or both. Soon after his arrival, Jean-Juste is set upon by a group 
of incenses students (not 184 people as falsely reported by Bill Quigley [9]) 
After a few minutes of mayhem, Jean-Juste and Quigley are led away by a group 
of CIVPOL officers and are then picked up by the Haitian police that take them 
to the Pétion-Ville precinct. Jean Juste will later be arrested, but not 
Quigley.

July 22, 2005
An article written by Bill Quigley and entitled "Haitian Priest Assaulted by 
Mob at Funeral and Arrested for Murder" [10] is posted on www.commondreams.org. 
Never mind the fact that Bill Quigley is not a journalist. Never mind the fact 
that Bill Quigley is Jean Juste's attorney. Why this "op-ed" piece, at best, is 
posted as a news article is beyond me. However, what is most striking is the 
number of lies and innuendos that Bill Quigley manages to inject in such a 
short article:

1. Jean Juste was beaten by 184 supporters.
2. Roche deserved to die because he worked with "the people calling themselves 
the group of 184, who overthrew by force the democratically elected government 
of President Aristide, the leader of the Lavalas party, in February 2004." [11]
3. Jean Juste is a cousin of Jacques Roche. In Quigley's words:
On Thursday July 21, 2005, Fr. Gerard Jean-Juste went to St. Pierre's Catholic 
Church to be one of the priests participating in the funeral of Haitian 
journalist Jacques Roche. Fr. Jean-Juste is a cousin of the Roche family and 
members of the Roche family protected him from a mob earlier in his life. He 
went to express spiritual comfort and reconciliation to the family. [12]
Already, there is an obvious discrepancy between Jean-Juste and his attorney on 
the exact relationship of Jean-Juste to Jacques Roche:
a) Jean-Juste: Roche's parents are from my town (Cavaillon)
b) Quigley: Jean-Juste is a cousin of Roche.

July 23, 2005
On Saturday, July 23, Jacques Roche's mother breaks her silence on Radio 
Kiskeya to comment specifically on her so-called "relationship" to Rev. 
Jean-Juste [13]. She refutes any kinship to the Reverend, thereby proving that 
all of the comments made by Jean-Juste and Quigley were fabrications. She 
specifically states that:

1. She has no relationship to Rev. Jean-Juste
2. She has never met Jean-Juste, neither now nor when he was a child.
2. While her husband was from Cavaillon, she is from Cap-Haitian and has never 
set foot in Cavaillon.
4. Therefore, she could not possibly have saved Jean-Juste from a mob that 
attacked him and then sheltered him at her house when he was a child, since she 
never lived in Cavaillon.

July 24, 2005
In his "Common Sense" column entitled "Extremism in defense of freedom ..." 
[14] , Jamaican journalist John Maxwell, an unabashed Aristide apologist, 
writes the following:
[...]
[Gerard Jean-Juste] was then arrested, charged with something that happened in 
Haiti while he was in Miami, released, then beaten up when he attended a 
funeral, re-arrested and thrown into prison, this time, allegedly, for the 
murder of the journalist whose funeral he was attending.
[...]
In one cute sentence, John Maxwell has managed to take out of context the 
meaning and importance of Jean-Juste's presence at the funeral of Jacques 
Roche. More importantly, he has now conveyed to his unsuspecting readers the 
incredible "injustice" meted out to the good Reverend. John Maxwell, no lawyer 
he, conveniently forgets to explain to his readers that there is such a thing 
in Haitian law as "accusation par la clameur publique" [15] and that there are 
antecedents, given Jean-Juste's involvement with the pro-Lavalas gangs that 
have been organizing these deadly kidnappings. At least, Maxwell had the 
decency not to write about Jean-Juste's "close family relationship" to Jacques 
Roche. And I am sure that his skilled command of the English language (unlike 
mine) will carry in any discussion about what he really meant. And I am doubly 
sure that the coterie of Aristide friends that have formed the 
Dessalines-Boukman Society in Jamaica will no doubt approve of Maxwell's 
journalistic (mis)carriage of justice.

One of the problems with all Anglophone journalists, and with Marguerite 
Laurent despite her Haitian ancestry and her work in Haiti, is that they still 
do not have a good understanding (if at all) of the differences between common 
law and Haitian law. It is high time they started learning something positive 
to better defend their heroes.

Also, contrary to Maxwell's claim, Bill Quigley was not arrested. We must 
wonder what Maxwell's sources are and whether he has a reliable network of 
informants or whether he has decided to lower his journalistic standards when 
it comes to news out of Haiti. If Maxwell did verify independently the news 
that he received, he would not have included in his column what is obviously 
false information, But then again, the end justifies the means...

In conclusion, the habitual liars and apologists have once again unmasked 
themselves in protecting an individual who had no reason to attend the funeral, 
nor any decency to stay away from the family of the man to whose death he 
contributed, directly or indirectly. It is such a shame that the Lavalas 
movement, which stood for justice and transparency, has been overtaken by 
overzealous extremist who care not a wit about the Haitian people. But who can 
blame them? Il faut bien défendre ses patates ...

Jean-Claude Jasmin
jasminjeanclaude@yahoo.com
July 24, 2005


NOTES AND REFERENCES

[1] http://www.alterpresse.org/article.php3?id_article=2829
[2] 
http://www.metropolehaiti.com/metropole/archive.phtml?action=full&keyword=jacques+roche&sid=0&critere=0&id=10315&p=3
[3] http://www.radiokiskeya.com/article.php3?id_article=985
[4] Marguerite Laurent email dated July 17, 2005 entitled "[ezilidanto] Jacque 
Roche's death used by "Council of the Wise" to criminalize & bar Lavalas from 
elections, Jean-Juste persecution increases, UN Massacre continues, et al....."
[5] http://www.radiokiskeya.com/article.php3?id_article=992
[6] http://www.radiokiskeya.com/article.php3?id_article=1009
[7] http://www.metropolehaiti.com/metropole/full_une_fr.phtml?id=10363
[8] 
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/21/1332235&mode=thread&tid=25
[9] http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0722-08.htm
[10] http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0722-08.htm
[11] http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0722-08.htm
[12] http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0722-08.htm
[13] http://www.radiokiskeya.com/article.php3?id_article=1024
[14] 
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/html/20050723T190000-0500_84721_OBS__EXTREMISM_IN_DEFENCE_OF_FREEDOM____.asp
[15]  http://ledroitcriminel.free.fr/dictionnaire/lettre_c/lettre_c_ci.htm
- Droit positif. La clameur publique, faisant immédiatement suite à un crime ou 
à un délit, fait naître une situation d'urgence qui justifie l'ouverture d'une 
Enquête de flagrance* et autorise l'Arrestation* de la personne poursuivie 
(art. 53 C.pr.pén.).
Garraud (Traité de l'instruction judiciaire) : La clameur publique, c'est 
l'accusation jetée au public, l'appel qui lui est fait, n'y eût-il que le 
blessé ou le premier témoin survenu qui poussât le cri.
Decocq Montreuil et Buisson (Le droit de la police) : La clameur publique est 
constituée d'un cri (Au voleur, p.ex.), non pas d'une rumeur, mais il n'est pas 
indispensable qu'elle contienne une accusation précise (le cri : Arrêtez-le 
suffit). Le législateur voir en elle un indice suffisant d'une présomption 
d'imputabilité d'une infraction flagrante.