Still Missing France - Narumi Kurosaki, 21, Besancon, 4 Dec 2016 *arrest in 2020* *Guilty, Appeal 2023*

[ZaZara]

Things that need explaining in Chile:

Buena alimentación, cama propia, incluso celda individual: Así será la cárcel de Nicolás Zepeda - RadioSago 94.5 Osorno y 96.5 Puerto Montt

On Tuesday 12 April, the five-year investigation into the disappearance of young Narumi Kurosaki came to an end when Nicolas Zepeda was sentenced in France to 28 years in prison for the murder of the Japanese student in December 2016.

The Chilean remains in custody in the pre-trial detention centre in the city of Besanzon. Although many might imagine that his confinement will be a living hell, the reality is that in France, prisons are a far cry from what they are like in our country.

"Good food, a bed of his own, and even a single cell".

On the confinement that Nciolás Zepeda will have to face, Silvio Cuneo, a criminal lawyer and prison expert, says: "If we compare French prisons...with average Chilean prisons, the situation is better, the prisoners have more space, there is less overcrowding."

In Chile, prisons are overcrowded and serving time in them is not easy. In France, although some prisons are stricter than others, they are not considered to be among the worst in the world.

"France has a level of overcrowding or overpopulation of 10%, Chile has some prisons where prison overcrowding exceeds 200% and even 300%. On the other hand, the food standards are higher in a French prison than in a Chilean prison, which in practical terms means that being in a prison in France is more comfortable than being in a prison in Chile," lawyer Silvio Cuneo adds.

Most likely he will have good food, his own bed, even an individual cell. A context that will make it easier for him to spend his 28 years behind bars.


BBM

 

[ZaZara]

Abogada que vio extradición de Nicolás Zepeda: “Parece aventurado condenar por homicidio”

Lawyer who witnessed Nicolás Zepeda's extradition: "It seems bold to convict for manslaughter"

One of the news stories this week was the 28-year sentence handed down by the French justice system to Nicolás Zepeda, after he was found guilty of the premeditated murder of Narumi Kurosaki.

Joanna Heskia, the Chilean's lawyer in the extradition process to France in 2020, says the sentence "surprised me."

"Although there are indications of the existence of a crime and of Nicolás Zepeda's participation, these are not consistent, and several are even contradictory. It seems risky to convict for murder when there is no accredited cause of death, and more importantly, when there is no certainty of her death."

By contradictory evidence, she refers to the fact that the geolocation of the phone was different from that of the defendant's car. The lawyer also points to the absence of cameras showing Zepeda carrying a large suitcase from the dormitories where Narumi resided, as stated in the indictment.

Although Heskia was not the one who proposed French lawyer Jacqueline Laffont - whose clients include former president Nicolas Sakozy - to defend the Chilean, she did approve her name based on her reputation as a litigator, and then worked with her to coordinate the delivery of all the background information and minutes compiled by her team.

"The case is very complex. Not only because of the complexities of an accusation of homicide without a body, but also because of the extreme pressures that had to be faced; the diplomacy of two large nations, Japan and France, and very particularly, the press and social networks," the Chilean lawyer adds.

On the possibility of extradition, she explains that, if the sentence is enforced, the convicted person can, if he so wishes, request to serve his sentence in Chile.

"This is a possibility that is governed by a series of international conventions that ensure the rights of the convicted to be close to their families and their roots", she adds. The lawyer has remained close to Nicolás Zepeda's parents, who, she says, have suffered a lot throughout this whole trial: "they are devastated."


BBM

 

[ZaZara]

Roberto Cox revela que tuvo que golpear varias puertas para poder cubrir la historia de Nicolás Zepeda en Francia - Fotech.cl


Roberto Cox reveals that he had to knock on several doors in order to cover Nicolás Zepeda's story in France.

The Chilevisión journalist is in France and has given full and extensive coverage of the trial of Nicolás Zepeda, the Chilean accused of murdering his ex-partner, Narumi Kurosaki. During his time in the European country, he has been praised for his good command of the language and for providing complete information.

Tuesday is a crucial day in Zepeda's criminal trial, he has been found guilty as charged in the first instance. Following this decision, Roberto Cox contacted "Contigo en la Mañana" to comment on the case with the hosts of the show.

It was then that Julio César Rodríguez noted that the crime initially went almost unnoticed and that, over time, it acquired relevance in our country.

" One day we were commenting with fellow journalists that this was a case that people had no idea about. A journalist from Chilevisión saw some Japanese colleagues in Las Condes reporting. He was going the other way, saw the Japanese press, got out of the car, asked what they were reporting and it was this case of Nicolás Zepeda," he revealed.

At that point Cox confessed that he had been trying for a year to convince his bosses to let him cover the story in France.

"I have never told this: a year ago I went to knock on the door of the person who was at the time Chilevisión's head of press. I told her: 'I want to come and cover this case,' because I learned to speak French as a child because of my family history. I was very interested in going to report on it, because I thought it was a good story," he said.

Cox said he was not given a positive response at the time, and the case dragged on and on until the trial began. "As it turned out, we were getting closer to the date and I started knocking on more doors saying 'please, we have to go cover because it's such a good story'," he added.

Press headquarters were not convinced to cover the case, as the fellow countryman was on "the bad side of the story." "In this case the Chilean is the accused party in all this. Nicolás Zepeda's situation here in France was not going to generate empathy," he explained, trying to elucidate the reasons for the initial refusal.

"However, we realised that in our country it has generated a lot of interest, because we have realised how the French justice system works, which is very different from ours," he added.

"It was very difficult to convince the bosses to come here because of the empathy that one of the protagonists can generate, because we were not on the right side of history as a country", he reiterated, and concluded by continuing to focus on the trial of Nicolas.

BBM


I've discovered Roberto Cox too late. Unfortunately, during the trial, many Chilean broadcasts were 'Chile only'. But there he was, on Twitter and on Instagram, Roberto Cox in France, speaking French and well versed into the case. He even managed to conduct interviews with the lawyers without background noises. (Kudos!)

Login • Instagram

The point of view from Chile is interwesting reading, it offers insights for the appeal, which IMO will be about details of details, but to many in Chile and to the defense counsels, these are not details at all.

 

[ZaZara]

Procès de Nicolas Zepeda : vers un procès en appel à Besançon ?

Trial of Nicolas Zepeda: towards a trial on appeal in Besançon?

The public prosecutor of Besançon and public prosecutor in the trial of Nicolas Zepeda, Etienne Manteaux, commented on Friday 15 April on the request for an appeal by Nicolas Zepeda, who was convicted on 12 April for the murder of Narumi Kurusaki. Even if the law forbids an appeal to be held in the same court where the first sentence was handed down, there could perhaps be an exception...

