Skip to content
Maison BeaulieuMAISON BEAULIEUAB ÉDITIONS · GASTRONOMY & HISTORICAL ARCHIVES
Justice & Scandals · France

The Wall of Furnello

Lecci, 1899. Following an ancient property dispute and the slaying of two Furioli brothers, Martin and André Cirindini stood trial for complicity. The Gazette records the dying words attributed to the victims, witnesses who diverge as to chronology and the morning light, the alibis raised by the accused, and the sentences pronounced.

At Lecci, a property dispute had long divided the Furioli and Cirindini families before the Assize Court of Corsica was summoned to try two men for complicity in a double murder. Between that ancient contention and the verdict of May 1899, the account in the Gazette gives voice to narratives that do not entirely coincide: a formal indictment, alibis, the reported words of a dying youth, and witnesses who could not even agree upon the hour when day broke.

The breach, according to the indictment, reached back to a boundary dispute between the two households. On 21 March 1894, the act stated, Marc-Marie Cirindini succumbed to the blows of his adversaries, whilst Martin Cirindini and Jacques Cirindini were wounded. Three Furioli brothers—Vincent, Jean, and Jacques—were subsequently condemned to penal labour for these violent assaults; François was acquitted. The Gazette relates this initial conviction as the point of departure for renewed enmity. Yet, during his interrogation, Martin Cirindini ascribed his wound to an affair in 1895. Both dates belong to the selfsame printed record; nothing in the surviving pages allows them to be reconciled.

The punishment meted out to the Furiolis seemed at first to have quieted passions. The bill maintained, however, that two of the Cirindinis, supported by their kinsmen Marc-Marie and Joseph Nicoli, soon uttered fresh threats, though this clause of the text left them unnamed. Jacques Cirindini subsequently requested an interview of reconciliation with Angelin Furioli. They met at Croce de Lecci in April 1898 and agreed, according to the prosecution, to go about their affairs freely and to live in good harmony. This pact is known here solely through the prosecution’s narrative; that same prosecution imputed to it a deceitful design, alleging that the Cirindinis harboured a settled purpose of revenge.

On the evening of 21 April 1898, François Furioli and his younger brother Baptiste, aged sixteen, set out for Capo di Lecci to take leave of relatives who were about to travel. They spent the night there. In the morning, they took the road back to their home, accompanied by Jacques-André Furioli, a bailiff's man bearing distress warrants. The indictment had them pass by Furnello, where six men were said to have taken up positions behind a wall bordering the road; openings fashioned in the masonry reportedly served them as embrasures. As the three wayfarers drew near, the assailants allegedly fired in a volley.

Both brothers were mortally wounded. The account relates that Baptiste was able to count and recognise the ambushed men. François was found in his death throes, fowling piece in hand; Baptiste survived his wounds for three hours. The Gazette reports that he designated the culprits to the gendarmes encountered during his transport, and later repeated these names to members of his family. These dying words, decisive for the prosecution, reach us solely through the intermediary of the gazette and the depositions: they do not constitute a directly preserved deposition from Baptiste himself.

One must also pause before a printed date that disrupts the sequence. The witness Jacques-André Furioli is represented as having accompanied the victims on “the morning of 22 February,” whereas the preceding paragraphs fix their departure on 21 April and their return on the morrow. We retain this reading without emendation. Other depositions contradict one another regarding the morning light: Michel Poli stated that the sun had not yet risen when he met Baptiste; Clorinde Michelangeli affirmed that it was already up; Paul Poli situated the gunshots at five or half-past five o’clock, then declared that the sun was already risen when he heard them. The exact hour of the firing remains uncertain in this account.

The victims’ father, Angelini Furioli, recounted the ancient enmities, though he could declare nothing material regarding the circumstances of the assault. Jérômine Furioli, their mother, stated that her son had specifically named André Cirindini to her. Dusoline Furioli, the victims’ sister-in-law and André’s cousin, likewise related that Baptiste had pointed to the latter. Neither woman had witnessed the ambush: they merely repeated the words attributed to the wounded lad. Jacques-André, who was walking alongside the brothers, had heard first two shots, then eight or nine; François had reportedly cried out to him: “Salvai!” Baptiste had reportedly faced the shooters. The witness added that he had seen nothing, being wholly occupied with his flight.

Michel Poli, who ran to the scene after hearing the detonations, encountered Baptiste, who reportedly told him that “tutti elli” were his murderers, without naming them individually. François Pietri, a neighbour of the mayor, was dispatched to bring aid to the two youths. He found François dead, then helped carry Baptiste. The gendarmerie halted the procession and, according to the report, took down the deposition of the dying boy, who accused six murderers. Thus, certain voices reported individual names, others a collective accusation; several had heard the shots, but none had caught sight of the gunmen.

At the trial session, only two defendants appeared: Martin Cirindini, aged sixty-five, and André Cirindini, aged twenty-nine, Jacques’s son-in-law. Four other men were implicated in the affair, according to the introduction, but remained absent from the dock. The prosecution contended that the two men present had participated in the joint enterprise, even though their movements might appear to place them elsewhere at the precise moment of the fusillade.

