Last November, the Royal Court of London found a fishing accident to explain the sinking of the Bugaled-Breizh. What inspired you this decision of the English justice?
Two regrets: the first is that the debates in London resumed, only in part, what had been considered by the French courts and that no other avenue was explored (Editor’s note: such as the possible involvement of an American submarine). The second is that only part of my work ended up in the hands of the British courts. It was translated in such a deplorable way, including with misinterpretations, that it proved useless for the manifestation of the truth. I would like to point out that I was able to read, day by day, all of the hearings in London.
The civil parties would have liked you to be heard across the Channel, but their request was rejected. Were you ready to go?
Yes, I was ready to testify since I participated in the search for the manifestation of the truth. I recall that my initial writings had been the subject of direct additional comments, on my part, which had convinced the investigating judges of Quimper of the probable implication of a submarine in the drama. After the decision of the investigating chamber, I was not summoned by the magistrates of Nantes who kept to my writings alone. Present in London, I could have taken up these same comments.
The English investigation followed the conclusions of the BEA Mer which said that it was a soft quaver in the sandy bottom that explained the sinking. What elements of the file make you think that this thesis is not the right one?
Fishing experts have highlighted the existence of an “exogenous force” which would have been exerted on the warp (Editor’s note: the cable) port side of the Bugaled trawl. They also found that the Bugaled-Breizh sank on a different route from its fishing route. The justification that I gave in 2008 – the effort exerted on the warp by the submarine caused the trawler to change course – was approved by the fishing expert present and carried the conviction French examining magistrates. The BEA Mer gave no explanation on this point.
You, you defended the hypothesis of an eighth note with a submarine. You say it is “highly probable” that it is an eighth note with a nuclear attack submarine (SNA). Why ?
By causing the Bugaled-Breizh to turn heading and freeing itself from the caught and stretched warp (Editor’s note: the port warp was found deployed 140 m more than the starboard warp), the submarine put the trawler under the conditions that led to the sinking. As the ensilment hypothesis defended by the BEA Mer does not explain either the Bugaled’s course evolution or the elongation of the warp which have been observed, the only possible cause was the hook with another vessel. As the Eridan (Editor’s note: the trawler arrived first in the area of the tragedy) was able to testify, there was no building on the surface near the place of the sinking. Hence the high probability of an eighth note with a submarine. Reported by the skipper of the Eridan, the remarks of the skipper of the Bugaled-Breizh translated the perception that he had of something fast, powerful and invisible completely compatible with the eighth note with a submarine (Editor’s note : Yves Gloaguen, at the helm of the Bugaled when it sinks, shouted several times to Serge Cossec, skipper of the Eridan, via the VHF: “We are capsizing, come quickly, we are capsizing, come quickly”…)
You pointed to the responsibility of an American ANS spy. This hypothesis was judged as “an intellectual construction” by the French judges. Yet you backed it up with facts. Can you remind us of the key points?
It is the result of an exhaustive work of elimination. I was able to determine the location of the French and English SNAs. The presence of Chinese SNA is improbable and that of a Russian SNA just as much, contrary to that of an American SNA.
The day of the sinking corresponds to a period when nuclear material transits the English Channel and the Atlantic. At that time, the United States was engaged in a global war against terrorism and nuclear power was highly sensitive. In this context, the transport of such material can and should be monitored. I mentioned a similar precedent of surveillance conducted by an American submarine.
In France, in July 2010, the president of the Rennes Court of Appeal asked to continue the investigation to “find the responsible submarine”. French justice therefore believed, for a time, in the involvement of a submarine. What was missing for this hypothesis to be accepted?
Irrefutable evidence that, as it stood, was impossible to find. Only the British, Dutch and French navies were transparent in disclosing the logbooks. This hypothesis of the eighth note with a submarine has been supported by several independent expert reports (Ifremer, legal expert, etc.).
With what feeling do you come out of these 18 years of the Bugaled-Breizh affair?
A feeling of sadness because, in Brittany, there are families who still do not know, with certainty, why five people died and who must continue to live with it.