December 8 case

The case was characterized by a lack of evidence that the defendants were planning a specific attack, and relied instead on interpretation of circumstantial evidence. Examples of this interpretation include^[4]:

• Libre Flot gained combat experience in Rojava, which was interpreted as an attempt to gain experience in order to carry out attacks in France.
• Libre Flot stole fertilizer from a store, intending to use it to create small explosives. The theft was interpreted as an attempt to obtain fertilizer without leaving traces.
• On two occasions, some of the defendants created small explosives from household or agricultural products, and detonated them in isolated areas where the explosions would not damage anything, which was interpreted as tests for possible future attacks (despite the defendants' claims that they were just doing it for fun).
• Some of the defendants participated in airsoft games, which were intepreted as paramilitary trainings.
• Handwritten notes of one of the defendants contained terms and phrases such as “weapons”, “recruitment”, “cleaning DNA”, “incendiary device” and “are we ready for a comrade to be wounded or killed?”, which were interpreted as indicative that the defendant was preparing an attack in France (despite the defendant's claims that the notes were about either airsoft or Rojava).
• In private conversations, some of the defendants made light-hearted, boasting comments such as “I want to burn all the banks, all the cops” and “if a police officer was on ground, honestly I would finish him off”, which were interpreted as indicative of violent intentions.
• The defendants used secure digital communication tools, which was interpreted as indicative of “clandestine behavior”.

Investigators mistranscribed or distorted conversations obtained through phone interception or covert audio surveillance devices to make them look suspicious. For example, the term “lunettes balistiques” (ballistic goggles) used in a conversation was transcribed as “gilets balistiques” (ballistic vests) by intelligence services, and became “gilets explosifs” (explosive vests) in a report by the prosecutors in charge of the case^[4].

During the raids, investigators found firearms and products that could be used to create explosives^[4].

When interrogating defendants during custody, investigators^[4]:

• Pretended that the defendants would not be charged if they snitched on the other defendants, which was a lie.
• Threatened one of the defendants with sexual assault.