Sentenced last Tuesday to 28 years of criminal imprisonment for the premeditated murder of Japanese student Narumi Kurusaki, Nicolas Zepeda and his lawyer, Maître Laffont, appealed the court's decision the day after the verdict.

The public prosecutor, Etienne Manteaux, called for an appeal to be held in the same court where the first verdict was handed down. He then announced his intention to ask the Court of Cassation, the body governing appeals, to approve a waiver for the second trial to take place in Besançon as this would be "obviously the right decision" in his view.

The possibilities are limited because the courts of Vesoul and Lons-le-Saunier are the only other assize courts in Franche-Comté. They can host the trial, but Etienne Manteaux's intention is nevertheless to organise the trial in Besançon because "the question is whether these two assize courts are sufficiently equipped, and the answer is clearly no at this stage", in order to receive the video-conferencing devices of the Japanese and Chilean parties.

The prosecutor then qualified his remarks on the possible holding of the trial in Besançon: "the objective remains to avoid a third trial, in cassation, so there will be no risk taken on a procedural level, since the wording of the law does not explicitly provide for this to be done in Besançon."

The decision of the Court of Cassation is expected in the coming weeks. Nicolas Zepeda's appeal should take place within 12 to 18 months.


BBM



Vesoul and Lons-le-Saunier have about 30.000+ inhabitants among the two of them. That is about the size of the village where I live.
Vesoul and Lons-le-Saunier are each central towns for their respective surrounding regions, but both the town and the region of Besançon are significantly bigger.

I am trying to find out how this works with courts and regions, and I don't get it. But no doubt the Courts do and we'll hear about it in due course.

 

[ZaZara]

Happy to find a website dedicated to judicial matters in Chile, and this comment from a scholar about the Narumi case:

Comentario crítico sobre la jurisprudencia de homicidios sin cuerpo y su impacto en el estándar de la duda razonable. - Diario Constitucional

Critical commentary on the case law on homicide without a body and its impact on the standard of reasonable doubt.

The recent jurisprudence on homicide without a body, both in Chile and abroad, has revitalised the discussion on the standard of reasonable doubt and demonstrates the paramount importance that this evidentiary standard has within the criminal procedure system for the resolution of specific cases. Therefore, this article proposes that, although it is possible to convict a person of murder in the absence of the body of the victim of the crime, this can never be at the cost of transgressing the parameter of reasonable doubt, which is a guarantee for all citizens and which, for reasons of obvious justice, would rather see a guilty person acquitted than an innocent person convicted, and not the other way around as exemplified by the case of Narumi Kurosaki.

The Narumi Kurosaki case has caused a great stir around the world due to its sensitivity and the insufficiency of conclusive evidence to prove the authorship and participation of Nicolás Zepeda in the alleged murder of Narumi. Thus, in this case, the evidences of the criminal offence of homicide, that is, the act of killing, the result of death and a causal relationship between the first two, were not proven, but Nicolás Zepeda was sentenced to a prison term of 28 years.

Dogmatically, this has at least two implications. The first is that the jurisprudence and doctrine of convictions for homicide without a body is being consolidated in France, and the second, which is more worrying, is the weakening of the evidentiary standard of reasonable doubt. Thus, it is clear from the case that this standard of proof, which is a procedural guarantee for all citizens and which is summarised in the idea that in the face of doubt it is necessary to acquit, is inverted and formulated as follows: in the face of doubt it is necessary to convict[1]. This is precisely what happened, given that in this case there was much more than a reasonable doubt, due to the absence of evidence that would scientifically place Zepeda at the scene of the crime or that would prove his alleged homicidal action.

With regard to the relevant Chilean jurisprudence on the matter, two rulings stand out that are worth analysing. The first ruling RIT 35-2011 of the Oral Trial Court of Punta Arenas, which sentenced Sixto Pablo Ayancán to ten years of rigorous imprisonment in its minimum degree for the crime of simple homicide as perpetrator with respect to the person of Fernando Ojeda. In this case, there is an evidentiary problem consisting of the absence of the victim's body, so the Public Prosecutor's Office accredits the punishable act with the submission of other evidence. Namely, the testimony of Marco Barría, who is an eyewitness to the events and crew member of the merchant boat where they occurred, indicates that Sixto shot Ojeda with a shotgun and then threw him to the seabed, tying stones to the body so that it would sink and not be found. This testimony is consistent with the victim's DNA evidence that places him at the scene of the crime and the ballistic analysis that accredits the lethal shot.

The second ruling RIT 42-2021 of the Oral Trial Court of Temuco, which imposes a sentence of fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment in the medium term on Erwin Aedo Soto as the perpetrator of the crime of simple homicide against Paola Alvarado Cortez. As in the case of Sixto Ayancán, the sentencers, despite the absence of the corpus delicti, arrived at a conviction beyond reasonable doubt, based on the evidence presented at trial. In particular, testimonial and expert evidence accredited the presence of reddish-brown stains on a pair of the condemned man's shoes, which correspond with a 99.99% probability to the victim's DNA.

Indeed, our criminal procedural system does not require the presence of a corpus delicti in homicide crimes, given that it enshrines freedom of evidence according to article 295 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, this must be harmonised with article 297 of the same code, which states that the evaluation of evidence must be in accordance with the principles of logic, scientifically established knowledge and the principles of experience. Also, Article 340 CPP establishes that the conviction of the court must be acquired beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the Chilean evidentiary system is based on the freedom to present any evidence conducive to the verification of the factual hypotheses debated in the trial, which recognises as a limit and guarantee the fact that they must be assessed by the judges in accordance with the parameters set by the aforementioned 297 CPP. Thus, a correct combination of these legal norms presumes that the standard of reasonable doubt will be met. However, this is not an axiom, as judges can respect those rules of evidence, but not manage to eliminate any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, which, if maintained, imposes the obligation of acquittal.

Thus, after comparing the cases of Sixto Ayancán and Narumi, it is clear that the common denominator in both cases is the non-existence of a corpse, but the fundamental difference lies in the fact that in the first case the evidence presented for the prosecution is greater in quantity and quality than in the second, for the purposes of founding a conviction that satisfies the parameter of reasonable doubt. In the words of Taruffo, that standard is only met when the evidence presented offers certainty as to the occurrence of the facts contained in the prosecution's accusation[2]. Consequently, the two judgments analysed from Chilean jurisprudence prove the elements of the crime of homicide, that is, the act of killing, mainly through testimonial and expert evidence, and the result of death also through that evidence and through logical presumptions of facts that are incompatible with life, such as being shot with a shotgun at a distance of one metre and then thrown to the bottom of the ocean.

