The trial of the death of rugby player Frederico Martín Aramburú continued on Wednesday, with the director of the investigation testifying about the events that led to the player’s death. The prosecutor and defense used the opportunity to try to score points.
According to the report, the commissaire who led the investigation stated clearly that the investigators had not identified any racist motives behind the altercation, which led to Aramburú’s death by gunfire. When asked about the confrontation, the commissaire replied that it was inherent to Parisian nightlife, with people getting drunk and losing control, which happens often.
The commissaire also expressed a terrible finding: everything happened within a few seconds, and if the rugby players had left the hotel where they asked for ice a few moments later, they would have missed Lyson R. and Romain Bouvier, and everyone would have gone home. The hearing of this police officer was an opportunity for both sides to start fighting over the heart of the case, namely the role of the far right in the affair.
Au troisième jour du procès
Me Yann Le Bras, representing the civil parties, asked the commissaire about Romain Bouvier’s collection of arms, as well as over a thousand cartridges found at his home. The commissaire replied that it was not usual for collectors of old weapons to have them loaded and ready to use.
However, it was later revealed that the photos shown were taken after the BRI intervention, which had broken down the door and secured the apartment before the search. This explained why the apartment was found in disarray, with weapons everywhere, including on the bed. The commissaire acknowledged that “weapons are displayed to take good quality photos.”
Me Sophie Ray-Gascon, one of Romain Bouvier’s lawyers, was satisfied with this clarification, as her client had been denying the state of his apartment in the photos shown to him for over four years, claiming it was a “staged” scene.
Read Also: Supreme Court questions Noida magistrate’s student protest notice
Questioning the Commissaire Me Yann Le Bras
Me Yann Le Bras asked the commissaire several questions, pointing out the characteristics of the case and asking if they were common or not. The commissaire replied that having two shooters and emptying a charger was not common. “Those who want to kill empty their charger,” he said. However, this was exactly what the two defendants did.
The questions that followed, asked by the advocate general, added to the defense’s difficulties. The commissaire estimated that Loik Le Priol and Romain Bouvier had maintained the tension by seeking to find their opponents, and that the evidence was accumulating against them.
The commissaire also stated that if they had really wanted to find their friend, “it would have been more logical to call him.” When asked if this case was notable, the commissaire replied that it was, citing the “affluent profile” of those involved and the “far-right profile,” which was unusual, even if the link to the facts had not been established.
Defense Questions Me Xavier Nogueras
Me Xavier Nogueras, one of Loik Le Priol’s lawyers, pointed out that the “far-right profile” had appeared in the media on the same day, along with Loik Le Priol’s name. The leak of information from the investigation had served to fuel the thesis that the rugby players had been victims of a “manhunt” and to spread the accusation of a racist crime. However, the commissaire had clarified from the beginning that there was no element of racism in this case.
Me Nogueras also asked the commissaire about the anomalies in the investigation, including the fact that one of the investigators had been a professional rugby player and had played in the same club as Aramburú. The commissaire confirmed that he was not aware of this.
Leave a Reply