Éric Denécé, or the Republic of suicides

A former officer of the DGSE (France’s foreign intelligence service) and the author of several reference works on covert operations, Denécé was a central figure in the critical analysis of contemporary conflicts. In his last public appearances, he warned of the risks of escalation in the war in Ukraine and denounced the Atlanticist bias of media and institutional discourse. He had spoken out vehemently against Emmanuel Macron: “ For the first time, I am truly worried, Macron has entered a total delusion ”, he declared publicly. He went on to denounce the head of state’s “ total irrationality ”, calling on the military high command to break its silence to counter what he saw as a dangerous political headlong rush.

On 12 June 2025, Éric Denécé was found lifeless. While some media place the scene at his Paris home, in the 15th arrondissement, others claim he was found in his car, by the side of a road in the Alps, with a hunting weapon beside him. The exact circumstances of his death remain unclear to this day. Although the first investigators raised the possibility of suicide, nothing has formally supported it: no letter was found, no autopsy has been made public, and the authorities have released no details on the precise cause of death. No gunshot wound or apparent sign of a health problem has been reported. This silence fuels the unease, all the more so as his family firmly disputes the suicide hypothesis and is calling for a more transparent investigation. His death comes in a tense context, as several suspicious deaths have recently hit French intelligence circles.

Three suicides at the DGSI

Between January and June 2025, three officers of the DGSI (France’s domestic intelligence service) took their own lives. Two of them reportedly used their service weapons inside the agency’s premises in Levallois-Perret. The third was found dead in his official car, in the headquarters car park. None of the victims had shown visible signs of psychological distress. Some were about to go on holiday, others had just been promoted. The families remain silent, or have not wished to speak publicly. The farewell letters, where they exist, have never been published.

On top of these already troubling facts come several anomalies that heighten the unease. No public tribute was paid, either by the Interior Ministry or by the DGSI itself. The unions, usually quick to react to a tragedy, remained silent. According to an internal source, the CCTV footage, omnipresent on the headquarters premises, is “ unusable ” for the three time slots concerned. A coincidence several former senior officers of the service consider improbable.

The three agents, although attached to different units, worked in the same wing of the building, the one assigned to sensitive counter-interference missions. Two of them had reportedly recently expressed reluctance to accept new assignments, one going so far as to refuse a transfer abroad. In the hours following the deaths, their computer accounts were deactivated without explanation, even before the autopsy reports were submitted. An exceptional, even premature, protocol.

Finally, according to confidential leaks, at least one of the forensic reports mentions injuries inconsistent with a standard suicide, and inconsistencies regarding the angle of the shot. An internal administrative inquiry was reportedly opened after the second case, before being closed with no further action.

A Republican tradition

Besides its proximity in time to Éric Denécé’s death, this wave of suicides is reminiscent of other, older cases in which the official version has been widely disputed.

Robert Boulin, Minister of Labour, was found dead in 1979 in a pond in the forest of Rambouillet. Although the official suicide theory was quickly put forward, several troubling elements call this version into question: the body showed signs of blows to the face, an abnormally high dose of barbiturates was detected, and sensitive judicial documents linked to a property affair mysteriously disappeared. Shortly before his death, Boulin had been publicly implicated in a controversy over the acquisition of land in Ramatuelle, an affair many suspect was orchestrated to tarnish his reputation. Tipped as a future Prime Minister, he posed a threat to certain internal balances within the French right and, according to some observers, was the victim of a political settling of scores. Boulin had reportedly gathered evidence to show that he was the victim of a plot and intended to make it public. Since then, his family has never stopped denouncing a political assassination disguised as suicide, claiming he was eliminated to silence him. In 2017, the State finally granted the Boulin family financial compensation, while refusing to reopen the investigation or to rule on the exact causes of death. A decision many interpret as an implicit admission, a sign of a desire to quietly close a case that was still burning, almost forty years after the events.

At the end of March 1993, Pierre Bérégovoy, a former Prime Minister, confided to those close to him his intention to reveal publicly certain dubious practices he had observed at the top of the State. Shortly after these statements, Le Canard Enchaîné revealed that in 1986 Bérégovoy had received an interest-free loan of one million francs from Roger-Patrice Pelat, a controversial businessman and close friend of President François Mitterrand. Even though the loan had been repaid in full, the affair was immediately blown out of proportion.

On 1 May 1993, Bérégovoy took his own life with his bodyguard’s weapon. No farewell note was found and the autopsy was rushed. Some sources mention the possibility of two bullet wounds, and inconsistencies were noted without ever being truly explored by the courts. While Mitterrand would publicly accuse the press of having “thrown him to the dogs”, some observers see this above all as a manoeuvre to divert attention from the real causes of his death.

In 1994, François de Grossouvre, an influential adviser to Mitterrand, took his own life in his office at the Élysée Palace, with a bullet to the head. No note, sensitive archives missing, and some report inconsistencies in the position of the body, as well as a head wound atypical of the bullet’s supposed trajectory. Sensitive documents he had been consulting reportedly disappeared that same day. His death shocked people, but the investigation was quickly closed.

Sixteen years later, when the book Le Dernier Mort de Mitterrand (Mitterrand’s last death) was published, François de Grossouvre’s family broke its silence. His children and grandchildren publicly disputed the official version of suicide, denouncing major inconsistencies in the investigation. They pointed to the disappearance of confidential documents, the absence of any gunshot being heard, and physical details incompatible with the theory adopted. A dislocated left shoulder, for example, seems hard to reconcile with a self-inflicted shot under the chin. In an open letter, they denounced a botched investigation and stated that the truth had never been fully sought.

A disturbing voice, a convenient silence

While, of course, nothing officially rules out the suicide theory, the State’s lack of willingness to shed full light on these cases, on the other hand, is beyond doubt.

Through sheer repetition, what might be mere coincidence takes on the contours of a grim but well-oiled series script: disturbing voices silenced, “suicides” in obscure circumstances, families denouncing botched or hushed-up investigations, and a power that is quite comfortable with an ambiguity likely to discourage anyone who might consider challenging its designs. It is then not hard to grasp the full reality of Éric Denécé’s warnings about the risks of escalating a war towards which Macron and others are heading with worrying obstinacy.

Marcan for BAM!