Gamma (1975) s01e04 Episode Script
Quarta Puntata
Part four Listen to me.
What Prof.
Duval said shouldn't frighten you.
You shouldn't have let them operate on me.
-What could we do? Let me die.
Let me die, Nicole! You shouldn't have let them do it.
You hoped to get me back.
And instead, you've got a murderer.
You shouldn't have let them do it! I'd do it again, Jean.
Even if you insist on misunderstanding why.
You must admit it's not easy to understand why, Nicole.
You wake up in a hospital bed with a bandaged head and you're not you any more.
Inside you there's another, who thinks in your place.
You shouldn't have let them do it.
Better dead, Nicole.
Accept the reality, Jean.
You're not dead.
-Yes I am.
The other's alive.
These are fantasies.
You're here saying "I", "the other", you admit the existence of real individuals.
You manage to distinguish between yourself and the other.
You are alive.
And you're the one from before.
Nothing has changed.
You're you.
You have to understand that.
You're you.
Are you inclined to maintain that thesis in court, Advocate? No, unfortunately it's not possible.
I'll maintain the opposite.
I'll attack Duval.
I'll make him admit that by the transplant, he's put in you part of an external, unknowable will.
To admit that you have undergone a true and proper psychic manipulation.
Advocate, what do you intend to do? I I'm convinced of your innocence.
And I'll prove it.
It's part of my job.
But me? What must I do? To save myself I should pretend to be insane.
You don't leave me much choice, Advocate.
Prof.
Duval, you performed a brain transplant on the accused, Jean Delafoy.
Can you tell us how you arrived at this decision of yours? When he arrived at my clinic, J.
Delafoy was in a vegetative state.
An artificial life, sustained by mechanical means.
The only way to make his state reversible was to perform a brain transplant.
Of a human brain? -Precisely.
For Jean Delafoy did there exist an alternative therapy to transplant? I've already told you not.
Could you confirm that no other neurosurgeon would have been able to save J.
Delafoy without performing a transplant? -No.
I can add that I don't know how many could've performed a similar transplant.
Therefore you have assumed, in front of the law, the full responsibility for this decision of yours, whatever consequences it produced? I've already told you that the patient was clinically dead.
So yes, I have assumed and I do assume full responsibility.
Even for the choice of the brain to be transplanted? The most suitable brain, that matched the particular requirements of the case was chosen by an electronic computer.
-Particular requirements? Technical requirements, Advocate.
Namely the perfect state of conservation of the brain.
The adaptability of the recipient's braincase.
The cellular genetic affinity.
-And there's no possibility of error? Advocate, even in biology, an error is always possible.
In this case there was no error.
The patient wouldn't have survived otherwise.
Yes, of course.
The operation was a success.
The accused speaks, sees, hears, moves.
The brain works, distinguished Professor, but there is one detail: it isn't his.
I was expecting that objection.
But it's not the case.
The brain transplanted into this man lost all features of the former individual.
This man is J.
Delafoy and noone else but him.
Can you prove that? It's up to you to prove the contrary.
Not to me, Prof.
Duval.
Your Honour, on this matter, I'd like the court to hear from Prof.
Lars Aklund, of Stockholm University.
Prof.
Aklund, what is your specialisation? I'm a neurophysiologist.
Have you ever been concerned with matters concerning brain transplants? Yes, for several years.
-And what was the scope of your research? Well, my interests were directed in two directions.
The first was the refinement of methods for conservation of the brain for application to severe cranial traumas.
-And the second? The study of where and how memories are localised.
How they can be recovered at a certain point, in certain conditions and for certain purposes.
Excuse me.
Could you clarify the nature of these studies for the court? At an elementary level, various scholars, using particular types of worms, for example, the planaria, conditioned them to run a certain route.
Having then fed these worms to other worms of the same species, it was found that these latter worms ran the same route as the first ones.
It was hypothesised, therefore, that a transfer of learning was possible.
Afterwards, they went on to animals of greater biological organisation.
Like, for example, the rats.
And it was found that in certain cases the same phenomenon could be verified.
I pushed mt experiments further than that.
Up to brain transplants in higher animals.
You, then, have performed experimental brain transplants? I grafted, in the heads of various monkeys the brains of other monkeys previously conditioned to perform given exercises.
Which exercises? We had trained some baboons to walk in balance on the wire.
Others were able to ride a bicycle.
And what was observed in the transplant recipients? I found that the monkeys that were operated on were able to perform the exercises of the baboons from which the brains had been taken.
Does this mean the donor's characteristics were transferred to the recipient? Yes.
-Thank you, Prof.
Aklund.
That's all.
Prof.
Aklund, how many experiments of that sort have you performed? I've operated on about 80 baboons.
Have you observed the same results in all of them? 20% died during the operation.
10% didn't recover consciousness after the transplant.
And therefore those baboons remained in coma for a variable period, from a few days to a month.
In the remainder, in more than half, I noted a similarity of behaviour between donor and recipient.
Showing that the recipient had partially acquired the learning of the donor.
Similarity of behaviour or something more? Yes, to summarise.
The subjects who underwent surgical intervention Walked on a wire? Rode a bicycle? Well, not really.
-Therefore, they did not behave like the donors.
Similarity of behaviour is a scientifically exact definition.
It's not my fault if, as it appears, you mean it restrictively.
You don't use baboons, do you? What brains would you use for transplants? You know that donation is a voluntary act that's signed, like a will, by those who wish to leave their organs after death.
Like the heart, the kidneys etc.
Naturally, the identity of the donor remains unknown.
And this is to avoid likely psychological conflicts on the part of the recipient.
As soon as they are placed in the conservation system and checked by the computer, the brains are labelled only by a letter from the Greek alphabet.
From alpha to omega.
Whereby it's practically impossible to recover the identity of the donor.
On the basis of which criteria did you select brains to be conserved for a possible transplant? We excluded subjects above 40 years old.
Mental illnesses.
Those who died after a long agony in which the brain is damaged by prolonged oxygen reduction.
In short, all types of brains that are pathologically unfit.
Are you familiar with Prof.
Aklund's theories? The theory according to which a brain transplant involves the transfer of a similarity of behaviour, that is, of memory? -Yes.
Prof.
Aklund is a great expert in this field.
And my problem was, according to his theories there appeared to be no solution in the case of brain transplant on humans.
But then I came to the conclusion that in a brain sustained outside the body, after a certain period modification of the nucleic acids takes place.
In practice, conservation in hypothermia with a particular perfusion fluid produces the complete erasure of memory in the brain itself.
To experimentally verify this theory of mine I trained a dog to perform certain exercises.
Then, I collected its brain and subjected it to conservation.
Meanwhile, the body of the dog was perfused by a heart-lung machine in order that its organs would stay viable.
That was indispensible, obviously.
After a week of conservation in the conditions I stated I put the brain back in the body of the dog.
-What did you observe, Prof.
Duval? I observed that the dog had forgotten its exercises.
It behaved like like a newborn puppy, ready to form its experiences.
Basically, it was as if it had never lived before then.
In other words, the conservation and the treatment of the organ as performed would result in the brain becoming a tabula rasa, if I'm not mistaken? -Right.
