A week after the broadcast of the report from the TF1 show, “Sept à quatre” on Anne D., a fifty-year-old scammed of more than 800,000 euros by a fake Brad Pitt, the taunts and other memes brought happiness to the social networks, but the misfortune of the victim of a grazer. This Saturday, Anne’s daughter, named Margaux, guest of “La Grande Semaine”, on M6, wanted to speak out to defend his mother's honor.
“I received a lot of very nasty messages that went against my mother,” Margaux testified. It's very difficult not to shed a tear after what we've been through. » “Things were said in the wrong way. I am here to correct things,” said the young woman with auburn hair, indirectly targeting the TF1 report.
“We talk every day. This is a descent into hell for her, the young girl continued. The wave was immense. It's been a storm. She doesn't deserve all this hate on social media. » “Apart from the mockery, she received a lot of messages which go against what she wanted to convey as a message, that is to say prevention”, also wanted to point out the daughter of 'Anne. The latter, to Le Parisien, had testified that the grazers had “used (her) humanity”.
The show presented by Ophélie Meunier was also an opportunity to get news from the victim of the fake Brad Pitt, “very fragile”. “She is at Reunion with her loved ones (she is staying there with a friend). She is always followed by professionals, said her daughter. She wanted to end her life, but I told her: You're going to have to fight. »
-“Beyond the mockery, he is still a victim. A victim of fraud. Although I told him, You have to be careful. Under the influence, she fell into the trap. It could have happened to anyone. It’s a film within a film,” insisted the young woman.
Laurène Hanna, Anne's lawyer, who was on the M6 set, also provided some information on the procedure. “The criminal liability is that of the grazer, of the crook,” assured the lawyer. For the record, an investigation is underway with the financial brigade as revealed by Le Parisien. She also explained that she had given notice to her client's bank to incur civil liability, justifying that “the origin of the funds was clear but their destination was not at all”.
