Source: French to English Tester Published on: 2026-04-21
Source: The Conversation – in French– By Morgan Poggioli, Doctor of Contemporary History. Associate researcher at the Interdisciplinary Research Laboratory “Societies, Sensitivities, Care” (LIR3S – UMR 7366 CNRS/UBE), University of Burgundy Europe
On September 8, 2026, the trial of the State of New York against Luigi Mangione, suspected of having shot in 2024 the CEO of United Healthcare, the largest private insurance company in the United States, will begin. In France, a similar case broke out just over a century ago: the Muller case, named after the worker who killed one of the managers of the Compagnie générale d’électricité following the cessation of his disability pension payments.
The factstake place on February 14, 1922, in Paris. A 20-year-old worker, disabled from work, named Marcel Muller, shoots dead the head of the legal department of his company, the Compagnie générale d’électricité. The events occur following the cessation of his pension and the granting of a disability annuity which he considered insufficient (the equivalent of 1,700 euros per year today), while the wound resulting from the amputation of his right arm had still not healed. Muller also injures two policemen during his arrest. This incident has a national impact. The entire press seizes on it, with more than a hundred articles appearing in the following days, to the point of turning the event into a “case,” which is quickly called the “Muller affair.”
Gallica
From a news item to a social issue
While the “gueules cassées” and war invalids questioned French society about the fate of the mutilated after the First World War, the Muller affair became a real social issue. The workers’ movement — both political and trade union — and the very youngFederation of Disabled Workerstook hold of the case, not to justify the crime, but to denounce the 1898 law on work accidents. According to them, this law condemned to social death and misery those it was supposed to protect, by granting meager pensions. They also challenged, and exposed, the abuses of private insurance companies and businesses in this area. In 1922, Social Security did not yet exist, and the insurance system for disabled workers was in the private sector, similar to the current American health model.
Under media pressure (at the time, it was the print press that played this role) and public opinion, thelaw of 1898 was amendedÀ: a first time during the judicial investigation, in July 1922 and on several occasions thereafter. As for Marcel Muller, he was finallyacquitted by the Court of Assizes, on October 31, 1922, at the conclusion of a high-profile trial bringing together eminent medical experts, such as the psychologistHenri Wallonand renowned political figures, called by the defense, such asJoseph Paul-Boncour(lawyer, deputy, and former Minister of Labor) orJustin Godart(lawyer, deputy and former under-secretary of state for military health service).
The Muller case became from then on, and until the 1930s, a reference point for organizations defending work-related amputees and helped to fuel reflection on worker protection before the birth of the welfare state.
MSH of Dijon/Bourgogne Europe University
Muller/Mangione: troubling symmetries
A century apart and an Atlantic Ocean away, without prejudging the verdict of Luigi Mangione’s trial, it appears today that many points in common connect the Muller case and the Mangione case. The most striking of these common denominators being the youth of the accused, both in their twenties. Moreover, their profiles defy the usual media narratives, with a young worker mutilated by labor on one side, and a young man from a good family and well-educated on the other. The problems encountered are also similar. The former was a victim, after his amputation, of the early award of a disability pension by his insurer (less costly than covering convalescence expenses) when thesecond, suffering from spondylolisthesis, was a victim or witness (the investigation will determine it) of the practices of American private health insurances, following his back surgery.
With no history of activism or criminal records, these two young men, ordinary and unremarkable, one acted and the other is suspected of having done so when they saw their destinies shatter. Their written demands are virtually identical:“Frankly, these parasites deserved it”for Luigi Mangione and“I’m going to kill my boss, too bad for him. He asked for it, he deserved it.”for Marcel Muller.
It is certainly for all these reasons that the two cases had such an impact. Although in 1922 information was not as globalized as it is today, the Muller affair nonetheless made the front page of the European edition ofChicago Tribuneand was entitled to several dozen articles in the pressAnglo-Saxonandinternational.
The weight of public opinions
A relatively rare phenomenon in criminal cases, in both instances we observe public opinions that tend to understand their actions and to forgive their authors, even for certain segments in the United States,support and justify revenge. This leniency is explained by a form of empathy, an identification of civil society with their “cause”.
In 1922, in France, it was war invalids who raised public awareness about the issue of disability, since withmore than one million disabled people, each French person had at least one war invalid or war mutilated person in their family or social circle and was aware of the difficulties they could endure (social demotion, unemployment…). In the United States, it is millions of Americans who have experienced problems, or evenrefusal of medical careby their private insurer, with sometimes dramatic consequences; not to mention the price and deductibles they pay to be able to benefit from health coverage.
For Marcel Muller as for Luigi Mangione, it is the involvement of private companies in the field of health that is the origin of their action. And although condemnable, their act illustrates situations of physical and moral suffering caused by the abuses of commercial actors. Marcel Muller was thus the victim of a litigation procedure aimed at reducing his compensation. Such practices, still common in the United States and summarized by the“the three Ds”(“Delay, Deny, Defend”, that is to say “Postpone, refuse, and then defend yourself”, are exactly those hated by Luigi Mangione.
The only difference between these two cases lies in their symbolic significance, because although his trial made it an emblem, Marcel Muller’s act was initially a matter of personal revenge, as indicated in his claim letter. Luigi Mangione’s act, for its part, seems to take on a political dimension, denouncing the American liberal health system and private insurance companies,as would be confirmed by his writings penned several months earlierThe crime. That is what today earns him to be accused of “an act of political violence” by the federal government. His upcoming trial may perhaps shed some more light on his deep motivations.
Morgan Poggioli is the author of The Muller case. Politicizing the broken bodies,at Éditions de l’Atelier, Paris, April 2026.
Morgan Poggioli does not work for, advise, hold shares in, or receive funding from any organization that could benefit from this article, and has declared no affiliations other than his research institution.
–ref. Marcel Muller, Luigi Mangione: intertwined fates of two bosses’ murderers –https://theconversation.com/marcel-muller-luigi-mangione-crossed-destinies-of-two-boss-assassins-278817