However, the French case raises more doubts than certainties, as the typical elements of homicide were not proven. Thus, the act of killing was not accredited either by testimonies or by expert reports that refer to Zepeda's participation and authorship in the facts. For this reason, the French Public Prosecutor's Office formulated a lucubration of a low scientific and epistemic level, which was labelled as circumstantial evidence or presumptions. However, the truth is that it is far from being even a presumption in the technical sense, since such evidence is based on a known fact from which an unknown fact is logically deduced, for which it is necessary to empirically prove the premise from which its logical conclusion is derived.

That said, Nicolás Zepeda was accused of buying precursors for the commission of homicide in respect of Narumi Kurosaki, his ex-partner, namely: fuel and detergent, he was also charged with being the last person he was with before the young woman disappeared, the geolocation of Narumi's mobile phone which was kept in Zepeda's possession until his subsequent arrival in Chile, he was also alleged to have stalked the vicinity of the hotel in France where Narumi was staying the last time she was seen, finally he is attributed with a strange trip through the forest near the hotel in one of the early hours of the morning after Kurosaki's disappearance.

All in all, the only thing that the French prosecution proved with certainty was that the accused performed certain acts spatially and temporally close to the undetermined date of Narumi's disappearance. Thus, those means of proof referring to the conduct displayed by the accused, which, regardless of their normality or strangeness, are epistemically incapable of proving with a reasonable degree of probability the execution of the elements of the objective and subjective criminal type of homicide. In fact, because it is not known in the case when, how, where and by whom Narumi was killed, the possibilities are virtually infinite, making it impossible to assert, with respect for scientifically established knowledge and the rules of logic, that Zepeda killed Kurosaki beyond reasonable doubt.

Thus, although in France the jury is made up of nine members, six laypersons and three lawyers, this does not mean that the standard of reasonable doubt loses its epistemic character, which requires that the conviction of the sentencers must be reached on a minimum level defined by scientific knowledge and the rules of logic. In conclusion, this is the only way to respect the minimum criminal procedural guarantees that every person enjoys, in particular the principle of the presumption of innocence, which is a state that the accused maintains throughout the criminal proceedings against him or her, until the opposite is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The disturbing fact that the psychological profile of those accused of this type of crime is becoming increasingly relevant in this type of case deserves a separate comment. This logically follows from the fact that, in the absence of evidence that verifies the homicidal conduct, the focus of analysis shifts to the person, which means a serious setback in the criminal justice system, which is devolving from a criminal law of action or conduct to a criminal law of the perpetrator. (Santiago, 20 April 2022)


BBM



All in all, the only thing that the French prosecution proved with certainty was that the accused performed certain acts spatially and temporally close to the undetermined date of Narumi's disappearance.

IMO, they did prove a lot more, evidence that the author leaves out of his comments. But if this is the line of thinking in Chile, and apparently it is, then Nicolas Zepeda must have felt very safe. No body, no crime, unless there is a witness of the crime itself or DNA pointing to such crime.

Isn't it strange btw, even in the eyes of this Chilean lawyer, that Nicolas Zepeda was able to take Narumi's phone all the way to Chile, without her reporting or protesting its loss?

I struggled a bit with the term 'epistemic'and in the end I decided to leave it like that. Everyone who has read Plato knows what it is about.

 

[ZaZara]

Assassinat de Narumi. Procès en appel de Nicolas Zepeda à Vesoul : "C’est ce que l’on avait demandé", se satisfait Me Schwerdorffer


Nicolas Zepeda's appeal trial in Vesoul: "That's what we asked for", Me Schwerdorffer is satisfied


" This is good, this is what we asked for! " Me Randall Schwerdorffer is satisfied with the announcement, by the public prosecutor, of the proximity of the appeal trial of Nicolas Zepeda-Contreras, sentenced in first instance to 28 years in prison for the assassination in Besançon in 2016 of Narumi Kurosaki. The appeal will be held in early 2023 in Vesoul.

"We proposed Vesoul because the public prosecutor's office headed by Arnaud Grécourt has already demonstrated its ability to organise a major criminal trial, in the Daval case, which is not easy," the lawyer for Arthur Del Piccolo, the French boyfriend of the Japanese student, explains. "With the stakes of such a trial, it was necessary to proceed quickly, Narumi's family is waiting for a decision. It was also important that this trial remained in the region. It would have been surprising if it had been moved to Colmar or Dijon.

For the lawyer from Besançon, "all that remains to be seen now is what line of defence Nicolas Zepeda will choose. He did not move one iota in his denial in the first instance, but his lawyer did."


BBM


Early 2023 would mean in the first half of that year.

 

[ZaZara]

Justice. Assassinat de Narumi Kurosaki: Nicolas Zepeda jugé en appel à Vesoul à partir du 21 février

The trial on appeal of Nicolas of Chile, sentenced in April in Besançon to 28 years imprisonment for the assassination of his Japanese ex-girlfriend Narumi Kurosaki, will be held from 21 February to 10 March 2023 in Vesoul.

According to information from L'Est républicain, the first president of the Besançon Court of Appeal issued an order on Wednesday fixing this date for the session of the Haute-Saône and Territoire de Belfort Assize Court, which will be exclusively devoted to the appeal trial of Nicolas Zepeda.

The Besançon public prosecutor, Etienne Manteaux, will again represent the public prosecutor's office during this appeal trial, which is scheduled to last a maximum of three weeks, but which could be shorter depending on the content of the debates.

During the first instance trial, which was held over a fortnight last March and April before the Doubs Assize Court, Etienne Manteaux had requested life imprisonment for the 31 year old Chilean. He was sentenced on 12 April to 28 years of criminal imprisonment for the assassination of Narumi Kurosaki, in December 2016 in Besançon, where the 21-year-old woman was studying.

Throughout his trial, Nicolas Zepeda maintained his innocence, despite the numerous elements of proof, and appealed his conviction. He strongly denied killing his Japanese ex-girlfriend whose remains were never found.

The young man was extradited in the summer of 2020 by Chile to stand trial in France.


BBM

 

[ZaZara]

Exclusif. Assassinat de Narumi : Nicolas Zepeda et Me Laffont se séparent, les avocats se bousculent pour le défendre

Assassination of Narumi: Nicolas Zepeda and Me Laffont separate, lawyers rush in to take up his defence

Nicolas Zepeda and the prestigious law firm of Jacqueline Laffont are ending their collaboration. Sentenced to 28 years in prison for the assassination of the Japanese student Narumi Kurosaki, seven months ago in Besançon, the Chilean has plenty of choice: several lawyers are ready to defend him at the appeal trial, at the end of February 2023, in Vesoul.

