Third and fourth hearings in the Medea case at the Albert Vinçon middle school. This time, the investigation enters a decisive phase: the witnesses have delivered their version of the facts. For 2 hours, the 23 third-year students involved in the fictitious trial of Medea continued their investigative work by giving substance to the characters in the file, while preparing for the next step of the procedure: their confrontation.
Back to the file: getting to know the protagonists better before testifying
The session began with a period of documentary research dedicated to the myth of Medea and the different characters involved in the case. For half an hour, the students deepened their understanding of: the historical and mythological context; the relationships between the protagonists; the political, family, and symbolic stakes of the narrative; and the variations around the myth according to the sources. This was a necessary detour to consolidate their understanding of the file before fully stepping into their roles as witnesses.
“Defend your character. Anything is allowed, except lying.”
Armed with their research and the elements accumulated during previous sessions, the groups then drafted the official depositions of their characters. The instruction given was to defend one’s character at all costs but without lying. To build their testimony, students were invited to make use of: the exhibits studied during the first sessions (all exhibits are freely accessible on the project website: https://medea-sum.eu/); additional research carried out in class; and rhetorical devices and argumentative techniques. The result: depositions that are increasingly structured, strategic, and embodied.
First pleadings, first suspicions
Each group designated a spokesperson responsible for reading their testimony in front of the class. Meanwhile, the other students took notes, paying close attention to inconsistencies, omissions, and blind spots in each deposition. The testimonies delivered showed just how much positions have been refined: some characters seek to justify their actions; others minimize their responsibility; and still others shift the blame toward other protagonists. The trial gains in nuance and tension!
Preparing the cross-examination
The second part of the session was dedicated to preparing the future cross-examination. Each group had to formulate two questions for each of the other characters, with the aim of: pointing out contradictions; testing the solidity of the testimonies; challenging defense strategies; and preparing for the upcoming confrontation. These questions will be shared before the next session to allow each group to prepare their answers.
A break before the confrontation
The students are now entering a brief suspension of proceedings: two weeks of vacation before the resumption of hearings. In the meantime, the teacher has sent everyone the testimonies written in class and asked the students to continue their immersion in the file by reading Corneille’s play in its entirety. This reading could still cause positions to evolve.
Next step: the cross-examination
Upon resumption, the witnesses will have to defend their version of the facts against the other groups in a series of rapid exchanges designed as a true mutual cross-examination. The Medea file continues to grow in complexity. After the evidence, after the testimonies, the time for confrontation has now come. And one certainty is emerging at Albert Vinçon middle school: in this case, everyone seems to hold a share of truth AND a share of responsibility.
To be continued…