But then, who to believe? The question is simple, as basic as “black or white”: was the barrier of the level crossing open or closed, at the time of the collision between a school bus and a TER which cost the lives of six schoolchildren? But after the first week of the trial of the bus driver before the Marseille criminal court, the testimonies remain discordant and contradictory.
At the end of their investigation, the investigating judges had already raised reservations, when drawing up a summary table. Six witnesses swore they had seen the gates closed “, twenty three ” open barriers and four the barriers closing “.
Polluted memory
At the helm, since Monday, some have maintained their version, others have changed. In particular the children who were in the damaged bus: during the first hearings, several of them had spoken of open barriers. From now on, they evoke their doubt. “Maybe it’s a figment of my imagination. Today, I totally question myself. I no longer know what is real and what is not“, says one of the young survivors.
” Indeed, the memory of these children has been polluted “, to analyse Mrs Marie Mescam, which assists 42 civil parties. ” their memory is uncertain, traumatic and fleeting, like a dream that one tries to catch and which escapes “.
For this lawyer specializing in personal injury law, “ these children began to question themselves and to question themselves – did I experience this? Or is that what I was told? – Conversely, the bus driver remains stubborn: she does not try to remember, but to convince herself that the barrier was open “.
The extreme fragility of human testimony
Since the facts, Nadine Oliveira did not change version. When she took her bus to the level crossing, she was certain », « the gates were open “. ” Better a constant witness than a fluctuating one “, indicates Me Jean Codognès, his lawyer. ” When a testimony evolves over time, it is that it is polluted. By dint of watching television, reading the press, chatting with friends or family… “.
In the eyes of the defence, the multiplicity of these discordant and sometimes volatile accounts highlights “ the extreme fragility of human testimony “. ” Especially when faced with such an event, it is very complicated to restore reality. Everyone can experience it: ask your loved ones to tell you about the last New Year’s Eve, you will be amazed by the answers. And yet, it is not a traumatic event “.
Key witnesses?
So who should you believe first? For the prosecution, there would be key witnesses. For instance, the two occupants of a car who were in the front row, on the other side of the level crossing. In court, these two Saur employees claim to have stopped their vehicle because ” the barriers have closed ” and ” the light signals worked “. They say they saw the bus “pbreak down the barrier “. This version is confirmed by the two conductors of the train.
Should these testimonies be considered more credible than others? In two other buses which were near the accident, the children overwhelmingly claim the gates were open. ” It would be very unhealthy to keep certain damning testimonies for the driver, and to discard the othersgets carried away Me Jean Codognès. This intellectual choice would not be in accordance with the law “.