The judicial police had been faced with a crime scene a horrible and mysterious.
A corpse had been retrouvéen September 2015 in the garrigue nîmes, under a bridge. The body was extensively burned. The case comes to know a new judicial development with the final brief of the prosecutor of Nimes. It refers to three persons and calls for their indictment.
This week, the various protagonists of the case have received the opinion of the prosecution, which is the precondition for the possible indictment before the assize.
The public prosecutor requested the indictment for murder of three suspects. The wife of the victim had recognized all the facts of the murder. But his two sons had denied having participated in the criminal operation. They had only confessed their participation in the transport and cremation of the body that had been found under a railway bridge in September 2015.
The wife had acknowledged the facts
A few days after the beginning of the investigation of the antenna of Nîmes of the SRPJ Montpellier, the DNA analyses had allowed to reveal the identity of a forty-something woman. His partner described him as abusive and as a tyrant in the family. This is formally challenged by the family of the victim, who is defended by Me Nadia El Bouroumi.
For its part, the company had recognized him, having administered a milkshake at the base of sleeping pills before him with blows of knife. The body had been left in a room before being transported in scrubland on the outskirts of Nimes.
It denies the premeditation
Contacted on Thursday, Me and Khadija Aoudia, lawyer of the woman who has admitted the murder indicated that it was contesting the thesis of premeditation. The lawyer stated that she would make representations to the judge tending to oppose the qualification retaining the services of a premeditated type conspiracy.
The final brief takes the position of the public prosecutor and the investigating judge chooses in fine the qualification that it holds in its order of indictment. On his side, Me Fahd Mihih, one of the lawyers of the victim’s son recalls that they deny their involvement in the murder of their father.
The lawyer considers that the decision to expel the two sons is an error of appreciation on the facts.