The conservation of the organ outside the body for an extended time is equivalent to a cell culture.
The nucleic acids of a brain so treated undergo changes such that at a certain point it's as if they no longer belonged to the same individual.
They're nucleic acids waiting to be activated, to receive new information.
In this regard, I'd like to recall a classic experiment in immunology.
If we collect lymphocytes from an individual and cultivate them outside him when we put them back inside him he rejects them, considering them foreign.
Still, they're his own.
And does this absolutely guarantee the erasure of every previous memory? Well, practically.
While accepting experimentally the near certainty of this phenomenon I'd like to obtain further guarantees.
And this also in the light of obvious psychological and ethical problems involved in a brain transplant.
And what exactly did you do to obtain further guarantees? More than guarantees, certainty.
Tell the court how.
-Of course.
We also used chemical substances with elective cell tropism, able to erase any memory.
To completely cancel the personality.
These drugs are sometimes used today in severe cases of psychopathy to erase particularly traumatic memories.
At this point we had an intact brain.
Receptive.
We could then reconstruct the personality of Jean Delafoy.
Why do you say reconstruct, Prof.
Duval and not rather construct, to invent at your pleasure, your will? Duval's lying.
It's not true that he erased the memory of that brain.
But why's he lying? Duval knows who that other one is! The one who hated Marianne.
He knows.
It seems It all seems so simple.
No.
It's terrible.
But who wanted Who wanted to kill Marianne? Who could have wanted it? I I am Daniel.
I am Daniel.
The genetic code of the patient was partially saved.
Because from the traumatised brain of J.
Delafoy by means of a biochemical procedure, the nucleic acids were taken that would assure his temperamental and emotional characteristics.
These chemicals were injected, during the transplant operation, into J.
Delafoy's new brain.
In this way, they restored his engrams, that is, his own memory traces that would have given him the chance to regain, according to the same patterns (that is, the same type of reactivity), all the information, the learning that he had collected in the course of his life, before the accident.
On this basic element, we began our reconstruction work.
In an early phase after the operation, the patient remained in a coma-like state.
A kind of limbo.
In that stage, by means of recordings, messages simple at first, then gradually more complex, converted into the form of subliminal impulses by a special, advanced instrument, a kind of electronic instructor constantly connected to the patient, we began to give him all the information about his life, his feelings, his interests.
In simplistic terms we told our patient the story of Jean Delafoy's life up to the moment of the accident.
That's how it was possible to reconstruct in J.
Delafoy the original and unique features of his personality.
Doctor, do you really believe you've managed to reconstruct J.
Delafoy in his whole personality? Even realising complete mental integrity? Your Honour, I'd like to speak.
Please, Prof.
Duval.
When I performed this transplant I acted according to science and conscience.
In the interests of all those who tomorrow, today perhaps will benefit from the same therapeutic technique.
The blind who reacquire vision.
The paralyzed who recover their -All this is interesting.
But here we're deciding the fate of a man, not the future of surgery! Jean Delafoy's fate is closer to my heart than to yours! But if I admitted what isn't true That is, a technical error.
Therapeutic.
In short, if I admitted that Jean Delafoy was not an individual in full possession of his faculties I'd save his life.
Perhaps.
But I'd halt scientific progress, damaging thousands of other patients who could benefit from the same kind of therapy.
Jean is like a son to me.
I gave him back a life that he'd lost.
Your Honour at this point in the trial, the Defense requests a psychiatric examination of the accused to assess the real consequences of the psychic manipulations that J.
Delafoy has undergone.
The psychiatric examination of the accused has given the following results: intelligence quotient equals 138 identical to that recorded in his personal file before the accident.
Subject notably gifted.
Regarding his personality, we have subjected the accused to the Multiphasic Personality Inventory, comprising 1000 statements with the response options "true", "false", "don't know".
Result.
Subject with strong personality.
Uncommon ability to dominate in the face of any situation.
Strong tendency to meticulousness.
Fundamentally extravert but with a marked predisposition to sudden depressive states that can last a long time.
The defendant is capable of understanding and will.
Prof.
Framieu, I'd like some clarification of the report.
I'm at your disposal.
Could a subject so gifted, wilful, with a capacity to dominate in the face of any situation, could he be faking it? -Naturally.
Could he have faked a confused attitude like that shown during the trial? Certainly.
He could have.
-Thank you.
That's all for me.
Advocate Levy-Marchand, do you want to question the expert? No.
No, thanks.
I'd like to submit another request to the court.
Please, speak.
I'd like to hear from Prof.
Duval again.
Let's assume for argument's sake that your theory of the tabula rasa is correct.
I'm sorry.
It is correct.
Therefore, it would follow that J.
Delafoy were innocent.
Please.
Pay careful attention to my hypothesis.
J.
Delafoy would be innocent in the sense that he'd have had a controller.
And this controller would be unknown so far not just to us but also to him.
Explain.
Detective puzzles are not my forte.
Still, you'll have understood already.
You have declared to the court that the accused's personality is reconstructed.
J.
Delafoy has recovered the psychology he had before the accident because a group of people has told him what he was like.
What he loved.
What he hated.
So? -Those people, Professor excuse me if I don't use scientific terms reconstructing J.
Delafoy, could have told him: "Jean, you love your father.
You love your mother.
" "You love Nicole.
You love cars.
" "You love good wine, animals.
" But even "Jean, you hate Marianne.
Yes, you hate her!" "You hate her! You must kill her!" "You must kill her! You must kill her!" Silence! I'm leaving.
I'm leaving.
I can't stand all this any more.
-Wait! Unfortunately, advocate, you're still on the wrong track.
Your thesis is fascinating, suggestive.
But unsustainable.
-Why? First of all, because the people charged with reconstructing J.
Delafoy certainly didn't want to turn him into a murderer.
They were people dear to him.
People who cared for his welfare.
Even you? Me? Of course, me too.
And not just for professional duty.
I hope you believe me when I say that all of us who worked on this reconstruction never forgot for an instant that J.
Delafoy was a man.
That the material we were working on was a man's mind.
His psyche.
His memory.
His future.
It could have been an outsider.
Of course, advocate.
But don't you think that, to reconstruct a man we would have taken all possible precautions? -Which would be? A properly programmed electronic computer.
-By whom? By a team of psychiatrists who'd long since settled a program for a person's psychic reconstruction.
And so? So, all the information provided by J.
Delafoy's family and friends was filtered before reaching the transplanted brain but also processed through the computer programmed in this way.
The slightest information that was useless or even harmful to Jean would immediately have been discarded.
Therefore, everyone could have given Jean all the information they wanted but the computer check would've prevented psychological tampering with him.
The order to kill would never have been able to overcome the computer block.
But the computer's a machine.
Thus, it could've made an error.
One of the few things I still enjoy cooking are pancakes.
-But how can you think about pancakes? Do you remember how Daniel and you liked them? Well! Those were different times.
But, Nicole! Nicole, you shouldn't do that.
Mum -You haven't eaten anything.
You'll see.
You'll see how we manage to solve everything.
Do you believe that? But of course.
There's no reason to worry about Jean.
He'll be acquitted.