Martin explained that he had travelled from Sainte-Lucie de Porto-Vecchio to Porto-Vecchio by way of Traggio, where Joseph Nicoli had family business to settle. He denied all participation. The Gazette described him as a man without prior convictions and of good antecedents, whilst noting a proud and haughty temper; it further mentioned the wound in his arm, from which the buckshot could never be extracted, leaving his hand difficult to use. André maintained that he had been in Sainte-Lucie at ten o’clock in the evening, and had then set out early for Conca, where his aunt had just arrived. Witnesses had seen him upon that road. The prosecution countered that this journey did not preclude his presence at Furnello prior to his departure.

Both men strenuously protested their innocence and produced witness testimony in support of their alibis. Standing against them were the words attributed to Baptiste, the long-standing enmities, and the theory of a shared design. The victims’ father could shed no physical light upon the assault; the traveling companion had seen no one; the family depositions rested entirely upon the declarations of the dying youth. The strength of the prosecution lay in piecing these elements together, while the alibis rested upon localities where Martin and André had genuinely been seen. The narrative furnishes neither the details of each cross-examination nor the specific responses of the jury to each issue.

Maître Nivaggioli pleaded for Augustin Furioli, the civil party; Advocate General Angeli sustained the indictment; Maîtres Decori and Maestracci defended the accused. The jury found them guilty of complicity in the double assassination committed upon “Baptiste François Furioli”—the judicial verdict printing both forenames without an “and”—and granted them mitigating circumstances. The Court sentenced Martin to twenty years’ solitary confinement and André to twenty years of penal servitude. It likewise ordered them to pay one franc in damages to Angelin Furioli.

The Gazette’s headline spoke of a double murder, and the printed verdict repeated it; yet the formula designating the victims, truncated or singular to modern eyes, remains that of the journal. The sentence concludes these limited columns. They say nothing of an appeal, of a pardon, or of the subsequent fate of the convicts. What remains is a judgment of complicity rendered against two defendants present, at the close of an assize where depositions, memories of a family vendetta, and alibis failed to dispel all the discrepancies of the tale.

From this true case a future book could be born

Help us choose our next book

You have just read the complete account of this historical case. It inspires three original fiction projects yet to be written. Which one would you like to see published? Your vote guides AB Éditions.

novella

The Stones of Furnello

In Corsica, in 1907, a schoolmistress returns to her native village to survey the communal paths. A recently mended wall bears scars that the elders attribute to an old fusillade, yet two families contest the right-of-way, each presenting a witness who places the stonework on a different day. When the land surveyor is accused of shifting the boundary stone, the schoolmistress discovers that the municipal register was transcribed afresh following a fire, and that both accounts are sincere, yet incomplete. She has the villagers measure the path themselves; the boundary stone falls upon no private inheritance. The matter concludes with a public easement and a wary peace. Would you care to read this novella?

Loading votes…

novel

The Name in the Mouth

In 1892, in a fictional port town, a wounded docker names his assailant before three bystanders, yet each hears a different syllable amid the tumult. A young court clerk, tasked with transcribing the depositions into fair copy, observes that a chief clerk has harmonised the versions before submitting them to the docket. She investigates alongside a physician who doubts his own recollections, whilst a municipal candidate exploits the confusion to unseat a rival. The novel follows the clerk to the courtroom, where an ordinary timetable reveals that both the accused and the principal witness were far from the quay. The true culprit is ultimately discovered among the organisers of a rigged strike. Would you care to read this novel?

Loading votes…

trilogy

Crossing Paths

Three standalone investigations follow postal carriers of the same lineage. In 1886, in the Alps, a postwoman stands accused of stealing a parcel; the weigh-register bears the sender's seal, who identifies his sack swapped at the coaching inn, and the postmaster confesses to the embezzlement. In 1909, her son is accused of murder during a strike; ticket punch-marks establish his journey and expose the guard who fired. In 1932, their granddaughter seeks the author of a perjured statement following a riot: her delivery ledger proves the mayor backdated his deposition; he resigns, and the charges against the workman are dismissed. Each crime finds its proof, its culprit, and its resolution. Would this trilogy appeal to you?

Loading votes…

One choice per case on this browser, editable at any time. The most supported projects will inspire our upcoming publications. How your votes are kept.

Explore all literary projects →
Historical sources and our share of literary reconstruction

Entire article confined to the specified columns of pages 556 and 557. A contemporary press account, not the complete judicial dossier. The indictment places the death of Marc-Marie Cirindini on 21 March 1894; Martin ascribes his wound to an affair of 1895. These conflicting readings are preserved. The journey of the Furioli brothers is situated on 21–22 April 1898, yet Jacques-André Furioli is described as having accompanied them on 22 February; this contradiction remains. The depositions diverge as to the rising of the sun. The verdict prints “Baptiste François Furioli” without the conjunction “and”; no emendation has been introduced.

← All 1,003 cases of the Cabinet