Murder of a 15-year-old teenager in Laval | The accused fell into an “ambush”, argues the defense

by time news

Théo * never wanted to kill his 15-year-old best friend. That evening, the 16-year-old teenager fell into an “ambush” tended by two vengeful brothers who wanted to “beat him up” and film the scene on social networks. Badly beaten by four people, Theo only defended himself for fear of leaving his skin there.

Louis-Samuel Perron

Louis-Samuel Perron

This is the thesis defended Thursday by Me Guy Poupart at the trial of Théo, a boy now aged 18, who has been on trial since September in the Youth Chamber for the premeditated murder of Max *. This 15-year-old boy was stabbed to death in a park in the Fabreville district, in Laval, on 1is January 2020. The identity of the young people involved is protected by law.

According to the Crown, Theo went to Marc-Aurèle Fortin park, armed with a knife, with the firm intention of killing his best friend Max with whom he had quarreled two weeks earlier following a banal bickering on social networks. He would have threatened the victim online and in text messages.

On the contrary, believes the defense, it is rather the victim, Max, and his brother Peter, who are in the wrong in this story. The two teenagers and their friends would have orchestrated a plan to lure Theo to the park in order to attack him. “The brothers converge towards the park to bang Theo upside down. […] They hide the motive of their presence ”, pleaded Me Poupart.

While Theo shows up alone at the park, the two brothers are accompanied by three friends, including Nick, a young person with a “brawler” reputation, who knows very well “what will happen”, raises the defense. This “bodyguard” has also already assisted the brothers in other fights, maintains Mr.e Poupart. The initial plan was even to “jump all over” on Theo, Nick has already admitted.

READ Also:  Russians began to issue new certificates of vaccination against COVID-19 | News | News

At trial, Theo said he went to the park hoping to reconnect with his two best friends. He thus “stretched out his hand” to them on his arrival. However, the two brothers attacked him. His assailants gave him many punches and kicks, he said. Every time he fell, the brothers laughed and insulted him.

“I was afraid to leave my skin, I wanted to go home,” he said. It was then that he took out a knife to push the brothers back to escape. “I did not want to drop the knife, I was just defending myself,” he testified, according to his lawyer. But Theo felt people behind him hitting him and taking his arm.

At trial, no Prosecution witness claimed to have seen the fatal blow. In addition, the witnesses all delivered versions “in very large contradictory parts” and which “confront each other”, according to Mr.e Poupart. The victim’s brother also admitted to lying to the police, the defense said.


Defense counsel, Me Guy Poupart

But the accused’s account was largely confirmed by Nick, the brawler, in his police questioning the day after the tragedy, insisted Mr.e Poupart. This key witness told the police that the two brothers had given Theo 10 to 15 blows. He also said he joined the fray to hit Theo with a fourth sidekick.

In addition, DNA evidence shows that one of the brothers held one of the two knives found at the park in his hand, the defense claims. “This knife is not in a snowbank by chance. DNA does not appear as if by magic ”, pleaded Me Poupart. Moreover, it is “unreasonable” to believe that Theo “hung” the two knives before fleeing, according to the criminal lawyer. The police found a knife on him.

READ Also:  Until the Chief Justice takes charge, Judge Duraisamy will oversee the work: President | Until the Chief Justice takes charge Judge Duraisamy will oversee the work President | Puthiyathalaimurai - Tamil News | Latest Tamil News | Tamil News Online

« [Théo] must defend himself, he must react, because he feels in danger ”, summarizes Me Poupart, who maintains that the Crown has not discharged its burden. On certain elements relating to the murder charge, the evidence is even “literally absent”, added the lawyer. There is thus “ample room for a more than reasonable doubt”.

In addition, the criteria for the defense of self-defense are “widely met”. And if alternatively this defense was rejected, Mr.e Poupart advances the “accident defense”.

Me Poupart continues his argument on Friday. It will be the turn of the Crown attorneys to plead before Judge Catherine Perreault.

You may also like

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.