Oh, yes! Now that brainbox of an advocate of yours speaks.
Then, that good judge speaks, and And then And then Jean comes back home.
I promise you.
Jean is good.
He's obedient.
Obedient? What do you mean, mum? You need to persuade him.
He has to retract again.
The only problem is knowing how.
How to persuade him? And then he'll do it, you'll see, because he's obedient.
Members of the jury, I'll be very brief.
After such an obvious discussion I really feel bound to ask for the conviction of this man.
Who confessed! And there's no doubt this was a horrendous crime prompted by passions and drugs.
We've already had the chance to hear irrefutable evidence that condemns him.
Already this exemplary sentence was requested by the defense himself, who wanted a psychiatric report on the accused's understanding and will at the moment of the crime.
A reckless act? No, gentlemen.
A desperate act.
My distinguished colleague has played his final card.
He played it, not me.
Still, he's an experienced man.
But he lost.
He lost because for years now, science has freed justice from deceit, from contradiction, from prejudice.
From the errors of human judgment, that is, from a subjective view of guilt.
And not even you, members of the jury, can free yourself of this kind of judgment, if you don't want to deviate from the methods of judgment to which by now absolutely all of our social system adheres.
The fundamental question: was this man, at the moment when he killed, capable of distinguishing right from wrong? This question is one that science can answer.
With the absoluteness of an instrument which cannot be influenced by individual emotionality.
J.
Delafoy was capable of distinguishing between right and wrong.
Therefore, your legal responsibility is total and absolute! Pity for the guilty, will be called for by the defense.
Understanding.
Clemency.
Old words.
Even to these, science answers with the same rigour.
Yes.
Necessary rigour.
Because the only response for which society asks at this point regards the social dangerousness of the criminal.
And even this time, the response is affirmative.
Jean Delafoy is socially dangerous! He himself reveals it when he declares he killed without knowing why.
Whoever commits an offence without understanding why he's committed it is therefore a dangerous individual and so is to be condemned.
Members of the jury, in the sight of society, in the name of its essential rigour, I exhort you not to hesitate.
Jean Delafoy is guilty! So, for him it is not possible to formulate another verdict than that of complete, absolute guilt without extenuating circumstances.
Therefore, I ask you to sentence Jean Delafoy to death.
"In the sight of God" they said once when entrusting a man's life to the justice of other men.
And not that of a machine.
Not that of a machine! Gentlemen of the court Because I consider you men and not machines, I beg you.
I beg you, consider well if the deification of science, into which this trial has turned, is true progress or not rather a new barbarism which now asks for a man's head after having manipulated his brain and altered his personality.
"Science is infallible.
" says the expert Professor Framieu in affirming the accused's capacity for understanding and will.
"Science is infallible.
" says the prosecution, seeking a sentence that is not true justice but social condemnation! "Science is infallible", says Prof.
Duval to free himself of the terrible doubt that he's created an artificial man.
Yes, Professor.
Don't lie to yourself.
You have this doubt.
And now you want to destroy your own work with the guillotine.
But you're wrong! You're all wrong! Jean Delafoy is not an artificial man! He's just a man.
And it's the mystery of this man that I ask you to respect.
Gentlemen of the court, the only argument that has legal value is this: The personal responsibility of Jean Delafoy.
In purely legal terms, the manipulation undergone by J.
Delafoy's brain destroys the very concept of a legal person and therefore, of personal responsibility.
In human terms In human terms I am convinced that Jean Delafoy is innocent.
Because the truth a particular truth, dark and disquieting, has not emerged from this trial.
Someone in this room has kept a dark secret to himself.
Who? I don't know.
I am sorry to confess it.
But I only know where this secret truth should be sought.
In Prof Duval's operating theatre or in Dr.
Mayer's alchemical computers? I don't ask you to acquit J.
Delafoy.
All I ask is a sentence that humanises this trial that does not make the mistake irreparable that Prof.
Duval's perfect scientific instruments can, and it would be presumption to deny it, may have accomplished.
Gentlemen of the court.
Honourable jurors.
If you accept the prosecution's request to convict, Jean Delafoy, going to his death will ask himself until the last instant "Why did I kill?" Why? And you too, gentlemen of the court, honourable jurors you too will ask yourselves up to the last instant "Why?" Do you remember when you asked me if you were really you? Yes.
I remember.
I was really stupid.
There was such an easy way to know.
Maybe it's too late.
I only needed to ask you if you loved me.
You're talking about the past, Nicole.
Because now I don't even need to ask you.
Perhaps Perhaps it's not too late.
Has the jury reached a verdict? Yes, Your Honour.
The jury finds Jean Delafoy guilty.
It only remains to hear the response of the computer that has recorded all the phases of the trial.
I remind you that the verdict, according to our law is delivered also by an electronic computer.
In case of disparity of judgment between the jury and the computer the trial will be reconvened under new instruction.
In the case, instead, of identity of judgment the verdict will be upheld and confirmed by this court which will pronounce the sentence.
So, what is the computer's response? G U I L T Y The accused will rise and hear the sentence of this Supreme Court of Justice.
In the name of the French people, you have been found guilty of the murder of Marianne Laforet.
Therefore, having heard all the testimony examined all the declarations of the experts called in accordance with the law and having heard the statement which you yourself made in front of the jurors, finding you guilty of the offence of which you are accused, this Court sentences you to the capital penalty, which will be performed within 8 hours in the Saint Jacques prison, of decapitation by guillotine.
You asked to see the records of your trial? Yes.
-I've brought them for you.
There! You can review all the phases of the trial that interest you.
Even more than once.
I hereby open the trial of Jean Delafoy, accused of the murder of Marianne Laforet on 19th September this year.
The victim, Marianne Laforet unmarried, 23 years old, without fixed address was strangled, allegedly in her own caravan, about half an hour after the end of the show, as she removed her makeup.
Although I'm sure that it was him who killed her.
Although I'm sure that it was him who killed her.
J.
Delafoy, I am told that you would like to make a declaration about your admission of guilt.
Are you ready for this declaration? Your Honour, the declarations that I that I issued after my arrest do not correspond to the truth.
I did not know Marianne Laforet.
I had no reason to kill her.
I mean, I I can't retract.
I killed her.
I killed her.
His brain was destroyed.
Practically unrecoverable.
Thus, all of his vital functions were practically nonexistent.
And you saved him? -Yes.
How, Professor Duval? By doing what to him? A transplant, Advocate.
A brain transplant.
But if I admitted what isn't true That is, a technical error.
Therapeutic.
In short, if I admitted that J.
Delafoy was not an individual in full possession of his faculties I'd save his life.
Perhaps.
But I'd halt scientific progress, damaging thousands of other patients who could benefit from the same kind of therapy.
Jean is like a son to me.
The defendant is capable of understanding and will.
The defendant is capable of understanding and will.
"Science is infallible.
" says the expert Prof.
Framieu in affirming the accused's capacity for understanding and will.
"Science is infallible" says the prosecution, seeking a sentence that is not true justice but social condemnation! "Science is infallible", says Prof.
Duval to free himself of the terrible doubt that he's created an artificial man.
Yes, Professor.
Don't lie to yourself.
You have this doubt.