"And if by chance, yes by chance, Nicolas Zepeda was innocent? The last sentence of her plea, spoken on April 11, still echoes in the courtroom from Besançon. In this case, there will be no more. According to our information, Jacqueline Laffont sent a letter to the Besançon court of appeal on Tuesday 15 November, to confirm what many people had been anticipating for months: Nicolas Zepeda will be defended by another lawyer at his appeal trial, scheduled for 21 February 2023 in Vesoul.


BBM


The report is subscription-only, so we are left to wonder why?

 

[ZaZara]

Exclusif. Assassinat de Narumi : Nicolas Zepeda a choisi son avocat en appel, Me Vey, l'ex-associé de Dupond-Moretti

Assassination of Narumi:

Nicolas Zepeda has chosen his lawyer for the appeal, Me Vey, the ex-partner of Dupond-Moretti

The suspense is over: three months before his appeal trial in Vesoul, Nicolas Zepeda has chosen his new lawyer. And he is prestigious. Me Antoine Vey , who has taken over the management of the office of the Minister of Justice, Éric Dupond-Moretti, is taking over the defence from Me Laffont. His Chilean client was sentenced to 28 years in prison for the assassination of Narumi Kurosaki, a crime he still denies. The Japanese student has not been heard of since 2016.

Nicolas Zepeda was sentenced in the first instance to 28 years of criminal imprisonment for the assassination of Narumi Kurosaki last April in Besançon, France. The Chilean will have the right to a second trial, in three months in Vesoul. But for this return match, the ex-boyfriend of the missing student wanted to change the game.

BBM

There is more, but that is behind a paywall.

Anoine Vey, wearing a blue coat, on the left in the picture, is the French lawyer of Julian Assange.

Interesting detail:
Antoine Vey is also representing the family of Tiphaine Véron, a young French woman who disappeared in Japan in 2018. She had breakfast in her hotel in Nikko, left the hotel to go sightseeing at previously identified points of interest. She was never heard of again.

 

[ZaZara]

Today is the first day of the trial on appeal in the Narumi case and it starts with CHAOS.

Apparently, Nicolas Zepeda no longer has a lawyer. Maître Vey no longer represents him, cause or reasons unknown for the moment. Antoine Vey informed the court of this on Saturday.

Nicolás Zepeda has found another counsel, who needs more time to prepare the defense.

The trial is postponed till Thursday, February 23.


9.16am: The information is confirmed. Me Antoine Vey, from the Paris lawyers' bar, does not defend Nicolas Zepeda after all. The president takes the floor. Catherine Bresson, from the Besançon bar, is appointed to defend Mr Zepeda. "My client no longer intends to maintain my mandate. The current situation will prevent me in good conscience from defending him", explained Me Vey in a letter sent to the president, dated 18 February.

BBM

DIRECT. Première journée du procès en appel de Nicolas Zepeda : l'accusé se présente sans avocat, le procès reporté à jeudi 23 février

 

[JerseyGirl]

Trial of Chilean accused of murdering Japanese ex-girlfriend suspended to Thursday

The appeal trial in France of a Chilean man found guilty of murdering his Japanese ex-girlfriend in 2016 was suspended until Thursday, after the accused appeared in court without a lawyer.

www.reuters.com

 

[ZaZara]

Affaire Narumi. Le début du procès Zepeda vire au chaos, l’audience repoussée à jeudi

Zepeda trial opens in chaos, hearing postponed to Thursday

The opening of Nicolas Zepeda's appeal trial in Vesoul on Tuesday turned into legal chaos. The Chilean accused of murdering Narumi Kurosaki appeared without a lawyer to defend him. After a morning of hesitation, the court decided that the hearing would not resume until Thursday, the time for Mr Portejoie, finally chosen by the Zepeda clan, to prepare his defence.

We thought we had already seen everything, experienced everything in the Narumi case, but it seems as if the mysterious disappearance of the Japanese student, six years ago in Besançon, will upset all the codes of justice until the end...

An improbable turn of events shook up the opening of the appeal trial of Nicolas Zepeda, sentenced in the first instance to 28 years in prison. As revealed by L'Est Républicain, a discreet rumour had been floating around for some time, according to which the lawyer of the Chilean defendant would not appear at the opening of the hearing, abandoning his clients at the very last moment.

The fiction has been overtaken by reality: this Tuesday at 9am, no Antoine Vey. Obviously, there was a profound disagreement between the Zepeda family and the Parisian law firm. On the line of defence to adopt? The answer will remain forever buried in professional secrecy.


BBM


The rest of the report is behind a paywall and I am seriously tempted to subscribe - the problem is that it is so hard to get rid of those easy subscriptions.

Apparently, the Zepeda family is banging their drums loudly, and the question is according to l'Est Republicain and other sources, if the new lawyer will accept the defense on Thursday, after only one day of preparation (!) and, reading between the lines, if the lawyer will accept the line of defense that the family wants.

Tweets from reporter Sarah Rebouh @srebouh , reporter for F3FrancheComte

The hearing resumes. The trial can finally begin... or not. Me Bresson took the floor: "Nicolas Zeppeda told us that he had a lawyer of his choice, Me Portejoie Renaud, who accepted the mandate. He is asking for a full day to prepare the defence.

#We are waiting to hear whether the appeal will be postponed until Thursday, so that N.Z's potential new lawyer can get to know the case. The situation is a bit unbelievable when you consider that this trial has been scheduled for months.

A friend of #NicolasZepeda testifies. She says, like the parents of the accused, that they were not aware of Me Vey. However, the lawyer says that it was his client who refused to be represented by him. The Zepeda family is obviously trying to discredit French justice.

Nicolas Zepeda's father said "This new trial is an opportunity to denounce all the inconsistencies in this case. #NicolasZepeda #Vesoul

Nicolas Zepeda appeal trial: who is Me Renaud Portejoie, the new defence lawyer? https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/bourgogne-franche-comte/haute-saone/vesoul/proces-en-appel-de-nicolas-zepeda-qui-est-me-renaud-portejoie-nouvel-avocat-de-la-defense-2718578.html #Vesoul

Will Me Portejoie defend the thesis of judicial error, as the family of #NicolasZepeda has been hammering it out in the press? Will he follow his client at all costs in a strategy deemed "toxic" by the lawyers of the civil parties? We will know more on Thursday 23 February.


BBM

from the link in the tweets above:

"What exactly happened? It is difficult to know the details, but a credible analysis emerges: that of a disagreement concerning the line of defence desired by the accused. Nicolas Zepeda wants to plead not guilty and has no intention of changing his mind."

