Par
Jean-Claude Bonnemère
Published on
Nov. 25, 2024 at 9:24 p.m.
See my news
Follow News Lot
Violence, kidnapping and sequestrationthese are the three incriminations, which motivated the summoning of three defendants before the Cahors criminal courtthis Thursday, November 21, 2024.
At the call of President Olivier Batailléthe first defendant (T.), 26 years old, appears free. He approaches the bar, well presented, in an elegant outfit. The second (A.), 21 years old, arrives under police escort, a “rather comfortable” type, in a t-shirt, bare arms. As for 3e(B.), he gave no sign of life. Two of them are from Algeria.
The president reminds the defendants that they are being prosecuted for acts that occurred in Cahors, rue Saint André, in the city center, on Wednesday May 3, 2023 at 3 a.m..
Night of terror for two women in the heart of Cahors
The scene was partially filmed by the City's video surveillance cameras and by witnesses, from the floors overlooking the street.
A car rushes into the rue du Portail Alban with three men on board: the three defendants called to today's hearing.
At least two of them will attack the two girls they were looking for. One of the individuals (T.) slaps Mme S., who was said to be “his girlfriend”, then made him fall while continuing to hit him. Investigators found traces of blood on the ground and in the vehicle. Then, Mme S. is forced into the vehicle, as is the second daughter (Mme Z), which does not take any hits, on recorded images.
The vehicle leaves the scene, heading towards the Archipel car park in Cahors, where “the explanations” continue, before dispersing.
The car heads for the Mediterranean coast
T. takes the wheel again with Mme S, direction Palavas-les-Flots (about ten km from Montpellier). A. was picked up in Cahors by the national police on Thursday. T. for his part, will be squeezed two days later in a hotel on the shores of the Mediterranean, in the company of the young woman S., whose boyfriend he presents himself as.
Throughout the hearing, the court seeks to understand the degree of culpability of each of the defendants, from whom it appears that they acted in concert.
This nocturnal attack would have been motivated by the fact that T. could not stand that Mme S. lived her life as she wanted and with someone other than him.
Questioned by the court, T. indicated that he had “just shaken M a littleme S.” In any case, to hear him, it was for his own good that he had intervened, because Mme S was said to be “in bad company” and that he “was trying to get her out of her stupidities” and also because she drank alcohol.
– “I wanted to stop him from drinking and help him get better!” » says T.
– “But why did you hit her? » asks the court repeatedly.
– “That evening, I, who never drink, was under stress and I was drunk. M's behaviorme S. made me come out of myself. The alcohol took over. I recognize the violence, but it’s because of the alcohol! “, he declares.
– “Stop repeating that it’s because of alcohol, because it’s an aggravating circumstance!” » continues one of the judges.
– “You still dragged her into the car!” » again notes the court.
– “I held her by the arm, but she did not come up by force. She knows that I can only bring the best to her life! » retorts T. who doubts nothing.
It is noted in the reports that the two young women did not provide assistance to the police, for fear of reprisals.
The court reports the legal past of each of the defendants, who compete for convictions, marked by violence and narcotics…
Attack of madness in full court, the inmate returns to prison manu militari
For a while now A. has been muttering in the dock, intervening at times and out of turn and President Bataillé warns him that this cannot continue. A. appears to calm down, until his criminal record is mentioned. And there, the defendant raises his voice, no longer listens to anyone, until the president orders his withdrawal. The three Prison Service officers seized A. to extract him from the courtroom and place him in the jail. There is then a surge of cries and vociferations! A. struggles and screams in the corridors. Arriving in the jail, the madman is beside himself, furious. A. unleashed violence, banging with all his might against the walls and the gate, generating a deafening noise. Order is then given by the president to return A to prison immediately. The hearing resumes with the continuation of the hearing of T.
Mme the deputy prosecutor Morgane Raffy asks T. if after all the blows inflicted on the young woman, he thought about taking her to the hospital, especially since her fall to the ground could have had serious consequences on her health.
– “She was very well, no bruises, no signs that she needed care! » he replies, sure of himself.
– “When we are in darkness, there is always a light to illuminate the future! » declares T., citing an unknown author. He explains to the court that being placed under judicial supervision in the Paris region allows him to regain a foothold in society, first by working “under the table”, then on a regular basis. T. is banned from returning to the Lot. He assures that he does not want to return to “Cahors,” “to avoid bad company.”
“Because these women did not want to bend to their will”
Mme Raffy, loudly and clearly upholds the incriminations of “arrest, kidnapping and sequestration”. She notices how the two women did not want to be recognized as victims, because they were so afraid. She argues that the facts of violence are beyond doubt, especially since they appear on the videos, at the same time as the cries of the young women. The magistrate accepts premeditation, because she insists: “the defendants wanted to go find the young woman S. to explain to her that she is not free in what she must do or not do”. She emphasizes that A., the driver of the vehicle, lent his services for this operation, even though he had every opportunity to say no. The magistrate considers that Mme S. suffered a beating. As for the second girl, when she was interviewed by the police, she declared “that she was released rather than her friend Mme S.” which corroborates the evidence of sequestration.
Recalling that such acts are punishable by 10 years in prison, it requires conviction of the three defendants:
– 3 years in prison for A.
– 4 years in prison for B. with arrest warrant,
– 4 years in prison for T. with a ban on carrying a weapon for 10 years, and committal warrant.
The defense lawyer wanted to avoid his client's incarceration
Me Hemza El Moujaddide, Parisian lawyer, of T. emphasizes the presence and good behavior of his client at the hearing, while one of them did not appear and the other caused a scandal. The lawyer believes that it cannot be demonstrated that the young woman entered the vehicle under duress. He notes that there is no ITT recorded regarding possible injuries. “To say that young women do not attend the hearing because they would be afraid seems far-fetched! » he declares.
In his eyes, the request for a 4-year prison sentence for his client is described as “disproportionate”. He asks for a mixed sentence with the farm part adjustable, so that T. can continue his social reintegration.
The court then retires to deliberate.
He attends the trial then disappears into the wild
Upon returning from court, the defendant T. is called to the stand, but no one responds. His lawyer taps his mobile number to try to contact him… In vain! T. is wanted almost everywhere, the lost steps room, toilet area, outdoor garden… Nobody! The court resigns itself to pronouncing the sentences in the absence of the three defendants. All three were found guilty of the charges and were sentenced to:
– for A. (the accused who arrived and left under police escort): 3 years in prison and committal warrant,
– for B. (absent): 4 years in prison and arrest warrant against him,
– for T. who attended the trial, but left before the judgment was pronounced: 5 years in prison with a 10-year ban from the Lot department.
The defendants should not be done with justice…
Follow all the news from your favorite cities and media by subscribing to Mon Actu.