And now you want to destroy your own work with the guillotine.
But you're wrong! You're all wrong! Jean Delafoy is not an artificial man! He's just a man.
I am convinced that Jean Delafoy is innocent.
Because the truth a particular truth, dark and disquieting, has not emerged from this trial.
Someone in this room has kept a dark secret to himself.
Who? I don't know.
That person, Professor, reconstructing J.
Delafoy could have told him: "Jean, you love your father.
You love your mother.
" "You love Nicole.
You love cars.
" "You love good wine, animals.
" But even "Jean, you hate Marianne.
Yes, you hate her!" "You must kill her! You must kill her!" It's terrible.
Who could have wanted to kill Marianne? But I see you.
I see you.
I speak to you.
I think about you, Daniel.
And, so you can't be me.
You are Daniel and I am Jean.
There's always been someone between you and me.
Someone I want I want to speak to my wife.
What are you looking for, Nicole? What do you want? But Why don't you reply to me? Who knows? Mum, what's this? Nothing.
ID M-25 Gamma.
It's the label for Jean's recordings.
How is it in your hands? Oh, let me be.
Leave me in peace.
It's not mine.
-It's not yours? Maybe it's mine.
They must have given me it by mistake.
Because, you see I wanted to heal your Jean.
I absolutely couldn't think he'd have ended up like my Daniel.
Why do you have this tape? This stamp means it's already been selected by the electronic brain.
Why have you got it? What does it mean? Nothing.
It doesn't mean anything.
Dear Jean, the doctors have told me that this is the only way to reach you at this point in your illness.
Good, dear Jean.
You are Jean.
I am Philippe, your best friend.
You convinced me to take up racing.
Before, I was just a test driver.
Oh, hi Nicole.
What is it? -Philippe, listen to me.
Do you remember the first tape you recorded for Jean? Well, yes, of course.
Why? Philippe, can you come with me at once to Advocate Levy-Marchand? Naturally, I can come.
But why? You see, that first tape of yours, recorded for Jean -Yes? I've found it here, in my mother's house.
But it should be at the hospital.
-It's true! How's that possible? I don't know.
I only know that it's here.
And a terrible doubt is rising in me.
Daniel was lovely.
I'm not sure any more that what we communicated to Jean Why did they kill him? - got to him intact.
So, what message did he receive? -Not even him.
Not even Jean.
why this tape - was so lovely It shouldn't have ended up here - as my dear Daniel.
Yes, there's no doubt.
This tape has been passed by the electronic check and stamped.
What type of stamp, Prof.
Duval? There, Advocate.
Look here.
Here, on the corner of the cassette.
These 2 magnetic signs.
They're the electronic stamps provided by the computer that selected what was appropriate to communicate to the patient.
But if someone wanted to manipulate some information? It wasn't possible to alter what the patient was told.
-Are you sure of that? Yes.
The computer check wouldn't have accepted the tape.
And therefore the recording wouldn't have been miniaturised and then given to J.
Delafoy's electronic instructor.
But if this tape had been checked and marked how's it possible it was still with my mother? I took it to the computer room.
-And did you give it to the operator? Yes, of course.
But your mother was with me too, Nicole.
My mother was with you? -Yes.
I also took one of her tapes.
But let's get clear.
We always record with a TV camera whoever enters the room of the electronic brain.
For greater security, and I believe the lady would agree too, would it be possible to view this recording? -Certainly.
Send me the recording made on 2nd March in the computer room by the security camera.
-OK.
I'll let you know when it's ready.
In a moment, there won't be any more mystery.
Here we are.
But what What's she doing? Your mother substituted the cassette with the message I recorded.
Would it be possible to rewatch this recording? -Of course.
We have to be really sure.
What's happened is quite inconceivable.
Look! She's marking a tape that wasn't checked by the computer.
And she substitutes it! Oh, yes.
Now it's all clear.
Your mother really swapped my cassette.
You saw it too.
I'd like to hear a message sent to J.
Delafoy again.
It was entered into the computer on 2nd March.
-At once.
I'll call you back.
Now, if what's recorded on this tape is what I think it is we don't have much time to save J.
Delafoy.
Dear Jean, it's your wife's mother who's talking to you.
This is a special tape, you know? I wish you well like a son, Jean.
Like my poor Daniel.
Daniel wasn't a criminal.
He killed a policeman.
But they made him kill.
A woman.
It was a woman.
She's the only one who's responsible for what was done.
It's time.
Hurry! We'll never get there in time.
Keep calm.
The Attorney General is waiting for us.
But will he suspend the sentence? -Well, I've asked him.
-Are we sure? Is there some hope? For the love of heaven, is there some hope? How much time do we have left? 20-25 minutes, at most.
I repeat my request for suspension of the execution, Mr Prosecutor.
J.
Delafoy must be saved.
He's not responsible.
Hearing this tape will make you understand.
I'm the official responsible for helping the condemned in their last moments.
The law requires me to repeat the terms of the sentence against you.
You have been found guilty of the murder of M.
Laforet.
Therefore, the Supreme Court of Justice has sentenced you to the capital penalty of execution in Saint Jacques prison by decapitation by means of the guillotine.
I'm sorry to tell you that no order for suspension of the sentence has arrived.
Daniel was not a criminal.
He killed a policeman.
But they made him kill.
A woman.
She's the only one responsible for all the wrong that was done.
That was done to us.
You'll avenge the death of Daniel.
You'll kill that girl.
Now I'll tell you how to find her.
You know those cigarette vending machines? Sooner or later, you'll find Marianne near them.
Because those cigarettes are special.
Very special.
Drugged, Jean.
The ones that destroyed Daniel's will.
I'll tell you something else about her.
Do you know the circus where they show that absurd pantomime about Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs? That's the place where you can find that wicked woman.
Because Marianne is Snow White.
Have you understood, Jean? Snow White.
This syringe contains a psychotropic drug that when injected will bring you to a state of unconsciousness.
You must kill her, Jean.
You must kill her! You have to do it for Daniel.
Kill Snow White, Jean! Kill her! I order you to! I order you to! Mr Prosecutor, this tape is the certain proof of J.
Delafoy's innocence.
Explain better.
-He received precise instructions to kill from this tape.
-He was free to disobey.
Since no order to suspend the sentence has been communicated we can do nothing else but fulfil the mandate of the Court in the stated time.
The 8 hours indicated by the law are about to expire.
Unfortunately, Delafoy had to obey.
This tape shouldn't have been included in the series of tapes used for the reeducation of my patient.
There was a substitution.
Someone removed the right tape, ID M-25 and substituted it with this.
And the results were lethal.
I must remind you, the responsibility is mine.
J.
Delafoy was at the mercy of this manipulated information.
Information that he couldn't resist as he was in a state of passive reception.
In short, he was not at all free.
His comatose state made him vulnerable to any form of manipulation.
And who would be the author of this this manipulation? My mother.
Please.
We have to stop the execution.
We have no time to lose! By now it's a matter of seconds.
Maybe even less! Kill Snow White, Jean! I order you to! Kill her! I am the Attorney General.
Suspend the execution of Jean Delafoy.
Jean later found out that the brain Gamma had belonged to a modest clerk from Paris who died of pneumonia.