BBM

Nicolas Zepeda probably lost his first lawyer, Jacqueline Laffont, because of that aim. Then he lost Me Vey. Next, he did not want to work with Me Bresson who was assigned to him this morning. Now we will have to wait until Thursday to know if Me Renaud Portejoie will take up the desired defense.

Picture of the file. Good luck to the new lawyer!

 

[ZaZara]

Found the letter of Me Vey in Le Monde:

"I have been informed today [18 February] that my client, Nicolas Zepeda, no longer intends to maintain my representation mandate. In this context, in the absence of a mandate, I inform you that I will not be present at the hearing on Tuesday morning. In any case, in respect of professional secrecy, I inform you that the current situation will prevent me, in good conscience, from defending him", writes Mr Vey.

BBM

Professional secrecy and all, what the lawyer says is that he does not support the line of defense of Nicolas Zepeda.

The line of defense is of course extremely important for this trial (and any trial for that matter) because a guilty plea would mean that the trial would be halted in favour of a possible search for Narumi's remains, so very important for the family and of course for the forensic investigations.

From yesterday's live blog from l'Est Republicain:

10.20am - "A toxic strategy": Maître Schwerdorffer torpedoes the attitude of the Zepeda clan

The recess is prolonged. Behind closed doors, Me Bresson continues to speak with Nicolas Zepeda, who can theoretically refuse her assistance. Me Schwerdorffer improvised a mini press conference on the steps of the court. "Justice can be dysfunctional, but this is not a judicial error. I am impatiently waiting for the trial to resume. I remember in the first instance all the lies and inconsistencies in Nicolas Zepeda's version. We will see what the jurors of the Haute-Saône Assize Court think.

Is Nicolas Zepeda defensible in his eyes? "He is perfectly defensible, like anyone else. The problem is his line of defence... Is his defence strategy defensible, no it is not," Me Schwerdorffer adds, "moreover, Me Laffont was not able to hold this line in Besançon, and Mr. Vey, obviously, does not subscribe to this line either. We want Nicolas Zepeda to be defended and well defended. But they are trying to make us believe that Narumi has been hidden somewhere since 2016... This strategy is toxic, but Narumi's family and Arthur del Piccolo will not be spared anything".

[ Nicolas Zepeda does refuse the assistance of Me Bresson and announces that he has a new lawyer. The trial is postponed until Thursday. ]

12pm - "A bitter slap, a new insult" for Narumi's family

The postponement of the trial leaves the Kurosaki family in a state of shock, as their lawyer, Me Galley, reports in an aside. "My clients were stunned. This is a stinging slap in the face, a new insult to them in this trial. They are enduring unimaginable hardships. It's all beyond their comprehension.

The Japanese women's lawyer criticised the attitude of the Chilean defendant: "Nicolas Zepeda is proving his omnipotence, that he controls and dominates the trial. We are subjected to his desires, it is very difficult for them to live. I have my clients who are in a state of withdrawal, misunderstanding and again in pain. In all honesty, everything that is happening today shows that there is nothing left to hope for from Nicolas Zepeda.


12.10pm - "I have never experienced anything like this", Me Schwerdorffer declared

"I've done more than 130 criminal trials, I've never experienced anything like this", Me Schwerdorffer announced after the postponement of the trial to Thursday morning was made official. When asked about the postponement of the trial, Arthur Del Piccolo's lawyer said: "All I care about is that the case is brought to trial.

Regarding the possibility of further changes in the schedule, he said he did not "see what twist there might be between now and Thursday."


BBM


In theory, it is possible that Me Renaud Portejoie also rejects the desired line of defense. After all, we have seen it has happen before.

 

[ZaZara]

Procès en appel de Nicolas Zepeda : un changement de stratégie radical orchestré par le père de l'accusé

As the appeal trial of Nicolas Zepeda began with an unexpected twist in Vesoul, the father of the accused, Humberto Zepeda, is standing up for his son. Last year, in the first instance, he had remained completely silent. Here are some explanations.

(...)

Since the beginning, two truths have been in direct opposition. That of the French justice system, and more precisely that of the Besançon court of assizes and jury, which sentenced the Chilean to 28 years of criminal imprisonment for the assassination of Narumi Kurosaki, his ex-girlfriend, in 2016, and that of the accused and his family. This was already the case at first instance, in 2022 in Besançon.

The court has already ruled once in favour of the version of the investigators from Besançon. Nicolas Zepeda would have decided to go to France from Chile to spy on and track down his ex-girlfriend, because she was rejecting him and seeing another man: Arthur Del Piccolo. Prior to this, he would have bought a flammable product, detergent and matches. He would also have asked a doctor cousin about death by asphyxiation. The thirty-year-old, judged "manipulative" by the psychologists, then invited the victim to a restaurant in Ornans in the Doubs in the hope of winning her back. When she refused, he murdered her in the Bouloie university campus, before disposing of her body. The body has never been found.


In Vesoul, the versions clash once again and in a much more direct way, even before the official start of the trial on Thursday 23 February. Unlike last year, Humberto Zepeda, the father of the accused, is in the spotlight in front of the cameras and immediately reveals the defence strategy of his son, who arrived in the dock without a lawyer on Tuesday 21 February, causing the postponement of the hearing. He had remained totally silent in the first instance, refusing to comment on anything before, during and even after the verdict, taking his place behind Me Jacqueline Laffont, although he was visibly at odds with her.

This time, he appears very offensive, determined to point the finger at French justice. He proclaims it loud and clear: his son is innocent. He is sure and certain of it. It is up to French justice to do its job and to do it properly. According to him, they would be much better occupied with finding a guilty party than with finding the truth. If some could hope for a confession, this idea seems more and more improbable. "This trial is an opportunity to demonstrate the inconsistencies in this case. We have confidence in justice provided it is fair. But the situation is odd, to say the least," he explained.

Several inconsistencies arose from the first day of the aborted trial. Me Vey was supposed to represent Nicolas Zepeda. In the end, he did not. Here again, two versions clash. According to a letter from the Parisian lawyer dated 18 February, read out at the opening of the hearing by the president of the Assize Court, it was Nicolas Zepeda who chose to break the relationship with his counsel. According to those close to Nicolas Zepeda, it was the other way around. They were not aware of this break, they say.

Another incongruity: the appointment of Mr Renaud Portejoie to defend Nicolas Zepeda. As a reminder, it was the Chilean himself who put forward his name, refusing at the same time to be represented by the lawyer who had just been appointed for him. In assizes, the accused must be assisted by a lawyer. "Who can believe that a lawyer can take hold of such a complex case? This is detrimental to the defence, but if this is the way French law is, then we have to accept it," said Zepeda senior, as he left the Vesoul courthouse. However, according to our information, Nicolas Zepeda and Mr. Renaud Portejoie had already met in prison, before the withdrawal of Mr. Vey. The lawyer from Clermont-Ferrand would therefore have knowledge of the Chilean's case. The problem continues...


