Me Mayence, the lawyer for the victims of the Strépy tragedy, does not believe in an accident: “One can wonder if it was not a trip which consisted of running into people”
5 days before the first anniversary of the Strépy tragedy, the victims’ lawyer comes out of his reserve. Jean-Philippe Mayence does not believe in an accident, he evokes the “murderous intentions” of Paolo Falzone and his trial.
Maître Mayence welcomes us to his office in the center of Charleroi. It is here that he worked on the biggest criminal cases in the country and it is from here that he now tries to support more than 50 victims of Paolo Falzone. If the driver’s lawyer often speaks in the media, Me Mayence has chosen discretion. If he agrees to confide in Sudinfo in a long video interview, it is to “keep a certain balance” he says.
I am bound by the secrecy of the instruction but I can answer you on a certain number of points. I can confirm that he filmed himself while driving at very high speed. He even filmed himself at the moment of impact. So we have certainty about location, impact and speed.
The role of the civil party is not to ask for a sentence. In the Assize Court, when someone is found guilty, the civil parties do not have a say in the sentence. It is true that the essential for us is compensation but also the fair qualification of the facts.
When you imagine that someone is filming himself when he unquestionably and voluntarily hits a person at more than 120 km/h, what do you want as a result other than death? The result was obtained as it was sought. Whether there is a person for whom we hold a murder or six, it will not change anything, the assize court will have jurisdiction. In terms of penalty, instead of 5 years for an accident, we can consider a penalty of up to 30 years. I am not attached to the pain but, for the families, it is important.
No, within the framework of the instruction a major element appeared. For this victim, he stopped to drop it and then he accelerated to roll over. Murder is obvious. I will go, I say it already, much further. I want voluntary homicide to be retained for all of the victims. When you decide to go for it knowing the area perfectly, it’s hard to argue that you don’t accept the idea of being able to cause death.
In terms of criminal liability it is important. We will need elements to assess its exact role. When you hear the videos you also hear the music, rap which is very strong.
It’s impossible to sleep with the music they were listening to. At the trial, people will realize what it’s like to film themselves when you approach people. When you hear the type of music it is, you might even wonder if these two people decided to have a trip that consisted of running into people. It remains an option.
It’s an intellectual journey that allows me to try to understand how one can do such a thing. Where can this come from ? They are two, are they two who want it and accept it?