Murder of Nadia Panarello in 2004 | The Court of Appeal confirms the acquittal of Ernesto Fera

Three years after being acquitted of the murder of his wife, Ernesto Fera can breathe easy: the Court of Appeal confirmed the acquittal verdict on Thursday. But who killed Nadia Panarello? Almost 21 years later, the mystery remains complete, and the murderer is still at large.

“I do not discern anything in the judgment which suggests that the judge did not consider all of the evidence,” concluded the judge of the Court of Appeal, Guy Cournoyer, in a judgment endorsed by his colleagues Geneviève Marcotte and Mark Schrager.

According to the Court of Appeal, the Crown was unable to establish that the trial judge, James Brunton, made a “single error of law.” The Crown demanded a “complete reassessment” of the evidence, underlined the highest court in the province. However, such a ground for appeal is not permitted.

The murder of Nadia Panarello remains incomprehensible. This 38-year-old mother was found dead, with her throat slit, on February 12, 2024, in her residence in the Vimont district of Laval. A particularly “fierce” murder. We are talking about dozens of stabbings.

Some jewelry was stolen from the house, but not the most valuable ones. No traces of DNA were found at the scene. The police noted no signs of forced entry. No marks on the lock or footprints in the house or outside the house.

This case was one of the unsolved murders (cold case) for years until Ernesto Fera was charged 15 years later. According to the Crown, Nadia Panarello’s husband was the only one who could have committed this murder, since only a few minutes had passed between his leaving the house and the murder. Additionally, all doors to the residence were locked that morning, according to the suit.

However, the trial judge instead concluded that it was possible that the patio door of the house was unlocked. Thus, there was a “reasonable possibility” that another person committed the crime by passing through this door, even if footprints were not found in the fresh snow.

According to the Crown’s theory, Ernesto Fera had a key motive for killing his wife: benefiting from $350,000 in life insurance, while he was drowning in debt. A few days before the murder, Ernesto Fera attempted to obtain a $120,000 loan from an acquaintance. He even told her that he would soon receive an inheritance.

However, the bases of this theory were “extremely weak”, according to Judge Brunton.

“It makes no sense that his plan B is to kill his wife. The evidence shows that there were enough funds remaining [equity] in the house to pay their debts, while keeping a small amount to put down a down payment for a small house,” the trial judge analyzed.

Furthermore, it did not make sense, according to the judge, that Ernesto Fera had killed his wife so “savagely”, when there was no proof of violence in their relationship. Furthermore, he allegedly planned the murder so that his mother-in-law would find the body. Also, he would have behaved completely normally all day, noted the judge.

Before the Court of Appeal, the Crown argued that the judge had essentially criticized the prosecutor for not having presented evidence of the accused’s bad character. Yet illegal proof. An argument rejected by the Court of Appeal. According to her, the trial judge did not make such criticisms of the Crown. Instead, he considered their theory “implausible.”

M^e Alexandre Dubois and M^e Steve Baribeau represented the public prosecutor, while M^e Mylène Lareau, M^e Isabelle Lamarche and M^e Joseph La Leggia defended the accused.