BBM


Messages on Twitter indicate that the Zepeda family has found two witnesses who claim to have seen Narumi alive, days after she alledgedly disappeared ~ at a time when Nicolas Zepeda fortunately had already left France. Even the twitterati have their doubts, so let's wait and see if these witnesses make it to the stand and formally introduce themselves.

Meanwhile, if the info of France3 is correct, yesterday's delay was totally uncalled for. Me Renaud Portejoie will indeed take up the defense, he might have appeared with his client already on Tuesday, why didn't he? and the trial can start on Thursday without further delay.

 

[ZaZara]

INFO FRANCE 3. Le père de Nicolas Zepeda dévoile 14 arguments pour contrer l'accusation lors du procès en appel à Vesoul

Humberto Zepeda, father of Nicolas Zepeda accused of murdering Narumi Kurosaki, a Japanese student, in 2016 in Besançon, has sent us [ France3 ] a complete argumentation, supposedly proving the innocence of his son. Details.

This list contains 14 detailed points, on which the Zepeda family intends to rely to prove to the French justice system that the thirty-year-old is innocent. They have been translated by us from Spanish into French, as scrupulously as possible in order to respect Mr Zepeda's word, with the original turns of phrase that this implies.

The 14 defence arguments of Humberto Zepeda, father of the accused:

1 ► "We do not know with absolute certainty and there is no concrete, irrefutable or scientific proof of how, when and where Narumi disappeared or lost her life, questions that are confirmed by the statements of two witnesses who say they are certain they saw her on the dates of her disappearance and in different places."

Clarification from our editor: The witnesses in question were not questioned during the first trial in Besançon in 2022. The testimonies were not deemed credible by the investigators.

2 ► "There are no eyewitnesses to the commission of the crime."

3 ► "There are no images or recordings from CCTV cameras that show the act of the crime, although there are 29 cameras throughout the campus and nightly rounds by the guards of the university residence (according to the press at the time, there is an image from a camera in the university residence that shows Nicolás leaving the building alone and with his suitcase in the early hours of that day). What happened? What the camera recorded has disappeared."

Editor's note: Video recordings of a prowler were viewed during the trial. This individual had his face hidden and was wearing the same clothes as those of Nicolas Zepeda. The GPS of his vehicle was pointing to this location every time the individual appeared on the CCTV cameras. Some of the cameras installed on campus were poorly maintained, misdirected and defective. No images of a man carrying a dead body were presented by the prosecution at the first trial.

4 ► "No murder weapon of any kind was found with Nicholas' fingerprints."

5 ► "No trace of Narumi's DNA was found in the vehicle Nicolas was using to travel on those days, neither in the trunk nor in the back seats."

6 ► "The suitcase was never found and there is no evidence that it was burnt in the forest or abandoned by a river. Tons of rubbish were searched at the city's collection centre and nothing was found."

Clarification from our editor: The suitcase that Humberto Zepeda is talking about is the one that Narumi Kurosaki had in her university room. It was not found by the investigators. The investigators suspected that Zepeda had used it to transport the body of his victim. Tons of rubbish were indeed sifted through. It was to find human remains, as Edwige Roux-Morizot, the public prosecutor in Besançon, explained at the beginning of the case in 2016.

7 ► "No reconstruction of the scene has been or will be carried out to see the times and routes that a person could have taken, confirm the screams, the acoustics of the place and the distances. The immediate neighbour of the room did not hear anything. Others heard various screams on several floors, but none said "it was in room 106". Some even said it was outside the premises."

Editor's note: Regarding the screams heard on the night of the alleged murder, the testimonies of students during the trial from Besançon were particularly striking. A young woman who lived opposite Narumi Kurosaki's room in 2016 reported hearing "a rather high-pitched scream", making her think of a horror film being watched. This was concomitant with "booms on doors, furniture". Another student spoke of "very loud screams, like cries of pain, for 10 minutes, continuously" (see our article). Another witness formally recognised Nicolas Zepeda in a photo. She said she saw him crying in the collective kitchens of the university building. During the trial in Besançon, the question of the exact location of the crime was indeed raised.

Several hypotheses were discussed, including that the act was committed outside room 106, in the stairwell, which could explain why the victim's direct neighbour did not hear anything, unlike people on the floors.

8 ► "On at least 4 occasions, people entered Narumi's room before the investigators entered, including the French boyfriend (ed. note, Arthur Del Piccolo), who, shall we say, was cheated by Narumi with Nicolas. And this meeting was absolutely consensual according to the images which show Narumi guiding Nicolas towards the entrance of the building."

Nicolas Zepeda said that he had a consensual sexual relationship with Narumi Kurosaki on the night of his disappearance. According to his father, the victim had deceived her boyfriend Arthur Del Piccolo, by renewing a love relationship with Nicolas Zepeda. The investigation showed that friends of the victim, including her boyfriend, worried about her disappearance, had indeed entered Narumi Kurosaki's room, thanks to the caretaker of the university building.

9 ► "The police found documents on the nightstand that they had not found the first time they entered the building. Who can believe that a person who knows that winters in Besançon are harsh, can have only one coat? When she was in Chile, there are photos [of Narumi] with two different coats. Who can believe that Narumi has only one pair of winter shoes? The place of the facts has been absolutely contaminated, many things have been moved."

Editor's note: This argument was explored by the defence in the first trial. The arrangement of personal belongings in the CROUS room suggested that Narumi left her accommodation without her coat, shoes and handbag. These facts disturbed the hearing in Besançon. Humberto Zepeda insists on a potential contamination of the crime scene, or even a deliberate alteration in order to mislead the investigators.

10 ► "How can we trust a VPN location report, if it says that a signal was triggered by Narumi's mobile phone from London (Nicolas does not know London, he has never visited that city)."

11 ► "And the other signal recorded in Chile (editor's note, from Narumi's phone), whose time would correspond to Nicolás' return to Chile, would have been triggered when Nicolás was 1 hour and 10 minutes away from landing, and the flight had a normal route."

Clarification from our editorial staff: Humberto Zepeda is referring to the fact that the mobile phone reports do not correspond to his son's schedule. Several experts, including a cybercrime investigator, were called to the stand last year to explain the digital actions of the accused (see our article).

12 ► "They say the police didn't investigate right away because Nicolás would have made it look like she was alive. I imagine that the mobile phone worked with facial recognition or fingerprint or a secret code. Remember that in order to change the password of this mobile phone, it was necessary to enter the initial password. The fingerprint or validation via facial recognition is only used to log in. As a result, four days were lost due to unforgivable negligence on the part of the police."

