Counter-expertise
Me Mainz and Me d’Agristina, the restaurant’s advice, asked to hear their expert, who made a report contrary to that of his colleague. The court refused. The lawyers appealed this decision and the file was sent directly to the Court of Appeal, without being tried at first instance.
He broadcasts photos of his girlfriend: he evokes an error that has grown too much
On Wednesday, the expert was auditioned by the Court, but also the editor of the counter-expertise. Stroke: the latter presented eighty photos which could not be subject to the contradiction, neither by the civil party, nor by the prosecution. In addition, the Court decided to designate a third expert to arbitrate the two diametrically opposite positions.
The first expert, today retired, excludes an electrical cause, at the origin of the fire, where the second expert sees a possible electrical cause between the ceiling and the soil of the first floor. The cause would therefore be accidental and the restaurateur acquitted.
The Court decided to postpone the file to a later date and to designate another expert, responsible for arbitrating all this and making conclusions on the basis of photos. Judicial actors admit that they have the impression of going around in this story.