THE END
What Prof.
Duval said shouldn't frighten you.
You shouldn't have let them operate on me.
-What could we do? Let me die.
Let me die, Nicole! You shouldn't have let them do it.
You hoped to get me back.
And instead, you've got a murderer.
You shouldn't have let them do it! I'd do it again, Jean.
Even if you insist on misunderstanding why.
You must admit it's not easy to understand why, Nicole.
You wake up in a hospital bed with a bandaged head and you're not you any more.
Inside you there's another, who thinks in your place.
You shouldn't have let them do it.
Better dead, Nicole.
Accept the reality, Jean.
You're not dead.
-Yes I am.
The other's alive.
These are fantasies.
You're here saying "I", "the other", you admit the existence of real individuals.
You manage to distinguish between yourself and the other.
You are alive.
And you're the one from before.
Nothing has changed.
You're you.
You have to understand that.
You're you.
Are you inclined to maintain that thesis in court, Advocate? No, unfortunately it's not possible.
I'll maintain the opposite.
I'll attack Duval.
I'll make him admit that by the transplant, he's put in you part of an external, unknowable will.
To admit that you have undergone a true and proper psychic manipulation.
Advocate, what do you intend to do? I I'm convinced of your innocence.
And I'll prove it.
It's part of my job.
But me? What must I do? To save myself I should pretend to be insane.
You don't leave me much choice, Advocate.
Prof.
Duval, you performed a brain transplant on the accused, Jean Delafoy.
Can you tell us how you arrived at this decision of yours? When he arrived at my clinic, J.
Delafoy was in a vegetative state.
An artificial life, sustained by mechanical means.
The only way to make his state reversible was to perform a brain transplant.
Of a human brain? -Precisely.
For Jean Delafoy did there exist an alternative therapy to transplant? I've already told you not.
Could you confirm that no other neurosurgeon would have been able to save J.
Delafoy without performing a transplant? -No.
I can add that I don't know how many could've performed a similar transplant.
Therefore you have assumed, in front of the law, the full responsibility for this decision of yours, whatever consequences it produced? I've already told you that the patient was clinically dead.
So yes, I have assumed and I do assume full responsibility.
Even for the choice of the brain to be transplanted? The most suitable brain, that matched the particular requirements of the case was chosen by an electronic computer.
-Particular requirements? Technical requirements, Advocate.
Namely the perfect state of conservation of the brain.
The adaptability of the recipient's braincase.
The cellular genetic affinity.
-And there's no possibility of error? Advocate, even in biology, an error is always possible.
In this case there was no error.
The patient wouldn't have survived otherwise.
Yes, of course.
The operation was a success.
The accused speaks, sees, hears, moves.
The brain works, distinguished Professor, but there is one detail: it isn't his.
I was expecting that objection.
But it's not the case.
The brain transplanted into this man lost all features of the former individual.
This man is J.
Delafoy and noone else but him.
Can you prove that? It's up to you to prove the contrary.
Not to me, Prof.
Duval.
Your Honour, on this matter, I'd like the court to hear from Prof.
Lars Aklund, of Stockholm University.
Prof.
Aklund, what is your specialisation? I'm a neurophysiologist.
Have you ever been concerned with matters concerning brain transplants? Yes, for several years.
-And what was the scope of your research? Well, my interests were directed in two directions.
The first was the refinement of methods for conservation of the brain for application to severe cranial traumas.
-And the second? The study of where and how memories are localised.
How they can be recovered at a certain point, in certain conditions and for certain purposes.
Excuse me.
Could you clarify the nature of these studies for the court? At an elementary level, various scholars, using particular types of worms, for example, the planaria, conditioned them to run a certain route.
Having then fed these worms to other worms of the same species, it was found that these latter worms ran the same route as the first ones.
It was hypothesised, therefore, that a transfer of learning was possible.
Afterwards, they went on to animals of greater biological organisation.
Like, for example, the rats.
And it was found that in certain cases the same phenomenon could be verified.
I pushed mt experiments further than that.
Up to brain transplants in higher animals.
You, then, have performed experimental brain transplants? I grafted, in the heads of various monkeys the brains of other monkeys previously conditioned to perform given exercises.
Which exercises? We had trained some baboons to walk in balance on the wire.
Others were able to ride a bicycle.
And what was observed in the transplant recipients? I found that the monkeys that were operated on were able to perform the exercises of the baboons from which the brains had been taken.
Does this mean the donor's characteristics were transferred to the recipient? Yes.
-Thank you, Prof.
Aklund.
That's all.
Prof.
Aklund, how many experiments of that sort have you performed? I've operated on about 80 baboons.
Have you observed the same results in all of them? 20% died during the operation.
10% didn't recover consciousness after the transplant.
And therefore those baboons remained in coma for a variable period, from a few days to a month.
In the remainder, in more than half, I noted a similarity of behaviour between donor and recipient.
Showing that the recipient had partially acquired the learning of the donor.
Similarity of behaviour or something more? Yes, to summarise.
The subjects who underwent surgical intervention Walked on a wire? Rode a bicycle? Well, not really.
-Therefore, they did not behave like the donors.
Similarity of behaviour is a scientifically exact definition.
It's not my fault if, as it appears, you mean it restrictively.
You don't use baboons, do you? What brains would you use for transplants? You know that donation is a voluntary act that's signed, like a will, by those who wish to leave their organs after death.
Like the heart, the kidneys etc.
Naturally, the identity of the donor remains unknown.
And this is to avoid likely psychological conflicts on the part of the recipient.
As soon as they are placed in the conservation system and checked by the computer, the brains are labelled only by a letter from the Greek alphabet.
From alpha to omega.
Whereby it's practically impossible to recover the identity of the donor.
On the basis of which criteria did you select brains to be conserved for a possible transplant? We excluded subjects above 40 years old.
Mental illnesses.
Those who died after a long agony in which the brain is damaged by prolonged oxygen reduction.
In short, all types of brains that are pathologically unfit.
Are you familiar with Prof.
Aklund's theories? The theory according to which a brain transplant involves the transfer of a similarity of behaviour, that is, of memory? -Yes.
Prof.
Aklund is a great expert in this field.
And my problem was, according to his theories there appeared to be no solution in the case of brain transplant on humans.
But then I came to the conclusion that in a brain sustained outside the body, after a certain period modification of the nucleic acids takes place.
In practice, conservation in hypothermia with a particular perfusion fluid produces the complete erasure of memory in the brain itself.
To experimentally verify this theory of mine I trained a dog to perform certain exercises.
Then, I collected its brain and subjected it to conservation.
Meanwhile, the body of the dog was perfused by a heart-lung machine in order that its organs would stay viable.
That was indispensible, obviously.
After a week of conservation in the conditions I stated I put the brain back in the body of the dog.
-What did you observe, Prof.
Duval? I observed that the dog had forgotten its exercises.
It behaved like like a newborn puppy, ready to form its experiences.
Basically, it was as if it had never lived before then.
In other words, the conservation and the treatment of the organ as performed would result in the brain becoming a tabula rasa, if I'm not mistaken? -Right.
The conservation of the organ outside the body for an extended time is equivalent to a cell culture.
