From what you told me on the telephone, I have concluded that the police can be sure to designate several guilty people, who perhaps cannot be guilty of everything, but are certainly compromised to a great degree. I believe that the role of the plaintiff, in such a case as this, must be to investigate with harshness those who, for apparently wretched reasons, might be behind the wretched executioners and to investigate with easy recourse to the psychology of hoodlums, to factors that are hardly reasonable, etc. Will the "scenario" still have lacunae? Which ones? Kiejman will see them. We will place ourselves in the perspective of Jean's film. It will be necessary to ask ourselves: how will Jean explain to the public that the most banal and most obvious trail was so completely neglected for almost a year? What can be found, simply so that the scenario remains probable and the film good?I embrace you.
 Translator's note: Georges Kiejman, an attorney.
 The filmmaker Jean Aurel (director of Stalin, adapted from the book by Boris Souvarine) planned to make a film-inquest into the assassination of Gerard Lebovici.
 Translator's note: It is unfortunate that Debord did not indicate the precise "trail" that he had in mind here. Certainly the circumstances of Lebovici's murder, and Debord's reference to "hoodlums," suggest a "gangland" or Mafia-related hit. But who ordered or allowed such a hit to be executed? One still does not know.
(Published in Guy Debord Correspondance, Vol 5: Janvier 1979-Decembre 1987 by Librairie Artheme Fayard, 2006. Translated from the French by NOT BORED! May 2007. Footnotes by Alice Debord, except where noted.)