Investigation

The Jérôme Rodrigues case: no projectile before the grenade was thrown

Published on

Following on from its investigation into the circumstances in which Jérôme Rodrigues lost an eye, Index is publishing a detailed analysis of the videos of the incident in the moments before the sting-ball grenade was thrown. Contrary to what the defence of the officer under investigation claims, all the projectiles visible in the videos of the scene appear after the grenade was thrown. The grenade was therefore not thrown “in response” to projectiles.

The Jérôme Rodrigues case: no projectile before the grenade was thrown (04:23)
Incident date
Location
Paris (France)
Victim(s)
Jérôme Rodrigues (39 y.o.)
Consequence(s)
Loss of an eye
Force(s) involved
National Police, CSI / CDI
Methods employed
Explosive grenade
Theme(s)
Francesco Sebregondi, Filippo Ortona, Basile Trouillet, Nadav Joffe, Laïss El Khaledi, Thibault Casteigts, Lorène Albin Francesco Sebregondi Investigation, Coordination, Direction Filippo Ortona Investigation Basile Trouillet Investigation, Editing, Motion design, Voice-over Nadav Joffe 3D modelling Laïss El Khaledi 3D modelling Thibault Casteigts 3D modelling Lorène Albin 3D modelling

One week ago, Index published a video investigation into how Jérôme Rodrigues was maimed. In that investigation, Index demonstrated that at the moment officer Brice C. threw a sting-ball grenade into the middle of the group in which Jérôme Rodrigues was standing, the officers of his unit were not under “a hail of projectiles”, contrary to what the officer stated when questioned. The footage from the officers’ body cameras clearly establishes that the group of protesters targeted by the grenade was in no way a hostile gathering and posed no danger.

Nevertheless, for four years the officer who threw the grenade has stood by his statements and claimed he acted in “self-defence”. Questioned as part of the judicial investigation into the case, at least eleven other police officers have testified in support of their colleague Brice C. and backed his account: projectiles had, they claimed, indeed struck the group of officers, forcing them to “respond”.

To this day, the judicial investigation into the case appears to be stuck on the question of whether or not the group of officers was the target of projectiles at the time of the events. To support its case, officer Brice C.’s defence presented the investigating judge with freeze-frames taken from videos of the incident in which projectiles can be seen in the air: according to Brice C.’s lawyer, examining these images is “of paramount importance, in that it definitively confirms the account of Brice [C.], already corroborated by all the police officers questioned”.

Given how decisive the question of projectiles is for the judicial outcome of the case in which Jérôme Rodrigues was maimed, Index carried out a frame-by-frame analysis of all the available videos. The aim was to identify any projectiles that may have struck the group of officers in the moments before the sting-ball hand grenade was thrown. To make it easier to follow, Index presents this analysis as a video.
Extract from the annex “Projectile analysis”: the frames in which projectiles can be seen are placed on a timeline breaking down the seven seconds before, and the three seconds after, the GMD sting-ball grenade was thrown.

This analysis identified no projectile striking the group of officers in the seven seconds before the sting-ball grenade was thrown.
The few frames of the scene in which projectiles can be seen in flight all come after the moment the grenade was thrown.
The claim that officer Brice C.’s action was a response to thrown projectiles is therefore disproved by a rigorous analysis of the available footage.