On Thursday, June 27, 2024, the trial at the Assizes of Bernard Maigrot, accused of “manslaughter”, ended after a month. A jury of six men and three women sat in this trial where the businessman pleaded not guilty.Towards
1:37 p.m., Judge Luchmyparsad Aujayeb gave a detailed summary for 1 hour 45 minutes. He clarified the distinct roles of the judge and jurors, emphasizing that the latter have the sole responsibility for determining the facts and evaluating the evidence presented. The judge analyzed in depth the circumstances surrounding the stylist's death.
Judge Aujayeb insisted that the jury members observed the behavior of the witnesses and listened to their testimony. He stressed that the verdict should in no way be based on speculation. For him, it is essential that the jurors reach a conclusion based exclusively on the evidence presented. The judge took care to explain the distinction between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. He also warned against the influence of emotions, inviting jurors to decide objectively and impartially.
“Sitting in the dock does not automatically mean being guilty,” the judge said. According to him, it is exclusively up to the prosecution to prove Bernard Maigrot's guilt.
Judge Luchmyparsad Aujayeb stressed that Bernard Maigrot had chosen to remain silent, which is his absolute right. He said the businessman has no obligation to prove or disprove anything, as he is not required to testify. According to the judge, remaining silent is Bernard Maigrot's constitutional right.
Judge Aujayeb clarified that the prosecution must demonstrate three essential elements to prove the charge of murder: the act of inflicting injuries, that these injuries led to the death of the victim and the intention to kill.
He reviewed the testimony of Dr Satish Boolell, former head of the forensic department, as well as the scientific evidence presented. According to the judge, the testimony of Professor Christian Doutremepuich and his conclusions are not contested. He stressed the importance for the jurors to assess the credibility of Professor Doutremepuich regarding the washing method and also to take into consideration the testimony of the defence experts, namely Dr Susan Pope and Professor Christophe Champod.
Judge Luchmyparsad Aujayeb affirmed that it is up to the prosecution to refute Bernard Maigrot's alibi. He stressed that there is no direct evidence against the businessman, noting that the prosecution was based on scientific evidence. At the same time, the judge mentioned that the defense had pleaded no motive for the crime.