The nucleic acids of a brain so treated undergo changes such that at a certain point it's as if they no longer belonged to the same individual.
They're nucleic acids waiting to be activated, to receive new information.
In this regard, I'd like to recall a classic experiment in immunology.
If we collect lymphocytes from an individual and cultivate them outside him when we put them back inside him he rejects them, considering them foreign.
Still, they're his own.
And does this absolutely guarantee the erasure of every previous memory? Well, practically.
While accepting experimentally the near certainty of this phenomenon I'd like to obtain further guarantees.
And this also in the light of obvious psychological and ethical problems involved in a brain transplant.
And what exactly did you do to obtain further guarantees? More than guarantees, certainty.
Tell the court how.
-Of course.
We also used chemical substances with elective cell tropism, able to erase any memory.
To completely cancel the personality.
These drugs are sometimes used today in severe cases of psychopathy to erase particularly traumatic memories.
At this point we had an intact brain.
Receptive.
We could then reconstruct the personality of Jean Delafoy.
Why do you say reconstruct, Prof.
Duval and not rather construct, to invent at your pleasure, your will? Duval's lying.
It's not true that he erased the memory of that brain.
But why's he lying? Duval knows who that other one is! The one who hated Marianne.
He knows.
It seems It all seems so simple.
No.
It's terrible.
But who wanted Who wanted to kill Marianne? Who could have wanted it? I I am Daniel.
I am Daniel.
The genetic code of the patient was partially saved.
Because from the traumatised brain of J.
Delafoy by means of a biochemical procedure, the nucleic acids were taken that would assure his temperamental and emotional characteristics.
These chemicals were injected, during the transplant operation, into J.
Delafoy's new brain.
In this way, they restored his engrams, that is, his own memory traces that would have given him the chance to regain, according to the same patterns (that is, the same type of reactivity), all the information, the learning that he had collected in the course of his life, before the accident.
On this basic element, we began our reconstruction work.
In an early phase after the operation, the patient remained in a coma-like state.
A kind of limbo.
In that stage, by means of recordings, messages simple at first, then gradually more complex, converted into the form of subliminal impulses by a special, advanced instrument, a kind of electronic instructor constantly connected to the patient, we began to give him all the information about his life, his feelings, his interests.
In simplistic terms we told our patient the story of Jean Delafoy's life up to the moment of the accident.
That's how it was possible to reconstruct in J.
Delafoy the original and unique features of his personality.
Doctor, do you really believe you've managed to reconstruct J.
Delafoy in his whole personality? Even realising complete mental integrity? Your Honour, I'd like to speak.
Please, Prof.
Duval.
When I performed this transplant I acted according to science and conscience.
In the interests of all those who tomorrow, today perhaps will benefit from the same therapeutic technique.
The blind who reacquire vision.
The paralyzed who recover their -All this is interesting.
But here we're deciding the fate of a man, not the future of surgery! Jean Delafoy's fate is closer to my heart than to yours! But if I admitted what isn't true That is, a technical error.
Therapeutic.
In short, if I admitted that Jean Delafoy was not an individual in full possession of his faculties I'd save his life.
Perhaps.
But I'd halt scientific progress, damaging thousands of other patients who could benefit from the same kind of therapy.
Jean is like a son to me.
I gave him back a life that he'd lost.
Your Honour at this point in the trial, the Defense requests a psychiatric examination of the accused to assess the real consequences of the psychic manipulations that J.
Delafoy has undergone.
The psychiatric examination of the accused has given the following results: intelligence quotient equals 138 identical to that recorded in his personal file before the accident.
Subject notably gifted.
Regarding his personality, we have subjected the accused to the Multiphasic Personality Inventory, comprising 1000 statements with the response options "true", "false", "don't know".
Result.
Subject with strong personality.
Uncommon ability to dominate in the face of any situation.
Strong tendency to meticulousness.
Fundamentally extravert but with a marked predisposition to sudden depressive states that can last a long time.
The defendant is capable of understanding and will.
Prof.
Framieu, I'd like some clarification of the report.
I'm at your disposal.
Could a subject so gifted, wilful, with a capacity to dominate in the face of any situation, could he be faking it? -Naturally.
Could he have faked a confused attitude like that shown during the trial? Certainly.
He could have.
-Thank you.
That's all for me.
Advocate Levy-Marchand, do you want to question the expert? No.
No, thanks.
I'd like to submit another request to the court.
Please, speak.
I'd like to hear from Prof.
Duval again.
Let's assume for argument's sake that your theory of the tabula rasa is correct.
I'm sorry.
It is correct.
Therefore, it would follow that J.
Delafoy were innocent.
Please.
Pay careful attention to my hypothesis.
J.
Delafoy would be innocent in the sense that he'd have had a controller.
And this controller would be unknown so far not just to us but also to him.
Explain.
Detective puzzles are not my forte.
Still, you'll have understood already.
You have declared to the court that the accused's personality is reconstructed.
J.
Delafoy has recovered the psychology he had before the accident because a group of people has told him what he was like.
What he loved.
What he hated.
So? -Those people, Professor excuse me if I don't use scientific terms reconstructing J.
Delafoy, could have told him: "Jean, you love your father.
You love your mother.
" "You love Nicole.
You love cars.
" "You love good wine, animals.
" But even "Jean, you hate Marianne.
Yes, you hate her!" "You hate her! You must kill her!" "You must kill her! You must kill her!" Silence! I'm leaving.
I'm leaving.
I can't stand all this any more.
-Wait! Unfortunately, advocate, you're still on the wrong track.
Your thesis is fascinating, suggestive.
But unsustainable.
-Why? First of all, because the people charged with reconstructing J.
Delafoy certainly didn't want to turn him into a murderer.
They were people dear to him.
People who cared for his welfare.
Even you? Me? Of course, me too.
And not just for professional duty.
I hope you believe me when I say that all of us who worked on this reconstruction never forgot for an instant that J.
Delafoy was a man.
That the material we were working on was a man's mind.
His psyche.
His memory.
His future.
It could have been an outsider.
Of course, advocate.
But don't you think that, to reconstruct a man we would have taken all possible precautions? -Which would be? A properly programmed electronic computer.
-By whom? By a team of psychiatrists who'd long since settled a program for a person's psychic reconstruction.
And so? So, all the information provided by J.
Delafoy's family and friends was filtered before reaching the transplanted brain but also processed through the computer programmed in this way.
The slightest information that was useless or even harmful to Jean would immediately have been discarded.
Therefore, everyone could have given Jean all the information they wanted but the computer check would've prevented psychological tampering with him.
The order to kill would never have been able to overcome the computer block.
But the computer's a machine.
Thus, it could've made an error.
One of the few things I still enjoy cooking are pancakes.
-But how can you think about pancakes? Do you remember how Daniel and you liked them? Well! Those were different times.
But, Nicole! Nicole, you shouldn't do that.
Mum -You haven't eaten anything.
You'll see.
You'll see how we manage to solve everything.
Do you believe that? But of course.
There's no reason to worry about Jean.
He'll be acquitted.
Oh, yes! Now that brainbox of an advocate of yours speaks.
