Ernesto Fera did not “savagely” murder his wife Nadia Panarello simply to collect his life insurance, ruled Judge James Brunton by declaring his acquittal. The 38-year-old woman was probably killed, in February 2004, by an intruder who had sneaked into the Laval residence through an open door.
This verdict was greeted with emotion by the members of the Fera-Panarello family gathered in the courtroom of the Saint-Jérôme courthouse. Visibly relieved, Ernesto Fera hugged his lawyer Me Joseph La Leggia leaving the box of the accused. He was at large during the legal proceedings.
However, the mystery of Nadia Panarello’s murder remains unresolved. On February 12, 2004, the mother of two children was found dead, her throat slit, in her residence in the Vimont district in Laval. Some jewelry was stolen, but not the most valuable. No trace of DNA was found at the scene.
PHOTO SUBMITTED AS EVIDENCE
In the photo we can see the accused Ernesto Fera and the victim Nadia Panarello
For a long time this case was one of the unsolved cold cases, until Ernesto Fera was charged almost 15 years later. According to the Theory of the Pursuit, Nadia Panarello’s husband was the only one who could have committed this murder since only a few minutes had elapsed between his departure from the house and the murder. He had “the exclusive opportunity” in legal jargon.
According to the Pursuit, all the doors to the residence were locked that morning. This is a crucial element in supporting the “exclusive opportunity” thesis. However, the patio door of the house had to be cleared, concluded Judge Brunton, methodically analyzing the evidence. There is thus a “reasonable possibility” that another person has committed the crime while passing through that door.
Ernesto Fera and his wife were heavily in debt at the time. Nadia Panarello’s death enabled her husband to benefit from $ 350,000 in life insurance, which allowed him to repay the mortgage on the house and all of its debts. This is the motive for the crime, the Crown argued. Especially that a few days before the murder, Ernesto Fera had tried to obtain a loan of $ 120,000 from an acquaintance.
However, the bases of this theory are “extremely weak”, according to the judge Brunton. “Yes, their finances were terrible. Yes, the victim was stressed and Mr. Fera was desperate, as evidenced by his attempt to secure a loan before the victim died. That said, it doesn’t make sense that his Plan B is to kill his wife. Evidence shows enough funds were left [equity] in the house to pay their debts, while keeping a small sum to deposit a down payment for a small house, ”analyzes the judge.
PHOTO SUBMITTED AS EVIDENCE
Photo of the crime scene. The victim’s body is just below the image. The overturned lamp and shade show signs of a fight.
“It does not make sense that a man, who according to the evidence was living an ordinary tender marriage, and while there is no proof of violence, would suddenly come and kill savagely. [viciously] his wife. There is no evidence to explain the cruelty that Mr. Fera should have presented in planning the discovery of Nadia’s murder by her 70-year-old mother, ”the judge continued.
In addition, nothing in the evidence shows that Mr. Fera knew that he was the main beneficiary of his wife’s life insurance, adds the judge.
The prosecution was represented by Me Nektarios Tzortzinas, Me Steve Baribeau and Me Alexandre Dubois. Me Joseph La Leggia and Me Isabelle Lamarche defended Mr. Fera.