13 ► "They make Nicolás look very smart for some things (when it suits them to validate their hypothesis) like planning the crime, for example, and very stupid for others like paying all his expenses with credit cards during the trip. A moderately intelligent person travelling for this purpose would not make the mistake of paying with credit cards in all the places they visit. There is no premeditation."

Clarification from our editor: The question of premeditation was at the heart of the debates of the trial in first instance of Nicolas Zepeda. The Besançon Assize Court retained the premeditated nature of this act, insofar as the accused had acquired a can of petrol, matches and detergent, while specifying that the first intention of the Chilean was to win back Narumi Kurosaki. The assassination would only have been a plan B in case Narumi refused Nicolas Zepeda's advances.

14 ► "They still do not indicate with concrete evidence what the fuel can, matches and detergent were used for in the commission of this alleged crime. There is no trace of any of them being used, no evidence that anything was burnt, nor any trace of what these products were used for."

The abundant argument hammered out point by point by the father of the family will no doubt serve to fuel the Zepeda clan's defence. Renaud Portejoie, the new defence lawyer, went to Vesoul prison this Wednesday afternoon to meet Nicolas Zepeda. He explained that he had already met the accused several times and that he had been contacted on Tuesday morning to take over from Me Vey. "Are you going to ask for a postponement?" said our journalist Florence Petit. "We'll discuss it with our client," he replied before rushing into the prison.

In the first instance, the Chilean was sentenced to 28 years' imprisonment for the assassination of Narumi Kurosaki.


BBM

 

[ZaZara]

Procès de Nicolas Zepeda : qui sont ses nouveaux avocats, Me Renaud Portejoie et Me Julien Dreyfus ?

Called at 10:30 on Tuesday morning, Mr Portejoie immediately accepted to take on the defence of Nicolas Zepeda. Contacted by France Bleu Besançon, this lawyer from the Clermont-Ferrand bar explained that he had already met the accused twice before the start of the trial, when the latter was looking for a new defence.

Renaud Portejoie arrived in a hurry in Vesoul on Wednesday. "It is not because we arrive at short notice that we lack determination," he confided to France Bleu Besançon. The Clermont-Ferrand native is accompanied by his colleague who will assist him, Mr Julien Dreyfus from the Paris bar. Together, they have discovered the enormous file of the case. "8,000 documents, we won't be too many the two of us", exclaims Mr Portejoie. "The combination has its virtues", he explains about his collaboration with Me Dreyfus. Both of them visited Nicolas Zepeda on Wednesday afternoon.

As the procedure has already started, no documents can be added to the file. Nor can the lawyers call new witnesses to the stand.

BBM


The trial was planned from February 21 to March 10. The file with 8000 documents is enormous. Who in his right mind would start on the first day of the trial with having to read it all?
Nicolas Zepeda has wanted this appeal since April 2022, wouldn't one expect him to go for the best defence, given what is at stake for him? Instead, he opts for a last-minute solution.
Renaud Portejoie may be a brilliant lawyer who never sleeps, but if so, he would have been similarly brilliant last year, so why not hire him straight away?

I have a feeling I am missing something. If it is indeed Zepeda Senior who is calling the shots, as is suggested, and who wants a defense along the lines of his argumentation, then every lawyer should inform him that you cannot superimpose Chilean law on French law on French soil in a case that took place in France.

 

[ZaZara]

And here we go again....

As expected, lawyer Renaud Portejoie needs more time, and after a morning full of tensions in the court and deliberations behind closed doors, it has been decided that the appeal will be postponed to a later date, possibly september.




I'll add the liveblog later.

 

[ZaZara]

FranceInfo, liveblog

Uncertainty reigns at the opening of the trial

8.55am: Uncertainty reigns this Thursday morning as to whether the trial will take place. Will the trial be postponed? Me Portejoie, the defence lawyer parachuted in on this case, had hinted that he might make a request in this sense, the day before, when he arrived at the prison in Vesoul to meet Nicolas Zepeda. In the courtroom, the atmosphere is very particular. The lawyers have not opened their files. The public prosecutor Etienne Manteaux appears with a very stern face.

The appeal trial of Nicolas Zepeda must officially begin this Thursday, February 23, at 9 am, before the court of assizes of Vesoul. After a missed start, Tuesday 21 February, because of the absence of a lawyer to defend the accused, the civil parties hope that the proceedings will begin serenely.

9.03am: The hearing has begun. Nicolas Zepeda is dressed in casual clothes. In front of him are his lawyers Me Portejoie and Me Dreyfus. The various Japanese and Spanish interpreters state their identities. The accused stands up and declares his identity in turn. "My name is Nicolas Zepeda Contreras. I was born in the city of Temuco on 11 December 1990. I am an engineer in business administration", the young man replies, thanking the president for the information he provided.

9.12am: The composition of the jury begins. The accused follows the list of identities with a document in hand and scrutinises each juror carefully. The draw begins. Nine jurors must sit behind the president, plus four additional jurors. The first three jurors called are challenged.

9.26am: Mr Portejoie, Nicolas Zepeda's lawyer, takes the stand and gives "precise justifications that require [the] adjournment of the hearing". The Clermont-Ferrand lawyer launches into a somewhat theatrical explanation, to illustrate his inability to assist his client correctly. "Let me make one thing clear, it is not because I met Mr Zepeda before that I was able to have access to the file. Nothing! I discovered the file on Wednesday morning," he explained vigorously. "I don't have time to read the file. I don't have it today and I won't have it on Monday either. There are 8,000 - 10,000 procedural notes," he adds.

9.40: "I am panicking. I accepted wanting to do a service, and in reality I am serving the one who honours me with his confidence. I cannot support a procedure that will be unequal, whatever one might say," Me Portejoie continues, explaining that Nicolas Zepeda told him that he had never dismissed his lawyer Me Vey.

Two versions are therefore still in conflict, that of Antoine Vey who says he was dismissed by his client, and that of Nicolas Zepeda. Me Renaud Portejoie continues his demonstration to justify his request. He also says that he "shares the suffering of the victim's relatives" and understands the organisational constraints of a potential new trial. Me Dreyfus, the second lawyer for the defence, pleads in his turn. "It's an impossible mission," he says. Me Antoine Vey is criticised by his colleagues: "He chose to desert three days before the trial."

9.52am: Me Dreyfus, the second defence lawyer, pleads in a very offensive tone. "It's an impossible mission", he insists. Me Antoine Vey, Nicolas Zepeda's former lawyer, is singled out by his colleagues: "He chose to desert three days before the trial". "Our request for referral we strongly support. It is neither a whim, nor an offence, nor an obstacle to justice being done. It will be done," he continued.

