Jean-Pierre Petit
Articles published in the press:
Dauphiné Libéré, July 17, 2002
Nuclear Tests at the Palace
AVIGNON / CORRECTIONAL COURT
The well-known astrophysicist Jean-Pierre Petit appeared in court on charges of "defamation" on the internet, sued by the former director of Marcoule.
"Is it possible or not that underground nuclear tests took place on French territory?" This question was posed Monday evening before the Avignon Correctional Court, which had to examine, after a drunken brawl and a case of bank card fraud via an ATM, an unusual societal issue on multiple levels.
First, the offense: defamation on the internet is still in the early stages of jurisprudence in France. Second, the parties involved: the defendant was the highly media-savvy astrophysicist Jean-Pierre Petit, 65, a research director at CNRS; the plaintiff was Antoine Giudicelli, 73, former director of the Marcoule nuclear center. Finally, the core subject: the French nuclear tests.
The basis of the accusation was a text published by Jean-Pierre Petit on the internet, specifically on his personal website: http://www.jp-petit.com. In this text, the astrophysicist recounted a dinner among friends that took place in July 2000 in Remoulins (see also pages "International"), during which Antoine Giudicelli allegedly claimed that French engineers were capable of conducting underground nuclear tests in metropolitan France undetectable by seismographs.
The former Marcoule director even seemed to imply that such tests had already occurred.
Antoine Giudicelli filed a complaint for public defamation against Jean-Pierre Petit, asserting he had never made such statements.
"Has this internet article had any consequences regarding your superiors?" asked presiding judge Sylvie Pérez of Antoine Giudicelli.
They distrust me. They avoid talking to me. They no longer invite me. They keep me at arm’s length.
Defense attorney Hubert Gasser seized the opportunity: "If your friends know there were no underground tests, why would they be angry with you?" The former Marcoule director replied that the CEA does not deny lies—it lets them stand. It doesn't engage in debate.
The presiding judge returned to the evening in question:
"Did you have a conversation that evening with Mr. Petit about nuclear issues?"
"No."
"That's not true—he clearly stated that underground nuclear experiments had taken place in metropolitan France."
"I categorically deny it!" interrupted Antoine Giudicelli, adding: "I am bound by defense secrecy—and even 'very high defense secrecy.' If he fabricated this to sell books, he did so on his own initiative!"
The defense pointed out it had two testimonies: that of the defendant’s own wife, and that of André-Jacques Holbecq, a Concorde pilot, who had attended the conversation in question. The defense attorney addressed the plaintiff:
"Is the theory of underground tests, in principle, plausible?"
"I won't answer that question."
The presiding judge insisted: "We're not in Nevada..."
The civil party’s attorney, Jean-Michel Abensour, strictly adhered to the legal aspects of the case.
The issue of "prescription" in cases of internet defamation sparked particularly lengthy debates (see below). On behalf of the civil party, the attorney ultimately requested 200,000 francs in damages for what he considered a serious moral injury.
Jean-Pierre Petit, meanwhile, repeatedly brought the discussion back to the issue of underground nuclear tests.
Assistant prosecutor Alain Bisiach recentered the debate: "On one side, we have someone in the know about government projects; on the other, an intellectual, a troublemaker, who believes he has a moral duty to reveal information he possesses." However, in this case, the prosecutor felt the intellectual had gone too far: "Your information isn't verified. In fact, it's unverifiable. Perhaps one day your claims will be proven true, and then we'll erect a monument to you." The prosecutor requested a 3,000 euro fine, suspended.
Defense attorney Hubert Gasser argued that the harm suffered by the plaintiff was purely symbolic and asked the court to reduce the damages claim to a symbolic one euro. The real issue lies elsewhere. Taking advantage of the platform offered by this trial, he reminded the court that French nuclear tests were officially halted in 1996 and are to be replaced by simulation tests planned in Bordeaux in 2008. However, Gasser does not believe in this twelve-year pause. "France must continue conducting nuclear tests." He added that underground tests are possible, for example, in a lignite mine, such as the one in Gardanne, in the Bouches-du-Rhône. At Gardanne, mysterious tremors have been felt on multiple occasions. Radioactivity measurements have been taken there—measurements that no one has been able to explain...
The court has postponed its verdict until Wednesday, September 4.
Michel REMBERT
La Provence, July 17, 2002
Avignon Correctional Court
Scientists in dispute over nuclear tests
CNRS research director Jean-Pierre Petit reported controversial statements online about nuclear tests allegedly conducted in Gardanne – Nuclear tests on French soil, at least in metropolitan France, unknown to anyone except the military. The revelation by a scientist on his personal website caused a sensation upon publication. A delayed bombshell that led its author to appear in court at Avignon’s Correctional Court on charges of defamation. Research director at CNRS and resident of Venelles, Jean-Pierre Petit does not appear to be a man prone to making reckless claims. Using the powerful platform of the internet, he wrote on his personal site that underground nuclear tests might have been carried out—possibly in the mines of Gardanne. And our researcher sought to support this claim with a statement allegedly made during a friendly dinner in Rochefort-du-Gard by Antoine Giudicelli, former director of the CEA’s Marcoule center.
"Defense secrecy" – "Our shock absorption techniques are now so refined that we can detonate charges in such a way that the signal gets lost in the background noise of the planet’s general seismic activity," the former Marcoule director is said to have declared between dessert and cheese. The statement was denied by the man himself, prompting him to sue the scientist for defamation. It is true that the remark had circulated within the CEA and damaged the former director’s reputation.
A statement that will be difficult to verify, even though the testimony of a Concorde pilot who attended that famous dinner tips the scales of justice in favor of Jean-Pierre Petit. As for the former CEA director, he will say no more. Defense secrecy. To this legal tangle is added a request for procedural nullity and the issue of prescription. The court chose to address the substance of the case on Monday and will deliver its verdict on the...