Harold Lebel investigation: The complainant was re-examined for his participation in a documentary

The alleged victim took the witness stand on Monday morning. Me Maxime Roy questioned her about her participation in a documentary being produced by Quebecor’s investigation office.

The documentary, which comes from a A very rigorous journalistic processAccording to the alleged victim, it deals with all stages of the legal process when sexual harassment charges are filed.

The alleged victim admitted that he spoke to a group of journalists before and after his testimony on November 8. The defense asked him why he withheld this information from the court, including the investigators. The latter replied that it was not his documentary and that he had not asked any questions about it in his testimony.

When the provision convinced her to file a complaint in 2020, she also raised the possibility of requesting that a publication ban protecting her identity be lifted.

“I’m turned upside down, I’m in all my states”

In court, the complainant wanted to contextualize what led to her decision to participate in the documentary. She initially recalled that knowing that her identity would be protected throughout the process was one of the main reasons that convinced her to report to the police.

With much emotion in her voice, the alleged victim said the day of Harold Lebel’s arrest, December 15, 2020, was also a traumatic event for her.

She felt that she did not deserve the protection she expected and that many people would identify her after Harold Lebel’s arrest.

” Never cried so much in my life. »

As for the state I’m in… I’m completely shattered. I thought my identity would be protectedshe told the jury. I wanted to keep my parents away and they learned [la présumée agression] In the worst way.

The plaintiff explained to the jury that when she was approached for the documentary, she told the team that the process would be offered. So that there are fewer strangers when the victim decides to denounce.

The documentary made sure to have a neutral and nuanced point of view, she added.

The alleged victim wanted him Turn two traumatic events into something positiveOctober 2017 was the date of the event and the accused’s arrest.

” I told myself that at least I can turn it into something positive and do something useful. »

She explained that she participated in the documentary with her face covered, but that the process was done in complete secrecy and that the broadcast was not pre-planned. several months.

No recording was made in the hotel room where she stayed during the trial, she told the defense when she was questioned on the matter. She reportedly spoke to reporters at the end of her cross-examination on November 7, the first day of the trial.

Maxim Roy questioned the complainant that she was surprised to learn that her participation in the documentary was leaked and that she had not spoken to anyone, including the investigators, about the process. DPCP, She trusted those people a lot.

The alleged victim told the jury that before the project, he told the Quebecor team he would talk about it if the question was raised in court. For her, this documentary Irrelevant to the facts in question.

The prosecution did not re-examine the complainant after further cross-examination by the defence.

The attorneys addressed the jury again

Both sides made additional arguments with new material presented in court today.

On his part, Mi Maxim Roy wanted to question the complainant’s bona fides again, in light of her participation in the said documentary.

” Why didn’t you say? Why not tell the police, the prosecutor who works evenings and weekends, to prepare the case? »

Before Every effort is made to ensure confidentiality, She gives interviews, her face is filmed for a documentary.

The defense also wondered before the jury how its participation in the documentary could be doubted and how the alleged victim could be asked questions on the matter during his testimony.

I wanted to point out to the jury the moment Roy was present throughout the trial The first time was emotional. On her Monday morning, When her parents called her [le 15 décembre 2020]. Not when describing the alleged attack, he added.

For its part, the prosecution invited the jury Think seriously about real impact He must give in to these new elements.

They asked questions about what happened [la vie de la plaignante] Since Mr. Lebel’s arrest in December 2020? The matter is not mentioned in any way. why Isn’t it unrelated to events?

When the investigator contacted the complainant on Thursday to confirm information that she was participating in a documentary on her legal process, Me Manon Gaudreault indicated that she had done so. He frankly admitted.

” Don’t you think this is significant? [cette démarche]What did she tell you about her motivations for finally filing the complaint? »

Regarding the emotion raised in Mee Roy’s argument, the prosecution asked the jury: What should you infer from this, except His attachment To his parents and grandparents?

After two weeks of trial in Rimouski’s court, it was the same at the end of the day when the jury’s deliberations were to begin.

Judge Serge Francoeur will give his final instructions to jurors Monday afternoon.

In collaboration with Michel-Félix Tremblay