Then, that good judge speaks, and And then And then Jean comes back home.
I promise you.
Jean is good.
He's obedient.
Obedient? What do you mean, mum? You need to persuade him.
He has to retract again.
The only problem is knowing how.
How to persuade him? And then he'll do it, you'll see, because he's obedient.
Members of the jury, I'll be very brief.
After such an obvious discussion I really feel bound to ask for the conviction of this man.
Who confessed! And there's no doubt this was a horrendous crime prompted by passions and drugs.
We've already had the chance to hear irrefutable evidence that condemns him.
Already this exemplary sentence was requested by the defense himself, who wanted a psychiatric report on the accused's understanding and will at the moment of the crime.
A reckless act? No, gentlemen.
A desperate act.
My distinguished colleague has played his final card.
He played it, not me.
Still, he's an experienced man.
But he lost.
He lost because for years now, science has freed justice from deceit, from contradiction, from prejudice.
From the errors of human judgment, that is, from a subjective view of guilt.
And not even you, members of the jury, can free yourself of this kind of judgment, if you don't want to deviate from the methods of judgment to which by now absolutely all of our social system adheres.
The fundamental question: was this man, at the moment when he killed, capable of distinguishing right from wrong? This question is one that science can answer.
With the absoluteness of an instrument which cannot be influenced by individual emotionality.
J.
Delafoy was capable of distinguishing between right and wrong.
Therefore, your legal responsibility is total and absolute! Pity for the guilty, will be called for by the defense.
Understanding.
Clemency.
Old words.
Even to these, science answers with the same rigour.
Yes.
Necessary rigour.
Because the only response for which society asks at this point regards the social dangerousness of the criminal.
And even this time, the response is affirmative.
Jean Delafoy is socially dangerous! He himself reveals it when he declares he killed without knowing why.
Whoever commits an offence without understanding why he's committed it is therefore a dangerous individual and so is to be condemned.
Members of the jury, in the sight of society, in the name of its essential rigour, I exhort you not to hesitate.
Jean Delafoy is guilty! So, for him it is not possible to formulate another verdict than that of complete, absolute guilt without extenuating circumstances.
Therefore, I ask you to sentence Jean Delafoy to death.
"In the sight of God" they said once when entrusting a man's life to the justice of other men.
And not that of a machine.
Not that of a machine! Gentlemen of the court Because I consider you men and not machines, I beg you.
I beg you, consider well if the deification of science, into which this trial has turned, is true progress or not rather a new barbarism which now asks for a man's head after having manipulated his brain and altered his personality.
"Science is infallible.
" says the expert Professor Framieu in affirming the accused's capacity for understanding and will.
"Science is infallible.
" says the prosecution, seeking a sentence that is not true justice but social condemnation! "Science is infallible", says Prof.
Duval to free himself of the terrible doubt that he's created an artificial man.
Yes, Professor.
Don't lie to yourself.
You have this doubt.
And now you want to destroy your own work with the guillotine.
But you're wrong! You're all wrong! Jean Delafoy is not an artificial man! He's just a man.
And it's the mystery of this man that I ask you to respect.
Gentlemen of the court, the only argument that has legal value is this: The personal responsibility of Jean Delafoy.
In purely legal terms, the manipulation undergone by J.
Delafoy's brain destroys the very concept of a legal person and therefore, of personal responsibility.
In human terms In human terms I am convinced that Jean Delafoy is innocent.
Because the truth a particular truth, dark and disquieting, has not emerged from this trial.
Someone in this room has kept a dark secret to himself.
Who? I don't know.
I am sorry to confess it.
But I only know where this secret truth should be sought.
In Prof Duval's operating theatre or in Dr.
Mayer's alchemical computers? I don't ask you to acquit J.
Delafoy.
All I ask is a sentence that humanises this trial that does not make the mistake irreparable that Prof.
Duval's perfect scientific instruments can, and it would be presumption to deny it, may have accomplished.
Gentlemen of the court.
Honourable jurors.
If you accept the prosecution's request to convict, Jean Delafoy, going to his death will ask himself until the last instant "Why did I kill?" Why? And you too, gentlemen of the court, honourable jurors you too will ask yourselves up to the last instant "Why?" Do you remember when you asked me if you were really you? Yes.
I remember.
I was really stupid.
There was such an easy way to know.
Maybe it's too late.
I only needed to ask you if you loved me.
You're talking about the past, Nicole.
Because now I don't even need to ask you.
Perhaps Perhaps it's not too late.
Has the jury reached a verdict? Yes, Your Honour.
The jury finds Jean Delafoy guilty.
It only remains to hear the response of the computer that has recorded all the phases of the trial.
I remind you that the verdict, according to our law is delivered also by an electronic computer.
In case of disparity of judgment between the jury and the computer the trial will be reconvened under new instruction.
In the case, instead, of identity of judgment the verdict will be upheld and confirmed by this court which will pronounce the sentence.
So, what is the computer's response? G U I L T Y The accused will rise and hear the sentence of this Supreme Court of Justice.
In the name of the French people, you have been found guilty of the murder of Marianne Laforet.
Therefore, having heard all the testimony examined all the declarations of the experts called in accordance with the law and having heard the statement which you yourself made in front of the jurors, finding you guilty of the offence of which you are accused, this Court sentences you to the capital penalty, which will be performed within 8 hours in the Saint Jacques prison, of decapitation by guillotine.
You asked to see the records of your trial? Yes.
-I've brought them for you.
There! You can review all the phases of the trial that interest you.
Even more than once.
I hereby open the trial of Jean Delafoy, accused of the murder of Marianne Laforet on 19th September this year.
The victim, Marianne Laforet unmarried, 23 years old, without fixed address was strangled, allegedly in her own caravan, about half an hour after the end of the show, as she removed her makeup.
Although I'm sure that it was him who killed her.
Although I'm sure that it was him who killed her.
J.
Delafoy, I am told that you would like to make a declaration about your admission of guilt.
Are you ready for this declaration? Your Honour, the declarations that I that I issued after my arrest do not correspond to the truth.
I did not know Marianne Laforet.
I had no reason to kill her.
I mean, I I can't retract.
I killed her.
I killed her.
His brain was destroyed.
Practically unrecoverable.
Thus, all of his vital functions were practically nonexistent.
And you saved him? -Yes.
How, Professor Duval? By doing what to him? A transplant, Advocate.
A brain transplant.
But if I admitted what isn't true That is, a technical error.
Therapeutic.
In short, if I admitted that J.
Delafoy was not an individual in full possession of his faculties I'd save his life.
Perhaps.
But I'd halt scientific progress, damaging thousands of other patients who could benefit from the same kind of therapy.
Jean is like a son to me.
The defendant is capable of understanding and will.
The defendant is capable of understanding and will.
"Science is infallible.
" says the expert Prof.
Framieu in affirming the accused's capacity for understanding and will.
"Science is infallible" says the prosecution, seeking a sentence that is not true justice but social condemnation! "Science is infallible", says Prof.
Duval to free himself of the terrible doubt that he's created an artificial man.
Yes, Professor.
Don't lie to yourself.
You have this doubt.
And now you want to destroy your own work with the guillotine.