10.02am: Me Galley, lawyer for the family of Narumi Kurosaki, takes the floor and hopes that the eyes will be turned towards the mother and sisters of the victim. "My point is not to undermine the rights of the defence, I am committed to them. But there is a defendant, who yes, I repeat, in my opinion, submits us to his desires, forces us to deal with his whims and takes us hostage," she began.

10.10am: "What guarantee do we have that in a few weeks, a few months, Mr Nicolas Zepeda, who we were told today had consulted dozens of lawyers, all of whom declined to intervene, what guarantee do we have that he will not repeat this stunt, this way of proceeding that is unbearable in the eyes of the victim's family?" she asks, speaking again of being "taken hostage". The Kurosaki family breaks down. Narumi Kurosaki's mother sobs loudly.

10.15am: Mr Randall Schwerdorffer, Arthur Del Piccolo's lawyer, takes the floor. We don't want to have any "puppet" lawyers," he says. "It is also very difficult for Arthur Del Piccolo. Mr Vey is not responsible for the situation. Nicolas Zepeda is responsible. I only want one thing, a real trial, with cross-examination." The lawyer from Besançon puts the quality of the trial above the urgency of rendering justice. "We are here to have a fair and just criminal trial. I rely on the wisdom of the court", he concludes before handing over to the public prosecutor.

10:20: "Nicolas Zepeda's duplicity knows no bounds. He arrived this morning relaxed, almost smiling, while the civil parties were collapsed, prostrate on their bench. It is he who sets the tempo, the rhythm. He is the one who takes control. He is almost the victim today. He is the one who wants to be retried, he is the one who had 10 and a half months", Etienne Manteaux began. "Me Vey is not the first to take the case. We are told today that Me Vey is a liar. He [was] fired from one day to the next as if he were a clean slate", the public prosecutor explaines, defending the Parisian lawyer and attacking the defence lawyers who had nevertheless agreed to represent the accused.

"If a referral is decided, it will be a scandal. For Narumi Kurosaki's family, for French justice. We cannot capitulate to the moods of Mr Zepeda," he states. He "solemnly" requested that the proceedings be held and proposed the date of Monday morning, 27 February.

10:27: Nicolas Zepeda speaks in French. "The first observation I would like to share with you is that on Tuesday morning I waited for Mr Vey here," the thirty-year-old begins, going into the details of what he believes happened. "I am not responsible for this situation. I agree with Me Schwerdorffer that we should have a real trial, I want that too". He continues to detail his vision of things meticulously while unfolding his arguments. "I would like you to understand that. I hope so, thank you very much".

10:33: The hearing is suspended, while the court deliberates on whether to adjourn the trial.

12:35: After two hours of deliberation, the court has still not returned to announce its decision. Everyone is getting impatient.

12:32: The appeal trial of Nicolas Zepeda is postponed to a later session.

Citing the European Convention on Human Rights, the president announces the postponement of the trial. "It is a fact that the proceedings are particularly dense and that a significant amount of time is needed to understand them", the president explains. "The postponement of the case will not prevent justice from being done," he adds.


BBM


What a charade. There are no other words. Of course the new lawyers have never heard of this case before and they are surprised to find themselves confronted with a femicide spanning three continents, remains that have never been found and a suspect, convicted in first instance, who continues to claim his innocence. Two eminent lawyers were hired an un-hired before them and there is daddy...
What did they expect to haven taken upon them, a file with a few folders?

 

[ZaZara]

FranceInfo, liveblog

13:32: Reactions after the postponement of Nicolas Zepeda's trial

Etienne Manteaux, Public Prosecutor: "He chooses a lawyer, who says he will intervene, and who tells us today that it is impossible. Nicolas is imposing his hold on justice, even though it was he who asked to be retried."

"I am obviously very disappointed. I came from Japan. We expected to turn the page, but that is not the case today. It's very sad, but it won't stop whatever Nicolas Zepeda decides to do, he won't escape the French justice system," Arthur Del Piccolo, the victim's boyfriend, told us as he left the scene.

Narumi Kurosaki's sisters and mother left in a hurry without making a statement.

"I am very moved to see my clients in this state. They have understood violently that there is nothing more to expect from Nicolas Zepeda," Sylvie Galley, the lawyer for Narumi Kurosaki's family, commented.

"This is a decision that seems to me to be in line with the practice of law. We were no longer in a state of serenity. It should not be seen as a sign of weakness on the part of the prosecution. We are convinced of his guilt. Arthur Del Piccolo is experiencing this as a suffering," according to Me Schwerdorffer, lawyer for Arthur Del Piccolo.

Me Dreyfus et Me Portejoie, avocats de Nicolas Zepeda à Vesoul.

The appeal trial could be postponed until September, according to Nicolas Zepeda's lawyers. "It is customary not to give a date, but it could be in September. We have this time and we are going to make the most of it", they explained, fully satisfied with this decision.

BBM


I agree with the Prosecutor that it is very strange how Nicolas Zepeda is frustrating the appeal that he filed immediately after the verdict in April. How will his new lawyers fare, will they be able to get around the supposed breaking point(s) of Me Laffont and Me Vey? After the first verdict, NZ still has the option of requesting parole after 12 years because no minimum tariff was given. That may change on appeal, he runs the risk of losing that option.

IMHO what is happening here, is that under Chilean law, the case would not even have gone to trial, and if it had, NZ would have walked free. But France is different, and the Zepeda clan still cannot accept that. So, aginst all odds, they aim for an acquittal (while shifting the blame towards Arthur del Piccolo according to rumours and the manifesto of Zepeda Senior).
One wonders how Me Dreyfus et Me Portejoie will react to that strategy once they have had the time to delve into the file.

 

[ZaZara]

Chilean reporter Roberto Cox has interviewed Zepeda Senior. I haven't found the interview yet, but Roberto Cox posted the announcement on Twitter.

In the short clip, Roberto Cox asks very understatedly whether there may perhaps have been a moment when Nicolas was possibly not telling the truth? Tip-toeing around the issue describes his introduction best.

The father, firmly: None!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1627805252098433026

"Nicolas is the creation of a character created by the French prosecutor's office to blame someone". Zepeda's father assures that his son is innocent and points suspicions to Arthur Del Piccolo. Tonight on @CHVNews


BBM



Given the history of this case, it is surprising to say the least that the French Prosecutor would have chosen to put the blame on someone from a country on the other side of the globe with no extradition treaty with France, where convictions for no-body crimes only happen if there is a witness of the crime.
If that does not make sense, I don't know what does. Still, there are people in Chile who fall for it. "The French should have investigated better!"