But you're wrong! You're all wrong! Jean Delafoy is not an artificial man! He's just a man.
I am convinced that Jean Delafoy is innocent.
Because the truth a particular truth, dark and disquieting, has not emerged from this trial.
Someone in this room has kept a dark secret to himself.
Who? I don't know.
That person, Professor, reconstructing J.
Delafoy could have told him: "Jean, you love your father.
You love your mother.
" "You love Nicole.
You love cars.
" "You love good wine, animals.
" But even "Jean, you hate Marianne.
Yes, you hate her!" "You must kill her! You must kill her!" It's terrible.
Who could have wanted to kill Marianne? But I see you.
I see you.
I speak to you.
I think about you, Daniel.
And, so you can't be me.
You are Daniel and I am Jean.
There's always been someone between you and me.
Someone I want I want to speak to my wife.
What are you looking for, Nicole? What do you want? But Why don't you reply to me? Who knows? Mum, what's this? Nothing.
ID M-25 Gamma.
It's the label for Jean's recordings.
How is it in your hands? Oh, let me be.
Leave me in peace.
It's not mine.
-It's not yours? Maybe it's mine.
They must have given me it by mistake.
Because, you see I wanted to heal your Jean.
I absolutely couldn't think he'd have ended up like my Daniel.
Why do you have this tape? This stamp means it's already been selected by the electronic brain.
Why have you got it? What does it mean? Nothing.
It doesn't mean anything.
Dear Jean, the doctors have told me that this is the only way to reach you at this point in your illness.
Good, dear Jean.
You are Jean.
I am Philippe, your best friend.
You convinced me to take up racing.
Before, I was just a test driver.
Oh, hi Nicole.
What is it? -Philippe, listen to me.
Do you remember the first tape you recorded for Jean? Well, yes, of course.
Why? Philippe, can you come with me at once to Advocate Levy-Marchand? Naturally, I can come.
But why? You see, that first tape of yours, recorded for Jean -Yes? I've found it here, in my mother's house.
But it should be at the hospital.
-It's true! How's that possible? I don't know.
I only know that it's here.
And a terrible doubt is rising in me.
Daniel was lovely.
I'm not sure any more that what we communicated to Jean Why did they kill him? - got to him intact.
So, what message did he receive? -Not even him.
Not even Jean.
why this tape - was so lovely It shouldn't have ended up here - as my dear Daniel.
Yes, there's no doubt.
This tape has been passed by the electronic check and stamped.
What type of stamp, Prof.
Duval? There, Advocate.
Look here.
Here, on the corner of the cassette.
These 2 magnetic signs.
They're the electronic stamps provided by the computer that selected what was appropriate to communicate to the patient.
But if someone wanted to manipulate some information? It wasn't possible to alter what the patient was told.
-Are you sure of that? Yes.
The computer check wouldn't have accepted the tape.
And therefore the recording wouldn't have been miniaturised and then given to J.
Delafoy's electronic instructor.
But if this tape had been checked and marked how's it possible it was still with my mother? I took it to the computer room.
-And did you give it to the operator? Yes, of course.
But your mother was with me too, Nicole.
My mother was with you? -Yes.
I also took one of her tapes.
But let's get clear.
We always record with a TV camera whoever enters the room of the electronic brain.
For greater security, and I believe the lady would agree too, would it be possible to view this recording? -Certainly.
Send me the recording made on 2nd March in the computer room by the security camera.
-OK.
I'll let you know when it's ready.
In a moment, there won't be any more mystery.
Here we are.
But what What's she doing? Your mother substituted the cassette with the message I recorded.
Would it be possible to rewatch this recording? -Of course.
We have to be really sure.
What's happened is quite inconceivable.
Look! She's marking a tape that wasn't checked by the computer.
And she substitutes it! Oh, yes.
Now it's all clear.
Your mother really swapped my cassette.
You saw it too.
I'd like to hear a message sent to J.
Delafoy again.
It was entered into the computer on 2nd March.
-At once.
I'll call you back.
Now, if what's recorded on this tape is what I think it is we don't have much time to save J.
Delafoy.
Dear Jean, it's your wife's mother who's talking to you.
This is a special tape, you know? I wish you well like a son, Jean.
Like my poor Daniel.
Daniel wasn't a criminal.
He killed a policeman.
But they made him kill.
A woman.
It was a woman.
She's the only one who's responsible for what was done.
It's time.
Hurry! We'll never get there in time.
Keep calm.
The Attorney General is waiting for us.
But will he suspend the sentence? -Well, I've asked him.
-Are we sure? Is there some hope? For the love of heaven, is there some hope? How much time do we have left? 20-25 minutes, at most.
I repeat my request for suspension of the execution, Mr Prosecutor.
J.
Delafoy must be saved.
He's not responsible.
Hearing this tape will make you understand.
I'm the official responsible for helping the condemned in their last moments.
The law requires me to repeat the terms of the sentence against you.
You have been found guilty of the murder of M.
Laforet.
Therefore, the Supreme Court of Justice has sentenced you to the capital penalty of execution in Saint Jacques prison by decapitation by means of the guillotine.
I'm sorry to tell you that no order for suspension of the sentence has arrived.
Daniel was not a criminal.
He killed a policeman.
But they made him kill.
A woman.
She's the only one responsible for all the wrong that was done.
That was done to us.
You'll avenge the death of Daniel.
You'll kill that girl.
Now I'll tell you how to find her.
You know those cigarette vending machines? Sooner or later, you'll find Marianne near them.
Because those cigarettes are special.
Very special.
Drugged, Jean.
The ones that destroyed Daniel's will.
I'll tell you something else about her.
Do you know the circus where they show that absurd pantomime about Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs? That's the place where you can find that wicked woman.
Because Marianne is Snow White.
Have you understood, Jean? Snow White.
This syringe contains a psychotropic drug that when injected will bring you to a state of unconsciousness.
You must kill her, Jean.
You must kill her! You have to do it for Daniel.
Kill Snow White, Jean! Kill her! I order you to! I order you to! Mr Prosecutor, this tape is the certain proof of J.
Delafoy's innocence.
Explain better.
-He received precise instructions to kill from this tape.
-He was free to disobey.
Since no order to suspend the sentence has been communicated we can do nothing else but fulfil the mandate of the Court in the stated time.
The 8 hours indicated by the law are about to expire.
Unfortunately, Delafoy had to obey.
This tape shouldn't have been included in the series of tapes used for the reeducation of my patient.
There was a substitution.
Someone removed the right tape, ID M-25 and substituted it with this.
And the results were lethal.
I must remind you, the responsibility is mine.
J.
Delafoy was at the mercy of this manipulated information.
Information that he couldn't resist as he was in a state of passive reception.
In short, he was not at all free.
His comatose state made him vulnerable to any form of manipulation.
And who would be the author of this this manipulation? My mother.
Please.
We have to stop the execution.
We have no time to lose! By now it's a matter of seconds.
Maybe even less! Kill Snow White, Jean! I order you to! Kill her! I am the Attorney General.
Suspend the execution of Jean Delafoy.
Jean later found out that the brain Gamma had belonged to a modest clerk from Paris who died of pneumonia.
THE END